PDA

View Full Version : 'The Divine Mafia' aka 'God's Un-Appointed Interpreters'



Pages : [1] 2

Mercenary
3rd October 2006, 20:55
Every religion has them. Whether its Judaism and it's Rabbis or Christianity and it's Priests or Hinduism and it's Pandits or even Islam and it's Mullahs.

Every religion has a divine mafia, a group of people who have appointed themselves as the gateway between ordinary follower and their Diety.

Presumably because ordinary followers of a religion are a bit stupid and they need to be told what God is trying to say to them. All religions preach that we must follow what God has ordained but since when has God deputised these religious intermediaries with the dissemination of his religion?

The Islamic version of the divine Mafia takes this concept one step further. They contend that God, who sent down the Quran as a message to all of mankind and to each individual on this planet, didn't do a very good job of editing His book.

They claim that God made His Divine Message too complicated for ordinary Muslims to understand. They claim that only certain people (I.E. the Divine Mafia) can truly and correctly extract and interpret what God really meant.

Now one would imagine that if an all-powerful entity decided to send a message to His creation then surely He would ensure that they could easily understand what He was asking of them. Surely it's within the capability of the Almighty for Him to create a book that would be easy to understand in it's original tongue and one that would be easy to translate into different languages. I mean it would need to be easy to translate if it was going to be for the whole of mankind.

Surely God didn't expect everyone to learn Arabic now did He?

What does God Himself say about the difficulty of the Quran He sent down? Let's have a look. To the Arabs He said...


019.097 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/019.qmt.html#019.097) - So have We made the (Qur'an) easy in thine own tongue, that with it thou mayest give Glad Tidings to the righteous, and warnings to people given to contention.

044.058 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/044.qmt.html#044.058) - Verily, We have made this (Qur'an) easy, in thy tongue, in order that they may give heed.

Yusuf Ali Translation

...God told the Arabs that the Quran was easy to read in their tongue. But does that only refer to the recitation? Is it only easy to recite but not easy to understand? Could the mafia be right? Let's have a look at some more verses...


054.017 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/054.qmt.html#054.017) - And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?

054.022 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/054.qmt.html#054.022) - But We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?

054.032 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/054.qmt.html#054.032) - And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?

054.040 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/054.qmt.html#054.040) - And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?

Yusuf Ali Translation

In God's own words the Quran is easy to understand and remember. But what does God mean by remember? Does He mean it's easy to remember for recitation or easy to remember the lessons and messages within the Quran? Is God referring to remembering with understanding?

The verses around the ones quoted refer to the lesson of Thamud, the lesson of A'd, the lesson of Lut and the lesson of the Pharoah! It's quite clear that God is telling us that the Quran is easy to read, to understand and that it's easy to digest the lessons and the message within it.

God tells us that fact in plain unambigious language but God's unappointed interpreters want us to believe that the Quran is too difficult a book for the average believer. This mafia wants us to believe that we must be guided through the landmine that is the Quran.

They want us to believe that Allah sent us a book designed to trip us up and send us down the wrong path unless we listen to the mafia. How often have you heard someone shout, we shouldnt be talking about the Quran without a 'scholar/mullah' present?

That's because the mafia know everything and they are the only ones that can guide us to the truth. Never mind whether God Himself is saying that the Quran is an easy book to understand, that's irrelevant.

After all He's only God and what He really means is that the Quran is too difficult to interpret without the help of his un-appointed interpreters and that we should interpret the Quran in the way they tell us to.

Who should we believe?

God or His Unappointed Mafia?

Disco_Lemonade
3rd October 2006, 21:05
What does God Himself say about the difficulty of the Quran He sent down? Let's have a look. To the Arabs He said
its should be Muslims.. not Arabs

Mercenary
3rd October 2006, 21:08
its should be Muslims.. not Arabs

The verse says in THINE OWN tongue, the Quran is written in Arabic. Therefore the verse is speaking to natives of Arabic speaking nations, i.e Arabs!!

garbage_can2003
3rd October 2006, 21:31
Merc, an excellent post. It takes courage and bravery to stand up against these professional Mullahs who earn wage to impart Allahs message. Every priest, rabbi, or a maulvi teach their followers that to get to God, they must act as the mediators. This is totally against Quranic teachings. Infact the Quran condemns these religious leaders who sell their souls for a cheap gain.

This myth is further perpetuated by the extra-quranic literature and emotional blackmail is used to force everyone to believe it, by stating that it was written were people who intentions cannot be questioned.

In the early days of christianity, the bible was in latin, and the noble used to perpetuate this lie that only they are worthy of understanding and disseminating Gods message. Islam is no different!

MCMLXXXII
3rd October 2006, 21:48
The Maulwis are not the only blameworthy party here. They have gotten this much influence because the people themselves are uneducated and lack proper reasoning. They take the word of the maulwis as truth without ever utilizing their own braincells. Give people basic education. Then not only will they be able to understand religion but perhaps may elect a decent leader as well.

This is also the reason for growing sectarianism. Each Maulwi tries to maintain their own sphere of influence and go to such lengths as calling other Maulwis and their sects as Kafirs. The narrow-mindedness this has created is phenomenal. Last time I went to pakistan and went to a masjid, I was first criticized for not wearing a topi. Then when I utterred Ameen out aloud after Fatiah, people were ready to murder me, preaching that this should not be done in a masjid. I find all this to be ridiculous. bickering over minor issues and willing to kill over it.

The best Maulwis I have seen are those who did not go to madrassas but went to regular schools and then universities for their Islamic education. They hold rational debates and they don't bicker over small issues, rather unite in preaching the fundamentals of Islam, the Tauhid of Allah, the establishment of Salah, Saum, Zakah etc... Its useless for people to argue over trivial matters if they don't have the Iman in their hearts or don't perform the fard of religion.

2DashingLahori
3rd October 2006, 22:24
Molvis are self appointed, Not God appointed. God has clearly said Quran is straight forward to unerstand so that we all may take heed and get the message. God DOES NOT give a message to humanity that's hard to understand. 10 commandments were as simple as it got. Straight forward Quranic laws with straight and allgorical meanings which every human being who is intelligent understands.

For example: God talks about the Big bang, Big Crunch, Blackwhole, Whhite Dwarf in the Quran. Not one Molvi in my life lifetime has pointed it these things, while many educated people over the years have.

ETC.

TAK
3rd October 2006, 22:48
The Maulwis are not the only blameworthy party here. They have gotten this much influence because the people themselves are uneducated and lack proper reasoning.

that certainly was the case historically, a large rural poulation, poorly educated

what is worrying is that the influence of the bearded salad dodgers has been exported to the uk

and even well educated and sophistaicated men like to play dumb in front of the mullahs

MIG
3rd October 2006, 23:14
Every science/discipline has experts in it - take medicine for instance - we know that Medical texts are available in all book shops - but you and I cannot claim to be doctors because we read those texts ? It takes practice and learning and being taught by other Doctors before you can call yourself a doctor.

The same applies to the Ulema or Maulwis as you refer to them.

They practice and practice under the guidance of other Ulema.

Now, in the same way as you can have incompetent doctors - you can have incompetence among Ulema but does that make all Ulema evil/misguided ?

Daoud
3rd October 2006, 23:21
I've heard some fairly well educated and quite intelligent people say you shouldnt read the translation unless you're with a scholar. Thats the sort of attitude the Catholic clergy had before Protestantism started up in Europe

Joseph K.
3rd October 2006, 23:32
Ever wondered why nobody tells you to read Koran in translation? Ever wondered why they just want you to read the Arabic text again and again shaking backwards and forwards like a parrot on his perch?

MIG
3rd October 2006, 23:39
The translation of Arabic words in Quraan doesnt even come close to the real thing.

Infact some of the English translations I have heard make little sense by themselves ! Which is why you need some sort of Tafseer

As an example:

Surah Tin translates as such :

Bismillah-e-Ar Rahman-e-Ar Rahim


1. By the fig, and the olive,

2. By Mount Sinai,

3. And by this city of security (Makkah) ,

4. Verily, We created man of the best stature (mould),

5. Then We reduced him to the lowest of the low,

6. Save those who believe (in Islâmic Monotheism) and do righteous deeds, then they shall have a reward without end (Paradise).

7. Then what (or who) causes you (O disbelievers) to deny the Recompense (i.e. Day of Resurrection)?

8. Is not Allâh the Best of judges?


And here is a translation with context:



by Muhammad Asad



AT-TIN (THE FIG)

THE NINETY-FIFTH SURAH
Total Verses: 8
MECCA PERIOD



Introduction



REVEALED after surah 85 ("The Great Constellations"), the present surah formulates a fundamental moral verity, stressing the fact that it is common to all true religious teachings. The "title" - or, rather, the key-word by which it is known - is derived from the mention of the fig (i.e., fig tree) in the first verse.



IN THE NAME OF GOD, THE MOST GRACIOUS, THE DISPENSER OF GRACE:



1) CONSIDER the fig and the olive,



(2) and Mount Sinai,



(3) and this land secure!*



*The "fig" and the "olive" symbolize, in this context, the lands in which these trees predominate: i.e., the countries bordering on the eastern part of the Mediterranean, especially Palestine and Syria. As it was in these lands that most of the Abrahamic prophets mentioned in the Qur’an lived and preached, these two species of tree may be taken as metonyms for the religious teachings voiced by the long line of those God-inspired men, culminating in the person of the last Judaic prophet, Jesus. "Mount Sinai", on the other hand, stresses specifically the apostleship of Moses, inasmuch as the religious law valid before, and up to, the advent of Muhammad - and in its essentials binding on Jesus as well - was revealed to Moses on a mountain of the Sinai Desert. Finally, "this land secure" signifies undoubtedly (as is evident from 2:126) Mecca, where Muhammad, the Last Prophet, was born and received his divine call. Thus, verses 1-3 draw our attention to the fundamental ethical unity underlying the teachings - the genuine teachings - of all the three historic phases of monotheistic religion, metonymically personified by Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. The specific truth to be considered here is referred to in the next three verses.



(4) Verily, We create man in the best conformation;*



*I.e., endowed with all the positive qualities, physical as well as mental, corresponding to the functions which this particular creature is meant to perform. The concept of "the best conformation" is related to the Qur’anic statement that everything which God creates, including the human being or self (nafs), is "formed in accordance with what it is meant to be" (see 91:7 and the corresponding note 5, as well as in a more general sense - 87:2 and note 1). This statement does not in any way imply that all human beings have the same "best conformation" in respect of their bodily or mental endowments: it implies simply that irrespective of his natural advantages or disadvantages, each human being is endowed with the ability to make the, for him, best possible use of his inborn qualities and of the environment to which he is exposed. (See in this connection 30:30 and the corresponding notes, especially 27 and 28.)



(5) and thereafter We reduce him to the lowest of low* –



* This "reduction to the lowest of low" is a consequence of man's betrayal - in another word, corruption - of his original, positive disposition: that is to say, a consequence of man's own doings and omissions. Regarding the attribution, by God, of this "reduction" to His Own doing, see note 7 on 2:7.



(6) excepting only such as attain to faith and do good works: and theirs shall be a reward unending!



(7) What, then, [O man,] could henceforth cause thee to give the lie to this moral law?*



*I.e., to the validity of the moral law - which, to my mind, is the meaning of the term din in this context - outlined in the preceding three verses. (For this specific significance of the concept of din, see note 3 on 109:6.) The above rhetorical question has this implication: Since the moral law referred to here has been stressed in the teachings of all monotheistic religions (cf. verses 1-3 and note 1 above), its truth ought to be self-evident to any unprejudiced person; its negation, moreover, amounts to a negation of all freedom of moral choice on man's part and, hence, of justice on the part of God, who, as the next verse points out, is - by definition - "the most just of judges".



(8) Is not God the most just of judges?

MIG
3rd October 2006, 23:40
Ever wondered why nobody tells you to read Koran in translation? Ever wondered why they just want you to read the Arabic text again and again shaking backwards and forwards like a parrot on his perch?

The shaking backwards and forwards is a cultural thing - I have always felt that doing that brings more concentration - the Jews also do that btw.

Daoud
3rd October 2006, 23:45
You are right that tafseer is needed, to help explain the verses and their context

Mercenary
4th October 2006, 00:00
Every science/discipline has experts in it - take medicine for instance - we know that Medical texts are available in all book shops - but you and I cannot claim to be doctors because we read those texts ? It takes practice and learning and being taught by other Doctors before you can call yourself a doctor.

I strongly disagree, that's a completely irrelevant example.

Sciences are continually evolving. Existing thoughts, principles and processes are being challenged and dismissed or bettered on a daily basis.

Also scholarship in other religions (eg Xtianity) is closer to true scholarship. They challenge long held beliefs and traditions and often prove them to be erroneous. For example the real origins of Christmas, the real history behind the Trinity concept and the discrepancies in the crucifiction story have all been debated, investigated and exposed by Xtian scholars.

On the other hand Islamic scholarship is not scholarship. Scholars in Islam only agree with and reaffirm what was said by scholars before them. For example no other religion would hold the four schools of thought in such high regard so long after the event.

Forget about serious scholarship such as tackling the issue of the myriad weak and contradictory Hadith, Islamic scholars are too frightened to even tackle the views of traditionally accepted scholars of the past!

There is no such thing as a science or such a profession as scholarship within orthodox Islam and we are all the poorer for it!!

Joseph K.
4th October 2006, 00:03
The shaking backwards and forwards is a cultural thing - I have always felt that doing that brings more concentration - the Jews also do that btw.

I know it is hard to concentrate while reading something that you can't understand a word of. You have to do something to concentrate when you are not using your brain.

Joseph K.
4th October 2006, 00:10
I strongly disagree, that's a completely irrelevant example.

Sciences are continually evolving. Existing thoughts, principles and processes are being challenged and dismissed or bettered on a daily basis.

Also scholarship in other religions (eg Xtianity) is closer to true scholarship. They challenge long held beliefs and traditions and often prove them to be erroneous. For example the real origins of Christmas, the real history behind the Trinity concept and the discrepancies in the crucifiction story have all been debated, investigated and exposed by Xtian scholars.

On the other hand Islamic scholarship is not scholarship. Scholars in Islam only agree with and reaffirm what was said by scholars before them. For example no other religion would hold the four schools of thought in such high regard so long after the event.

Forget about serious scholarship such as tackling the issue of the myriad weak and contradictory Hadith, Islamic scholars are too frightened to even tackle the views of traditionally accepted scholars of the past!

There is no such thing as a science or such a profession as scholarship within orthodox Islam and we are all the poorer for it!!

Will this forum ever stop surprising me :43: :43: :43:
Very good post Mercenary. Koran was sent to the 'intelligent people' (ool ul albaab) and reading without understanding is one thing an intelligent person is not capable of doing.

z10
4th October 2006, 00:11
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?t=15694

MIG
4th October 2006, 00:30
I am not sure what conclusion you are looking for Merc? You compare Islamic scholars with Christian ones on the basis of them challenging Trinity ! Do you want Islamic scholars to challenge the Unity of ALLAH swt ( Nauzobillah ) ? Would that make them more respectable in your eyes ?

If you feel strong enough to challenge any of the Imams from the past - go ahead and produce your proofs - no one is stopping you. Most people/scholars dont do it because they dont have a counter argument ! ie could it be that the original scholars were actually CORRECT in their understanding ?

MIG
4th October 2006, 00:31
Will this forum ever stop surprising me :43: :43: :43:
Very good post Mercenary. Koran was sent to the 'intelligent people' (ool ul albaab) and reading without understanding is one thing an intelligent person is not capable of doing.

Reading the Quraan with English translations and without tasfeer IS meaningless! See my post on Surah Tin

2DashingLahori
4th October 2006, 00:36
An an uneducated Molvi's tafsir with an Educated Molvi's tafsirs will be different.
Opens up a whole new issue.

MIG
4th October 2006, 00:37
An an uneducated Molvi's tafsir with an Educated Molvi's tafsirs will be different.
Opens up a whole new issue.

I agree and thats where we as individuals can make up our minds as to which version we will believe.

Team Slayer
4th October 2006, 00:45
bhai Merc, I'm not sure exactly what you want.

There are methodologies that have to be followed when it comes to the Quran, Sunnah and deriving rulings from Quran and Sunnah (Fiqh). These methodologies are those of the Sahaba, the Tabi'een and the Tabi Tabi'een. The people who have not followed these methodologies end up losing their ways, and history is proof of that.

No one is asking people to not study the Quran or its meaning. But, if you get into studying the Quran and Sunnah without the understanding of the methodology then there is a big chance you will end up confused and (at worst) seriously misguided. What the scholars of the past and reputable scholars today say (and will always say) is that learn the methodology and learn the language. Then, the Quran and Sunnah make perfect sense.

The Quran has certain things that are clear without need for interpretation. But, there are other things in the Quran (which Allah (SWT) Himself calls Mutashabihaat) that are made confusing. It is these verses that if misunderstood will lead people astray. In fact, historically these type of verses have led people astray and there are numerous examples of it that I probably should not mention here. Proof is below...


Al-e-Imran, 7:

It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad ) the Book (this Qur'ân). In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book [and those are the Verses of Al-Ahkâm (commandments, etc.), Al-Farâ'id (obligatory duties) and Al-Hudud (legal laws for the punishment of thieves, adulterers, etc.)]; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah (polytheism and trials, etc.), and seeking for its hidden meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings save Allâh..

And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord." And none receive admonition except men of understanding. (Tafsir At-Tabarî).

garbage_can2003
4th October 2006, 00:54
The translation of Arabic words in Quraan doesnt even come close to the real thing.

Infact some of the English translations I have heard make little sense by themselves ! Which is why you need some sort of Tafseer

As an example:

Surah Tin translates as such :

Bismillah-e-Ar Rahman-e-Ar Rahim


And here is a translation with context:


The example you quote comes under the cateogory of Ayat-ul-mutashabihat.

Consider this verse

He is the One who sent down to you the book, from which there are firm verses (Ayat-ul-muhikimat); they are the mother of the book; and others which are of a similarity(Ayat-ul-mutashabihat). As for those who have disease in their hearts, they will follow what is of a similarity from it seeking to make an ordeal, and seeking to derive its interpretation. But none know its interpretation except GOD and those who are well founded in knowledge. They say: 'we have faith in it, all is from our Lord'. And none will remember except the people of understanding.” (3:7)

For an ordinary muslim, it is enough to understand and follow the Ayat-ul-Muhikimat, which are basically the law verses, for salvation. These could be

-follow one God;
- do not steal;
- do not commit adultery
- divorce laws etc. etc.

It is correct to say that one requires a deep study of the Quran to understand the meaning of Ayat-ul-mutashabihat, but understanding them is not necessary to pass the test.

One thing we can learn from truly knowledgeable Ulema is how to study the Quran.

Civil
4th October 2006, 01:18
Have to agree with MIG

Islam does not have a divine mafia in the sense that the other religions do.

Other religions have 'intercessors' . priests in catholocism have to baptise you to save your soul, you have to confess to them to ask for forgiveness. Brahmins are of a higher caste than non priestly groups, monks in buddhism are the path to enlightenment.

In Islam the mullah's only job is to study and make sure islam is being prosetylized. If you don't agree with a certain maulvi's view well then seek another opinion. If you are being forced to follow his view well thats another topic.

People who study the qur'an for all their lives may still never get a hold of its complete meaning. You have to know so much about history, and science and philosophy, and morals to get the qur'ans true value. That is why we should leave it to people who devote thir lives to this study and then help us learn it.

There are many translations, many schools of thought, if the knowledge for hunger is there, then compare all of them and try to formulate a viewpoint. Ijtehaad, we are allowed to think within reasonable boundaries so by all means go ahead and do it!!

PlanetPakistan
4th October 2006, 01:46
I've heard some fairly well educated and quite intelligent people say you shouldnt read the translation unless you're with a scholar. Thats the sort of attitude the Catholic clergy had before Protestantism started up in Europe
I can see why someone would say that. If people are not willing to dig deep and understand the true meaning of the each verse and it's context then it might not be a good idea to simply read the translations and pressurize other people by saying "hey Quran says this and you should do this and this". People need to remember that the Holy book was revealed over a period of 23 years and during these years the Arab world was going through a massive transition and sometimes the God's "word" might even sound a bit contradicting and it's only after understanding the true context that it starts to make sense.

2DashingLahori
4th October 2006, 02:09
Someone write in a book in Pakistan by the name of tafsir ul Quran bil Quran, it was a bestseller at the time. He used coress references of the ayats to translate the Quran and it works way better than Scholars using thier unauthentic hadiths to justfy the point. Quran is infallible, Hadiths are not infallible.

I personally dont use hadiths to understand the Quran. I only read them for historical reference, the meaning of the Quranic ayats are not complicated. If you sit for a while and think about it, you will get the meanings.

My dad who reads Quran on a daily basis tells me about all ayats that he figured describe earth's rotation or about blackholes. When we sit down and think about them, he is right. When we ask a Molvi about it, he is dumbfounded. So yes. Tafisrs are manmade and everyone does it differently. You ask a Molvi about the Universe, he does not have knowledge outside the solar system. So his thinking will be very narrow as well! Quran has marvelous things in it, it is up to US to sit down and read it and understand it rather than going after people all our lives. Hold tight to the Quran yourself!

In the Quran God uses this phrase frequently.... " people who possess intelligence." Ya its quite clear what God meant there.

He wants us to think and ponder on the verses, not follow molvis like sheeps.

Mercenary
4th October 2006, 07:33
I am not sure what conclusion you are looking for Merc? You compare Islamic scholars with Christian ones on the basis of them challenging Trinity ! Do you want Islamic scholars to challenge the Unity of ALLAH swt ( Nauzobillah ) ? Would that make them more respectable in your eyes ?

You're missing the point completely. By exposing the Trinity, the Xtian scholars made it possible for many to brush aside falsehood and re-embraced the original doctrine.

Surely in Islam we can do with critical scholarship on things such as the practise of stoning which is only justified through weak Hadith. We can blow apart many of the myths that allow the subjugation of the Ummah by the Divine Mafia.

Critical scholarship is a must and even the Quran encourages it, it even goes two steps further and sets forth a challenge for someone to produce 10 Surahs like the Quran. But if someone did make the attempt in todays world then they would be the subject of rioting and effigy burning. Is that what Allah had in mind when settting forth the challenge or does He want his followers to enter into debate with these people and beat them comprehensively!!

Mercenary
4th October 2006, 08:18
Islam does not have a divine mafia in the sense that the other religions do.

Other religions have 'intercessors' . priests in catholocism have to baptise you to save your soul, you have to confess to them to ask for forgiveness. Brahmins are of a higher caste than non priestly groups, monks in buddhism are the path to enlightenment.

In many ways Islam's divine mafia is as bad as the Brahmins in Hinduism. They both claim to have exclusivity over intrepreting God's words for the masses. The only difference is that the Brahmns consider themselves to be Gods over other castes!

cinderella
4th October 2006, 08:22
Merc, you don't really think that we can 'understand' the Quran completely without guidance, do you?

Mercenary
4th October 2006, 08:29
Merc, you don't really think that we can 'understand' the Quran completely without guidance, do you?

Solely as a religious text, a message from the Creator to His creation. Yes I do.

As a legal text, not everyone has the capability to fully comprehend it but if you have a certain degree of intelligence then even that isn't as difficult as people make out.

There are other factors such as scientific references and the like which are better understood by experts in their field.

This thread is about the Quran as a message from Allah to His creation and in that context I believe it's completely understandable. Besides which if He has said it's easy who am i to disagree?

cinderella
4th October 2006, 08:35
Solely as a religious text, a message from the Creator to His creation. Yes I do.

As a legal text, not everyone has the capability to fully comprehend it but if you have a certain degree of intelligence then even that isn't as difficult as people make out.

There are other factors such as scientific references and the like which are better understood by experts in their field.

This thread is about the Quran as a message from Allah to His creation and in that context I believe it's completely understandable. Besides which if He has said it's easy who am i to disagree?

'Easy' to understand, yes, but the level of comprehension may increase if a scholar is explaining it.
It's a beneficial addition when you know what verse was revealed when for what event in what context and other historical details.

nafajafam
4th October 2006, 08:37
merc, it is true that guidance is needed in the form of tafsir or a teacher at times. but we also have to think if what is being taught is in accordance to the religion. we know what that is from the verses we can understand, the easy ones. those verses contain the basic message of Allah.

PlanetPakistan
4th October 2006, 08:39
You can read it yourself but if there is something that you don't understand or if you have any other questions then it's better to ask someone than to say "oh i think God must be saying this"

MIG
4th October 2006, 10:56
You're missing the point completely. By exposing the Trinity, the Xtian scholars made it possible for many to brush aside falsehood and re-embraced the original doctrine.

Surely in Islam we can do with critical scholarship on things such as the practise of stoning which is only justified through weak Hadith. We can blow apart many of the myths that allow the subjugation of the Ummah by the Divine Mafia.

Critical scholarship is a must and even the Quran encourages it, it even goes two steps further and sets forth a challenge for someone to produce 10 Surahs like the Quran. But if someone did make the attempt in todays world then they would be the subject of rioting and effigy burning. Is that what Allah had in mind when settting forth the challenge or does He want his followers to enter into debate with these people and beat them comprehensively!!

Merc - no one in Prophets (PBUH) time produced 10 Surahs to match those in the Quraan - does that mean that people around the Prophet were mindless followers as well ?

And I am not missing the point - I am trying to help you understand that some aspects of our religion are so sacrosanct that NO amount of critical scholarship can touch that. If you challenge those aspects, then you might as well denouce Islam and move on.

Mercenary
4th October 2006, 11:16
And I am not missing the point - I am trying to help you understand that some aspects of our religion are so sacrosanct that NO amount of critical scholarship can touch that. If you challenge those aspects, then you might as well denouce Islam and move on.

Well that's the difference between those who choose to follow with blind faith and those who choose to believe what they're comfortable with.

If God is truly going to condemn those that 'get it wrong' to eternal hellfire then if you get it wrong I don't think 'blind faith' will cut it as an excuse in front of the Almighty!!

If we expect non-Muslims to scrutinise their faith, find the flaws and embrace Islam then at the very least we should be prepared to do the same thing!

zaf1986
4th October 2006, 11:50
There is no such thing as a science or such a profession as scholarship within orthodox Islam and we are all the poorer for it!!
So, there isn't one, and we shouldn't do anything about it?

Its the time gates of ijtihaad are reopened, if at all they were ever closed because someone said so.

zaf1986
4th October 2006, 11:54
Solely as a religious text, a message from the Creator to His creation. Yes I do.

As a legal text, not everyone has the capability to fully comprehend it but if you have a certain degree of intelligence then even that isn't as difficult as people make out.

There are other factors such as scientific references and the like which are better understood by experts in their field.

This thread is about the Quran as a message from Allah to His creation and in that context I believe it's completely understandable. Besides which if He has said it's easy who am i to disagree?

I've got a question for you:

Sure, the Quran says it is easy. It also says that some of the verses are clear and some of them are ambigious (Surah 3, Verse 7). Tell me one thing. Allah in his infinite wisdom and power was capable to call out from the sky to the human beings and tell them what to do. He could also have revealed the book on a mountain and told everyone to read it. He didn't; in fact he said if we'd revealed it on a mountain, the mountain would have crumbled. So, consider the man upon whose heart the Quran was revealed - logic says it must be stronger (in metaphorical terms) than a mountain. Allah is also all-wise, he doesn't do things for no reason, so surely there has to be a reason why he revealed the book on a human being, i.e. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny). What is that reason, in your view?

MIG
4th October 2006, 12:27
Well that's the difference between those who choose to follow with blind faith and those who choose to believe what they're comfortable with.

If God is truly going to condemn those that 'get it wrong' to eternal hellfire then if you get it wrong I don't think 'blind faith' will cut it as an excuse in front of the Almighty!!

If we expect non-Muslims to scrutinise their faith, find the flaws and embrace Islam then at the very least we should be prepared to do the same thing!

But Merc - non Muslims ARE scrutinizing our faith everyday and converting in record numbers - do you think they know something more than us ?

And Blind faith is important Merc - this is the whole thing about FAITH ! None of us has seen ALLAH or the Prophet PBUH but we believe in their existence based on faith and some knowledge (historical evidence in the case of our Prophet PBUH)

If we dont factor blind faith then religion loses its meaning ( to me )

lahori
4th October 2006, 16:18
Merc I gotta admit I'm starting to fall in love with these bold posts of yours!

How many times I have been on the other end of the barrel I can't even count. I'm talking about the times when I quote a verse in Quran to counter a friend's argument and he conveniently tells me I am not 'qualified' to come to these conclusions from the Quran. "Sorry my friend, only a scholar is qualified to fully understand the Quran..." In other words he's saying that the translations of the Quran are worthless to me and actually discouraging me to read and understand the Quran for myself.

Here's a term I have coined for these mullahs and 'un-appointed Interpreters' as you call them...

'Religion Brokers'.

MIG
4th October 2006, 16:24
I suppose Merc cant complain that we dont have freedom of speech in our religion :)

the Great Khan
4th October 2006, 16:42
ok this is another long list of Mercs supposedly intelligent postings to "discuss" islamic issues..but as usual Ill be blunt and less diplomatic in my view here..my question is simple: What do you want Merc? what is is you want to see vis a vis Islam? Now correct me if im wrong but would you like to see:

a) a "reinterpretation of the Quraan itself? possible removal of undesirable surahs maybe?

b) the seperation of the religion from state?

c) the acceptance that as " Muslims" we should be allowed to do what we want as long as we dont hurt any1?

d) any1 with a beard to be ridiculed as a medieval creature to be mocked and laughed at?

e) the removal of the hijab, alchohol to be accepted and so forth?

or am i totally wrong? what is your agenda?

thanks

salaam

MIG
4th October 2006, 16:57
ok this is another long list of Mercs supposedly intelligent postings to "discuss" islamic issues..but as usual Ill be blunt and less diplomatic in my view here..my question is simple: What do you want Merc? what is is you want to see vis a vis Islam? Now correct me if im wrong but would you like to see:

a) a "reinterpretation of the Quraan itself? possible removal of undesirable surahs maybe?

b) the seperation of the religion from state?

c) the acceptance that as " Muslims" we should be allowed to do what we want as long as we dont hurt any1?

d) any1 with a beard to be ridiculed as a medieval creature to be mocked and laughed at?

e) the removal of the hijab, alchohol to be accepted and so forth?
or am i totally wrong? what is your agenda?

thanks

salaam

Where did he say that ?

mumtaz
4th October 2006, 17:02
ok this is another long list of Mercs supposedly intelligent postings to "discuss" islamic issues..but as usual Ill be blunt and less diplomatic in my view here..my question is simple: What do you want Merc? what is is you want to see vis a vis Islam? Now correct me if im wrong but would you like to see:

a) a "reinterpretation of the Quraan itself? possible removal of undesirable surahs maybe?

b) the seperation of the religion from state?

c) the acceptance that as " Muslims" we should be allowed to do what we want as long as we dont hurt any1?

d) any1 with a beard to be ridiculed as a medieval creature to be mocked and laughed at?

e) the removal of the hijab, alchohol to be accepted and so forth?

or am i totally wrong? what is your agenda?

thanks

salaam

where did he say any of these things? please stick to the issue at hand and dont try to 2nd guess his intentions. That is only for Allah to judge.

Mercenary
4th October 2006, 19:20
Allah is also all-wise, he doesn't do things for no reason, so surely there has to be a reason why he revealed the book on a human being, i.e. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny). What is that reason, in your view?

Because Allah always reveals his religion through a chosen Prophet, there is no example in the Quran of a book falling out of the Sky or Allah addressing a whole people from the sky.

The reason a Prophet is chosen from among a people is because they can relate to a man more than they can relate to falling books or talking mountains.

Mercenary
4th October 2006, 19:34
a) a "reinterpretation of the Quraan itself? possible removal of undesirable surahs maybe?

I've just written a thread criticising Hadith and Rashad Khilafah for claiming the Quran is incomplete, how on Earth did you come to that conclusion?


b) the seperation of the religion from state?

which of my comments did you get that nugget from?


c) the acceptance that as " Muslims" we should be allowed to do what we want as long as we dont hurt any1?

And what's wrong with that? Allah Himself tells us that there is no compulsion in religion. We can only advise but do you want us to break bones and force people to comply? Perhaps throw acid on the faces of uncovered women?


d) any1 with a beard to be ridiculed as a medieval creature to be mocked and laughed at?

I don't believe that not having a beard takes me outside of Islam but if someone wants to keep a beard then that's their business. Again you're making up accusations.


e) the removal of the hijab, alchohol to be accepted and so forth?

Again (like the beard), it's up to the individual whether or not they choose to wear Hijab. I wouldn't condemn any Muslimah for not wearing a Hijab but neither would I condemn her for wearing one. It should be a personal choice and compromise between God and his creation.

Alcohol to be accepted? Why would you join me if I did? :)))


what is your agenda?

I don't have an agenda, I'm just posting what I think (as you have done) and from what I can see in this thread it's a fairly even split of people agreeing and disagreeing with me. Are they all pursuing some agenda too?


or am i totally wrong?

You're completely wrong and obviously you haven't read this thread. I'm talking about scholars/Imams who (through their actions and advice) discourage Muslims from reading and understanding the Quran for themselves. I'm against unappointed interpreters and the divine mafia creating an invisible wall between God's message (the Quran) and God's creation!!

Surely we should all be against that?

Mercenary
4th October 2006, 19:35
I suppose Merc cant complain that we dont have freedom of speech in our religion :)

That's the problem MIG we don't. Try going down to the mosque to discuss things like this and watch yourself get heckled out or have your head kicked in.

There is no dialogue in Islam.

Mercenary
4th October 2006, 19:42
But Merc - non Muslims ARE scrutinizing our faith everyday and converting in record numbers - do you think they know something more than us ?

Xtians, Buddhists and Atheists could all claim the same thing. Should we accept that and join them?


And Blind faith is important Merc - this is the whole thing about FAITH ! None of us has seen ALLAH or the Prophet PBUH but we believe in their existence based on faith and some knowledge (historical evidence in the case of our Prophet PBUH)

If we dont factor blind faith then religion loses its meaning ( to me )

I agree that the some part of religion will always be about blind faith but I was referring to the logic part. Shouldn't we scrutinize and dissect in order to be sure.

After all if everyone on Earth were to take the same attitude towards religion then we would all die the same faith which we were born into.

If the Sahabah had taken the same stance then they would have refused to listen to the Prophet and would have dismissed him outright. In our quest to be better Muslims we focus too much on the physical aspect of Islam and not enough on the mental side.

The Sahabah must have been incredibly open minded and superb critical thinkers for them to embrace Islam.

tahaqureshi
4th October 2006, 19:54
That's the problem MIG we don't. Try going down to the mosque to discuss things like this and watch yourself get heckled out or have your head kicked in.

There is no dialogue in Islam.

1400 years this religion has survived..through dark times and bright times, and you think there is no dialogue in Islam? Our religion has remained steadfast in the face of trials and tribulation for over a millenium. Great scholars have come and gone, all the while changing the very way we look at our religion, primarily because of their devotion to understanding Islam, and spreading it to the general public.

Imam Ghazali, who's native tongue was Arabic, spent 10 years with a special Arab tribe just to learn the ettiquetes and depth of the language, and only then did he understand the true meaning of what Allah wants from him.

This word of God is in its natural form, and is in a language which no longer exists. It is Arabic that is no longer used or spoken. But it was the most profound language in the history of this planet, hence Allah chose it for his final message which is supposed to last mankind till judgement day. Explanations of the Quran in this beautiful language exist all over the Muslim world and we definitely need those explanations to understand what God wants from us. Had the Arabic language not been morphed, today there would be very little problem in understanding the Quran.

The further we go away from the time of the prophet, as years pass, the more we need to adhere strictly to the written explanations of the Quran. And it if only the very sincere and devoted of Muslims, the ones with beards who wear their shalwars above their ankles, who spend time in learning these explanations.

Merc, if you want to go an fully comprehend a text which was revealed over a millenium ago in a language form which no longer exists without adequate philosophical or lingustic training, be my guest. But after that, only Allah will be able to help you.

Mercenary
4th October 2006, 20:16
Taha you're missing the point, we're talking about the lack of critical thought in modern Islamic scholarship.

There have been some impressive scholars in the past including Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi, Malik and others. But there is no-one like them in the modern world.

Modern scholarship holds these past scholars works as high as the Quran and rather than challenge their interpretations (as those very scholars would have done), they just meekly agree with them.

That's why scholarship is dead in Islam.

tahaqureshi
4th October 2006, 20:24
Ok, so accepting that in the modern era we do not have many people who devote themselves to scholarly works such as the aforementioned scholars, don't you think it would be wise to accept what they have found? I mean for 8 centuries nobody questioned them after ascertaining their veracity, why should we do it now? because we have machines? because we should be more open minded than our ancestors?

Fact is that we are in a period where the true, honest, sincere Islamic scholar per capita ratio is the lowest out of the whole history of Islam. Keeping this in view, we really shouldnt challenge the existing records and accomplishements of past scholars, who have been highly regarded by all Muslim for centuries after death, as it will only lead us further into questioning Islam, and going astray from the religion.

1400 hundred years is a long time, and the amount of work done in that period cannot be challenged by us so called "modern era" Muslims. We need to put faith that the works compiled over the last 8 centuries were in most likelihood proper. Yes, we should look at them with an intuitive mind, but not start challenging them just for the sake of critical thinking.

The critical thinking that needed to be done, was done in Baghdad during Islam's golden era. Baghdad was a centre of cultural, religious, philosophical, scientific and artistic intellect. Islam thrived in every aspect during that period. So the hard work Merc, has been done..our problem today is not that we dont scrutinise our own religion, but that we dont follow it.

Mercenary
4th October 2006, 20:38
Ok, so accepting that in the modern era we do not have many people who devote themselves to scholarly works such as the aforementioned scholars, don't you think it would be wise to accept what they have found?

No I think it would be wiser to look to the reasons why critical scholarship is dying and try to revive it.


Fact is that we are in a period where the true, honest, sincere Islamic scholar per capita ratio is the lowest out of the whole history of Islam. Keeping this in view, we really shouldnt challenge the existing records and accomplishements of past scholars,

That's no reason for maintaining the status quo


The critical thinking that needed to be done, was done in Baghdad during Islam's golden era. Baghdad was a centre of cultural, religious, philosophical, scientific and artistic intellect. Islam thrived in every aspect during that period. So the hard work Merc, has been done..our problem today is not that we dont scrutinise our own religion, but that we dont follow it.

I can't believe you said that. So we should stop thinking and questioning because our ancestors did it for us?

We're lucky that the Sahabah didn't adopt the same attitude.


And it if only the very sincere and devoted of Muslims, the ones with beards who wear their shalwars above their ankles, who spend time in learning these explanations.

The Prophet and the Sahabahs example isn't about how high their trousers were or how long their beards were. The lessons to be learnt from them were to do with their open-mindedness, their humility and their critical thinking. If Muslims concentrated on imitating the Sahabahs mental nature instead of their dress code and physical attributes then Islam wouldn't be wallowing in the swamp of self-pity that we are stuck in today!

tahaqureshi
4th October 2006, 20:46
Merc, the way you make it out to be its like Islam has been dead for 500 years, and now we need to think about it all over again. I can't believe you think that we are in the same position as the Sahabah. The Sahabah had the luxury of God speaking directly to them, and answering questions of their heart immediately in Quran, we dont.

Critical thinking is essential, but not when it starts to question the fundamentals of previous works. We can't indulge too much into that because right now, we have very little credibility left in our knowledge about Islam. Hence I say, the more time that passes, the more careful we need to be. We are no longer as much in touch with Islam as Muslims were around say, 1200 B.C. even.

Mercenary
4th October 2006, 21:01
Critical thinking is essential, but not when it starts to question the fundamentals of previous works. We can't indulge too much into that because right now, we have very little credibility left in our knowledge about Islam. Hence I say, the more time that passes, the more careful we need to be. We are no longer as much in touch with Islam as Muslims were around say, 1200 B.C. even.

Once the Sahabah passed away, all that was left behind was the Quran and undocumented Hadith.Some Taibeen knew some Hadith and other Taibeen knew different Hadith. There was no comprehensive collection of Hadith giving the scholars post-Sahabah any great advantage over us other than the fact that they met the Sahabah.

There is no difference between the scholars of 100+ years after the Prophet and the scholars of today. The source materials for both scholars are the same. Being closer in the timeline to the age of the Prophet doesn't give them any specific advantage unless you want to put forward an emotional argument about 'those were the days'

A scholar from 1000 years ago and a scholar from today have no great advantages over each other. When the Prophet died, Islam was spreading at a lightning rate and the Arabs were conquering lands all over the place. New traditions, customs, knowledge and inventions were springing up on a daily basis. The lifestyle of those Muslims would have been significantly different to the sort of simple lifestyle the Prophet and his Sahabah led so it's nonsensical to claim that being closer to the event in a tumultuous and everchanging environment gives a scholar some sort of special advantage.

The only advantage a scholar of the past could have over a scholar of today would have been if he had lived during the time of the Prophet and the Sahabah.

garbage_can2003
4th October 2006, 21:25
Ok, so accepting that in the modern era we do not have many people who devote themselves to scholarly works such as the aforementioned scholars, don't you think it would be wise to accept what they have found? I mean for 8 centuries nobody questioned them after ascertaining their veracity, why should we do it now? because we have machines? because we should be more open minded than our ancestors?

Fact is that we are in a period where the true, honest, sincere Islamic scholar per capita ratio is the lowest out of the whole history of Islam. Keeping this in view, we really shouldnt challenge the existing records and accomplishements of past scholars, who have been highly regarded by all Muslim for centuries after death, as it will only lead us further into questioning Islam, and going astray from the religion.

1400 hundred years is a long time, and the amount of work done in that period cannot be challenged by us so called "modern era" Muslims. We need to put faith that the works compiled over the last 8 centuries were in most likelihood proper. Yes, we should look at them with an intuitive mind, but not start challenging them just for the sake of critical thinking.

The critical thinking that needed to be done, was done in Baghdad during Islam's golden era. Baghdad was a centre of cultural, religious, philosophical, scientific and artistic intellect. Islam thrived in every aspect during that period. So the hard work Merc, has been done..our problem today is not that we dont scrutinise our own religion, but that we dont follow it.

It is erroneous to suggest that these mullahs have never been questioned in the past. They have been by many. Read the writings of Abduh, Allama Iqbal, Sir Syed, G A Parwez and you will find out. In addition there are many who spoke against the professional clergy only to be threatened with death and being called an apostate.

Have you ever bothered to wonder why on the one hand the Quran says that there should be no compulsion in the matters of faith whereas on the other hadith labels anyone who questions the status quo an apostate which carries the punishment of death by stoning?

mumtaz
4th October 2006, 21:49
Merc, the way you make it out to be its like Islam has been dead for 500 years, and now we need to think about it all over again. I can't believe you think that we are in the same position as the Sahabah. The Sahabah had the luxury of God speaking directly to them, and answering questions of their heart immediately in Quran, we dont.

Critical thinking is essential, but not when it starts to question the fundamentals of previous works. We can't indulge too much into that because right now, we have very little credibility left in our knowledge about Islam. Hence I say, the more time that passes, the more careful we need to be. We are no longer as much in touch with Islam as Muslims were around say, 1200 B.C. even.

Just to correct you, the luxury is ours, not the Sahaba's. Its easy to accept a Prophet whose status has been established in history like we do but its very difficult to accept a Prophet at the time as it was for Sahaba's. Just imagaine if a Prophet were to come today, what we would do to him? Thats what Merc was pointing out that the Sahaba were incredibly open-minded to have not stuck to their age-old doctrines and accepted Islam.

kasoo10
5th October 2006, 00:02
I did not get the time to read all of the posts but I did get the point.

This is the point that I emphasise to everyone I meet. Quraan is for us, we need to read it and understand it and follow it.

I see it like this: When we go to a country we try to find out what are their laws and how to behave in that society. Like in Karachi we have a conductor collecting tickets, but, here in the west we have a box where we deposit the ticket when we get on the bus. So, we learn those kind of things.

When we learn them we do not master them, we learn them according to our use. Like we will not go through the laws governing the transportation system in the country, rather we will only find out about what applies to us. This will apply to every person.

A but driver will learn a bit more and he will know enough to do his job.

Similarly a lawyer will have to learn each and every manual, book of laws etc.

What I mean to say is that read, with translation and tafseer as much as applies to you.

An alim may need to learn more and a mufti even more.

Based on this each one of us has to realize how much he want to learn and minimum is reading and understanding entire Quraan.

MIG
5th October 2006, 00:40
I really dont have anything "useful" to add to this topic - we seem to have an explosion of intellectual scholarship ! but pls note that this being the blessed month of Ramadan - busy yourself in worship of ALLAH ( in any way that you deem fit) - discussions on the basis of our religion can wait until after Eid.

Toony™®
5th October 2006, 00:43
The verse says in THINE OWN tongue, the Quran is written in Arabic. Therefore the verse is speaking to natives of Arabic speaking nations, i.e Arabs!!
you have to also remember..its is arabic of 1500 yrs ago...not arabic of today..equivalent of old english.

Joseph K.
5th October 2006, 01:02
Merc, the way you make it out to be its like Islam has been dead for 500 years, and now we need to think about it all over again. I can't believe you think that we are in the same position as the Sahabah. The Sahabah had the luxury of God speaking directly to them, and answering questions of their heart immediately in Quran, we dont.

Critical thinking is essential, but not when it starts to question the fundamentals of previous works. We can't indulge too much into that because right now, we have very little credibility left in our knowledge about Islam. Hence I say, the more time that passes, the more careful we need to be. We are no longer as much in touch with Islam as Muslims were around say, 1200 B.C. even...
The critical thinking that needed to be done, was done in Baghdad during Islam's golden era. Baghdad was a centre of cultural, religious, philosophical, scientific and artistic intellect. Islam thrived in every aspect during that period. So the hard work Merc, has been done..our problem today is not that we dont scrutinise our own religion, but that we dont follow it.

Islam ossified more than 500 years ago, it happened almost 1000 years ago in, wait for it, Baghdad when al Ghazali labelled philosophy as irrelevant. That killed off healthy scepticism that we miss so much now. After that Muslims turned into sheeple (people who follow like sheep) and a thousand years of mindless ritualism and unquestioning attitude towards everything even vaguely connected to religion, has brought us where we are now. It would be very interesting to find read sources on pre-al Ghazali Muslim thought. Europe reached that level of intellectual development in 18th century where Muslims were in 10th. What a shame. A thousand years of subservience towards faith mafia has brought us where we are now.

MIG
5th October 2006, 01:04
Raz1 Bhai - can u pls explain where you think we would be today had we not been subservient to the "mafia" ? Give me an idea of the type of Muslim world that would have existed today?

Joseph K.
5th October 2006, 01:21
Raz1 Bhai - can u pls explain where you think we would be today had we not been subservient to the "mafia" ? Give me an idea of the type of Muslim world that would have existed today?

We would be very different from this:

[Edit by Mods: That is a disgusting pic - pls dont post that again]

zaf1986
5th October 2006, 02:30
The reason a Prophet is chosen from among a people is because they can relate to a man more than they can relate to falling books or talking mountains.
Exactly my point. The people can relate to a man, and that man is there to explain the Quran if people like you and me don't understand the essence of what is being said, since the Quran itself says that in places it is ambigious. Hence the need for hadith...

garbage_can2003
5th October 2006, 03:30
Exactly my point. The people can relate to a man, and that man is there to explain the Quran if people like you and me don't understand the essence of what is being said, since the Quran itself says that in places it is ambigious. Hence the need for hadith...

Incorrect. The duty of the mesenger is to ONLY deliver Gods message. It is Allah himself who takes the responsibility of EXPLAINING it.

2DashingLahori
5th October 2006, 03:55
I wanan add to can bro by saying that through the Quran God talks to man. He will never create complications for us to understand the message. Remmeber God is Omnipotant and All-Wise. He knows human brain's abilities, why would God want to confuse us? He made the message simple.

zaf1986
5th October 2006, 04:11
Incorrect. The duty of the mesenger is to ONLY deliver Gods message. It is Allah himself who takes the responsibility of EXPLAINING it.

Incorrect.

The Quran says, on more than one occasion, Obey Allah and Obey the Prophet. It isn't just said for no reason.

2DashingLahori
5th October 2006, 04:15
Incorrect.

The Quran says, on more than one occasion, Obey Allah and Obey the Prophet. It isn't just said for no reason.

Its how you look at it, they mean the same thing.

zaf1986
5th October 2006, 04:17
Its how you look at it, they mean the same thing.
If they mean the same thing, are you accusing Allah of using excess words? I think I trust Allah's use of wisdom more than yours. They do not mean the same thing.

2DashingLahori
5th October 2006, 04:18
If they mean the same thing, are you accusing Allah of using excess words? I think I trust Allah's use of wisdom more than yours. They do not mean the same thing.

You are misunderstading me bhia, I will talk about this when i come back.

zaf1986
5th October 2006, 04:20
Sure thing, I'll await your response.

Surely you know better what God was trying to say than God himself...

garbage_can2003
5th October 2006, 04:54
Incorrect.

The Quran says, on more than one occasion, Obey Allah and Obey the Prophet. It isn't just said for no reason.

The correct translation is "Obey Allah and his Messenger". The duty of the messenger (Rasool) is transmit Allah's message. Thats why he is called a Messenger in the first place. To “Obey the Messenger” would thus mean to obey the message he is delivering.


Now where in the Quran will you find the command "Obey Allah and Muhammad". It does not exist.

Mercenary
5th October 2006, 06:03
Incorrect.

The Quran says, on more than one occasion, Obey Allah and Obey the Prophet. It isn't just said for no reason.

We can't obey the Prophet because the Prophet is no longer among the living.

The Prophet left us the Quran and prohibited the collecting of Hadith (according to Hadith)...


Abu Sa'id Khudri reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Do not take down anything from me, and he who took down anything from me except the Qur'an, he should efface that and narrate from me, for there is no harm in it and he who attributed any falsehood to me-and Hammam said: I think he also said:" deliberately" -he should in fact find his abode in the Hell-Fire.
Book 042, Number 7147 (Sahih Muslim) (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/042.smt.html#042.7147)

Subhan Allah, such is the miracle of the Almighty that He makes the Hadith as a witness against itself!! We Muslims have erred like the nations of the past in setting up sciptures alongside God's message and treating them as being the same as Allah's message. When I hear Muslims quoting 'Obey Allah and His Messenger' as a proof for the authenticity of Hadith then it makes me despair.

That verse has nothing to do with the Sahih collections of Hadith, these Hadith are not sanctioned by Allah, His Messenger, the Sahabah or the Taibeen! They are at best a well intentioned bid'ah against which the Prophet himself has warned us!

Obeying Allah's Messenger has absolutely nothing to do with obeying the Hadith because according to those very same Hadith, Allah's messenger didn't want what he was saying to be written down!

Obeying Allah's messenger refers to those who lived with him and in our case it refers to accpeting the Quran as the word of God. The Hadith will always have an element of doubt over their authenticity and therefore they don't, can't and shouldn't fall into this category!

Mercenary
5th October 2006, 06:24
Now where in the Quran will you find the command "Obey Allah and Muhammad". It does not exist.

It's repeated many times...


003.132 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.132) - And obey Allah and the Messenger; that ye may obtain mercy.

Yusuf Ali Translation

However it's a fallacy to suggest that it refers to accepting the Hadith. It has nothing to do with that, it refers to those people who lived in the time of the Prophet. God was telling them to obey the Prophet and to consult the Prophet as is evident by the following verses...


004.080 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.080) - He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah: But if any turn away, We have not sent thee to watch over their (evil deeds).

024.054 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/024.qmt.html#024.054) - Say: "Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).

064.012 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/064.qmt.html#064.012) - So obey Allah, and obey His Messenger: but if ye turn back, the duty of Our Messenger is but to proclaim (the Message) clearly and openly.

Yusuf Ali Translation

These verses also order the obeying of the Messenger but although they can be applied to today's time, they are references to the Prophet and the early Muslims. This fact is made even clearer in the following verse...


049.014 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/049.qmt.html#049.014) - The desert Arabs say, "We believe." Say, "Ye have no faith; but ye (only)say, 'We have submitted our wills to Allah,' For not yet has Faith entered your hearts. But if ye obey Allah and His Messenger, He will not belittle aught of your deeds: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

Yusuf Ali Translation

Allah is clearly talking to the people who lived alongside the Prophet and to whom he was directly preaching. That's why Muhammad is repeatedly told that all you can do is preach, if they don't listen to or obey you then that is God's business and He will deal with it.

If Muhammad was alive today then we would be bound by the same verses and would have to obey him but these verses can't be applied to collections of Hadith which are riddled with inaccuracies and false Hadith!!

2DashingLahori
5th October 2006, 06:56
Sure thing, I'll await your response.

Surely you know better what God was trying to say than God himself...

There is no point in me saying anything on this, if sarcasm and hidden disses start to play, I will post in a few hours.

garbage_can2003
5th October 2006, 06:57
It's repeated many times...


You missed the point Merc.

Obey Allah and his Messenger is not the same as Obey Allah and Muhammad.

There are a number of issues here.

First is the presumtion that the messenger mentioned is Muhammed. There are many messengers mentioned in the Quran, which also has been mentioned as a messenger.

Second, Muhammed was not only a messenger but lived the life of a normal human being too. Thats why Allah chose his words carefully by saying that obey the messenger who is the deliverer of the message not Muhammed the fallible human being.

Last, here are the full verses

And obey God and obey the messenger and be cautious; but if you turn back, then know that the SOLE DUTY of the messenger is the deliverance [5:92]

And obey God and obey the messenger, but if you turn back, then upon Our messenger is the SOLE DUTY of the clear delivery (of the message)" 64:12

The latter part of the above two verses I believe should be crystal clear to any thinking muslim.

2DashingLahori
5th October 2006, 07:05
While I collect my information, I want you all to read garbage_can2003's siginature.

And the messenger said, 'My Lord, my people have deserted this Quran.(25:30)

We all place more importance to hadiths than the Quran. When we talk about only the Quran, we start to freak out! Our laws are from Sharia law = God's law = Quran's laws? But they are not. Now Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) said that I am leaving this Quran and my example among you. He never said that hold tight to my Hadiths. And if hadiths were really imporant then he would have said so.

He mentioned the Quran and Example = Sunnah only. Example is the way he dealt with people, his actions, he was a great general, a great father, full of wisdom etc. These are the things we need to look at when Sunnah is mentioned rather than making laws out of Sharia which doesnt exist.

Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) never made laws of his own so all laws were defnily from ther Quran. Today they are not. If laws were from the Quran, we will not be having this debate right now. SOmething is wrong somwhere, and its the fact that we have after 1400 years truly deserted the Quran.

Good news is that there are people among us who still place God's laws than any Taliban law etc. Alhumdulillah.

Mercenary
5th October 2006, 07:16
Obey Allah and his Messenger is not the same as Obey Allah and Muhammad.

You're right there is a distinction


First is the presumtion that the messenger mentioned is Muhammed. There are many messengers mentioned in the Quran, which also has been mentioned as a messenger.

Why would Allah ask Mohammad's followers to obey dead Prophets? It's quite acceptable and sensible to assume Mohammad is the Prophet being referred to. The following verse for instance leaves no doubt as to which Messenger is being referred to...


049.014 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/049.qmt.html#049.014) - The desert Arabs say, "We believe." Say, "Ye have no faith; but ye (only)say, 'We have submitted our wills to Allah,' For not yet has Faith entered your hearts. But if ye obey Allah and His Messenger, He will not belittle aught of your deeds: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

Yusuf Ali Translation

When Allah says 'Obey the Messenger in the Quran' then He is talking about Muhammad.


Second, Muhammed was not only a messenger but lived the life of a normal human being too. Thats why Allah chose his words carefully by saying that obey the messenger who is the deliverer of the message not Muhammed the fallible human being.

How would his followers know who he was at any one time? He didn't have a specuial costume he put on when he was playing the Messenger, so this makes no sense.


Last, here are the full verses

And obey God and obey the messenger and be cautious; but if you turn back, then know that the SOLE DUTY of the messenger is the deliverance [5:92]

And obey God and obey the messenger, but if you turn back, then upon Our messenger is the SOLE DUTY of the clear delivery (of the message)" 64:12

It's always a good idea to give the name of the translation you are using because your version of these verses contradicts the more mainstream translations which say...


005.092 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.092)
YUSUFALI: Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and beware (of evil): if ye do turn back, know ye that it is Our Messenger's duty to proclaim (the message) in the clearest manner.
PICKTHAL: Obey Allah and obey the messenger, and beware! But if ye turn away, then know that the duty of Our messenger is only plain conveyance (of the message).
SHAKIR: And obey Allah and obey the messenger and be cautious; but if you turn back, then know that only a clear deliverance of the message is (incumbent) on Our messenger.

064.012 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/064.qmt.html#064.012)
YUSUFALI: So obey Allah, and obey His Messenger: but if ye turn back, the duty of Our Messenger is but to proclaim (the Message) clearly and openly.
PICKTHAL: Obey Allah and obey His messenger; but if ye turn away, then the duty of Our messenger is only to convey (the message) plainly.
SHAKIR: And obey Allah and obey the Messenger, but if you turn back, then upon Our Messenger devolves only the clear delivery (of the message).

The verses are referring to the fact that it's not Muhammad's job to force anyone to practice or follow Islam nor is he their keeper. He is only charged with relaying the message to the people.

BTW are you a submitter because I'm pretty sure your translation is from their website!

garbage_can2003
5th October 2006, 09:46
You're right there is a distinction


And the distinction is not because of mere chance. It is deliberate.
Although you agree with me, you offer no explanations as to why Allah did not explicitly mention Muhammad by name.

[/quote]
Why would Allah ask Mohammad's followers to obey dead Prophets? It's quite acceptable and sensible to assume Mohammad is the Prophet being referred to. The following verse for instance leaves no doubt as to which Messenger is being referred to...
[/quote]

Here I will concede that it is very difficult to prove that the messenger is NOT Muhammad and not worth the effort for the debate is about Hadith.




When Allah says 'Obey the Messenger in the Quran' then He is talking about Muhammad.


OK fine lets agree on this for the purpose of this debate. And lets use a literal translation. You can find it and many other translations at http://yaqb.org/

Literal : "And obey God and obey the messenger, and be warned/cautious, so if you turned away, so know that truly on Our messengers (is) the information/communication, the clear/evident"

That is, the duty of the messenger is to communicate the CLEAR MESSAGE (balaghul mubin). When we see how Balagh has been used elsewhere such as in 14:52, 5:67, we find that it points to the Quran.

Hence to reiterate, when Allah talks about obeying the messenger, it is nothing else except the Quran.



How would his followers know who he was at any one time? He didn't have a specuial costume he put on when he was playing the Messenger, so this makes no sense.


This could be better explained with an example. If we look at verse 2:222

"They ask thee concerning women's courses. Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: So keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean. But when they have purified themselves, ye may approach them in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah. For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly and He loves those who keep themselves pure and clean." [2:222] (Yousuf Ali's translation)

Here it is clear Muhammad is acting in the capacity of a Messenger.

On the other hand, how Muhammad ate, what he wore, how he relieved himself, would come under the cateogory of Muhammad the human. If you look at hadith/sunna, traditional muslims are taught to emulate Muhammads on a personal level. This has got nothing to do with deen.

Consider these verses

"But when Our Clear Signs are rehearsed unto them, those who rest not their hope on their meeting with Us, Say: "Bring us a reading other than this, or change this," Say: "It is not for me, of my own accord, to change it: I follow naught but what is revealed unto me: if I were to disobey my Lord, I should myself fear the penalty of a Great Day (to come)."

Say: "If Allah had so willed, I should not have rehearsed it to you, nor would He have made it known to you. A whole life-time before this have I tarried amongst you: will ye not then understand?"

Who doth more wrong than such as forge a lie against Allah, or deny His Signs? But never will prosper those who sin.

They serve, besides Allah, things that hurt them not nor profit them, and they say: "These are our intercessors with Allah." Say: "Do ye indeed inform Allah of something He knows not, in the heavens or on earth?- Glory to Him! and far is He above the partners they ascribe (to Him)!"

[10:15-18] Yousuf Ali

From these verses it is clear he was not allowed to change the message but simply to follow it.

I will give you an example. The word "aameen" does not exist in the Quran but in Hadith it does, taken from jewish writings and the Hadith goes like this

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "When the Imam says: 'Ghair-il-Maghdubi 'Alaihim Walad-Dallin [i.e. not the path of those who earn Your anger, not the path of those who went astray ' (1:7)], then you must say, 'Amin', for if one's utterance of 'Amin' coincides with that of the angels then his past sins will be forgiven."

The obvious conclusion of this Hadith is that the focus must be on "timing" rather than content. :)

Was Muhammed allowed to introduce extra-quranic vocabulary in Deen. Of course not. This is a classic example of why all Hadith must be rejected.

By the way you can read the full article I wrote a long time back here (http://free-minds.org/articles/history/amen.htm) :)




It's always a good idea to give the name of the translation you are using because your version of these verses contradicts the more mainstream translations which say...


Yes I was using RK's translation. Not because I am a follower of his but because it is relatively easier to understand as compared to others. I can see why it should bother you so I have used Yousuf Alis translation in this post.




The verses are referring to the fact that it's not Muhammad's job to force anyone to practice or follow Islam nor is he their keeper. He is only charged with relaying the message to the people.


I agree with you completely. However, Hadith apologists refer to this verse to justify their argument. I was merely pointing out that Allah was deliberate in telling us to "Obey the messenger" and not "Obey Muhammad" because He wanted to ensure his servants did not start following each and every move of His messenger(s).

A simple analogy would be that one listens to and obeys his /her boss in the office because it is required but does not emulate him/her in personal life or follows his/her instructions unrelated to office work.



BTW are you a submitter because I'm pretty sure your translation is from their website!

As I said the translation I used was RK's and I gave my reason for it. I also understand why you are uncomfortable with it. But no I am not a submitter. If I were to associate myself with any website, it would be this one (http://www.free-minds.org)

2DashingLahori
5th October 2006, 09:56
If I May Add.

God mentioned Muhammed by name in the Quran actually four times. In 3:144, 33:40, 47:2 and 48:29. How many times did God tell us to "Obey the messenger" ? There are more than 25 times in the Quran, where God ordered us to obey the messenger. Not a single time did God say "Obey Muhammed." Everything in God's world is deliberate, nothing is a co-incidence.


"Say, (O Muhammed) "I am no more than a human being like you...." 18:110

God Almighty knowing that the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) is a human being like us, will live his life and run his business like any human being would. He would make mistakes, get angry, have fears, ...etc. Muhammed the human being was the messenger only because of the message given to him, the QURAN.

Obey the messenger is conditional on having the message, the Quran.
Obey the messenger because of the message he has, the QURAN.
Obey the messenger means to follow his message that is given to him, the QURAN.

Because it is the message (QURAN) that made the obedience a requirement, not the person, Prophet Muhammed (PBUH), that made it a requirement.

One great example of the distinction between obeying the messenger (For what he has) (the Quran) and obeying the human being, is what God told Prophet Muhammed's (PBUH) wives; in Sura 33.



"O wives of the prophet, if any of you commits gross sin, the
retribution will be doubled for her. This is easy for God to do.
Any one of you who obeys GOD and His MESSENGER, and
leads a righteous life, we will grant her double the recompense,
and we have prepared for her a generous provision." 33:30-31

Notice the order here for the prophet's wives to obey the Messenger, not their husband or Prophet Muhammed (PBUH). If God would have said to them to obey their husband, the unconditional obedience of the wife to her husband would have been decreed.

YES, we should obey the messenger. Those who accept the Quran accept the order from God to "obey the messenger" by following his message, the Quran ALONE. When the prophet Muhammed (PBUH) died, he left for us ONLY one book, the Quran.

When God told Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) in the Quran, "Today I completed your religion for you", Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) had only one book at that time, the Quran. Muhammed gave us one kind of Islam, that we can find in the book of God, the Quran.

It is very interesting to know that God gave us this prophecy in the Quran and told us the messenger will complain to Him on the Last Day that "My people have deserted this Quran." 25:30

zaf1986
5th October 2006, 10:09
Obeying Allah's messenger refers to those who lived with him and in our case it refers to accpeting the Quran as the word of God. The Hadith will always have an element of doubt over their authenticity and therefore they don't, can't and shouldn't fall into this category!

We have a problem then - we are forced to disobey the Quran and those who saw the Prophet have an unfair advantage over us, if we accept what you say.

Btw, I already made clear that hadith need to be analyses and scrutinised, and just because they are in a book called sahih doesn't make them as such. It is just that there is no Muslim scholarship of hadith today because most people want the easy way out and either accept all hadith in books called Sahih are right, or reject them outright.

zaf1986
5th October 2006, 10:12
[QUOTE=garbage_can2003 To “Obey the Messenger” would thus mean to obey the message he is delivering.[/QUOTE]
I am not disputing that. What I am disputing is that the only thing the Prophet spoke was Quran. Otherwise the statement of obeying the Messenger is meaningless. The book is there to be followed, we don't need to be told to obey the Messenger if we are being told to obey the book, surely if that was the case Allah would have said "obey the book"?

Mercenary
5th October 2006, 10:43
We have a problem then - we are forced to disobey the Quran and those who saw the Prophet have an unfair advantage over us, if we accept what you say.

That's quite a stretch.

How are we forced to disobey the Quran? In fact by obeying the Quran we are obeying the Prophet too since he was the vehicle through which we received it.

Joseph K.
5th October 2006, 13:08
It's the same thing all over again. Allah gave Moses the law, Jew rabbis changed Allah's book and 'mde unlawful what Allah held lawful and lawful what Allah had made unlawful', Christians, instead of following the message, changed the messanger into the message itself and started worshipping him. Koran is protected (write-protected to use a more modern term), it can't be changed. So what do people do, they create parallel texts because they can't change Koran. Not one but many texts to go along Koran. No wonder we find ourselves in the middle of the muddle that we are now a days.

garbage_can2003
5th October 2006, 18:11
If I May Add.

God mentioned Muhammed by name in the Quran actually four times. In 3:144, 33:40, 47:2 and 48:29. How many times did God tell us to "Obey the messenger" ? There are more than 25 times in the Quran, where God ordered us to obey the messenger. Not a single time did God say "Obey Muhammed." Everything in God's world is deliberate, nothing is a co-incidence.



God Almighty knowing that the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) is a human being like us, will live his life and run his business like any human being would. He would make mistakes, get angry, have fears, ...etc. Muhammed the human being was the messenger only because of the message given to him, the QURAN.

Obey the messenger is conditional on having the message, the Quran.
Obey the messenger because of the message he has, the QURAN.
Obey the messenger means to follow his message that is given to him, the QURAN.

Because it is the message (QURAN) that made the obedience a requirement, not the person, Prophet Muhammed (PBUH), that made it a requirement.

One great example of the distinction between obeying the messenger (For what he has) (the Quran) and obeying the human being, is what God told Prophet Muhammed's (PBUH) wives; in Sura 33.



Notice the order here for the prophet's wives to obey the Messenger, not their husband or Prophet Muhammed (PBUH). If God would have said to them to obey their husband, the unconditional obedience of the wife to her husband would have been decreed.

YES, we should obey the messenger. Those who accept the Quran accept the order from God to "obey the messenger" by following his message, the Quran ALONE. When the prophet Muhammed (PBUH) died, he left for us ONLY one book, the Quran.

When God told Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) in the Quran, "Today I completed your religion for you", Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) had only one book at that time, the Quran. Muhammed gave us one kind of Islam, that we can find in the book of God, the Quran.

It is very interesting to know that God gave us this prophecy in the Quran and told us the messenger will complain to Him on the Last Day that "My people have deserted this Quran." 25:30

Very eloquently explained Dash. Could'nt agree with you more.

MIG
5th October 2006, 18:12
SO essentially, there was no real use of the Prophet PBUH ?

garbage_can2003
5th October 2006, 18:13
It's the same thing all over again. Allah gave Moses the law, Jew rabbis changed Allah's book and 'mde unlawful what Allah held lawful and lawful what Allah had made unlawful', Christians, instead of following the message, changed the messanger into the message itself and started worshipping him. Koran is protected (write-protected to use a more modern term), it can't be changed. So what do people do, they create parallel texts because they can't change Koran. Not one but many texts to go along Koran. No wonder we find ourselves in the middle of the muddle that we are now a days.

A very sensible "in a nut shell" explanation.

garbage_can2003
5th October 2006, 18:38
SO essentially, there was no real use of the Prophet PBUH ?

Without getting emotional on this issue, the Prophet had a purpose and it was to transmit Allah's message to mankind which he did to the best of his abilities. Its is Allah's design that he sent human prophets and messengers to spread His word to mankind. In the Quran, Allah says that He could have sent angels to do this work but He chose not to.

Quran does not focus on personalities. Instead it instructs us to focus on the message. The Prophet is no longer with us. Hence the only way we can Obey Allah and the messenger is by strictly following the Quran, which Allah has promised to protect from corruption until judgement day. This guarantee was/has not given to any other religious literature. Don't you see that there exists not a single document that has not been corrupted by satan's evil followers with the exception of the Quran.

By following the Quran we are basically following the messenger and showing our respect for him.

If you pick up any Hadith book (not the vanilla versions), you will find so many inconsistencies, contradictions, and hadiths that potray the Prophet in a very bad way. Any sensible thinking muslim would never believe in such nonsense.

If a muslim truly respects the Prophet, he will not waste time emulating him in how he lived his personal life but by following ONLY the Quran.

Mercenary
5th October 2006, 20:34
Koran is protected (write-protected to use a more modern term), it can't be changed. So what do people do, they create parallel texts because they can't change Koran. Not one but many texts to go along Koran. No wonder we find ourselves in the middle of the muddle that we are now a days.

I couldn't agree more with that statement.

Despite having a direct dialogue from God (the Quran), our divine mafia likes to confuse us with non-existent complexities and frighten us with accidental blasphemies. All this is designed to makes us conform to what they believe Islam is all about.

It's quite telling that no-one quotes from the Quran anymore, it's all a case of 'according to such and such scholar this is what we should or shouldn't do'

Even when a Quranic quote is used, it's use is qualified with a quote from a scholar 'allowing' us to take the meaning the scholar wants us to take from the verse.

mumtaz
5th October 2006, 21:48
Without getting emotional on this issue, the Prophet had a purpose and it was to transmit Allah's message to mankind which he did to the best of his abilities. Its is Allah's design that he sent human prophets and messengers to spread His word to mankind. In the Quran, Allah says that He could have sent angels to do this work but He chose not to.

Quran does not focus on personalities. Instead it instructs us to focus on the message. The Prophet is no longer with us. Hence the only way we can Obey Allah and the messenger is by strictly following the Quran, which Allah has promised to protect from corruption until judgement day. This guarantee was/has not given to any other religious literature. Don't you see that there exists not a single document that has not been corrupted by satan's evil followers with the exception of the Quran.

By following the Quran we are basically following the messenger and showing our respect for him.

If you pick up any Hadith book (not the vanilla versions), you will find so many inconsistencies, contradictions, and hadiths that potray the Prophet in a very bad way. Any sensible thinking muslim would never believe in such nonsense.

If a muslim truly respects the Prophet, he will not waste time emulating him in how he lived his personal life but by following ONLY the Quran.

I would go one step further and say that we should believe that the Prophet(PBUH) fulfilled his duty to the ultimate possible level under the direct guidance of Allah. If Ahadith were going to be part of the basic corpus of Islam, then it was part of the Prophet's mission to make sure his sayings were compiled, verified and fully explained before his passing away. We can either believe that "Ahadith are a part of basic corpus of Islam" or "Prophet (PBUH) did not complete his mission". I dont think you can believe in both.

z10
5th October 2006, 22:00
funny how musafirs of the past used to be scrupulous in character and deed, and took many years of care and attention in compiling tafsirs and translations.

The enlightened of today, mashaAllah, can skip all these steps.

garbage_can2003
5th October 2006, 22:34
I would go one step further and say that we should believe that the Prophet(PBUH) fulfilled his duty to the ultimate possible level under the direct guidance of Allah. If Ahadith were going to be part of the basic corpus of Islam, then it was part of the Prophet's mission to make sure his sayings were compiled, verified and fully explained before his passing away. We can either believe that "Ahadith are a part of basic corpus of Islam" or "Prophet (PBUH) did not complete his mission". I dont think you can believe in both.

The bulk of the muslims are so ill-informed and unaware that the "Sahih" Hadith books were compiled 250-300 years after the death of the Prophet by six Persians whose first language was'nt even Arabic!

2DashingLahori
5th October 2006, 22:37
I would go one step further and say that we should believe that the Prophet(PBUH) fulfilled his duty to the ultimate possible level under the direct guidance of Allah. If Ahadith were going to be part of the basic corpus of Islam, then it was part of the Prophet's mission to make sure his sayings were compiled, verified and fully explained before his passing away. We can either believe that "Ahadith are a part of basic corpus of Islam" or "Prophet (PBUH) did not complete his mission". I dont think you can believe in both.

Bukahri was one of the first who started the compilation. As far as I am c oncerned Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) in his last sermon told us that i am leaving a book in your hands, hold tight to it. he never mentioned a book of hadiths.

2DashingLahori
5th October 2006, 22:41
O People, NO PROPHET OR APOSTLE WILL COME AFTER ME AND NO NEW FAITH WILL BE BORN. Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand my words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the QUR'AN and my example, the SUNNAH and if you follow these you will never go astray.

Bring tears to my eyes when he had asked us to hold tight to the Quran and remember his example.

Sunnah = In accordance with God's laws means they were never outside the Quran.
And yet we will keep following fabricated hadiths by some dude called Bukhari and will never accept that Quran was everything our Priphet (PBUH) ever taught us.

He never told us anything outside the Quran.

2DashingLahori
5th October 2006, 22:48
Sunnah (سنة) literally means “trodden path”, and therefore, the sunnah of the prophet means “the way of the prophet” in accordance to the laws of God.Now Laugh. :14:

jeez sorry for the typo.

So of course Moses, Jesus, Noah, Abraham had all different Sunnahs :)
and Ya I do rememebr God saying that make no disticntion amogn the prophets, and yet Sunnah of Mohammad (PBUH) is different from the Sunnah of Moses and Jesus?

All were in accordance with God's laws.

z10
5th October 2006, 22:51
The ways of Sunnah cannot possibly be 'God's ways' as you put it in your first post. To do so would be to insult the very concept of God.

However, if you want to change your stance and call it 'God's laws' second time round, then im ok with it.

2DashingLahori
5th October 2006, 22:53
Prophets don't make thier own ways. They do what God asks them to do. Thats why they deliver or spread God's message. Unless of course you do want to prove to me that Prophets did something very different than what God ha asked them to do. Feel free to enligten me.

z10
5th October 2006, 22:55
Prophets don't make thier own ways. They do what God asks them to do. Thats why they deliver or spread God's message. Unless of course you do want to prove to me that Prophets did something very different than what God ha asked them to do. Feel free to enligten me.


Allow me to be pedantic, but it was the term 'God's ways' that amused me.

Let me ask a question of the enlightened here, and allow me my ignorance, but how do we know what the sunnah of the Prophet is? Through what medium is it relayed to us?

2DashingLahori
5th October 2006, 23:00
Allow me to be pedantic, but it was the term 'God's ways' that amused me.

Dont blame you, I went up and read it laughed myself, I thought i had writeen God's laws but I did not, sorry forgive me for the typo :P


Let me ask a question of the enlightened here, and allow me my ignorance, but how do we know what the sunnah of the Prophet is? Through what medium is it relayed to us?

Through tradition or through all those compilation of Hadiths.
However, when God has told us that we dont make distinctions among the messengers, we should understand that God did not want us to follow ONLY Prophet Mohammad's (PBUH). God wants us to follow all the commandments that were also given to all other messengers that came before him.

We do know Prophet Mohammad's (PBUH) qualities from Hadiths and hence they must be studied in that context. HOwever God gave the same laws to all Prophets tells us that its the God's laws that need to be followed not hadiths laws, of which we have no 100% Proof that the hadiths is authentic. Only way to find that is any Hadiths dat doesnt contradict the Quran, thats ok. If it does, discard it.

z10
5th October 2006, 23:39
And yet we will keep following fabricated hadiths by some dude called Bukhari and will never accept that Quran was everything our Priphet (PBUH) ever taught us.




You accept that the sunnah of the prophet shold be followed. You also accept that the only documentation of the sunnah of the prophet is the hadith. Then why this contradiction above?

2DashingLahori
5th October 2006, 23:50
You accept that the sunnah of the prophet shold be followed. You also accept that the only documentation of the sunnah of the prophet is the hadith. Then why this contradiction above?

My stance is that only Authentic Hadiths need to be followed. Bukhari burnt 80% of the Hadith when he was compiling. If fabricated Hadiths were bieng written at that time, then today they also being written. Every sect has thier own.

Any Hadith that does not contradict the Quran whatsoever and it has a clear reference from the Quran is acceptable. Then it proves that my Prophet did infact did mention them.

The contradiction is that there are still some Hadiths out there that contradict the Quran. Sir Bukhari must have tried his best to compile Hadiths that did not match the Quran. However that does not mean that what was done 1000 years ago, must not be done today. There are still some Hadiths that are vague, dont match the Quran.

z10
5th October 2006, 23:52
My stance is that only Authentic Hadiths need to be followed. Bukhari burnt 80% of the Hadith when he was compiling. If fabricated Hadiths were bieng written at that time, then today they also being written. Every sect has thier own.

Any Hadith that does not contradict the Quran whatsoever and it has a clear reference from the Quran is acceptable. Then it proves that my Prophet did infact did mention them.

The contradiction is that there are still some Hadiths out there that contradict the Quran. Sir Bukhari must have tried his best to compile Hadiths that did not match the Quran. However that does not mean that what was done 1000 years ago, must not be done today.

Do you know what method Imam Bukhari used to compile hadith or is the above just conjecture?

2DashingLahori
5th October 2006, 23:55
Do you know what method Imam Bukhari used to compile hadith or is the above just conjecture?

Quran is a book that will never change. He must have used the Quran to the best of his knowledge to seperate authentic hadiths from the unauthetnic hadiths.

There is not really any other method that can be used to prove that a hadith is incorrect. Quran is the only scale we have.

z10
5th October 2006, 23:56
Quran is a book that will never change. He must have used the Quran to the best of his knowledge to seperate authentic hadiths from the unauthetnic hadiths.

There is not really any other method that can be used to prove that a hadith is incorrect. Quran is the only scale we have.


so you admit you do not know his exact method but nevertheless are prone to slander him?

2DashingLahori
5th October 2006, 23:59
so you admit you do not know his exact method but nevertheless are prone to slander him?

If we dont know his method then why do we follow his collections. Why cant we just follow the Quran. That way no one will be debating.

Hadiths can change but the Quran cannot. When everyone single person in the world studies Quran, we will all agree to the same thing everytime, everywhere.

I give Bukhari the credit for burning those fabricated hadiths but at the same time left us another "book" that we place equal to the Quran.

z10
6th October 2006, 00:00
If we dont know his method then why do we follow his collections. Why cant we just follow the Quran. That way no one will be debating.





correction. You do not know the methods.

And i repeat. You do not know his methods yet still slander him?

2DashingLahori
6th October 2006, 00:02
I slander him for this:

I give Bukhari the credit for burning those fabricated hadiths but at the same time left us another "book" that we place equal to the Quran. We have all forgotten the Quran but everyone seems to know every hadith out there but many of them have not even read the Quran themselves.

z10
6th October 2006, 00:03
I slander him for this:

I give Bukhari the credit for burning those fabricated hadiths but at the same time left us another "book" that we place equal to the Quran. We have all forgotten the Quran but everyone seems to know every hadith out there but many of them have not even read the Quran themselves.


and this is his fault because of what exactly?

MashaAllah, the enlightened. We now slander too even though we have no knowledge of the person we slander. Boy, am i in exalted company.

2DashingLahori
6th October 2006, 00:04
and this is his fault because of what exactly?

MashaAllah, the enlightened. We now slander too even though we have no knowledge of the person we slander. Boy, am i in exalted company.

Fault of taking us off path from the Quran.

z10
6th October 2006, 00:06
Fault of taking us off path from the Quran.


Careful, o wise one. You are now insinuating that he somehow himself, on a personal level, encouraged or urged muslims to follow his book of Ahadith rather than the Quran. Can you prove this?

2DashingLahori
6th October 2006, 00:07
Careful, o wise one. You are now insinuating that he somehow himself, on a personal level, encouraged or urged muslims to follow his book of Ahadith rather than the Quran. Can you prove this?

Give me time to fomulate my answer? Deal o the great one?

z10
6th October 2006, 00:08
Give me time to fomulate my answer? Deal o the great one?


take your time. I am glad that you offer me an audience here ;)

2DashingLahori
6th October 2006, 00:11
take your time. I am glad that you offer me an audience here ;)

lol no one is against anyone here. We all want the same thing, which is the progress of Islam? No?.

I will answer as soon as possible. Before I do go I will say that if Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) were to come back today. What will he promote the Quran or a book left by Imam Bukhari 1000 years ago?

Have a great day. May we all be enligthened to the truth :) Ameen.

z10
6th October 2006, 00:18
I will answer as soon as possible. Before I do go I will say that if Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) were to come back today. What will he promote the Quran or a book left by Imam Bukhari 1000 years ago?




This is the problem. Why one or the other? The hadith are authenticated right down to the last detail. They are the digressions of the Quran.

2DashingLahori
6th October 2006, 00:33
This is the problem. Why one or the other? The hadith are authenticated right down to the last detail. They are the digressions of the Quran.

Why do applications differ then. Capitol Punishment is an example. Quran says something else, Hadiths something else.

If both were the same, why the difference. This is what bothers me, I have no problem with hadiths as long as they match the Quran 100%.

nafajafam
6th October 2006, 00:37
yea, actually i dont believe Allah would condone the killing of someone as a punishment. as humans we dont and shouldnt have such authority over another.

garbage_can2003
6th October 2006, 00:38
The hadith are authenticated right down to the last detail.

Even the most zealous of the Hadith lovers don't make the claim that you are making and concede that many Hadiths are weak (Zaeef).

Consider this Hadith

Narrated Hudayfh Ibn al-Yaman: Prophet said: "There will come rulers after me who do not guide to my guidance and do not practice my Sunnah, and the hearts of some them are the hearts of Satans but they are in the body of human." I said: "What should we do at that time?" Prophet (PBUH) said: "You should just listen to them and obey those rulers. No matter if the hurt you and take your wealth, you should follow them and obey them."

Reference: Sahih Muslim, Chapter of al-Imaarah (chapter 33 for the Arabic version)

Does Matn (body of text) count for anything? DO you really want to defend something that is pretty much indefensible?

akpower
6th October 2006, 00:52
Whats worse most of these corrupt Mullas [and I just mean teh corrupt ones] call themselves Maulana.. Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Maulana tariq jamil etc.. I was talkin to an Arab friend and he stated that the literal meaning in Arabic is "Lord" and that teh term Maulana shd not be used to refer people.

I cannot explain how much it annoys me when I see a self appointed or a people aapointed so called Maulana. Its just disgraceful. Surely if they so much knowledge, why cant they stop using that term and even ask others to not call them by that reference.

Dr Zakir Naik, Dr Israr Ahmed, etc who I believe are true scholars have never been referred to as Maulana, or even Moulvi..

mumtaz
6th October 2006, 03:15
Allow me to be pedantic, but it was the term 'God's ways' that amused me.

Let me ask a question of the enlightened here, and allow me my ignorance, but how do we know what the sunnah of the Prophet is? Through what medium is it relayed to us?

The practical teachings of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) were given to all and sundry. These teachings have been transferred to us, without any alteration, through the consensus and practical perpetuation of the companions of the Prophet (pbuh). Even today, there is consensus among Muslims regarding these practical teachings of the Prophet (pbuh) and to a great extent there still exists a practical perpetuation on these issues. These include things such as:

Mentioning God's name and then eating and drinking with the right hand;

Greeting one another with "Assalaam Alaikum" and responding to such greeting with " Wa Alaikum Assalaam"

Saying "Alhamdulillah" after sneezing and responding to it with " YarhamukAllah"

Saying Adhan in the right ear of a new born baby and saying Iqamah in his left ear

Wudhu

Tayammum

Adhan

Iqamah before the prayers;

The five obligatory prayers;

and so on..........

Now ask yourself, did you learn all these things by reading Hadith or were you taught these things as a kid from the society and by your parents. These things have been passed from generation to generation from the Prophet's time through the consensus of all Muslims and were the only practices the Prophet taught to the Ummah as a part of Deen and which we can now call Sunnah. These were never dependent on Hadith as a medium of transfer.

Hope that helps.

MCMLXXXII
6th October 2006, 03:38
The practical teachings of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) were given to all and sundry. These teachings have been transferred to us, without any alteration, through the consensus and practical perpetuation of the companions of the Prophet (pbuh). Even today, there is consensus among Muslims regarding these practical teachings of the Prophet (pbuh) and to a great extent there still exists a practical perpetuation on these issues. These include things such as:

Mentioning God's name and then eating and drinking with the right hand;

Greeting one another with "Assalaam Alaikum" and responding to such greeting with " Wa Alaikum Assalaam"

Saying "Alhamdulillah" after sneezing and responding to it with " YarhamukAllah"

Saying Adhan in the right ear of a new born baby and saying Iqamah in his left ear

Wudhu

Tayammum

Adhan

Iqamah before the prayers;

The five obligatory prayers;

and so on..........

Now ask yourself, did you learn all these things by reading Hadith or were you taught these things as a kid from the society and by your parents. These things have been passed from generation to generation from the Prophet's time through the consensus of all Muslims and were the only practices the Prophet taught to the Ummah as a part of Deen and which we can now call Sunnah. These were never dependent on Hadith as a medium of transfer.

Hope that helps.

This is pure ignorance. Just becuase your parents or your parents parents were aware of these things and didn't consult books of Ahadith doesn't mean that they are not part of hadith. In fact this is exactly an example of what hadith teaches us. The things that the prophet did were followed by the sahabas at the time and in turn was written down by collectors of ahadith. If you read many of them, the sahabah narate the hadith and say, I saw the prophet do such and such.

In fact, the hadith are better than the practices passed down from generation to generation. The practices can get corrupted over generations but the Hadith have a clear isnad, which tells the chain of narration which insures some authenticity.

z10
6th October 2006, 03:57
Even the most zealous of the Hadith lovers don't make the claim that you are making and concede that many Hadiths are weak (Zaeef).

Consider this Hadith

Narrated Hudayfh Ibn al-Yaman: Prophet said: "There will come rulers after me who do not guide to my guidance and do not practice my Sunnah, and the hearts of some them are the hearts of Satans but they are in the body of human." I said: "What should we do at that time?" Prophet (PBUH) said: "You should just listen to them and obey those rulers. No matter if the hurt you and take your wealth, you should follow them and obey them."

Reference: Sahih Muslim, Chapter of al-Imaarah (chapter 33 for the Arabic version)

Does Matn (body of text) count for anything? DO you really want to defend something that is pretty much indefensible?


zaeef? do you understand what that term means?

A zaeef hadith is a hadith that has a weak link in its narration from the Prophet all the way to the hadith collecter. By weak link we mean a person in the chain of narration who was of weak character or who cannot swear upon the authenticity of the hadith.

Bearing in mind we are talking of Imam Bukhari's collection of Sahih Hadith there is no connection because not one hadith is zaeef in his collection. The terms sahih and zaeef are mutually exclusive.

Do you know what Imam Bukhari done to collect these hadith? The scrupulous methods he used for every single hadith he collected?

He travelled hundreds upon hudreds of miles just to confirm the authenticity of one hadith. He would do istikhara before every hadith to confirm its authenticity in his own mind. He would study the character of every person in the chain to the last detail before writing it down. He would do wudhu before he even held a pen to write a hadith.
Such was the piety of this most noble of men. Yet, here, we shamelessly slander him because we believe his hadith are now 'outdated' and don't appeal to 'common sense' to use some of the more fashionable terms.

Was it within the boundarys of common sense for the Prophet (saw) to go on miraj? Or to break the moon in half?

Was it common sense for Hazrat Isa (as) to speak from the cradle?

When a person is away more than a certain distance away from home the ruling is that he perform the travel prayer. This is half of what the normal fardh prayer is. If a man has time and wants to read the full namaz is it not common sense that he will receive his due for reading the full namaz rather than the travel prayer? But no. According to fiqh e Hanfi his namaz is not accepted unless he reads only the travel prayer.
This is the value of your common sense and practicallity.

Do you think, Allah, in his infinite wisdom who vowed to protect the Quran from all and sundry, would allow his over a billion of his followers to be led astray by hadith? Does the piety of the hadith collectors mean nothing to the shallow psuedo intellectual brigade against hadith?

True, there are some contradictions between hadith and Quran but if we were to examine context then these contradictions disappear aswell.

In the Quran, it is said, that alcohol is not allowed at namaz time. It is also said that alcohol is not allowed at any time. Is this not a contradiction?
However, if we examine the context of these verses and the chronology of these verses we can see that they make perfect sense.

Too quickly are we jumping on this bandwagon to revolutionise our religion not knowing the sacrifices and pains our scholars went through to deliver our religion to us.

If only we could see the status of these most pious of men we would understand what it means to be a scholar. Too easy is it to sit behind a screen and present a logical argument. Too easy is it to slander those who sacrificed their lives for this beautiful religion of ours. Too easy is it to be clever.

But, tell me, how many here are really willing to go the whole ten yards? Who here will travel the muslim world for years on end to determine the truth from the falsehood? Who will sacrifice their lives for such a deed?

Perhaps we should examine ourselves before we slander our scholar.

Mercenary
6th October 2006, 05:41
z10 rather than posting sarcastic replies perhaps you should respond with refutations or your own point of view.

z10
6th October 2006, 05:43
z10 rather than posting sarcastic replies perhaps you should respond with refutations or your own point of view.


ive already discussed this topic at length in a thread i created, of which i posted a link on the first page of this thread.

Mercenary
6th October 2006, 05:45
Bearing in mind we are talking of Imam Bukhari's collection of Sahih Hadith there is no connection because not one hadith is zaeef in his collection. The terms sahih and zaeef are mutually exclusive.

That's the whole problem with the Sahih collections, they are not 100% Sahih.

Answer me this, do you believe the following Hadith from Sahih Muslim to be authentic...


We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara'at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it:" If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust."
Book 005, Number 2286 (Sahih Muslim) (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/005.smt.html#005.2286)


And we used so recite a slirah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it, but remember (this much) out of it:" Oh people who believe, why do you say that which you do not practise" (lxi 2.) and" that is recorded in your necks as a witness (against you) and you would be asked about it on the Day of Resurrection" (xvii. 13).
Book 005, Number 2286 (Sahih Muslim) (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/005.smt.html#005.2286)

Do you also agree with the Sahih Hadith which claims the verse of Rajam is missing from the Quran?

If you believe these Sahih Hadith to be authentic then do you also believe that the Quran is missing at least 3 Surahs?

Do you believe the Quran is missing 3 Surahs or do you believe the Sahih collections are not 100% authentic?

You cannot believe both!!

So which is it?

mumtaz
6th October 2006, 06:27
This is pure ignorance. Just becuase your parents or your parents parents were aware of these things and didn't consult books of Ahadith doesn't mean that they are not part of hadith. In fact this is exactly an example of what hadith teaches us. The things that the prophet did were followed by the sahabas at the time and in turn was written down by collectors of ahadith. If you read many of them, the sahabah narate the hadith and say, I saw the prophet do such and such.

In fact, the hadith are better than the practices passed down from generation to generation. The practices can get corrupted over generations but the Hadith have a clear isnad, which tells the chain of narration which insures some authenticity.

I didnt say these were not part of Hadith, just that they were not dependent on Hadith as a medium of transfer. Can you find me one Muslim who learnt these things from Hadith, all of us are taught these things by our parents/society and it is because Prophet (PBUH) taught these things to his sahaba as part of Allah's religion and are as uncorruptible as the Quran itself and as binding on us as any directives in the Quran. The Quran was preserved by the verbal consensus of the sahaba as taught to them by the Prophet (PBUH) while these the Prophet's Sunnah was preserved by the practical consensus of the Sahaba as taught to them by the Prophet (PBUH).

As Muslims, its part of our faith to believe that the Prophet (PBUH) fulfilled his mission to the ultimate possible level. If we believe that Ahadith are a part of the basic corpus of Islam, then it was Prophet's duty to make sure his sayings were written down, verified and explained in his lifetime. So, if you believe that, then you are implying that the Prophet (PBUH) failed in his mission (God forbid).

I hope I have explained myself a little better this time.

garbage_can2003
6th October 2006, 08:22
zaeef? do you understand what that term means?


An utterly useless and irelevent polemic which does not merit a response. Are you going to teach me what Zaeef means now?




A zaeef hadith is a hadith that has a weak link in its narration from the Prophet all the way to the hadith collecter. By weak link we mean a person in the chain of narration who was of weak character or who cannot swear upon the authenticity of the hadith.

Bearing in mind we are talking of Imam Bukhari's collection of Sahih Hadith there is no connection because not one hadith is zaeef in his collection. The terms sahih and zaeef are mutually exclusive.


You are giving an erroneous impression that Hadith is restricted to the narrations of Bukhari even if we are to believe the story that "all his hadith are authentic". Thats another problem with Hadith lovers. Out of fear that they not be humiliated in a debate they pick and choose as they see fit.



Here is one from Bukhari that appears to be really authentic

During the pre-Islamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, beCause it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.




Do you know what Imam Bukhari done to collect these hadith? The scrupulous methods he used for every single hadith he collected?

He travelled hundreds upon hudreds of miles just to confirm the authenticity of one hadith. He would do istikhara before every hadith to confirm its authenticity in his own mind. He would study the character of every person in the chain to the last detail before writing it down. He would do wudhu before he even held a pen to write a hadith.
Such was the piety of this most noble of men. Yet, here, we shamelessly slander him because we believe his hadith are now 'outdated' and don't appeal to 'common sense' to use some of the more fashionable terms.


Yes He travelled hundreds of miles for this Hadith below

The Prophet said, "When you hear the crowing of cocks, ask for Allah's Blessings for (their crowing indicates that) they have seen an angel. And when you hear the braying of donkeys, seek refuge with Allah from Satan for (their braying indicates) that they have seen a Satan."

What makes you think I will believe that the Prophet uttered this nonsense. This hadith puts into perspective the bogus science of Hadith and the absurdity of focusing on the isnad rather than the matn of the Hadith.




Was it within the boundarys of common sense for the Prophet (saw) to go on miraj? Or to break the moon in half?

Was it common sense for Hazrat Isa (as) to speak from the cradle?

When a person is away more than a certain distance away from home the ruling is that he perform the travel prayer. This is half of what the normal fardh prayer is. If a man has time and wants to read the full namaz is it not common sense that he will receive his due for reading the full namaz rather than the travel prayer? But no. According to fiqh e Hanfi his namaz is not accepted unless he reads only the travel prayer.
This is the value of your common sense and practicallity.


Irrelevant to the debate.



Do you think, Allah, in his infinite wisdom who vowed to protect the Quran from all and sundry, would allow his over a billion of his followers to be led astray by hadith? Does the piety of the hadith collectors mean nothing to the shallow psuedo intellectual brigade against hadith?


Allah does not lead anyone astray. Do not blame Him for blindly following your human idols!



True, there are some contradictions between hadith and Quran but if we were to examine context then these contradictions disappear aswell.


Allah's Apostle said, "When the Adhan is pronounced Satan takes to his heels and passes wind with noise during his flight in order not to hear the Adhan. When the Adhan is completed he comes back and again takes to his heels when the Iqama is pronounced and after its completion he returns again till he whispers into the heart of the person (to divert his attention from his prayer) and makes him remember things which he does not recall to his mind before the prayer and that causes him to forget how much he has prayed.

Yes, for Hadithists, to make disappear contradictions is as easy for Satan, a jinn, to pass wind!



In the Quran, it is said, that alcohol is not allowed at namaz time. It is also said that alcohol is not allowed at any time. Is this not a contradiction?
However, if we examine the context of these verses and the chronology of these verses we can see that they make perfect sense.


Are you going to tell me there are contradictions in the Quran now whereas you give divine status to the compilations of Bukhari .

Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.[4:82] Trans. Y. Ali

There are no contradictions in the Quran. It is the corrupt mullahs who perpetuate the bogus theory of abrogation of verses to legitimise their lies in Hadith.



Too quickly are we jumping on this bandwagon to revolutionise our religion not knowing the sacrifices and pains our scholars went through to deliver our religion to us.

If only we could see the status of these most pious of men we would understand what it means to be a scholar. Too easy is it to sit behind a screen and present a logical argument. Too easy is it to slander those who sacrificed their lives for this beautiful religion of ours. Too easy is it to be clever.

But, tell me, how many here are really willing to go the whole ten yards? Who here will travel the muslim world for years on end to determine the truth from the falsehood? Who will sacrifice their lives for such a deed?

Perhaps we should examine ourselves before we slander our scholar.

I do not see anything wrong with questioning what the scholars of previous generations recorded. Infact the only way we can find out whether they were sincere to the cause of Islam is critically looking at the text of each and every Hadith and use reason to determine whether our Prophet could have uttered such words. I give another example below

Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion.

MIG
6th October 2006, 12:45
I simply do not understand how people here are doubting the character of one of Islams most illustrious personalities !

I really take offense to the way you are referring to Imam Bukhari as Bukhari Sahib like he is the guy living down your street or something!

This thread has gone far enough - Garbage Can you are totally out of order. This is no longer a discussion on the merits of Hadith ( written in Arabic that you or most here don not even comprehend ! but are far too happy to discuss) - its an attempt to undermine Islam by some pseudo intellectualism. I cannot be a party to this - not in this holiest of months.

Thread closed - May ALLAH forgive OUR sins and May ALLAH reward ALL those individuals who devoted their lives to conveying the traditions of the Prophet PBUH.

Merc Can reopen this thread but I would strongly suggest that above post be deleted.

And Btw, Garbage, here is some educational material on Hadith from an Arabic speaker ( not a reciter of the English version)



The word "Hadith", comes from the root word "Hadatha" which means an occurrence, a happening.

The one who relates this happening is called, as you have already guessed, a Muhaddith.

However, linguistically, in Arabic only real events qualify to be called "Hadatha". A fictional account is called a "Hikaaya".

When a Christian or Jewish Arab uses the word 'Hadith" it is understood by ALL Arabs that a true occurence is being referred to. The word might have a religious connotation for Muslims, but it is not necessarily the case with Arabs. The context is of course important.

"Hadith" then, refers to a narration of a "Hadatha".

The Quraan is therefore a "Hadith" in the technical sense.

Mercenary
7th October 2006, 03:09
I simply do not understand how people here are doubting the character of one of Islams most illustrious personalities !

I really take offense to the way you are referring to Imam Bukhari as Bukhari Sahib like he is the guy living down your street or something!

I've always been very strong on defaming people or calling them names, garbage can is completely out of order here.


Merc Can reopen this thread but I would strongly suggest that above post be deleted.

Ok.

I'm going to re-open this thread but on the condition that no-one attacks personalities like Bukhari or anyone else. If you wan't to make the point about a certain Hadith being unauthentic then back it up and use mellow language to make your point. No need to use insults or harsh words.

That applies to the 'but I can't discuss Islam without a scholar brigade' too

Also those who uphold the prominence of Hadith should do more to defend their position than to copy and paste lectures, post links, say 'I don't know why but you're wrong' or use emotional arguments about 'but they were good men and had good intentions'

What never ceases to amaze me is that those that question the unassailability of Hadith can usually back their positions quite well, whilst those that oppose them resort to trying to get the thread closed down and posts deleted.

z10
7th October 2006, 03:20
You are giving an erroneous impression that Hadith is restricted to the narrations of Bukhari even if we are to believe the story that "all his hadith are authentic". Thats another problem with Hadith lovers. Out of fear that they not be humiliated in a debate they pick and choose as they see fit.

actually, all my posts above relate to the collection of Bukhari alone. Never once did i talk of other collections.




Here is one from Bukhari that appears to be really authentic

During the pre-Islamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, beCause it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.

Give me a reference number for this hadith. Besides which, as i have said, because this hadith does not appeal to logic we are prone to attack it.





Yes He travelled hundreds of miles for this Hadith below

The Prophet said, "When you hear the crowing of cocks, ask for Allah's Blessings for (their crowing indicates that) they have seen an angel. And when you hear the braying of donkeys, seek refuge with Allah from Satan for (their braying indicates) that they have seen a Satan."


What makes you think I will believe that the Prophet uttered this nonsense. This hadith puts into perspective the bogus science of Hadith and the absurdity of focusing on the isnad rather than the matn of the Hadith.

Again a reference please. Also, on what authority can you call this nonsense? On what basis?












Allah's Apostle said, "When the Adhan is pronounced Satan takes to his heels and passes wind with noise during his flight in order not to hear the Adhan. When the Adhan is completed he comes back and again takes to his heels when the Iqama is pronounced and after its completion he returns again till he whispers into the heart of the person (to divert his attention from his prayer) and makes him remember things which he does not recall to his mind before the prayer and that causes him to forget how much he has prayed.

Yes, for Hadithists, to make disappear contradictions is as easy for Satan, a jinn, to pass wind!

Oh please. We defend against the literal meaning of the Quran with context, what makes this situation so different? Is it because we are actively looking for a reason to criticise?

Also, once again, a reference.




Are you going to tell me there are contradictions in the Quran now whereas you give divine status to the compilations of Bukhari .

Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.[4:82] Trans. Y. Ali

There are no contradictions in the Quran. It is the corrupt mullahs who perpetuate the bogus theory of abrogation of verses to legitimise their lies in Hadith.

If you reread i never said there are contradictions in the Quran. I said that there can appear to be contradictions if we do not take context into account.




Let this be a lesson for all thinking individuals. Don't sacrifice your valuable time and energy spewing out this nonsense as our learned Bukhari Sahib did

Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion.

Reference again.

garbage_can2003
7th October 2006, 03:24
I've always been very strong on defaming people or calling them names, garbage can is completely out of order here.


As promised I have edited my earlier post to delete remarks that some thought to be offensive.

Mercenary
7th October 2006, 03:47
As promised I have edited my earlier post to delete remarks that some thought to be offensive.

you're falling into the same trap you like to criticise.

You claim the Hadith collectors were more concerned with the isnad than with the matn and I'm inclined to agree with that.

But then you yourself concentrate more on crtiticising the isnad (the people behind the collection) rather than the matn (the questionable Hadith)!

Mercenary
7th October 2006, 03:48
z10, i'd be interested to know your answer to post 122 of this thread

z10
7th October 2006, 03:51
z10, i'd be interested to know your answer to post 122 of this thread


have seen it, fear not ;)

there are a number of issues there, let me articulate my answer

garbage_can2003
7th October 2006, 04:04
actually, all my posts above relate to the collection of Bukhari alone. Never once did i talk of other collections.


So you don't believe the rest to be a part of your religion? Hmmm.....



Give me a reference number for this hadith.


Seriously, do you think I am making this up?

Narrated by Amr bin Maimun "During the pre-Islamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, beCause it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them." Bukhari Hadith 5.188



Besides which, as i have said, because this hadith does not appeal to logic we are prone to attack it.

So are you saying our Prophet, who according to the Quran had the highest of characters, spent time stoning Monkeys i.e. if we are to even believe in the absurdity of monkeys stoning each other.




Again a reference please. Also, on what authority can you call this nonsense? On what basis?


Narrated by Abu Huraira, The Prophet said, "When you hear the crowing of cocks, ask for Allah's Blessings for (their crowing indicates that) they have seen an angel. And when you hear the braying of donkeys, seek refuge with Allah from Satan for (their braying indicates) that they have seen a Satan. Bukhari Hadith 4.522

Braying is the natural voice of a donkey. Why would the Prophet associate it with the Satan. Moreover, the Prophet did not have any special powers to know all this. But I am not surprised that you cannot see this.




Oh please. We defend against the literal meaning of the Quran with context, what makes this situation so different? Is it because we are actively looking for a reason to criticise?

Also, once again, a reference.


Narrated by Abu Huraira, Allah's Apostle said, "When the Adhan is pronounced Satan takes to his heels and passes wind with noise during his flight in order not to hear the Adhan. When the Adhan is completed he comes back and again takes to his heels when the Iqama is pronounced and after its completion he returns again till he whispers into the heart of the person (to divert his attention from his prayer) and makes him remember things which he does not recall to his mind before the prayer and that causes him to forget how much he has prayed. [Bukhari Hadith 1.582

Satan does not possess physical attributes to **** OK. Also as I said before the Prophet did not possess special powers to know what satan did or did not know. Moreover, what is the point of this Hadith? How does it help us become better muslims? Is there any lesson to be gleaned from the fact that Satan farts during Adhan? Are you that gullible?



If you reread i never said there are contradictions in the Quran. I said that there can appear to be contradictions if we do not take context into account.



OK. But I hope you know that our clergy is taught the theory of abrogation of some verses in the Quran in madarasas just because they think they contradict one another.



Reference again.

Narrated by Abu Said Al Khudri, Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion." Bukhari Hadith 1.301

Wazeeri
7th October 2006, 04:40
here's a use of the prophet

He (Allâh) is the One who raised up, among the unlettered, a Messenger from among themselves who recites the verses of Allâh, and makes them pure, and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom. (62:2)

garbage_can2003
7th October 2006, 04:55
you're falling into the same trap you like to criticise.

You claim the Hadith collectors were more concerned with the isnad than with the matn and I'm inclined to agree with that.

But then you yourself concentrate more on crtiticising the isnad (the people behind the collection) rather than the matn (the questionable Hadith)!

There are clear differences in being critical, being sarcastic, and being abusive.

Have I been abusive to the isnad and the compilers? I don't believe so.
Have I been sarcastic? possibly.
Have I been critical of the isnad and the compilers? Ofcourse. Because the Matn leads me to doubt them.


By looking at the Matn and using my powers of reason given to me by Allah, I can say with confidence that there are a lot of problems with Hadith.

Now knowing that the Quran has been preserved in its pure form since it was revealed to the Prophet, I know that the Prophet could not have said such things because the Quran holds him in the highest regard. The only logical conclusion remaining in that either the isnad is to blame or the compilers. There is no third alternative.

And by the way I hav'nt criticised anyone personally. All criticism has been through the way of the Matn or other Hadith texts.

Last, when you say that you agree with me on questionable Hadith like the one which hints to the Quran not being complete, you are also indirectly criticising those who either narrated the Hadiths or compiled them. You just don't realize it ...... yet. :)

Mercenary
7th October 2006, 06:22
There are clear differences in being critical, being sarcastic, and being abusive.

words like nonsense don't lead to constructive arguments


Now knowing that the Quran has been preserved in its pure form since it was revealed to the Prophet, I know that the Prophet could not have said such things because the Quran holds him in the highest regard. The only logical conclusion remaining in that either the isnad is to blame or the compilers. There is no third alternative.

Just because you don't agree with something due to a 'gut instinct' that doesn't automatically mean that the Prophet didn't say it. People need more proof than that.


Last, when you say that you agree with me on questionable Hadith like the one which hints to the Quran not being complete, you are also indirectly criticising those who either narrated the Hadiths or compiled them. You just don't realize it ...... yet. :)

Not necessarily. I could believe that they made their compliations with the best of intentions but due to the technique they adopted or the sheer enormity of the task that faced them they were bound to slip up in some places.

Wazeeri
7th October 2006, 18:49
Garbage

I have debated with you over three threads now and you seem to have a rude way of debating. It isn't constructive, remember we are here to try and come to a consensus and stay united.

The stoning of the monkeys could be a dream he had. He may have been using it as a metaphor. You said that the mat'n of the hadhith makes it questionable but when Z10 put forward some islamic concepts from the Quran which could be questionable you said that his point was irrelevant.

I think it is very relevant to question why miraj, a fatherless baby, a speaking toddler, splitting of the moon, sticks turning into snakes, water parting way for people to walk through.....etc is not questionable to you.

================================================== ============

We learn Hajj, Prayers...etc from our parents and the chain goes back to the prophet

Why are hadiths questionable because of the effect of chinese whispers but chains which contain billions of good and corrupt people immune to this problem?

Can you please also explain how we know which animals are pious thus Halal to eat and others not so?

Where has the prophet explained this?

Why do we differ in our prayers...etc

We differ in our prayers because the hadiths which were collected and scrutinised were sahih but the time of the event mentioned in them was not recorded. All styles of prayers were practiced by the prophet, we differ on which was the last one.

Not all Sahaba were with the prophet in his last days so not all received the latest updates before his death. Many had already spread the earlier ways to the followers and this caused the differences to be cemented.

Remember the Quran orders us to pray twice, which was correct at the time but later it was revised to 5. So there is an example in the quran of the change in the style of prayers.

my views

Some people claim that they can understand the quran without learning arabic just by using logic and a dictionary. Anyone who knows more than one language which all of us do would know that, that isn't true.

There are words which don't have a translation from Urdu into English, In some languages you can say things in 4 words which other languages would take 12 words to say. You have to learn arabic in detail, you have to learn history in detail, you have to learn the quran in detail.

These qualifications are generally found only in who we call the scholars. No one on this forum can claim to have these qualities so arguing that we know more than people like Bukhari or any other scholar are incorrect. Or that we are better placed to reach a conclusion on the meaning of arabic verses will not hold and believing that we can understand messages from a different language without knowing the language and without explanation is naive at best.

I think atleast any sahih Hadhiths which explain the Quran or has not been refuted by other hadiths should be cemented and followed without reservations. It is really hard for someone to sneak in a lie without a challenge from the pious. Allah would never allow it.

Joseph K.
7th October 2006, 22:27
The message was timeless, the messenger, a human (hence time-bound). Nothing should be allowed to take the place of Koran, that means NOTHING. Allah will not forgive shirk under any circumstances. To stay on the safe side we should read Koran as much and as often as posiible. We should read it in translation and any hadith that contradicts Koran or its basic message of Tauhid, Shahadah, haqooq Allah (salat etc) and haqooq ul ibaad (the laws, zakat etc) should be openly discussed and deconstructed. This is a great thread and it must be kept going. Allah ordered us to use our brains, this order is repeated again and again in Koran. What worldly authority can over-rule the word of Allah Himself? I am very afraid that the Ahadith have become a sort of parallel text to Koran which is dangerous. People even go to the length of saying that we can not understand Koran without hadith. Allah made Islam easy. We have over-complicated the situation by mixing and mathcing texts. If Allah had wanted to write a rigid inflexible text like the Old Testament (changed and thoroughly mixed up by the impious rabbis) he would have done so. He gave Adam reason, taught him names and the things that even angels didn't know and above all he sent down his message again and again. Koran is the last reminder in a long tradition of revelations. We have seen other messages made inauthentic by human intervention in the highest and the most important aspects of religion. We must not forget that the prophet was a human being otherwise we will be making the same mistake that the Christians made. Message is more important than the messenger. Message is universal, the messenger was human, hence temporal and subject to the needs and requirements of his time and place. We live in a different time, in different places. We have the universal Book of Allah, we should not need anything else.

Wazeeri
7th October 2006, 22:49
I agree with the first part of your post but saying that we need nothing but the Quran is not correct. The Ahadiths are not from Allah and thus may contain errors like the bible, torah ...etc but what we must aknowledge is the fact that Allah did not send a recorded message in the form of the prophet.

He sent him messages for all the mankind and he gave the Prophet(pbuh) hikmah to understand and explain the message of Allah. Leaving the Quran open to multiple interpretations was not Allah's will that is why the prophet was sent to
....teach the book.. His teachings are preserved in the hadhiths.


There are many ayats which have no explanation without background information which is contained in no other place than the Hadiths for example
The Quran in some places says Zaalikal Kitaab meaning "That book" when it is talking about the Quran and not Hazrul Kitaab this book. The prophet was there to explain these verses to the people at his times but now we have to rely on the accounts of the people who recieved these explanations.

Similarly the ayat about allah not forgiving anyone who does injustice, caused many problems among the Ummah as well. How can Allah say that when the only thing he had previously said he would not forgive was Shirk?????
The prophet explained to the people that the injustice mentioned meant Shirk.

Muslims before us have worked with the tools they had to rid the world of hadiths which may be lies. Some of these lies may still be in the Sahih hadiths that we have. Using new technology or whatever tools the previous scholars have missed we should try to get rid of these hadiths but without proof against any of these accounts we are depriving ourselves of explanations of the Quran.

The Quran is complete and it is easy to understand but it needs to be explained to you and that is why the prophet was sent to us with hikmah.

mumtaz
8th October 2006, 00:55
Garbage

I have debated with you over three threads now and you seem to have a rude way of debating. It isn't constructive, remember we are here to try and come to a consensus and stay united.

The stoning of the monkeys could be a dream he had. He may have been using it as a metaphor. You said that the mat'n of the hadhith makes it questionable but when Z10 put forward some islamic concepts from the Quran which could be questionable you said that his point was irrelevant.

I think it is very relevant to question why miraj, a fatherless baby, a speaking toddler, splitting of the moon, sticks turning into snakes, water parting way for people to walk through.....etc is not questionable to you.

================================================== ============

We learn Hajj, Prayers...etc from our parents and the chain goes back to the prophet

Why are hadiths questionable because of the effect of chinese whispers but chains which contain billions of good and corrupt people immune to this problem?

Can you please also explain how we know which animals are pious thus Halal to eat and others not so?

Where has the prophet explained this?
Why do we differ in our prayers...etc

We differ in our prayers because the hadiths which were collected and scrutinised were sahih but the time of the event mentioned in them was not recorded. All styles of prayers were practiced by the prophet, we differ on which was the last one.

Not all Sahaba were with the prophet in his last days so not all received the latest updates before his death. Many had already spread the earlier ways to the followers and this caused the differences to be cemented.

Remember the Quran orders us to pray twice, which was correct at the time but later it was revised to 5. So there is an example in the quran of the change in the style of prayers.

my views

Some people claim that they can understand the quran without learning arabic just by using logic and a dictionary. Anyone who knows more than one language which all of us do would know that, that isn't true.

There are words which don't have a translation from Urdu into English, In some languages you can say things in 4 words which other languages would take 12 words to say. You have to learn arabic in detail, you have to learn history in detail, you have to learn the quran in detail.

These qualifications are generally found only in who we call the scholars. No one on this forum can claim to have these qualities so arguing that we know more than people like Bukhari or any other scholar are incorrect. Or that we are better placed to reach a conclusion on the meaning of arabic verses will not hold and believing that we can understand messages from a different language without knowing the language and without explanation is naive at best.

I think atleast any sahih Hadhiths which explain the Quran or has not been refuted by other hadiths should be cemented and followed without reservations. It is really hard for someone to sneak in a lie without a challenge from the pious. Allah would never allow it.

This point is invalid IMHO. Surely something that is transferred through practical consensus of all people would be less prone to error than something which has been reported only by a few people.

As regards your second point about animals, again its human nature to not like to eat animals such as lion, elephant, donkey, horse, dog, cat etc. If that were not the case, we would find an Elephant burger at McDonald's. Hence, there was no need to prohibit these in the Quran as anyone in his right mind would not be eating these anyway.

The only animal that is prohibited in the Quran is hence the pig, which is something that humans do generally eat.

Peronally, since I believe that the Prophet (PBUH) completed his mission of delivering Allah's message to the ultimate possible level for all times to come, I believe that the Hadith cannot add to the basic corpus of Islam since if it did, the Prophet would have made sure that these are explained, verified and written during his lifetime. The only other alternative would be to say that the Prophet's mission was completed by Imam Bukhari and Muslim (God Forbid).

The only functions that the Hadith could serve are
- the explanation and clarification of the directives given in the Qur'an and the Sunnah
- the ideal example set by the Prophet (pbuh) in carrying out the directives of the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

where Sunnah is defined to be the practical teachings of the Prophet that he taught to all his sahaba and have been passed from generation to generation through the practical consensus of the Muslims.

Therefore, Hadith must NOT be used as an independent source of Shariah, otherwise it would be tantamount to the same unfounded claim against the Prophet that he did not complete his mission to the ultimate possible level for all times to come. It can only be used as a secondary source whereby it explains something which is already in Quran and Sunnah.

Keeping in mind a significant number of errors and the contradictions in the books of Hadith, it would be best if ordinary Muslims stay clear of these for there is a great chance of getting misguided. They should use only the Quran and the Sunnah to conduct their day-to-day affairs.

Meanwhile, there is a strong need in the Ummah for someone to gather some courage and revise the books of Sahih Hadith and reject Hadith on the basis of their content.

garbage_can2003
8th October 2006, 04:02
Garbage

I have debated with you over three threads now and you seem to have a rude way of debating. It isn't constructive, remember we are here to try and come to a consensus and stay united.


I will try my best to be polite. In turn I would also like you to be a little open minded about there being serious problems with Islamic literature with the exception of the Quran.



Can you please also explain how we know which animals are pious thus Halal to eat and others not so?

Where has the prophet explained this?


The Quran informs us the Prophet was not authorized to prohibit (make haram) anything which Allah has made Halal.

Consider this verse

Here is Yousuf Ali's translation

O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts. But Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.[66:1]

Concentrate on the tone Allah is using in this verse. It is clear Allah is not happy with the Prophet for making things unlawful which He has made lawful.

This is the translation and tafseer of Muhammad Asad, another "Mainstream" translator of the Quran.

O PROPHET! Why dost thou, out of a desire to please [one or another of] thy wives, impose [on thyself] a prohibition of something that God has made lawful to thee? (1) But God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace: [66:1]

The explanation (Tafseer)

1 - There are several essentially conflicting - and, therefore, in their aggregate, not very trustworthy - reports as to the exact reason or reasons why, at some time during the second half of the Medina period, the Prophet declared on oath that for one month he would have no intercourse with any of his wives. Still, while the exact reason cannot be established with certainty, it is sufficiently clear from the above-mentioned ahadith that this emotional, temporary renunciation of marital life was caused by a display of mutual jealousy among some of the Prophet\'s wives. In any case, the purport of the above Qur 'anic allusion to this incident is not biographical but, rather, intended to bring out a moral lesson applicable to all human situations: namely, the inadmissibility of regarding as forbidden (haram) anything that God has made lawful (halal), even if such an attitude happens to be motivated by the desire to please another person or other persons. Apart from this, it serves to illustrate the fact - repeatedly stressed in the Qur'an - that the Prophet was but a human being, and therefore subject to human emotions and even liable to commit an occasional mistake (which in his case, however, was invariably pointed out to him, and thus rectified, through divine revelation).

I can understand you not believing me but surely you must have valid reasons for dismissing the views of scholars considered mainstream by the majority of the muslims.

Wazeeri
8th October 2006, 16:34
Here is Yousuf Ali's translation
O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts. But Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.[66:1]
Concentrate on the tone Allah is using in this verse. It is clear Allah is not happy with the Prophet for making things unlawful which He has made lawful.

Yes that happened once when the prophet said something wrong in a conversation with his wives. Had it happened again he woud have been questioned once again.

You are failing to understand the basic points


“And we have also sent down unto you {O Muhammad (saws) the Dhikr, reminder and the advice (i.e. the Qura’n)** that you may explain clearly to men what is sent down to them, and that they may give thought.” (16:44)

He was sent down to explain clearly to men what was sent down to them. Which means the quran is easy to understand but it needs explaining. The prophet(pbuh) isn't making what is halal, haram or what is haram, Halal. He is just explaining to everyone in detail what is meant by the Quranic verses.

These explanations are needed and they are conserved in the Hadiths and nowhere else.

Wazeeri
8th October 2006, 16:49
[QUOTE=mumtaz]This point is invalid IMHO. Surely something that is transferred through practical consensus of all people would be less prone to error than something which has been reported only by a few people.


When was this practical consensus held? When did everyone come together to reconcile what they thought was right?



As regards your second point about animals, again its human nature to not like to eat animals such as lion, elephant, donkey, horse, dog, cat etc. If that were not the case, we would find an Elephant burger at McDonald's.

All of the above named animals are eaten in many countries. The Arabs used to eat the donkeys before islam, dogs are still eaten in Korea, cats in china (1/4th of the worlds population ). So that totally invalidates your point as your point contains false facts.



Peronally, since I believe that the Prophet (PBUH) completed his mission of delivering Allah's message to the ultimate possible level for all times to come, I believe that the Hadith cannot add to the basic corpus of Islam since if it did, the Prophet would have made sure that these are explained, verified and written during his lifetime. The only other alternative would be to say that the Prophet's mission was completed by Imam Bukhari and Muslim (God Forbid).

The prophet never asked the Quran to be compiled as well. No one thought about doing so in his lifetime because it seemed that telling the current generation was enough, as they would pass it on to the next.




where Sunnah is defined to be the practical teachings of the Prophet that he taught to all his sahaba and have been passed from generation to generation through the practical consensus of the Muslims.

Where is this practical conensus??? When did it happen?
For a consensus to take place people should really have come together and agreed on something. If they haven't than they have been doing something individually and thus they are prone to chinese whispers and I have given an example of how the salaat was changed in the subcontinent due to one errorneous book.


Therefore, Hadith must NOT be used as an independent source of Shariah, otherwise it would be tantamount to the same unfounded claim against the Prophet that he did not complete his mission to the ultimate possible level for all times to come. It can only be used as a secondary source whereby it explains something which is already in Quran and Sunnah.

No one is claiming otherwise. We just have to come to an agreement that not everything in the Quran is straightforward and some ayats need explanations from the prophet which were not given directly.


Keeping in mind a significant number of errors and the contradictions in the books of Hadith, it would be best if ordinary Muslims stay clear of these for there is a great chance of getting misguided. They should use only the Quran and the Sunnah to conduct their day-to-day affairs.

Ordinary muslims shouldn't be looking to issue fatwas and making their own interpretations. For someone to be able to do so they should understand the arabic language minutely, be well versed in the history of arabia, the history of islam....etc and then they can issue their own interpretations.


Meanwhile, there is a strong need in the Ummah for someone to gather some courage and revise the books of Sahih Hadith and reject Hadith on the basis of their content.

please note the following sentences have not been intended as aggressive
No that is where I differ with you. You cannot approach learning about islam by having an attitude that you already know what islam is and you are only just confirming.

Bukhari, Malik, Hanifa, Mulsim...etc all must have found things in the hadiths they collected which they thought were questionable. But they were not there to judge they were there to learn. If you can't find anything wrong with transmitters or the transmissions you have to accept it until you do find something.

Otherwise you are claiming that you already know islam better than everyone else. In which case the question arises "Who are you"? and who do you think you are?

Mercenary
8th October 2006, 20:46
All of the above named animals are eaten in many countries. The Arabs used to eat the donkeys before islam, dogs are still eaten in Korea, cats in china (1/4th of the worlds population ). So that totally invalidates your point as your point contains false facts.

Wouldn't that then apply to the Sahih Hadith if we found one was wrong or contradictory?


The prophet never asked the Quran to be compiled as well. No one thought about doing so in his lifetime because it seemed that telling the current generation was enough, as they would pass it on to the next.

The Quran always refers to itself as a completed book, it never refers to itself as scattered parchments mixed with memorisation. Now either the Sahabah changed the Quran and added words like complete and book after they compiled it (Astagfirullah) or there was a book that was being referred to.


Bukhari, Malik, Hanifa, Mulsim...etc all must have found things in the hadiths they collected which they thought were questionable. But they were not there to judge they were there to learn. If you can't find anything wrong with transmitters or the transmissions you have to accept it until you do find something.

And this is where the flaw lies in the Hadith of Science. They relied entirely on the isnad and the matn was irrelevant! You forget that they weren't compiling a phone directory, the important part of the Sahih collections is not the list of names but the text of the accounts!!

Countless Hadith contain words like I forget or I have forgotten which should invalidate them since it is an incomplete Hadith but as you say they weren't interested in the text only the names.

Besides which every person is fallible, no matter how trustworthy they are, they can and do make mistakes. The very concept of establishing someone as 'trustworthy' and then accepting every word from their mouth as gospel truth is flawed and dangerous!

mumtaz
8th October 2006, 23:35
When was this practical consensus held? When did everyone come together to reconcile what they thought was right?

I think you misunderstood my point. You dont need to sit together and come to a consensus. If everyone in the society is doing the same thing, then you can say that there is practical consensus among them on that thing. So for example, if every Muslim believes that you have to pray 5 times a day, then you can say that there is consensus among the Muslims that that prayer needs to be established 5 times daily.

This consensus has been there ever since the time of the Prophet (PBUH) and has been transmitted from generation to generation without alteration. Other things that Muslims have always had a practical consensus are:


Mentioning God's name and then eating and drinking with the right hand;

Greeting one another with "Assalaam Alaikum" and responding to such greeting with "Wa Alaikum Assalaam";

Saying "Alhamdulillah" after sneezing and responding to it with "YarhamukAllah";

Saying Adhan in the right ear of a new born baby and saying Iqamah in his left ear;

Slaughtering animals in a way that most of the blood is drained from their bodies;

The Nikah (Marriage) ceremony;

Delivering the Nikah sermon;

Trimming moustaches;

Shaving the pubic hair;

Shaving hair from under the armpits;

Circumcising the male offspring;

Clipping nails;

Cleaning the nose, the mouth and the teeth;

Cleaning the body after urination and defecation;

The ceremonial bath (ghusl-e-janabah) after sexual intercourse or orgasm;

Bathing the dead before burial;

Shrouding a dead body;

Burying the dead;

Wudhu (ablution);

Tayammum;

Adhan;

Iqamah before the prayers;

Building and overseeing of mosques for prayers;

The five obligatory prayers;

The Jum`ah congregation;

The Eid Prayers;

The Janazah Prayers;

Fasting;

Aitikaf;

Eid al-fitr

Sadqah of Eid al-fitr;

Zaka'h;

Hadi (Sacrificial animals brought to the Ka`bah);

Tawaf (Circumambulating the Ka`bah);

Sanctity of the Ka`bah;

The sacred months;

Hajj and Umrah;

Eid al-Adha;

Sacrificing animals on Eid al-Adha;

Saying Takbirs after prayers during the days of Tashriq

Notice that all of these things are done by all Muslims (practical consensus) and you are taught all of these things by your parents/society. The perpetual transmission still continues today, you just have to look around you and see, in fact I dont know any person who has learnt these things from the Hadith. Just like the Quran was preserved by the verbal consensus of the Sahaba, the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) i.e. his practical teachings, was preserved by the practical consensus of the Sahaba. The Quran and Sunnah together constitute our Deen and are equally immutable as well as equally binding on all Muslims.

The Prophet (PBUH) did complete his mission to the ultimate possible level for all times to come. By making the above-mentioned things binding on all society, he made sure that these would be transferred from generation to generation without any changes.

I do not understand how this methodology is prone to chinese whispers.

garbage_can2003
9th October 2006, 01:13
Wouldn't that then apply to the Sahih Hadith if we found one was wrong or contradictory?


I am amazed to see the pro-hadith crowd ignoring this argument as if it did not exist while at the same time giving the same argument when defending Islam with the Christians and Jews that their scriptures no longer exist in their pristine form.

Mercenary
9th October 2006, 16:59
have seen it, fear not ;)

there are a number of issues there, let me articulate my answer

anytime this week?

Wazeeri
11th October 2006, 02:18
First of all sorry to anyone who doesn't like these debates and is annoyed by me bringing it up again. I was busy at work so couldn't reply earlier.


Wouldn't that then apply to the Sahih Hadith if we found one was wrong or contradictory?

No I didn't find one wrong or contradictory I found them all wrong. Mumtaz implied that eating dogs, donkeys....etc was against human nature.


The Quran always refers to itself as a completed book, it never refers to itself as scattered parchments mixed with memorisation. Now either the Sahabah changed the Quran and added words like complete and book after they compiled it (Astagfirullah) or there was a book that was being referred to.

The Quran was completed but not compiled. Had there been a codex from the time of the prophet do you think the Sahaba would have allowed any harm to come to it? The guys who carried around his cloak, his swords, his hair....etc do you think they would not have taken care of the very thing the prophet came to deliver? The message which made islam, the quran compiled by the prophet himself?

Do you know of any such codex which is attributed to the prophet's time? Has any codex been dated at the prophet's time?


And this is where the flaw lies in the Hadith of Science. They relied entirely on the isnad and the matn was irrelevant! You forget that they weren't compiling a phone directory, the important part of the Sahih collections is not the list of names but the text of the accounts!!

Brother the point of the whole exercise was to find out Hadith which were Sahih ie they were from the Sahaba. By the process of elimination they managed to do that.

Not Bukhari, not hanifa, not malik, not me and not you are the judge of the mat'n. We have not met the prophet neither did he teach the message to us. The Sahaba were the judge of the matn and that is who we are trying to trace the statements back to.



Countless Hadith contain words like I forget or I have forgotten which should invalidate them since it is an incomplete Hadith but as you say they weren't interested in the text only the names.

Again we are only trying to trace the statements back to the sahaba. Most of these hadiths have been used to backup other hadiths so the hadiths which do give a message are not considered Ahad and thus more questionable

Following is an example

Volume 8, Book 78, Number 664:

Narrated Ibn Mas'ud:

that Allah's Prophet led them in the Zuhr prayer and he offered either more or less Rakat, and it was said to him, "O Allah's Apostle ! Has the prayer been reduced, or have you forgotten?" He asked, "What is that?" They said, "You have prayed so many Rak'at." So he performed with them two more prostrations and said, "These two prostrations are to be performed by the person who does not know whether he has prayed more or less (Rakat) in which case he should seek to follow what is right. And then complete the rest (of the prayer) and perform two extra prostrations."

Volume 1, Book 8, Number 398
Narrated 'Abdullah:
"Once the Prophet offered five Rakat in Zuhr prayer. He was asked, "Is there an increase in the prayer?" The Prophet said, "And what is it?" They said, "You have prayed five Rakat.' So he bent his legs and performed two prostrations (of Sahu).

Fatwas are generally not deduced on the first Hadith but regardless it provided evidence that the following event did occur.


Besides which every person is fallible, no matter how trustworthy they are, they can and do make mistakes. The very concept of establishing someone as 'trustworthy' and then accepting every word from their mouth as gospel truth is flawed and dangerous!

Well said and that is why we have spent so much time scrutinising Ahad Hadiths, people's characters and comparing different narrations.


I am amazed to see the pro-hadith crowd ignoring this argument as if it did not exist while at the same time giving the same argument when defending Islam with the Christians and Jews that their scriptures no longer exist in their pristine form.

Brother our primary source still exists, we have not allowed the words of Allah to be mixed up with those of the prophets and the followers.

It is acknowledged that the hadiths are not 100% complete. Infact the muhadiths have themselves accepted that claim. Hadiths give us a very good indication of what happened at the prophet's times. The decissions he made and the explanations he gave.

Wazeeri
11th October 2006, 02:30
Mumtaz


I do not understand how this methodology is prone to chinese whispers.

Brother I cannot ignore the fact that your post is a copy and paste but to the author of the post I would like to say that all of these things are in fact prone to chinese whispers. Not everyone prays 5 times a day and not everyone has time to teach their children. Thus change is very mush possible.

Another argument would be that the Hadith were also instituted in the followers of the prophet. Or that whatever was instituted by the prophet among his followers was written down by the muhadiths to ensure no lies originate.

mumtaz
11th October 2006, 06:39
Mumtaz



Brother I cannot ignore the fact that your post is a copy and paste but to the author of the post I would like to say that all of these things are in fact prone to chinese whispers. Not everyone prays 5 times a day and not everyone has time to teach their children. Thus change is very mush possible.

Another argument would be that the Hadith were also instituted in the followers of the prophet. Or that whatever was instituted by the prophet among his followers was written down by the muhadiths to ensure no lies originate.

I just took the list of the items of Sunnah from somewhere but the rest of the post was written by yours truly.

Coming back to your post, I am sorry but I still dont see the point. The point I am trying to make is very simple. If 99% of the people do the same thing compared to 1% of the people report the same thing, what is the better method of transmission of information meaning which is more likely to be accurate?

Conversely, you can look at it like "Do I know any one Muslim who learnt all these things from the books of Hadith". I personally dont know any and whoever I have asked the same question, doesnt know any.

The third way to see the same thing is "Are you more likely to report something accurately if you have seen or heard it or something which you are taught and you keep doing it all your life." The latter corresponds to the these practices of the Holy Prophet while the former corresponds to Hadith.

The fourth way to think of the same thing is to say, "If hypothetically, the books of Hadith were to disappear today, would Muslims start praying 4 times a day somewhere down the line".

Whichever way you look at the problem, you should come to the same conclusion i.e. these practices of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) that he taught to his sahaba are as immutable as the Quran itself for all times to come, not dependent on Hadith as a medium of transmission and not prone to chinese whispers like the Hadith.

Once you understand all of the above, you can take the next step and say that Quran and these practices which I term the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet are the only things that constitute Islam since these are the only things Prophet ensured during his lifetime that would be transmitted as they are for all times to come. The Hadith can only be used to explain what is already in Quran and Sunnah but these cannot be used to add anything new to Islam.

zaf1986
11th October 2006, 12:44
That's quite a stretch.

How are we forced to disobey the Quran? In fact by obeying the Quran we are obeying the Prophet too since he was the vehicle through which we received it.
Still doesn't explain why the Quran says "Obey the Prophet" and not just "Obey Allah" or "Obey the Quran".

Mercenary
11th October 2006, 19:15
Still doesn't explain why the Quran says "Obey the Prophet" and not just "Obey Allah" or "Obey the Quran".

The Quran was revealed during the Prophet's lifetime, whilst the Prophet was living, breathing and giving out commands.

Many of the Ayahs speak directly to the Sahabah and the people of the Prophet's time. So of course we will find Ayah's which ask people to obey the Prophet, it makes perfect logical sense!

However if Allah meant 'Obey the Prophet' to mean 'stick to Bukhari and Muslim' then surely the Quran would have said it. Surely the Prophet would have been aware of this and set up a seperate codex alongside the Quran.

The Quran itself would have referred to further instructions to be found in other volumes. The Quran wouldn't call itself complete and final, the Quran wouldn't be described as easy to understand.

The Quran would openly and clearly tell us that 'This Quran gives you the skeleton of your religion but the Prophet's words are the meat'

Is God trying to trick us? Is He trying to fool us?

Of course not!!

The Quran doesn't tell us to look for laws outside itself simply because there weren't meant to be any other books from God or His Prophet leaving us laws behind!

Even the Prophet told us not to write down his words!!

Mercenary
11th October 2006, 19:46
First of all sorry to anyone who doesn't like these debates and is annoyed by me bringing it up again. I was busy at work so couldn't reply earlier.

They don't have to click on the thread, let the debate continue.


The Quran was completed but not compiled. Had there been a codex from the time of the prophet do you think the Sahaba would have allowed any harm to come to it? The guys who carried around his cloak, his swords, his hair....etc do you think they would not have taken care of the very thing the prophet came to deliver? The message which made islam, the quran compiled by the prophet himself?

Perhaps because they realised that the real importance wasn't the piece of paper or skin that the Quran was written on but the words that comprised the message from God's appointed one!

If your argument had merit then every single parchment or bit of skin containing a verse directly dictated by the Prophet would be preserved to this day. Yet there isn't (to my knowledge) a single verse directly dictated by the Prophet available to us today.

Is that because they didn't respect the Quran or the Prophet's words? No it's because when they 'punctuated' the Quran to remove the variations in the meanings of certain words that looked the same, they would have destroyed all previous copies to keep the sanctity of the original message intact.

To the Sahabah, the important thing was the message and not the material. It was the words that needed preserving. Otherwise as you pointed out, if they could save his hair then why not the scraps of the Quran directly dictated by him?


Do you know of any such codex which is attributed to the prophet's time? Has any codex been dated at the prophet's time?

No, as I said above it was likely destroyed to avoid confusion after the punctuation episode. If the a Quran from the Uthmanic era can be preserved then why not parchments from the Prophets time?

This assertion of yours is very weak and raises even more questions rather than answering any.


Not Bukhari, not hanifa, not malik, not me and not you are the judge of the mat'n. We have not met the prophet neither did he teach the message to us. The Sahaba were the judge of the matn and that is who we are trying to trace the statements back to.

If it could be proved 100% beyond any doubt that those accounts are from the Sahabah and survived without manipulation or corruption then I would agree with you


Brother the point of the whole exercise was to find out Hadith which were Sahih ie they were from the Sahaba. By the process of elimination they managed to do that.

Again you are ignoring the arbitrary nature of the Science of Hadith. There is no Science to it. We can't classify certain people as 'trustworthy' and others as 'untrustworthy' without being able to read their thoughts.

I know certain people who do all manner of uncouth things but won't lie in the name of religion upon penalty of death.

On the other hand I know people who by outward appearance are the most holy of holy but they lie, cheat and make things up on the spot when losing an argument about religion!

Now 'based on reputation' we should believe everything the 'outwardly pious' ones say but in fact it's the ones that seem to be outwardly untrustworthy who I would trust! That is based on knowing both parties very well.

The whole idea of basing a whole religion around gossip, guesswork and innuendo is incomprehensible to me!


Brother our primary source still exists, we have not allowed the words of Allah to be mixed up with those of the prophets and the followers.

But what use is it? People race each other to complete it more times than anyone else but no-one wants to know the message it contains. After all we have Hadith, Imams and Scholars to do that for us!

garbage_can2003
12th October 2006, 03:10
Still doesn't explain why the Quran says "Obey the Prophet" and not just "Obey Allah" or "Obey the Quran".

The Quran does NOT say obey the Prophet. It says "Obey Allah and the messenger". Allah uses this precise language because the Quran is delivered through the messenger. We obey Allah by following what is being revealed through the messenger. What is the message? It is soley the Quran and nothing else.

Also no where in the Quran can we find the command "Obey Allah and Muhammad", for that would have justified all the extra Quranic literature.

zaf1986
12th October 2006, 10:13
[QUOTE=garbage_can2003 It is soley the Quran and nothing else.
.[/QUOTE]
It is a lie that Prophet Muhammad spoke nothing but the Quran, because Allah is saying in the Quran "we have sent you teach the book and wisdom" - (62:2).

If the wisdom is just in the book, there is no need to mention it separately. That it is mentioned, means there is more to the words of Muhammad than the Quran itself.

This, my dear brothers and sisters, is the meaning of Obeying Allah and his Messenger.

zaf1986
12th October 2006, 10:14
However if Allah meant 'Obey the Prophet' to mean 'stick to Bukhari and Muslim' then surely the Quran would have said it. Surely the Prophet would have been aware of this and set up a seperate codex alongside the Quran.
Don't put words in my mouth.

Wazeeri
12th October 2006, 22:30
I just took the list of the items of Sunnah from somewhere but the rest of the post was written by yours truly.

Brotrher the reason why I pointed it out was because I don't want to waste time debating with copy and paste. It is good if we both listen to each other reflect and then counter argue.


Coming back to your post, I am sorry but I still dont see the point. The point I am trying to make is very simple. If 99% of the people do the same thing compared to 1% of the people report the same thing, what is the better method of transmission of information meaning which is more likely to be accurate?

-Brother are you saying 99% of the people pray 5 times a day?
-Are you saying that 99% of the people have come in contact with over 200 million species of animals and considered whether they are halal or not?



The third way to see the same thing is "Are you more likely to report something accurately if you have seen or heard it or something which you are taught and you keep doing it all your life." The latter corresponds to the these practices of the Holy Prophet while the former corresponds to Hadith.

Brother please list the chain of people who have learnt prayers by seeing someone praying starting from you, back to the prophet. How do you know that someone didn't change the prayers along the way?



"If hypothetically, the books of Hadith were to disappear today, would Muslims start praying 4 times a day somewhere down the line".

No the majority wouldn't but I can bet anything that those with knowledge will start to put it on paper so people don't get misguided.

Some however will reduce the prayers to suit their nafs. If you look at Garbage Cans arguments you will notice that he has started believing that it is OK to eat DOGs, he wants Darood Sharif removed from the prayers and Duwai Qunoot from the Witr.






Whichever way you look at the problem, you should come to the same conclusion i.e. these practices of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) that he taught to his sahaba are as immutable as the Quran itself for all times to come, not dependent on Hadith as a medium of transmission and not prone to chinese whispers like the Hadith.


No one said that the Quran is prone to chinese whispers but as I have shown with an example of garbage can, practices and rituals can be.


The Hadith can only be used to explain what is already in Quran and Sunnah but these cannot be used to add anything new to Islam.

The hadiths have just put some Sunnahs to paper to ensure people don't add anything new to islam.

Wazeeri
12th October 2006, 23:09
If your argument had merit then every single parchment or bit of skin containing a verse directly dictated by the Prophet would be preserved to this day. Yet there isn't (to my knowledge) a single verse directly dictated by the Prophet available to us today.

The writings on skin and bones were scattered. None was seen to belong to or be authroised by the prophet(pbuh) himself. They belonged to the individual scribes. The scribes wrote the ayat to learn them off by heart.

The reason why they were burnt was so all the pieaces from the scribes were accounted for and no one brought a piece later on claiming it to belong to Scribe X and thus causing fitna.

However writings authorised by the Prophet(pbuh) from his era have been preserved by muslims who found them.
http://islamicsupremecouncil.com/tabarruk/letter2.jpg


No it's because when they 'punctuated' the Quran to remove the variations in the meanings of certain words that looked the same, they would have destroyed all previous copies to keep the sanctity of the original message intact.


No, as I said above it was likely destroyed to avoid confusion after the punctuation episode. If the a Quran from the Uthmanic era can be preserved then why not parchments from the Prophets time?

This assertion of yours is very weak and raises even more questions rather than answering any.

Brother we know that the punctuations were added by Hajjaj Bin Yusuf and the quran before that existed without punctuation and no that doesn't raise more questions than it answers.







If it could be proved 100% beyond any doubt that those accounts are from the Sahabah and survived without manipulation or corruption then I would agree with you

There isn't 100% proof that the Quran got to us intact. As I have said we would have 100% proof only if we had a copy of the Quran dated in the time of the prophet.

There is a very minute chance of the Quran being altered as proven by many studies done by muslims and non-muslims and that is why we can so boldly say that the Quran is from the prophet(pbuh).

Similarly there is a very small chance that most of the hadiths are lies. Compared to the Quran the chances of the hadiths being directly from the sahaba are bashful but still the chance that the majority of them are lies is small enough for us to place reliance on their authenticity.




Again you are ignoring the arbitrary nature of the Science of Hadith. There is no Science to it. We can't classify certain people as 'trustworthy' and others as 'untrustworthy' without being able to read their thoughts.

Anyone who you don't have a reason not to believe is trustworthy. Many transmitters were proven to be liarsn and thus their accounts were rejected.


The whole idea of basing a whole religion around gossip, guesswork and innuendo is incomprehensible to me!

Brother I can understand that perfectly well but my point of view is that most of these accounts are most probably true and they are needed in situations where we differ on the meanings of the quran or when debating on what to do.

No doubt we have been told to confirm everything we hear but in a situation where an account is in question of an event which happened in the past, the only way we can confirm it is to reconcile it to a trustworthy sahaba.

garbage_can2003
12th October 2006, 23:43
It is a lie that Prophet Muhammad spoke nothing but the Quran, because Allah is saying in the Quran "we have sent you teach the book and wisdom" - (62:2).

If the wisdom is just in the book, there is no need to mention it separately. That it is mentioned, means there is more to the words of Muhammad than the Quran itself.

This, my dear brothers and sisters, is the meaning of Obeying Allah and his Messenger.


Are you implying that Hikmah (wisdom) is Hadith literature?

A yes or no would suffice.

Wazeeri
12th October 2006, 23:47
You know he isn't.
He is implying that there are explanations which the prophet gave to his sahaba and they are not included in the Quran.

A simple yes and no is not a debate.


Are you trying to set him up for Khalifahs famous Hikmah argument??

zaf1986
13th October 2006, 01:21
Are you implying that Hikmah (wisdom) is Hadith literature?

A yes or no would suffice.

You tell me what it is.

I don't play games; I discuss things.

So you explain to me, what you or your scholars or whoever thinks, what hikmah is, in this context. It can't be the Quran, since its been mentioned in addition to the Quran.

garbage_can2003
13th October 2006, 08:13
You tell me what it is.

I don't play games; I discuss things.

So you explain to me, what you or your scholars or whoever thinks, what hikmah is, in this context. It can't be the Quran, since its been mentioned in addition to the Quran.

OK fine. The verse that you refer to is


It is He Who has sent amongst the Unlettered a messenger from among themselves, to rehearse to them His Signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom,- although they had been, before, in manifest error;- [62:2]

However one cannot take a verse in isolation. We have to see other how the words we are talking about have been used elsewhere in the Quran. I won't go into detail here but will only say that Allah chooses His words carefully.

Lets see 2:231

When ye divorce women, and they fulfil the term of their ('Iddat), either take them back on equitable terms or set them free on equitable terms; but do not take them back to injure them, (or) to take undue advantage; if any one does that; He wrongs his own soul. Do not treat Allah's Signs as a jest, but solemnly rehearse Allah's favours on you, and the fact that He sent down to you the Book and Wisdom, for your instruction. And fear Allah, and know that Allah is well acquainted with all things.

This is Yousuf Ali's translation. Lets look at the word by word translation

And if you divorced the women, so they reached their term/time, so hold/grasp them (F) with kindness/generosity or divorce/release them (F) with kindness/generosity , and do not hold/grasp them (F) harming to transgress/violate, and who makes/does that, so he had caused injustice/oppression (to) himself. And do not take God's verses/evidences mockingly , and mention/remember God's blessing on you, and what He descended on you from The Book and the wisdom , He advises/warns you with it, and fear and obey God, and know that God (is) with every thing knowledgeable.


As I said Allah chooses precise language in the Quran. In this verse when He talks about the Kitaab and the Hikmah, He then refers to both in the next line by using a singular pronoun it, meaning that they are both one i.e. Book+Hikmah = Quran. You can go to any arabic expert and get it confirmed.

Also please read verses 17:31-39


017.031
YUSUFALI: Kill not your children for fear of want: We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin.
PICKTHAL: Slay not your children, fearing a fall to poverty, We shall provide for them and for you. Lo! the slaying of them is great sin.
SHAKIR: And do not kill your children for fear of poverty; We give them sustenance and yourselves (too); surely to kill them is a great wrong.

017.032
YUSUFALI: Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils).
PICKTHAL: And come not near unto adultery. Lo! it is an abomination and an evil way.
SHAKIR: And go not nigh to fornication; surely it is an indecency and an evil way.

017.033
YUSUFALI: Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law).
PICKTHAL: And slay not the life which Allah hath forbidden save with right. Whoso is slain wrongfully, We have given power unto his heir, but let him not commit excess in slaying. Lo! he will be helped.
SHAKIR: And do not kill any one whom Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause, and whoever is slain unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority, so let him not exceed the just limits in slaying; surely he is aided.

017.034
YUSUFALI: Come not nigh to the orphan's property except to improve it, until he attains the age of full strength; and fulfil (every) engagement, for (every) engagement will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning).
PICKTHAL: Come not near the wealth of the orphan save with that which is better till he come to strength; and keep the covenant. Lo! of the covenant it will be asked.
SHAKIR: And draw not near to the property of the orphan except in a goodly way till he attains his maturity and fulfill the promise; surely (every) promise shall be questioned about.

017.035
YUSUFALI: Give full measure when ye measure, and weigh with a balance that is straight: that is the most fitting and the most advantageous in the final determination.
PICKTHAL: Fill the measure when ye measure, and weigh with a right balance; that is meet, and better in the end.
SHAKIR: And give full measure when you measure out, and weigh with a true balance; this is fair and better in the end.

017.036
YUSUFALI: And pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning).
PICKTHAL: (O man), follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge. Lo! the hearing and the sight and the heart - of each of these it will be asked.
SHAKIR: And follow not that of which you have not the knowledge; surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that.

017.037
YUSUFALI: Nor walk on the earth with insolence: for thou canst not rend the earth asunder, nor reach the mountains in height.
PICKTHAL: And walk not in the earth exultant. Lo! thou canst not rend the earth, nor canst thou stretch to the height of the hills.
SHAKIR: And do not go about in the land exultingly, for you cannot cut through the earth nor reach the mountains in height.

017.038
YUSUFALI: Of all such things the evil is hateful in the sight of thy Lord.
PICKTHAL: The evil of all that is hateful in the sight of thy Lord.
SHAKIR: All this-- the evil of it-- is hateful in the sight of your Lord.

017.039
YUSUFALI: These are among the (precepts of) wisdom, which thy Lord has revealed to thee. Take not, with Allah, another object of worship, lest thou shouldst be thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected.
PICKTHAL: This is (part) of that wisdom wherewith thy Lord hath inspired thee (O Muhammad). And set not up with Allah any other god, lest thou be cast into hell, reproved, abandoned.
SHAKIR: This is of what your Lord has revealed to you of wisdom, and do not associate any other god with Allah lest you should be thrown into hell, blamed, cast away.


Hence these verses clearly explain what (Hikmah ) wisdom is in the Quran.

nafajafam
13th October 2006, 08:28
how glorious, pp is overflowing with wisdom.

Wazeeri
13th October 2006, 22:18
Garbage you have started with your questionable translations again.
Please find one scholar, not of islam because some people here call them Jaahil but of Arabic, whether he be muslim or non muslim who will agree with you that the quran says with it

Every translation I have seen and I have three different qurans in front of me right now, says something along the lines of
for your instruction
he instructs you
tumhain samjhanai kai liye

I haven't seen anyone say with it or jiskai saath,
The problem as I have explained to you before with your word to word translations is that you can't get the syntax of the language from the dictionary. The dictionary provides word to word mapping which is not enough.

For an example please provide a Urdu to English dictionary to one of your english friends and get them to translate the following

Aap jaisa koi meri zindagi mein ayai, tau baat ban jaye

(sorry watched a nazia song on vectone yesterday )

Wazeeri
13th October 2006, 22:35
Post brought over from the Hijaab thread as the debate was converging


Ofcourse it will. When you undertake an intellectual study of the Quran and get your guidance directly from Allah, trust me it won't. :)

Brother, you can't take an intellectual study of the quran with a dictionary. Please provide your tafsir of what happened on Miraj.


You keep running in circles.

You have dodged the question. I have highlighted a flaw in your logic please correct me or accept atleast one of the following claims.

1. The prophet is allowed to invent things of deen
2. Not everything delivered to the prophet was meant for the Quran.

With Mumtaz who believes that the traditions were transmitted through a series of parent to child transfers you have a completed logic. Because that is how it was done at the start of islam, until lies started being spread around and the Ulema took a step to quench them.

My argument with him is that this method is as prone to chinese whispers as are the hadiths. Infact I say that the hadiths are less prone to chinese whispers than the transmissions because most hadiths only have 5 or less chains upto the famous books but the transmission chain is over 3000 and counting.

But as I have said the logic of belief is complete. I think mercenary has a similar answer to mumtaz as well and he refuses to believe the hadiths because they are questionable.

But your claim (I repeat) are the following.

1. Everything that was delivered to the prophet is in the Quran.
2. The prophet was not allowed to invent anything of the Deen.

So if the above two hold than we need to find the method of prayers and the timings for the prayers in the Quran.

If we can't find it than the only other answer is that the prophet recieved instructions of how to pray and they were not included in the quran OR the prophet invented how to pray.


(I am posting this on the Mafia thread so we can debate hadiths on one thread and I will inshallah soon speak about the hijab using only the quran. Please let me know the Arabic to English dictionary you use so I can purchase the same and we can agree atleast on the translations)

Somali Pirate
14th October 2006, 01:05
It pays so much to learn and speak arabic.

I am just so lucky :p

garbage_can2003
14th October 2006, 04:57
Garbage you have started with your questionable translations again.
Please find one scholar, not of islam because some people here call them Jaahil but of Arabic, whether he be muslim or non muslim who will agree with you that the quran says with it

Every translation I have seen and I have three different qurans in front of me right now, says something along the lines of
for your instruction
he instructs you
tumhain samjhanai kai liye

I haven't seen anyone say with it or jiskai saath,
The problem as I have explained to you before with your word to word translations is that you can't get the syntax of the language from the dictionary. The dictionary provides word to word mapping which is not enough.


For an example please provide a Urdu to English dictionary to one of your english friends and get them to translate the following

Aap jaisa koi meri zindagi mein ayai, tau baat ban jaye

(sorry watched a nazia song on vectone yesterday )


I am getting kind of tired of reading your posts that contain useless analogies that are of little value. The hijaab is just too thick to penetrate I guess ......

FYI, a literal translation and rules of grammar are employed in understanding the Quran to resolve these and other issues. Otherwise there will be total chaos if grammar rules are not adhered to. Moreover, a dictionary is one of the tools used in Quranic study.

Anyways, www.emuslim.com is a website where you can find a dictionary. And by the way they follow your belief system and are not an offshoot of submission.org!

See what the meaning of bihi is. Hint: Its in a PDF file.

Then use your brain to think through why Allah did not choose to use bihim (with them), a plural pronoun to refer to the kitaab and hikmah.

And read 17:36 in my post above again. Carefully. It is one of the hikmah's. I think it will be better if you leave the debating to the paid clergy you follow.

Unless you have something intelligent to say, this will be my last post on this topic.

garbage_can2003
14th October 2006, 05:25
Post brought over from the Hijaab thread as the debate was converging



Brother, you can't take an intellectual study of the quran with a dictionary. Please provide your tafsir of what happened on Miraj.



You have dodged the question. I have highlighted a flaw in your logic please correct me or accept atleast one of the following claims.

1. The prophet is allowed to invent things of deen
2. Not everything delivered to the prophet was meant for the Quran.

With Mumtaz who believes that the traditions were transmitted through a series of parent to child transfers you have a completed logic. Because that is how it was done at the start of islam, until lies started being spread around and the Ulema took a step to quench them.

My argument with him is that this method is as prone to chinese whispers as are the hadiths. Infact I say that the hadiths are less prone to chinese whispers than the transmissions because most hadiths only have 5 or less chains upto the famous books but the transmission chain is over 3000 and counting.

But as I have said the logic of belief is complete. I think mercenary has a similar answer to mumtaz as well and he refuses to believe the hadiths because they are questionable.

But your claim (I repeat) are the following.

1. Everything that was delivered to the prophet is in the Quran.
2. The prophet was not allowed to invent anything of the Deen.

So if the above two hold than we need to find the method of prayers and the timings for the prayers in the Quran.

If we can't find it than the only other answer is that the prophet recieved instructions of how to pray and they were not included in the quran OR the prophet invented how to pray.


(I am posting this on the Mafia thread so we can debate hadiths on one thread and I will inshallah soon speak about the hijab using only the quran. Please let me know the Arabic to English dictionary you use so I can purchase the same and we can agree atleast on the translations)

We both know the details you are looking for are not in the Quran. What I have been doing in the last few posts is responding to your question.

Where can we find prayer details? You have unsucessfully tried to imply that they exist in Hadith literature. Well I called your bluff and now we both know that the COMPLETE details do NOT exist in Sahih bukhari either. Hence the premise that hadith contains details and therefore must be accepted is a faulty one. I believe I have sucessfully argued my case as you have yet to provide me the Hadiths where I can find the number of rakats to pray.

Again, for the veil is too thick, Hadith DOES NOT contain details as you would have the uninformed believe. What it does contain is a bunch of contradictory statements about certain rituals. No one can learn how to pray from Hadith!

And your claim "what the Prophet gave to sahaba" exists only in the form of Hadith compilations.

And bring your proof that the knowledge transfered down through the generations is really what the prophet preached. If you cannot, then do NOT bring it in a debate.

Just because the majority follows a certain set of rituals is an argumentum ad populum. You also cannot use it in a debate OK!

Now where did I claim that the prayer details exist in the Quran. Salat is not a topic of discussion here, Hadith is. Please stick to the topic and let us know why Hadith literature should be a part of Islam.

Wazeeri
14th October 2006, 15:51
Brother you can call me stupid if you want because that is probably the only defense left available to you but you haven't answered my point.

Which one of the following do you accept.

1) The prophet could invent things of deen
OR
2) Not every message delivered to the Prophet is in the Quran.

You believe in neither which is illogical as I have now said three times already and will say for the forth

If the above two claims don't hold than we believe that
- Because of the contra of claim 1, Allah invented the method of prayer
- He delivered it to the prophet(pbuh) through Hadhrat Gibrael
- Because of the contra of claim 2, the method of prayer should be in the Quran

This is basic classical logic. I have used the axioms provided by you to show that your stance is illogical.

You have to provide the axiom which my logic is lacking to make your position logical otherwise accept that The Quran being complete doesn't mean that every small minute detail is discussed and explained.

You can call me names all you want but please arrange for stupid little me an answer.

Wazeeri
14th October 2006, 16:22
FYI, a literal translation and rules of grammar are employed in understanding the Quran to resolve these and other issues.

Where have you learned the rules of grammar? I thought you admitted you didn't know arabic?

Every language has different grammar, different syntax. Unless you learn the language you cannot claim to know it.

Why have all the people who actually do know Arabic (some scholarly level) never translated it as with it ?

Because they know the rules of grammar and they also know that another word which can be used is whereby

and lets believe that it means with it , then that following the grammar we all know without learning arabic, it is talking about the hikmah not both. So you are asically saying that Allah is placing hikmah above the Quran.

Mercenary
14th October 2006, 16:56
There isn't 100% proof that the Quran got to us intact. As I have said we would have 100% proof only if we had a copy of the Quran dated in the time of the prophet.

The biggest difference between the Quran and the Hadith is that the Quran was memorised word for word. The Hadith on the other hand were paraphrased which we can see from reading the Sahih books and the way that the matn is never exactly the same for two Hadiths of the same account!

Retelling an account in your own words each time means that each link in the chain retells the story the way they interpret it! That's why it's prone to chineese whispers whereas the Quran was passed on word for word in the same form as it was delivered through the Prophet!


Similarly there is a very small chance that most of the hadiths are lies. Compared to the Quran the chances of the hadiths being directly from the sahaba are bashful but still the chance that the majority of them are lies is small enough for us to place reliance on their authenticity.

What are you basing that on? You are coming to an arbitrary conclusion without saying how and why the chance is so small


Anyone who you don't have a reason not to believe is trustworthy. Many transmitters were proven to be liarsn and thus their accounts were rejected.

Again this is completely unscientific, concentrating on the isnad over the matn leaves us open to error and mistakes.


No doubt we have been told to confirm everything we hear but in a situation where an account is in question of an event which happened in the past, the only way we can confirm it is to reconcile it to a trustworthy sahaba.

The problem is that we are assuming that it did come from that Sahabah, the Sahabah decided no to leave us any collections of Hadith behind. Surely there was a reason for that.


Brother I can understand that perfectly well but my point of view is that most of these accounts are most probably true and they are needed in situations where we differ on the meanings of the quran or when debating on what to do.

Most probably true is not good enough when it means the difference between a punishment of lashes (as per Quran) and stoning to death (as per Hadith) for essentially the same crime.

Most probably true is not good enough when Hadith so drastically and irreversibly change the whole meaning of Islam!

khanpuria
14th October 2006, 17:03
i think wazeer is the g.. man has intelligence.. wazeeri.. how old are you?

Mercenary
14th October 2006, 17:31
i think wazeer is the g.. man has intelligence.. wazeeri.. how old are you?

Yep he's definitely a 5 star addition to PakPassion!!

Wazeeri
14th October 2006, 17:32
I am a g man??? :12:

I am 21

khanpuria
14th October 2006, 17:34
I am a g man??? :12:

I am 21

lol i was just complimenting you

everything you say seems well argued and to the point

Wazeeri
14th October 2006, 17:52
The biggest difference between the Quran and the Hadith is that the Quran was memorised word for word. The Hadith on the other hand were paraphrased which we can see from reading the Sahih books and the way that the matn is never exactly the same for two Hadiths of the same account!

Retelling an account in your own words each time means that each link in the chain retells the story the way they interpret it!

Brother most hadiths were learnt of by heart and retold word to word from the Sahaba. Some Sahaba opened up madrassas and taught the people we call the taibeen. The taibeen and taba-taibeen learnt the hadiths of by heart. It was the sahaba whose interpretations of the prophets actions or instructions that we rely on.

The hadiths which have can't remember or so and so told me somthing like are not used for fatwas but for support of other hadiths.




What are you basing that on? You are coming to an arbitrary conclusion without saying how and why the chance is so small

I am basing this on the fact that if you have a similar story being transmitted by two three different sources who aren't connected than the story is most probably true.

The muhadiths used to confirm their collected hadiths from other taibeen to gain assurance that the event had more than one witness and if it didn't than who was that one witness.

If you had a transmission tree which converged on one man and that man was not the sahaba then the hadith becomes questionable and you have to ask why was only this man told the story.

Most hadiths aren't like that, they normally converge on more than one sahaba.




Again this is completely unscientific, concentrating on the isnad over the matn leaves us open to error and mistakes.

The science is about the collection of the hadiths. As I have said it was the sahaba who were the judges of the mat'n. They knew the prophet(pbuh), they learnt from the prophet(pbuh), we didn't so we can't judge the mat'n. We have no claim to be able to.




The problem is that we are assuming that it did come from that Sahabah, the Sahabah decided no to leave us any collections of Hadith behind. Surely there was a reason for that.

As I have said some sahaba opened up madrassas, expecially those who were sent abroad to teach islam in the time of the prophet(pbuh). These sahaba told the stories of the prophet(pbuh) to hundreds of people, who taught it to a further hundred people. So they did leave us with hadiths.

The problem came when lies started spreading around and the Ulema decided to seive out the lies. That is when we found the first books emerging from people who I believe genuinely tried to look for the truth.

And to genuinely look for the truth you have to ignore your preferences over the mat'n.



Most probably true is not good enough when it means the difference between a punishment of lashes (as per Quran) and stoning to death (as per Hadith) for essentially the same crime.

Most probably true is good enough when it has been deduced from the accounts of many people. The punishment is different for married individuals and unmarried. On a similar note the word used in the quran is zina but the distinction hasn't been clearly made between zina and zina bil jabar.

Should we lash rape victims?

Wazeeri
14th October 2006, 17:56
lol i was just complimenting you

everything you say seems well argued and to the point

Thank you very much for the compliments, they are really appreciated.

garbage_can2003
15th October 2006, 09:07
Brother you can call me stupid if you want because that is probably the only defense left available to you but you haven't answered my point.

Which one of the following do you accept.



Do you even read my posts?. Read post#148 in the Hijab thread. I DID answer this question.



1) The prophet could invent things of deen
OR
2) Not every message delivered to the Prophet is in the Quran.

You believe in neither which is illogical as I have now said three times already and will say for the forth


Now here you are already aware of my response. And you accused me above that I hav'nt answered. Unbelievable!

My response will only become illogical if you can PROVE to me that the way you follow a ritual (prayer in this case) is correct. Show me a document from the time of the prophet where it explains "the details of the prayers" and that the "details" exist somewhere.

If you cannot do that, then you will find that my response is completely logical.

I repeat, for a detail to be acted upon, it has to exist somewhere. Where is it?




If the above two claims don't hold than we believe that
- Because of the contra of claim 1, Allah invented the method of prayer
- He delivered it to the prophet(pbuh) through Hadhrat Gibrael



back them up with evidence from the Quran then!



- Because of the contra of claim 2, the method of prayer should be in the Quran


Why?
How about asking yourself "if the details do not exist anywhere, especially in the Quran, should I even be performing this ritual in this manner?"

Your faulty logic stems from the religious teachings you have received since childhood.




This is basic classical logic. I have used the axioms provided by you to show that your stance is illogical.

You have to provide the axiom which my logic is lacking to make your position logical otherwise accept that

You can call me names all you want but please arrange for stupid little me an answer.

My stance seems illogical to you because you are still under the delusion that details exist in Hadith. They don't OK.

And I am still waiting for you to show me where the exact rakats to pray can be found.



The Quran being complete doesn't mean that every small minute detail is discussed and explained.


Allah clearly tells us in the Quran that His divine message is complete and fully explained.


Yusuf Ali Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt.[6:114]

What does "to send a book explained in detail" mean in this verse? Is Allah joking with us? Do we need to be rocket scientists to see that the book is THE Quran?

For me Allah is enough.
As for you, it seems you can't get enough of Sahih Bukhari! Shahbash lagay rahoo :19:

MIG
15th October 2006, 10:59
Guys - easy with the personal stuff:



brain as usual did not process the information.


is very personal - if the level of debate gets down to that level than its not worth it.

nafajafam
15th October 2006, 11:51
As far as I know, not a single verse in the Quran is without any meaning or significance, so what was the significance of Miraj? Was it just mentioned for the sake of it? cause the details of the espisode are not in the Quran but with the Prophet (PBUH). Surely something of importance is there in it? How do we know what it was?

garbage_can2003
15th October 2006, 15:59
Guys - easy with the personal stuff:



is very personal - if the level of debate gets down to that level than its not worth it.

It was written in frustration. I have removed the line.

MIG
15th October 2006, 16:11
Thanks yaar.

garbage_can2003
15th October 2006, 16:15
As far as I know, not a single verse in the Quran is without any meaning or significance, so what was the significance of Miraj?


You are right every verse is there for a reason. However it is clear the verse is Mutashahbiah (similar meaning) and not a Muhkim (law) verse. We really do not need to understand it for salvation.

Only Allah and people having deep knowledge of the Quran will be able to understand it (3:7). I have yet to see an understanding that makes sense.



Was it just mentioned for the sake of it? cause the details of the espisode are not in the Quran but with the Prophet (PBUH). Surely something of importance is there in it? How do we know what it was?
[/quote]

The prophet is no longer with us. What we have are compilations he did not authorize. If Allah did not choose to tell us what kind of an event it was -- physical, spiritual ...... , then there must be a reason to it as well.

That does not mean we should start believing in stories about Buraq, the flying horse, and Prayers being "negotiated" down from 50 to 5 at the urging of Prophet Musa!

Please use your 'Aqal'. There is no reason not to question the religious education you have received since childhood.

garbage_can2003
15th October 2006, 17:39
Where have you learned the rules of grammar? I thought you admitted you didn't know arabic?

Every language has different grammar, different syntax. Unless you learn the language you cannot claim to know it.

Why have all the people who actually do know Arabic (some scholarly level) never translated it as with it ?

Because they know the rules of grammar and they also know that another word which can be used is whereby


I thought you would appreciate the elegant language of the Quran. I guess I was mistaken.

Its not rocket science to find out what bihi and bihim mean. But people who rely on the clergy make it appear so.

Did you even bother to visit www.emuslim.com?



and lets believe that it means with it , then that following the grammar we all know without learning arabic, it is talking about the hikmah not both. So you are asically saying that Allah is placing hikmah above the Quran.


NO. What Allah is trying to say is

He has sent you A and B. He warns you with it (and not with them) meaning they both are one.

Here is another one for you


واذكرن ما يتلي في بيوتكن من ايات الله والحكمة ان الله كان لطيفا خبيرا

And recite what is rehearsed to you in your homes, of the Signs of Allah and His Wisdom: for Allah understands the finest mysteries and is well-acquainted (with them).[33:34]


Now can I ask you if you recite (talawat) the Quran or Hadith when you are at home?

Recitation of Ayaat and Hikmah can ONLY mean they both are a part of the Quran.

And did you even read 17:31-39? When Allah calls the list Hikmah, is that not enough for you?

You would rather rely on 6 persians who never saw the Prophet . Moreover, their first language was not even Arabic yet their compilations are considered more trustworthy! :14: :14:

garbage_can2003
15th October 2006, 18:07
And to genuinely look for the truth you have to ignore your preferences over the mat'n.


Are you following a Deen or a cult? Because this is a classic statement fed to the followers of a cult to get them to toe the line.




Most probably true is good enough when it has been deduced from the accounts of many people. The punishment is different for married individuals and unmarried. On a similar note the word used in the quran is zina but the distinction hasn't been clearly made between zina and zina bil jabar.

Should we lash rape victims?

Do you know the difference between adultery and rape?

zina bil jabar will not be dealt with under 24:2. It is done using force and therefore will be dealt with using the verse that talks about people who commit serious crimes.

zina either between married or unmarried individuals carries the same punishment according to the Quran.

Thats another huge problem with Hadith literature. It trivializes death.

Murtad --> Qatal kardo!
Zina aur shadi shuda --> rajm ki saza dey do (stoned till death)
Hazoor key shan may gustakhi key -> phansi dey do

I wonder where the jihadists pick up their traits from? :13:

nafajafam
16th October 2006, 03:52
You are right every verse is there for a reason. However it is clear the verse is Mutashahbiah (similar meaning) and not a Muhkim (law) verse. We really do not need to understand it for salvation.

Only Allah and people having deep knowledge of the Quran will be able to understand it (3:7). I have yet to see an understanding that makes sense.


and how do you know all that is needed for salvation?



The prophet is no longer with us. What we have are compilations he did not authorize. If Allah did not choose to tell us what kind of an event it was -- physical, spiritual ...... , then there must be a reason to it as well.

That does not meanM we should start believing in stories about Buraq, the flying horse, and Prayers being "negotiated" down from 50 to 5 at the urging of Prophet usa!

Please use your 'Aqal'. There is no reason not to question the religious education you have received since childhood.

yes yes, Aqal is to be used and i recommed the same to you as well. I question what needs to be according to me and not just for the sake of it. btw, we are recommened to use aqal but naql of the Prophet (pbuh) is also necessary. now you can quote the Quran and twist the meaning and interpret it as you wish, but my aqal tells me that what the Prophet taught is gold as well. He is not with us and what he have of his sayings should be tested against the Quran and then accepted.

Wazeeri
17th October 2006, 23:17
Now here you are already aware of my response. And you accused me above that I hav'nt answered. Unbelievable!

Brother I am not guessing your response I am stating what you have claimed.

1) The prophet couldn't invent things of deen
AND
2) Every message delivered to the Prophet is in the Quran.

Thats what you have claimed in the exchanges with me. Please concentrate on my post and you will see the contradiction yourself.


My response will only become illogical if you can PROVE to me that the way you follow a ritual (prayer in this case) is correct. Show me a document from the time of the prophet where it explains "the details of the prayers" and that the "details" exist somewhere.

Find me the correct way of praying from the Quran. Quran requests us to pray but no way is told. For your claims to hold there must be one in the Quran.

If you concentrate you will notice that your claims do not require any other source. They self contained and contradictory. If you still feel that there must be a correct method of prayer in existance for there to be a contradiction (which doesn't follow any logic) lets not get into method of prayer, lets get into times. It is much easier to grasp the logic than.

praying 5 times a day is a universally held muslim belief. Unless you are now going to claim that we don't have to pray 5 times a day you have to find it in the Quran or accept that atleast one of your claims is incorrect.





Wazeeri's Quote:

If the above two claims don't hold than we believe that
- Because of the contra of claim 1, Allah invented the method of prayer
- He delivered it to the prophet(pbuh) through Hadhrat Gibrael



back them up with evidence from the Quran then!

Brother your above response shows that you are clearly not following the logic. I am asking YOU to back up these claims because they are deduced from the following ones of yours.

1) The prophet couldn't invent things of deen
AND
2) Every message delivered to the Prophet is in the Quran.

It is tiring but I will repeat once again.

-Allah has asked us to pray Thus there must be a method of prayer
-The prophet isn't allowed to invent a method of prayer
AND
-All messages delivered to the prophet are in the Quran
-Thus Allah must have himself invented the method of prayer
-The message should have been delivered to the prophet if we are expected to pray
-Thus it should be in the Quran

If you are claiming that a correct method of prayer doesn't exists than the question arises. How does Allah expect us to follow his commandments when he hasn't told us how to do so?




Your faulty logic stems from the religious teachings you have received since childhood.

I obviously should have come to you for guidance. I definitely would have learnt how to pray my salaat


My stance seems illogical to you because you are still under the delusion that details exist in Hadith. They don't OK.
And I am still waiting for you to show me where the exact rakats to pray can be found.

Like I have said your logic is flawed whether a method of prayer exists or not.


Allah clearly tells us in the Quran that His divine message is complete and fully explained.


Yusuf Ali Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt.[6:114]

What does "to send a book explained in detail" mean in this verse? Is Allah joking with us? Do we need to be rocket scientists to see that the book is THE Quran?

Than find me the timings and method of prayer in the Quran.


For me Allah is enough.
As for you, it seems you can't get enough of Sahih Bukhari! Shahbash lagay rahoo

Please reflect on your following Fatwas and question yourself, do I really follow Allah or my nafs. Am I trying to learn about my religion or stream lining it to reduce restrictions on me?

Here are your magic Fatwas
- We are allowed to eat Dogs
- There is no correct method of Salaat,


You are right every verse is there for a reason. However it is clear the verse is Mutashahbiah (similar meaning) and not a Muhkim (law) verse. We really do not need to understand it for salvation.

Now we only need certain verses of the Quran.


Only Allah and people having deep knowledge of the Quran will be able to understand it (3:7). I have yet to see an understanding that makes sense.

I thought the Quran was explained in detail. Please find the detail of Miraj.
"People having knowledge" hmmmmmmm!
Does that mean guys who read the Quran using a dictionary?


The prophet is no longer with us. What we have are compilations he did not authorize. If Allah did not choose to tell us what kind of an event it was -- physical, spiritual ...... , then there must be a reason to it as well.

That does not mean we should start believing in stories about Buraq, the flying horse, and Prayers being "negotiated" down from 50 to 5 at the urging of Prophet Musa!
Please use your 'Aqal'. There is no reason not to question the religious education you have received since childhood.

I think we should all use your Aqal, because it is clear that you understand the Quran better than everyone using a dictionary.


Its not rocket science to find out what bihi and bihim mean. But people who rely on the clergy make it appear so.

Find an expert of Arabic who supports your claims. Why do all the people who actually understand, speak, read and write arabic disagree with you?
I though any intelligent person would understand why we cannot use word to word translations.


And recite what is rehearsed to you in your homes, of the Signs of Allah and His Wisdom:

And his wisdom
not the wisdom given to the prophet (pbuh)


Now can I ask you if you recite (talawat) the Quran or Hadith when you are at home?

Brother My last point should answer your question but why do you keep on coming back to this point when it has been made clear to you that no one claims the Hadiths are the Himah.
Hikmah is the intelligence given to the prophet and his actions reflect it. His actions have been recorded in the hadiths.


You would rather rely on 6 persians who never saw the Prophet . Moreover, their first language was not even Arabic yet their compilations are considered more trustworthy!

Your first language is not arabic,
you are a pakistani

Why do you believe in your translations?
Atleast those guys learned arabic and were considered masters of it.


Are you following a Deen or a cult? Because this is a classic statement fed to the followers of a cult to get them to toe the line.

Brother you have an issue with logic.
Anyone who feels that they are the judge of the mat'n is not suitable to collect hadiths, because we would leave the deen open to what they feel is right and wrong.

You have not met the prophet and neither the sahaba, so you cannot claim to know what they meant or said even before you have recieved any background information on them.




Do you know the difference between adultery and rape?

zina bil jabar will not be dealt with under 24:2. It is done using force and therefore will be dealt with using the verse that talks about people who commit serious crimes.

zina either between married or unmarried individuals carries the same punishment according to the Quran.

Thats another huge problem with Hadith literature. It trivializes death.


Yes I do know the difference but it is clear that you don't understand clear points. The Quran does not distinguish between Zina bil Jabar and normal Zina. It just uses the word Zina.

Adultery is punished by death. Fornication is punished by lashings. The distinction between the different Zina has not been made so shouting "Contradiction" does not make sense.

khanpuria
17th October 2006, 23:23
i think wazeeri has owned this thread

garbage_can2003
18th October 2006, 09:47
Dear Wazeeri,

I think there are major philosophical differences between how I and you think. This debate is going now where. You mind is pretty much made up and I, an ex-follower of the sunni sect, have come too far to revert back to your ways. This is going to be my last post. Ofcourse you can have the last word by responding to it.

I have summarized the bulk of our debate and explained why Quran alone must be accepted and all rest rejected.


1. Was the Prophet allowed to invent anything on his own?

From the Quran we find out that he was NOT.

069.043
YUSUFALI: (This is) a Message sent down from the Lord of the Worlds.

069.044
YUSUFALI: And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name,

069.045
YUSUFALI: We should certainly seize him by his right hand,

069.046
YUSUFALI: And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart:

069.047
YUSUFALI: Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our wrath).

See the tone and language Allah is using if Muhammad is to invent anything.

Also

066.001
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts. But Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

He was not allowed to make anything Haram for himself even. How can anyone expect he could do it for the muslims.

2. Does the Quran contain all guidance and detail we need to succeed in this world

Quran verses are clear

006.114
YUSUFALI: Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt.

016.089
YUSUFALI: One day We shall raise from all Peoples a witness against them, from amongst themselves: and We shall bring thee as a witness against these (thy people): and We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims.


Example of detail

002.282
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! When ye deal with each other, in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties: let not the scribe refuse to write: as Allah Has taught him, so let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear His Lord Allah, and not diminish aught of what he owes. If they party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable Himself to dictate, Let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her. The witnesses should not refuse when they are called on (For evidence). Disdain not to reduce to writing (your contract) for a future period, whether it be small or big: it is juster in the sight of Allah, More suitable as evidence, and more convenient to prevent doubts among yourselves but if it be a transaction which ye carry out on the spot among yourselves, there is no blame on you if ye reduce it not to writing. But take witness whenever ye make a commercial contract; and let neither scribe nor witness suffer harm. If ye do (such harm), it would be wickedness in you. So fear Allah; For it is Good that teaches you. And Allah is well acquainted with all things. If ye are on a journey, and cannot find a scribe, a pledge with possession (may serve the purpose). And if one of you deposits a thing on trust with another, let the trustee (faithfully) discharge his trust, and let him Fear his Lord conceal not evidence; for whoever conceals it, - his heart is tainted with sin. And Allah knoweth all that ye do.

This is just one example showing how specific Allah can be when required.

3. If Quran is fully explained, where can I find the details of prayers?

The defenders of hadith always ask their favorite question. This question is asked to legitimize Hadith. But their ignorance runs so deep that most are unaware that the basic details of prayers do not exist in Hadith as well.

The question they must ask themselves is if the details do not exist anywhere, what they heck are they doing 5 times a day. For example, If they think they are emulating the Prophet's prayers, then have they ever thought about whether He also showered blessings on himself (Darood) during prayers or not?

The Quran asks us to establish Salat (Aqim-us-Salata), the details of which can be found in the Quran! But to look for something one has to atleast know what one is looking for. Islam is not a religion focusing on rituals but a deen that tells how to live our lives in accordance with Allah's laws.

4. Should a divine message contradict itself and contain discrepancies?

The Quran says

004.082
YUSUFALI: Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.

The above should be clear to anyone who uses his/her brain

What about Hadith? Some examples

Once the Prophet went to the dumps of some people and passed urine while standing. He then asked for water and so I brought it to him and he performed ablution.[sahih bukhari 1.224]

Allah's Apostle (peace be upon him) saw me passing urine while standing. Thereupon he said: Umar, don't urinate while standing. And afterwards I never passed urine while standing.
Transmitted by Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah.


Do we urinate standing up or sitting down?

Scientific contradictions

The Prophet said, "Fever is from the heat of the (Hell) Fire; so abate fever with water."[Sahih Bukhari 4.486]

I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "There is healing in black cumin for all diseases except death."[Sahih Bukhari 7.592]

If a fly falls into the vessel of any of you, let him dip all of it (in the vessel) and then throw it away [and use the material in the vessel], for in one of its wings there is a disease and in the other there is a healing

The Prophet said, 'The (people of) Bani Israel used to take bath naked (all together) looking at each other. The Prophet Moses used to take a bath alone. They said, 'By Allah! Nothing prevents Moses from taking a bath with us except that he has a scrotal hernia.' So once Moses went out to take a bath and put his clothes over a stone and then that stone ran away with his clothes. Moses followed that stone saying, "My clothes, O stone! My clothes, O stone! till the people of Bani Israel saw him and said, 'By Allah, Moses has got no defect in his body. [b]Moses took his clothes and began to beat the stone." Abu Huraira added, "By Allah! There are still six or seven marks present on the stone from that excessive beating."
Abu Huraira Narrated: The Prophet said, "When the Prophet Job (Aiyub) was taking a bath naked, golden locusts began to fall on him. Job started collecting them in his clothes. His Lord addressed him, 'O Job! Haven't I given you enough so that you are not in need of them.' Job replied, 'Yes!' By Your Honor (power)! But I cannot dispense with Your Blessings.' [sahih bukhari 1.277]

PROBLEMS WITH HADITH THAT ITS DEFENDERS CHOOSE TO IGNORE (SOME EXAMPLES)

4. What did the Prophet have to say about Hadith

Even Hadith literature tells us that the Prophet strongly disapproved of anyone writing about anything except the Quran.

"The prophet said:'Do not write anything from me EXCEPT QURAN. Whoever wrote, must destroy it" (Muslim, Zuhd 72; Hanbel3/12,21,39)

But the defenders of hadith literature conveniently ignore the above hadith. They refuse to even follow what their own literature tells them to do!

5. Why focus on Isnad when Matn is what we have left?

The defenders of hadith expect us to believe in matn, for the isnad is alleged to be from sources whose sincerity and devotion to Islam cannot be challenged. However, the Quran instructs us not to accept anything at face value and confirm everything before accepting it.

It is clear that the "science" of Hadith is flawed as it puts too much focus on isnad while at the same time minimizing the importance of Matn. This is absurd because it is afterall Matn that one has to follow. Isnad is of no use in the application of Hadith.

6. Is punishment for Adultery Stoning to death?

Arabic makes no distinction between adultery and fornication and has the same word for both of them i.e. Zina. Zina-bil-jabar is rape. Adultery and fornication are consensual. Rape is not. Therefore rape will not be dealt with here.


024.002
YUSUFALI: The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication (Zina),- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

The above verse is clear. Even Yusuf Ali makes no distinction between the two words. Hence punishment for both adultery and fornication is 100 lashes.

But Allah wants to humiliate those who invent lies and attribute it to his Deen. Lets see how elegantly He does that. Lets see the 2 verses below

004.025
YUSUFALI: If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame (Fahisha), their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.


033.030
YUSUFALI: O Consorts of the Prophet! If any of you were guilty of evident unseemly conduct (Fahisha), the Punishment would be doubled to her, and that is easy for Allah.


The 2 verses above talk about married women. That should be obvious. Allah cautions the former that if they commit any Fahisha acts, they will be punished but the punishment will be half. For the latter the punishment is double.

017.032
YUSUFALI: Nor come nigh to adultery(Zina): for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil (Fahisha), opening the road (to other evils).

The verse above clearly states that Zina is one of the Fahisha's.

Can defenders of Hadith explain what is half and double stoning to death? Only Hadithists can invent half and double death respectively!

Hence the correct interpretation of punishment for adultery in these 2 cases is 50 and 200 lashes respectively.

How can hadith followers defend this below

Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid: 'Umar Ibn al Khataab said" Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book, Quraan, to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Ayah of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male & female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Ayah and understood and memorized it."( Bukhari: Volume 8, Book 82, Number 815)

Is the Quran complete? Where is the Rajm Ayah? You will find that this issue will be conveniently ignored.

7. Does Hadith promote misogyny?

Some examples. You decide.

Narrated Aisha, The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, "Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people)." I said, "You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away, for I disliked to face him."[Sahih Bukhari 1.490]

Allah's Apostle said, "Bad omen is in the women, the house and the horse."[sahih bukhari 7.30]

z10
18th October 2006, 22:20
garbage_can, a shame that this is your last post. Throughout this 'debate' you have regularly attacked the 'matn' of a hadith and regularly refuted the 'isnad'.

Therefore, i am willing to challenge you to a debate on the validity of Ahadith based on matn alone, on the condition ofcourse that you can understand the text in its original form of arabic.

If you can understand arabic then you should have no problem in answering certain questions such as 'when is the maf'ool placed before the faa'il in a sentence?'

If you do have a problem with debating on the validity of Ahadith based on its original text, its original 'matn' then i suggest you stop polluting pp with your cut and pastes.

garbage_can2003
19th October 2006, 00:10
garbage_can, a shame that this is your last post. Throughout this 'debate' you have regularly attacked the 'matn' of a hadith and regularly refuted the 'isnad'.

Therefore, i am willing to challenge you to a debate on the validity of Ahadith based on matn alone, on the condition ofcourse that you can understand the text in its original form of arabic.

If you can understand arabic then you should have no problem in answering certain questions such as 'when is the maf'ool placed before the faa'il in a sentence?'

If you do have a problem with debating on the validity of Ahadith based on its original text, its original 'matn' then i suggest you stop polluting pp with your cut and pastes.

Kindly respond to posts # 122, 130, and 132 if you wish to be taken seriously.

And please stop trying to impress us by using grandiose terms that are a part of a flawed science!

Wazeeri
19th October 2006, 00:17
I think there are major philosophical differences between how I and you think. This debate is going now where. You mind is pretty much made up and I, an ex-follower of the sunni sect, have come too far to revert back to your ways. This is going to be my last post. Ofcourse you can have the last word by responding to it.

Brother

The difference between us is the fact that I have been where you were and my logic was pretty much laid bare like yours has. The difference however between us is that I never went as far as you in terms of rejecting hadiths because no sensible person can claim that all Hadiths are lies.

I also feel that we have done this topic to death so I will sumarise the debate as you have done. There are three people I have been debating with on this thread. Mumtaz, Yourself and Mercs. Mercs and Mumtaz have a logically sound argument even though I think we can debate further and maybe come to the same conclusion.

Mumtaz as he has admitted doesn't know too much about the subject but his idea that the Quran should be followed alone and all the traditions have been passed down by following the elders is sound. I would like to say the following to maybe convince Mumtaz of my way of thinking.

At the start all messages were spread by word of mouth, from generation to generation as you say but then people started differing and some started creating lies in the name of islam and the prophet. To quench the spread of lies some Ulema started collecting everything that was being said and tried to seperate the lies from the truth.

This is based on the logic that any new invention would be out of the realm of islam and the truth must exist in whatever differences we have. Just like if we started sensing new cults being created within islam now. We would argue the differences to death but when we can't reach the same conclusion the sensible thing would be to accept the differences and put them in writing so Islam is not distorted further in the future.

That is what the early writings have done. They are basically what Mumtaz calls practical consensus but written down in books.


MERCS believes that Hadiths can be seen as historical facts only. Which is pretty much my belief but where we differ is the importance placed on the hadiths.

I think most hadiths are accurate and thus should play a part in the formation of laws and regs. Mercs believes that because they are questionable they should never be reffered to.

I think as they are historical facts they are too hard to ignore.



1. Was the Prophet allowed to invent anything on his own?

I have already proven to you using classical logic and axioms provided by yourself that either the prophet could invent rituals or he recieved messages which were not intended for the Quran. The prophet was not allowed to make haram what was halal or make halal what was haram.

You must be the only muslim who believes that eating dogs is allowed. Could you explain why this belief is not shared by any other muslim in the world? Why are you so special?

Eating dogs is universally accepted among muslims as Haram than how did this lie manage to be spread among all the umma if it was not for the Prophet(pbuh) having an understanding of what Allah meant as Halal and haram? Why didn't Allah reprimand the prophet like he did in the examples you have provided?

If the stories didn't come from the prophet than who was it, who spread this lie among ALL of the people? Why did none of the followers of the Prophet(pbuh) stand up and challenge the liar?

As I have said your stance is illogical, thus wrong. Not because you don't believe in Hadiths but because you follow contradictory beliefs.


3. If Quran is fully explained, where can I find the details of prayers?

The defenders of hadith always ask their favorite question. This question is asked to legitimize Hadith. But their ignorance runs so deep that most are unaware that the basic details of prayers do not exist in Hadith as well.

The defenders of hadiths repeatedly ask the same question because they get wishy washy answers like the following from you

The Quran asks us to establish Salat (Aqim-us-Salata), the details of which can be found in the Quran! But to look for something one has to atleast know what one is looking for.

THE REST OF YOUR HADITH FOLLOWS THE PATTERN OF RASHAD KHALIFAHS ARTICLES. And you always asked me why I always keep on mentioning him. I mention him because I know exactly who has poisoned your thoughts. You have used the exact examples that he gives and in the same order.


Do we urinate standing up or sitting down?

Your issues are not restricted to classical logic but it seems you have problems with temporal logic as well.

I will explain with an example.

I have never written a word beginning with 'X'
XENOPHOBE
I have written a word beginning with 'X'

Both statements are true.


"The prophet said:'Do not write anything from me EXCEPT QURAN. Whoever wrote, must destroy it" (Muslim, Zuhd 72; Hanbel3/12,21,39)

But the defenders of hadith literature conveniently ignore the above hadith. They refuse to even follow what their own literature tells them to do!

They don't ignore the hadith, it is you who ignores their answers.
The above hadith was at the start of the Prophethood when people first started scribing down the ayats. They would write what the prophet said from himself as well and they were thus told not to mix the two up.



The defenders of hadith expect us to believe in matn, for the isnad is alleged to be from sources whose sincerity and devotion to Islam cannot be challenged. However, the Quran instructs us not to accept anything at face value and confirm everything before accepting it.

It is clear that the "science" of Hadith is flawed as it puts too much focus on isnad while at the same time minimizing the importance of Matn. This is absurd because it is afterall Matn that one has to follow. Isnad is of no use in the application of Hadith.

How can we confirm accounts from a time when there were no CCTV or 24 hour news? The best we can do is confirm that there were other witnesses to the event or there is a valid reason for why there was no one there apart from the witness himself.

As you have been told many times. You have been born 1400 years after the prophet and the sahaba. You have met neither so you cannot be the judge of the mat'n. Mat'n of these accounts is where we get the stories about the prophet and the Sahaba.

We cannot assume we know the story before we have read it.
To break it down for you, lets say you are trying to find about a guy called Mr. X.

You have never met Mr. X but you have a lot of accounts of his life. You cannot read the accounts and start rejecting them just because you don't believe X would do something like that even though you don't know him.


Is the Quran complete? Where is the Rajm Ayah? You will find that this issue will be conveniently ignored.

NO you would like to believe that this issue will be ignored but this issue has been dealt with in detail for centuries after centuries. The quran was revised in the last Ramadhan of the prophet by him and Hadrat Gibrael and not all the Sahaba were present to hear the final version and order of ayats.



But Allah wants to humiliate those who invent lies and attribute it to his Deen. Lets see how elegantly He does that. Lets see the 2 verses below

Yes he does and that is why Allah has used the words Fahisha and Zina and not Zina in both verses.

"And come not near to Zina (fornication). Verily, it is a Fahisha (i.e. a great sin) and an evil way." [The Noble Qur'aan 17 : 32]

Fahisha means a great vulgar sin. It was used for the people who would circle the Ka'ba naked. It was used for people who would kiss in public. Here is more on how to punish the fornicating women

"confine them to houses until death do claim them (lifelong house arrest - for the women) [4:15].


Can defenders of Hadith explain what is half and double stoning to death? Only Hadithists can invent half and double death respectively!

So going by your logic WHAT IA TWICE A LIFE SENTENCE? and what is half of it? Please give your answers a bit of thought before doing a search for submission.org and copy pasting Rashad's articles.

Wazeeri
19th October 2006, 00:19
Z10

Garbage has already shown that he is willing to lie to prove his point.
See the hijaab thread.
Debate people like Mercs who are willing to argue logically.

z10
19th October 2006, 02:29
Kindly respond to posts # 122, 130, and 132 if you wish to be taken seriously.

And please stop trying to impress us by using grandiose terms that are a part of a flawed science!


no no

forget all those past arguments as i wasnt a part of them and may not necessarily take the same stance as those you have debated already.

Let us debate on the matn of hadith, as this is where your main argument lies, no?

Please prove to me that you understand matn in its true original form of arabic and we can take it forward from there.

garbage_can2003
19th October 2006, 07:18
no no

forget all those past arguments as i wasnt a part of them and may not necessarily take the same stance as those you have debated already.

Let us debate on the matn of hadith, as this is where your main argument lies, no?

Please prove to me that you understand matn in its true original form of arabic and we can take it forward from there.


For proof, please contact Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, PhD Islamic University of Medina, the English translator of Sahih Bukhari, and a follower of the same belief system as yours.

The translations I have quoted in this thread are his. The onus is on you to prove that the quality of the translations is suspect.

When and if you do find something, take it up with the translator, not me. OK!

And please do ask him about the 'matn' of the following Hadith too and why our mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters have been potrayed in this manner?

On 'Id ul Fitr or 'Id ul Adha Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) went out to the Musalla. After finishing the prayer, he delivered the sermon and ordered the people to give alms. He said, "O people! Give alms." Then he went towards the women and said. "O women! Give alms, for I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were you (women)." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is the reason for it?" He replied, "O women! You curse frequently, and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. O women, some of you can lead a cautious wise man astray." Then he left. And when he reached his house, Zainab, the wife of Ibn Mas'ud, came and asked permission to enter it was said, "O Allah's Apostle! It is Zainab." He asked, "Which Zainab?" The reply was that she was the wife of Ibn Mas'ud. He said, "Yes, allow her to enter." And she was admitted. Then she said, "O Prophet of Allah! Today you ordered people to give alms and I had an ornament and intended to give it as alms, but Ibn Mas'ud said that he and his children deserved it more than anybody else." The Prophet replied, "Ibn Mas'ud had spoken the truth. Your husband and your children had more right to it than anybody else." [Sahih Bukhari 2.541]

Mercenary
19th October 2006, 19:52
Kindly respond to posts # 122, 130, and 132 if you wish to be taken seriously.

And please stop trying to impress us by using grandiose terms that are a part of a flawed science!


no no

forget all those past arguments as i wasnt a part of them and may not necessarily take the same stance as those you have debated already.

You weren't? I thought you said the following...



z10, i'd be interested to know your answer to post 122 of this thread


have seen it, fear not ;)

there are a number of issues there, let me articulate my answer

Mercenary
19th October 2006, 19:54
Z10

Garbage has already shown that he is willing to lie to prove his point.
See the hijaab thread.
Debate people like Mercs who are willing to argue logically.

Sorry about my absence Wazeeri yaar. I've been busy at work recently and so I'm a bit behind on this thread.

Besides I was actually agreeing with parts of your posts in response to garbage and agreeing with part of Garbage's posts in response to you, it was getting really confusing. Three's a crowd as they say.

Wazeeri
19th October 2006, 21:04
Mercs

I am not saying that all everything Garbage has said is Illogical but that everything being said by the same person is illogical. Your set of views are logical but I think they are not sensible and that is why we disagree.

I would like to hear your views on my last post addressed to you.

Mercenary
19th October 2006, 23:32
Brother most hadiths were learnt of by heart and retold word to word from the Sahaba.

If that is true then why are there so many versions of the same account with differing wordings? Hadith were retold in story form and not learnt word for word. In fact I've never come across two Hadith on the same account from different sources with identical wording!! Look through any set of Hadith in Bukhari and Muslim on the same subject/account to see the differing wordings regarding the same account and your point is disproven!


If you had a transmission tree which converged on one man and that man was not the sahaba then the hadith becomes questionable and you have to ask why was only this man told the story.

Most hadiths aren't like that, they normally converge on more than one sahaba.

This is reliant on the Science of Hadith for determining the isnad being a proper science and being absolutely flawless, as I've mentioned before it's not even a distant relative of a science!


The science is about the collection of the hadiths. As I have said it was the sahaba who were the judges of the mat'n. They knew the prophet(pbuh), they learnt from the prophet(pbuh), we didn't so we can't judge the mat'n. We have no claim to be able to.

And the isnad relies on a science which is based on hearsay, gossip, speculation, sixth sense and innuendo. I don't know about you but I refuse to base my belief system around such an arbitrary system of authentication. Let me re-paste part of my OP from the Hadith thread here...


The Science of Hadith – You can’t call it a science. There are too many unquantifiable factors such as taking into account the standing of a person amongst his peers, a person’s reputation, a person's honesty and a person’s strength of memory. These factors are so unreliable and impossible to quantify that even in today's world of advanced science and computers we cant measure a persons honesty/reputation as his peers see it as compared to how it actually is in reality.

The science of Hadith can at best be called a combination of 'speculation, gossip and sixth sense' but there is no way it can be called an exact or even near exact science. These methods would be laughed out of scientific institutions world-wide and rightly so because they aren’t based on any form of science! Calling something a science doesn’t make it so!

The Hadith Collectors strange methods – In one example a Hadith collector travels a long way to collect a Hadith but when he reaches his destination, he’s confronted with a perplexing scene. A man appears to be distracting his horse/camel with food whilst creeping up behind the animal with a dagger hidden behind his back. This scene was enough to convince the Hadith collector that the man he saw wasn’t trustworthy and so he made the long journey back home without speaking to the man!

Now there could be a myriad explanations for this mans behaviour. Perhaps the animal was sick, dangerous or dying already and the man didn’t want it to suffer too much and so was trying to be stealthy. Perhaps the knife was going to be used to cut off some growth or cut out some thorn, which may have been causing the animal pain. It makes no sense for a man to sneakily kill his own animal because if he wanted to kill it openly no-one would have stopped him and he could easily have gotten help from his neighbour or anyone else to kill the animal too. It’s not the same as killing a human being is it? Also I don’t understand why it’s considered that he was being sneaky? Its not like he was engaging the animal in a battle and he was striking from behind. Its not even like he had to challenge the animal openly to unarmed combat either. Was it even the same man the collector had come to meet or one of his brothers/friends?

This account only highlights that this particular Hadith collector was quick to jump to conclusions and not that he was a seeker after the truth or a scientist. Do you know what a scientist (or any rational person) would have done? He would have approached the man (if it was safe to do so) and he would have asked him the reasoning behind his actions and then made a judgement once he knew the full story. He wouldn’t have jumped to an assumption based on incomplete information. Another point to consider is that because of the Hadith collector jumping to a conclusion we have now lost this man's Hadith forever and for all we know it could have been a very useful one!!

...moving on...


As I have said some sahaba opened up madrassas, expecially those who were sent abroad to teach islam in the time of the prophet(pbuh). These sahaba told the stories of the prophet(pbuh) to hundreds of people, who taught it to a further hundred people. So they did leave us with hadiths.

You talk about logic yet you can't seem to grasp why the Sahabah would go to all the trouble of opening schools but not put the Hadith into book format! You refuse to acknowledge the possibility that this was because they had been instructed not to by the Prophet!

You have yet to produce a Hadith from the Prophet rescinding his ban on writing down the Hadith yet you easily brush aside the Hadith asking all such writings to be destroyed. Where's the logic in that?


Most probably true is good enough when it has been deduced from the accounts of many people. The punishment is different for married individuals and unmarried. On a similar note the word used in the quran is zina but the distinction hasn't been clearly made between zina and zina bil jabar.

Should we lash rape victims?

Firstly as Muslims from my school of Islamic thought, we would automatically realise the aburdity of lashing rape victims and the question would never arise.

However from your school of thought, if there was a Hadith with a sound isnad but the matn stated that rape victims must be lashed then can you deny that would argue in favour of the lashing of rape victims?

z10
19th October 2006, 23:41
For proof, please contact Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, PhD Islamic University of Medina, the English translator of Sahih Bukhari, and a follower of the same belief system as yours.

The translations I have quoted in this thread are his. The onus is on you to prove that the quality of the translations is suspect.

When and if you do find something, take it up with the translator, not me. OK!

And please do ask him about the 'matn' of the following Hadith too and why our mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters have been potrayed in this manner?



So you are willing to follow an entire new 'sect' on the basis of another man's translation? Are willing to defame and denounce Ahadith on the translation of another man? I'm glad that the enlightened of today are so thorough in their research, so wise in their preachings.

Saeed Anwar-194
19th October 2006, 23:58
To all those who say we should not follow Sunnah then tell me what does this verse mean?

We have revealed to you the Zikr (Qur’ân) so that you may explain to the people what has been sent down for them.

If Allah tells hes Prophet(Sall Allah Alahi wa Sallam) to explain the Quran to people then tell me is the explanation in the Quran or the Sunnah?
This verse clearly explains that we need to follow the sayings of the Prophet(Sall Allah Alahi wa Sallam) because they are the explanations of the Quran without which we cant understand the Quran.
If you need more information on the authority of Hadeeth & Sunnah i reccomend you to read this article.
http://ccminc.faithweb.com/iqra/articles/authsun/chap3.html

May Allah guide us all and truly make us understand the Quran and follow in the footsteps of our beloved Prophet(Sall Allah Alahi wa Sallam) and hes Companions(ra) and the rightly guided ulema of this ummah and save us from the people of fitnaa.

Mercenary
20th October 2006, 00:12
To all those who say we should not follow Sunnah then tell me what does this verse mean?

We have revealed to you the Zikr (Qur’ân) so that you may explain to the people what has been sent down for them.

FIrstly read the thread before posting, your post may already have been discussed. Secondly give a reference when quoting something just like everyone else does!

Wazeeri
20th October 2006, 20:07
If that is true then why are there so many versions of the same account with differing wordings? Hadith were retold in story form and not learnt word for word. In fact I've never come across two Hadith on the same account from different sources with identical wording!! Look through any set of Hadith in Bukhari and Muslim on the same subject/account to see the differing wordings regarding the same account and your point is disproven!

Brother

I think you misunderstood my point. The Sahaba were retelling how they heard it but the Taibeen had to learn it of by heart to be able to teach others. So we have reassurance of the Sahabas account which I believe is reliable.





This is reliant on the Science of Hadith for determining the isnad being a proper science and being absolutely flawless, as I've mentioned before it's not even a distant relative of a science!

Brother I don't agree with that comment. If you can provide a better way of checking the isnad than you can claim these studies to be faulty. The Ulema in those times done 100% of what could be done to remove the truth from the lies and heresay.

Il-me Rajjal was initiated after 30 years of the prophet's passing away. It was very successfully used in the study of isnad because you could answer questions like

-Have any of the individuals in the isnad been proven to be liars
-What was their moral characteristics (I know you have a problem with this but you can't accept accounts from someone who is corrupt)
-Could the individuals have met according to their isnads
-Is the individual likely to have a political motive (shia / sunni)
-Are the words likely to be used by the Prophet(pbuh) ie any words which may have appeared after the prophet's time

Now if you have enough people claiming that they have heard such and such from the following line of people, and they all have the same mat'n and share an individual in their isnad than you can be assured that the hadith has been generated by that person.

If the person is a Sahaba than we can be assured that, that is how the Sahaba saw and remembered it.





And the isnad relies on a science which is based on hearsay, gossip, speculation, sixth sense and innuendo. I don't know about you but I refuse to base my belief system around such an arbitrary system of authentication. Let me re-paste part of my OP from the Hadith thread here...

The isnad study was started to get rid of the above mentioned problems. we both agree that not everything that happened to the prophet(pbuh), not all decission he made, not all actions he took.... are mentioned in the Quran.

So it would be very useful if we knew what exactly the Prophet(pbuh) acted like in order for us to understand islam better. A lot of really great people spent their whole lives trying to seperate heresay from the truth. I think we have gained enough assurance on the hadiths to say that they are probably true.



You talk about logic yet you can't seem to grasp why the Sahabah would go to all the trouble of opening schools but not put the Hadith into book format! You refuse to acknowledge the possibility that this was because they had been instructed not to by the Prophet!

It is more to do with foresight than anything else.
If a lie orignated in the Sahaba's time then they were there to refute it. They expected their students to do the same but eventually the power held by their Madrassas became redundant in front of the Monarchy and people stopped accepting the madrassas authority to accept or refute a claim.

A lot of lies started appearing and the study of isnad appeared out of necessity.


You have yet to produce a Hadith from the Prophet rescinding his ban on writing down the Hadith yet you easily brush aside the Hadith asking all such writings to be destroyed. Where's the logic in that?

In his time most of what was written on pieces of skin, tablets, leafs ...etc was the Quran. He didn't want people to confuse themselves between the words of god and his own words. Hadiths were written down very rarely because the Prophet was there to answer questions.

But the hadith telling was not discouraged otherwise the Prophet(pbuh) would have had to travel to all corners of the Islamic world to send messages.

As to when the Prophet rescinded his command of not writing anything down from him, we know that many sahaba wrote his words in his life and the most famous among them was Abdallah bin Amr (bin Al-'As).




However from your school of thought, if there was a Hadith with a sound isnad but the matn stated that rape victims must be lashed then can you deny that would argue in favour of the lashing of rape victims?

No I can't but it can be argued that the Quran says the same.
You said that stoning to death is against the Quran which proposes lashings. I said that the Zina in the Quran is speaking of the unmarried individual ie fornication and the hadiths speak of the married individual ie adultery.

The point was that there is a distinction between the two zina and thus the hadith is not contradicting the Quran. To support the claim I said that the word zina also applies to rape, so should we lash rape victims as well.

The quran doesn't make distinctions between the three zinas but as you said it is obvious that it is not speaking of Zina bil Jabbar when suggesting 100 lashes for the man and the woman.

The emphasis is on the fact that the hadiths are not in contradiction with the Quran because the Quran is speaking of fornication.

If a hadith is clearly not in line with the Quran than obviously the two can't hold and it has to be rejected. The problem is that people interpret the Quran as they will to induce a contradiction with the hadith and argue against the validity of hadith.

Perspective point

Just to be clear on the issue

We agree
- Not all sahih hadith are incorrect
- Some maybe
- If a hadith is in clear contradiction of the Quran than it is to be rejected

We disagree
- More Hadiths are true than not (you say opposite, right?)
- The collection of hadith was the best it could be (you say it could have been better?)
- Hadiths should be used to pass fatwas on sharia (you say not because of the above two disagreements, right?)

Mercenary
20th October 2006, 23:10
I think you misunderstood my point. The Sahaba were retelling how they heard it but the Taibeen had to learn it of by heart to be able to teach others. So we have reassurance of the Sahabas account which I believe is reliable.

So there should never be a case of the same account originally coming from the same Sahabah but with differing wordings in the account?


-Have any of the individuals in the isnad been proven to be liars

This is based on gossip and speculation


-What was their moral characteristics (I know you have a problem with this but you can't accept accounts from someone who is corrupt)

This is based on gossip, hearsay, speculation and innuendo.


-Could the individuals have met according to their isnads

There is merit in that.


-Is the individual likely to have a political motive (shia / sunni)

Irrelevant as a Sunni collector will be biased against Shia reporters and a Shia collector will be biased against Sunni reporters.


-Is the individual likely to have a political motive (shia / sunni)

A combination of hearsay, speculation and sixth sense.


-Are the words likely to be used by the Prophet(pbuh) ie any words which may have appeared after the prophet's time

There is some merit in that but since Hadiths were retold in the reporters own words, there is the possibility that new words could creep into a correct account.


we both agree that not everything that happened to the prophet(pbuh), not all decission he made, not all actions he took.... are mentioned in the Quran. So it would be very useful if we knew what exactly the Prophet(pbuh) acted like in order for us to understand islam better.

I believe that the Quran is a book for all time (till the End of Time). The (genuine) Hadith are accounts of what the Prophet did in a particular period for a particular people within a particular cultural structure. Not everything the Prophet ordered or did was meant to be copied till the end of time.

For example there are people who still use miswak or sit a certain way in the toilet. If the Prophet was born today with the same amenities we have then I sincerely believe that he would have used toothpaste and toilets in the same way that the rest of us do! Yet because of the existence of and importance attached to Hadith we have people copying what the Prophet did 1400 years ago!

There are people who dress in a certain way and cut their hair to a certain length just because the Prophet did it. Had the Prophet been born in today’s London he would no doubt have worn the clothes he grew up with and that were available to him. Do you honestly believe that he would have dressed up the way he did in Arabia? No he wouldn’t have, yet because of the existence of and importance attached to Hadith we have people copying what the Prophet did 1400 years ago!

Hadith are dangerous because they dilute the message of Islam, it goes from being a noble philosophy to a competition to see who can be the best ‘clone’ of the Prophet in looks. When in reality we should be aiming to be the best ‘clones’ of the Prophet in our dealings!


It is more to do with foresight than anything else.

So the Sahabah lacked the foresight for that but they knew to collect the Quran to guard it from corruption.


A lot of lies started appearing and the study of isnad appeared out of necessity.

What’s to stop the Isnad being made up too? The Bukhari collection took place 150 or so years after the Prophet and by then any made up isnads would be difficult or near impossible to weed out. Don’t give the example of the Science of Hadith because that couldn’t weed out fake isnads since the system is dependant on the piety of the names in the chain not the likelihood of the names being incorrectly referenced.


In his time most of what was written on pieces of skin, tablets, leafs ...etc was the Quran. He didn't want people to confuse themselves between the words of god and his own words.

And you know that because? Is there a Hadith telling us that or have you come to your own conclusions? On the same basis I can say that he didn’t want them to write the Hadith down because he didn’t want Islam to end up like Judaism and Xtianity where the main book is ignored and secondary religious books decide what the religion is. In fact that is what Islam has become, so he was right!


As to when the Prophet rescinded his command of not writing anything down from him, we know that many sahaba wrote his words in his life and the most famous among them was Abdallah bin Amr (bin Al-'As).

Either that or those Sahabah weren’t aware of the restriction? The fact remains there is no record of him rescinding it!


If a hadith is clearly not in line with the Quran than obviously the two can't hold and it has to be rejected.

But weren’t you arguing against doing this earlier? You said if the isnad is sound then the matn cannot be questioned.

Perspective point

I believe...

* Not all Hadith are genuine
* There is no way to know how many are or aren’t genine
* The method of Hadith collection was well meaning but fatally flawed
* Because of this doubt we shouldn’t use Hadith to decide on punishments or penalties

nafajafam
21st October 2006, 01:09
anyone seen the hadith collection thread posted by Teamy a while ago? Its a lecture by dr bilal philips and is very relevant to the discussion here. i recommed you guys to watch it and then discuss.

Wazeeri
21st October 2006, 20:02
So there should never be a case of the same account originally coming from the same Sahabah but with differing wordings in the account?

Most of them aren't like that but there are some instances where a Sahaba has passed on information to another sahaba and the 2nd Sahaba is reeling it off from his memory.


LIARS, This is based on gossip and speculation

A lot of people who had their hadith rejected because of this fact had lied in a court or they had given a false witness. They are no longer elligible to stand witness thus their accounts were rejected.


Irrelevant as a Sunni collector will be biased against Shia reporters and a Shia collector will be biased against Sunni reporters.

The demarkation between the two sects in terms of individuals came at a much later stage when the monarchies changed hand between the Sunnis and the Shias. At the start it was all an academic point of argument. I say this because Imam Hanbali was accused of being ahle-bait and he reasoned how he wasn't and why it may appear so.


There is some merit in that but since Hadiths were retold in the reporters own words, there is the possibility that new words could creep into a correct account.

If a sentence was being attributed to the Prophet(pbuh) and it wouldn't make sense for the Prophet to use a certain word than you would know instantly that it was a lie. However if it seemed that the reporter was only using a new term for a word the Prophet would use, you can accept this hadith and confirm the account from someone else.

This problem is usually countered by the fact that the Taibeen had to remember hadith of by heart and the words are from the Sahaba who were also from the time of the Prophet.


So the Sahabah lacked the foresight for that but they knew to collect the Quran to guard it from corruption.

Remember that the sahaba were not all happy with the compiling of the Quran at the start because they fealt that ot would be considered Bidah and maybe the people will start worshiping an Object the book instead of the Allah who sent down the message in the book.It came out of necessity rather than foresight.

The Hadith were just traditions from the Sahaba to support fatwas or just teach people about the Prophet. They probably didn't foresee lies from a common man being accepted by the common people. So Hadith also came out of necessity than foresight.



I believe that the Quran is a book for all time (till the End of Time). The (genuine) Hadith are accounts of what the Prophet did in a particular period for a particular people within a particular cultural structure. Not everything the Prophet ordered or did was meant to be copied till the end of time.

Thats another thing we agree on but we will probably differ on the things which were meant for all times and things which were meant for a particular time. Thus I think it is safer to follow the example of the Prophet(pbuh) unless it is not applicable to our situation and our situation doesn't require a backdown on any islamic morals.


Yet because of the existence of and importance attached to Hadith we have people copying what the Prophet did 1400 years ago!

I think that reflects the innocent love for the Prophet(pbuh) and if these people are not hurting anyone than we have no reason to judge them or argue against them.


Had the Prophet been born in today’s London he would no doubt have worn the clothes he grew up with and that were available to him.

I doubt he would have worn clothes with pictures on them, tight clothes, flashy clothes...etc but I agree you don't have to copy him like to like and I don't think most people ask you to do so.



Hadith are dangerous because they dilute the message of Islam, it goes from being a noble philosophy to a competition to see who can be the best ‘clone’ of the Prophet in looks. When in reality we should be aiming to be the best ‘clones’ of the Prophet in our dealings!

RHETORIC

I haven't really noticed people using Hadith primarily to see how to dress. It is more about how to act and I believe that is the view of most people.



What’s to stop the Isnad being made up too? ......
.....because that couldn’t weed out fake isnads since the system is dependant on the piety of the names in the chain not the likelihood of the names being incorrectly referenced.

Thats what the study of Isnad is based on, one way which you agreed on is.
-Could the individuals have met

That is just one example, I am not a student of this study thus I can't quote more but I believe that there must be some guys working there more intelligent than me who have developed a few better tests to test the validity of the isnad.


And you know that because? Is there a Hadith telling us that or have you come to your own conclusions?

I studied the subject in my submission days. The answer is not from the Hadith but the argument presented was using hadiths. Where a sahaba was mentioned who would write evrything the Prophet did or said related to religion down, his name was Abdallah bin Amr (bin Al-'As).


Either that or those Sahabah weren’t aware of the restriction? The fact remains there is no record of him rescinding it!

Well if he didn't object than that shows he has taken his order back.
A thing to note is that Abdallah bin Amr wasn't one of the scribes or experts of the Quran.



But weren’t you arguing against doing this earlier? You said if the isnad is sound then the matn cannot be questioned.

No I was arguing against the concept that if there is something in the mat'n which a person feels isn't true than it can be rejected. I have mentioned two tests on the mat'n which form a part of the study of isnad.

Another time when the Mat'n is tested is when you have multiple accounts of an event. If one of the accounsts contains something extra than it is probably a muddled up account by that one person.

Example
A says XYZ
B says XYZ
C says WXYZ
D says VYZ

From this we can deduce that Y and Z are most definitely true
X is probably true
and W and V are very questionable

This test is used by the Faqi when creating a fatwa.

Wazeeri
21st October 2006, 20:13
* Not all Hadith are genuine

Agreed


* There is no way to know how many are or aren’t genine

Agree slightly but I think we have gained enough assurance on the validity of all to say that it would be fairly hard to sneak a big lie in without a challenge.


* The method of Hadith collection was well meaning but fatally flawed

Disagree, It wasn't flawed just not absolute.


* Because of this doubt we shouldn’t use Hadith to decide on punishments or penalties

I think if there are
multiple accounts
of multiple events
in which the prophet acted a certain way
and there is was no challenge of the accounts
than it fairly easy to say that, thats what the Prophet had done.

Joseph K.
21st October 2006, 21:04
The middle path would be to deconstruct the whole hadith literature and discard the ones which are contrary to the universal message of Koran. If someone thinks that wearing jubba is sawab and looks down upon someone in jeans and tshirt, that person should be openly laughed at as he is stuck in a different time and different place. If a hadith balks the way of a positive change then it should be rejected. I would not go as far as to the rejection of all ahadith but a positive doubt about the puedo science of hadith, an open-midedness about the application of ahadith in the matters relating to, specially, human rights and a less respected stature of hadith in our religious cannon would be good to start with. At present more harm is done to Islam through the thoughtless application of hadith than anything else. It has opened the way for all kinds of bad things to enter our religion and pollute its pure message. Do you expect village illiterates to go for the source or research the authenticity of a hadith before they behead or stone someone?

Wazeeri
21st October 2006, 21:14
If a hadith balks the way of a positive change then it should be rejected.

Who decides what a positive change is?


Do you expect village illiterates to go for the source or research the authenticity of a hadith before they behead or stone someone?

No thats why we need the Ulema institutionalised and not everyone should be able to call themselves a Maulana, Mullah....etc

I think what you are suggesting is a study of hadith. As long as your methods of rejecting hadiths are consistant, objective, relevant and not based on your preferences I would accept it.

We have a mess at the moment because of all of our differences and the tug of war between the political Ulema. We need everyone to get together and get to the agreed upon nucleus of islam. From there we can go further.


Well done by the way on taking the debate towards what all debates should be heading. A conclusion and a point of action.

Joseph K.
21st October 2006, 21:16
I think if there are
multiple accounts
of multiple events
in which the prophet acted a certain way
and there is was no challenge of the accounts
than it fairly easy to say that, thats what the Prophet had done.

Koran goes to great lengths to establish that the Prophet was but a man, a human. What he did was for his time and some good things that he did were universallly so and some were for his time and place only. We must not follow everything that the Prophet was seen to be doing 1400 years ago. As Buddha said 'Do you take the pointing fingure for the moon', how true. Other nations have lost the true message of Allah by falling in the error of worshipping the prophets instead of their Sender. Allah is well aware of this pitfall and being Muslim means being a witness to the oneness and universality of Allah and humanness of the messenger. A human can not be universal. This is the real reason why Muslims are so far behind. The universal message of Koran, the message of justice, equality, compassion, kindness and above all rational enlightenment, are followed by other nations and Allah has rewarded them with great progress and safety whereas we mixed up texts, stuck to the temporal and forgot the universals. See where we stand now. This should be prove enough that we are making a terrible mistake somewhere.

Wazeeri
21st October 2006, 21:25
We must not follow everything that the Prophet was seen to be doing 1400 years ago.

Mercs already made this point and as I asked him, who decides which things are relevant to these times and which aren't?


The universal message of Koran, the message of justice, equality, compassion, kindness and above all rational enlightenment, are followed by other nations and Allah has rewarded them with great progress and safety whereas we mixed up texts, stuck to the temporal and forgot the universals. See where we stand now. This should be prove enough that we are making a terrible mistake somewhere.

First of all being poor doesn't mean we are doing something wrong and being rich doesn't mean you are being rewarded by Allah.

I agree, we aren't following the message of the Quran and that is why we are not progressing in terms of society, science, wealth...etc Not a single state in the world has implemented islam for long enough to be able to get anywhere. It has nothing to do with using miswak rather than toothpaste or wearing a long white dress rather than blue jeans.

Joseph K.
21st October 2006, 21:33
Not a single state in the world has implemented islam for long enough to be able to get anywhere.

As far as the decision concerning right or wrong is considered, I decide as my Allah ordered me to do so, to use my reason, to follow the book of Allah using all my faculties of reason. If my reason says that something is absurd and irrational and is not ordered by the Book of Allah then I would not do it. Simple. I would oppose such things and strive to uproot them from my society and my religion. As a Muslim this should be my duty. The problem is that we have mixed texts. This is kufr and now we are confused about all the slime that we find ourselves in.

Wazeeri
21st October 2006, 21:41
I decide as my Allah ordered me to do so, to use my reason, to follow the book of Allah using all my faculties of reason. If my reason says that something is absurd and irrational and is not ordered by the Book of Allah then I would not do it.

Why should I as a seperate person a member of the general public rely on your reason and reject something just because you feel it is against the Quran?

That is reasonable as far as you are concerned but don't expect a government to base a system on your intelligence.

Team Slayer
21st October 2006, 21:51
talbees iblees needs a few new chapters methinks.

Mercenary
21st October 2006, 23:19
talbees iblees needs a few new chapters methinks.

Agreed.

A chapter on the practise of reciting the Quran without ever trying to understand it and a chapter on deifying Hadith collections that are not 100% authentic would be very useful too!

Shame our scholarship would never dare to tackle such subjects!!

Wazeeri
21st October 2006, 23:25
Mercs

The subjects have been tackled and that is why we have Sahih books from different times and different scholars. If you come out with a new test which would prove some hadiths wrong than you can compile your own sahih book.

Team Slayer
22nd October 2006, 00:49
Agreed.

A chapter on the practise of reciting the Quran without ever trying to understand it and a chapter on deifying Hadith collections that are not 100% authentic would be very useful too!

Shame our scholarship would never dare to tackle such subjects!!

deifying hadith, now i've heard it all!! people who spent all their lives fighting shirk are being accused of deifyin hadith :91: it would be nice if the resident muhaddiseen of PP would actually bother to find out how the hadith was preserved before trying to misguide people. but of course, that's too much work and what's the fun in that, right?

like i said earlier, Quran is like rain. when it falls on plants and flowers, it magnifies their beauty and when it falls on garbage and rubbish, it magnifies their filth and stench.

Mercenary
22nd October 2006, 02:09
deifying hadith, now i've heard it all!! people who spent all their lives fighting shirk are being accused of deifyin hadith :91: it would be nice if the resident muhaddiseen of PP would actually bother to find out how the hadith was preserved before trying to misguide people. but of course, that's too much work and what's the fun in that, right?

like i said earlier, Quran is like rain. when it falls on plants and flowers, it magnifies their beauty and when it falls on garbage and rubbish, it magnifies their filth and stench.

Normally I would delete the above post but I think leaving it in place says far more about the sort of 'knowledge' you have and that you promote than thousands of pages of debate!

Compare your words and your response to those of the people you think are 'wrongly guided' and see the difference!

You could really learn from the likes of Wazeeri.

Team Slayer
22nd October 2006, 02:23
Normally I would delete the above post but I think leaving it in place says far more about the sort of 'knowledge' you have and that you promote than thousands of pages of debate!

Compare your words and your response to those of the people you think are 'wrongly guided' and see the difference!

You could really learn from the likes of Wazeeri.

oh thank you so much for the honour! you're much too kind.

as for my knowledge, its very limited and thus i follow those who are successful (the salaf, the imams and the like) and keep my mouth shut about things i don't know much about, unlike others who read a few snippets online talk as if they are Shaikh al-Islam or something!

as for my methodology, again i follow the methodology of those who are successful and instead of refutation after refutation...i believe in a 3-step method: learn, teach and then refute/debate.

i have posted material earlier and those who Allah (SWT) gave the Tawfeeq and those who were eager for the Truth (inshAllah) got rid of the doubts in their hearts through that material.

may Allah (SWT) guide us all, ameen.

Joseph K.
22nd October 2006, 02:25
like i said earlier, Quran is like rain. when it falls on plants and flowers, it magnifies their beauty and when it falls on garbage and rubbish, it magnifies their filth and stench.

So you have simplified the whole Quran, its matan and its effects in one sentence! Wow, I am amazed!

Mercenary
22nd October 2006, 02:41
i follow those who are successful (the salaf, the imams and the like) and keep my mouth shut about things i don't know much about, unlike others who read a few snippets online talk as if they are Shaikh al-Islam or something!

What you are basically saying is that you accept the status quo and 'keep your mouth shut'

You accept what scholars of the religion have said in the past rather than analysing your doubts and discussing your qualms.

Reverts to Islam reach us by analysing their doubts and discussing their qualms. They do not 'keep their mouths shut' and accept the status quo.

The Sahabah accepted the Prophet because they analysed their doubts, discussed their qualms and didn't accept the status quo by 'keeping hteir mouths shut'

During the Prophets time there were many people who 'kept their mouths shut' and followed those who were successful in their pagan religion rather than opening their minds to the Prophet. We know the fate of people with that mindset.

Airing and discussing one's concerns is a healthy and Islamic thing to do, it's a precedent set for us by the Sahabah themselves. It does not mean we leave Islam, it means we strive to understand it better. Understanding Islam better does not mean we blindly accept what was decided long before we were born! Critical thought is a far more important thing to emulate than a haircut, a beard length or whether to drink water sitting or standing.

I know which group of people I would rather be associated with!!

Team Slayer
22nd October 2006, 02:48
What you are basically saying is that you accept the status quo and 'keep your mouth shut'

You accept what scholars of the religion have said in the past rather than analysing your doubts and discussing your qualms.

Reverts to Islam reach us by analysing their doubts and discussing their qualms. They do not 'keep their mouths shut' and accept the status quo.

The Sahabah accepted the Prophet because they analysed their doubts, discussed their qualms and didn't accept the status quo by 'keeping hteir mouths shut'

During the Prophets time there were many people who 'kept their mouths shut' and followed those who were successful in their pagan religion rather than opening their minds to the Prophet. We know the fate of people with that mindset.

Airing and discussing one's concerns is a healthy and Islamic thing to do, it's a precedent set for us by the Sahabah themselves. It does not mean we leave Islam, it means we strive to understand it better. Understanding Islam better does not mean we blindly accept what was decided long before we were born! Critical thought is a far more important thing to emulate than a haircut, a beard length or whether to drink water sitting or standing.

I know which group of people I would rather be associated with!!

LOL. SubhanAllah!

Once a man travelled for a few months...left his hometown and came to Madina to talk to Imam Malik (RA) about an issue. He asked him his quesiton...Imam Malik (RA) replied "I don't know the answer to that".

The man was shocked. He said "What do you mean? How can you say that to me after I have travelled all this while just to get to Madina to ask you this?"

Imam Malik (RA) replied "I don't know."

And the man left...

Bottom line: when you don't know about something, don't yap about it.

Learn about it first before you talk about it. Now if that seems like a close-minded attitude, then oh well...

Mercenary
22nd October 2006, 02:54
LOL. SubhanAllah!

Once a man travelled for a few months...left his hometown and came to Madina to talk to Imam Malik (RA) about an issue. He asked him his quesiton...Imam Malik (RA) replied "I don't know the answer to that".

The man was shocked. He said "What do you mean? How can you say that to me after I have travelled all this while just to get to Madina to ask you this?"

Imam Malik (RA) replied "I don't know."

And the man left...

Bottom line: when you don't know about something, don't yap about it.

Learn about it first before you talk about it. Now if that seems like a close-minded attitude, then oh well...

Wouldn't you be shocked? I know I would be.

When people come to me (at work, at home or in general) and ask me a question that they expected me to know the answer to, I often don't know the answer because no-one is the fountain of all knowledge.

Now I'm no match for Imam Malik but my response is always 'I don't know the answer to that but I will try to find out. When do you need the answer by?'

z10
22nd October 2006, 02:54
there is a difference between 'accepting the status quo' and as teamy said first learning of the subject matter and then questioning it.

Prime example, garbage can here spent many a page arguing on the 'matn' of hadith, when i asked him to debate with me on the original matn in arabic, he disappeared.

Besides which, and quite a philosophical point, no such thing as an open mind, no such thing as freedom, and we are enslaved to everything ;)

z10
22nd October 2006, 02:56
Wouldn't you be shocked? I know I would be.

When people come to me (at work, at home or in general) and ask me a question that they expected me to know the answer to, I often don't know the answer because no-one is the fountain of all knowledge.

Now I'm no match for Imam Malik but my response is always 'I don't know the answer to that but I will try to find out. When do you need the answer by?'


so now we are questioning imam Malik (ra) aswell? SubhanAllah.

Joseph K.
22nd October 2006, 03:02
Cynicism returns to this excellent thread. I'll stay away for a while till the bombast cools down!

garbage_can2003
22nd October 2006, 04:47
Prime example, garbage can here spent many a page arguing on the 'matn' of hadith, when i asked him to debate with me on the original matn in arabic, he disappeared.


Posts # 190 and 195 are clear on who disappeared.

And I have read all your posts including the ones in the thread you started about whether we can understand the Quran or not. You should be the last person playing the Arabic language card!

z10
22nd October 2006, 04:52
ive responded to post 195, in post 199. Do take a look.

As for my other threads, keep them away from this debate. If you have a bone to pick then bump that thread and we'll discuss it there.

garbage_can2003
22nd October 2006, 05:03
The middle path would be to deconstruct the whole hadith literature and discard the ones which are contrary to the universal message of Koran. If someone thinks that wearing jubba is sawab and looks down upon someone in jeans and tshirt, that person should be openly laughed at as he is stuck in a different time and different place. If a hadith balks the way of a positive change then it should be rejected. I would not go as far as to the rejection of all ahadith but a positive doubt about the puedo science of hadith, an open-midedness about the application of ahadith in the matters relating to, specially, human rights and a less respected stature of hadith in our religious cannon would be good to start with. At present more harm is done to Islam through the thoughtless application of hadith than anything else. It has opened the way for all kinds of bad things to enter our religion and pollute its pure message. Do you expect village illiterates to go for the source or research the authenticity of a hadith before they behead or stone someone?

Although I disagree with you but can live with what you have said.

The middle path is unlikely to work simply because every sect has its own literature. Can you even imagine the imams of all sects agreeing on one set of Hadiths. I can't.

The only way forward is if we have some kind of a copernicus revolution ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus ) in Islam. This will encouage the main stream muslims to take a more skeptical attitude towards established dogma.

garbage_can2003
22nd October 2006, 05:27
ive responded to post 195, in post 199. Do take a look.


So you half-disappeared. :)

I meant a response to the 'matn' of the posts. One-liners cannot be considered a response!




As for my other threads, keep them away from this debate. If you have a bone to pick then bump that thread and we'll discuss it there.

Well you made it a part of this debate. Please read post # 17. Now you do not want to make it a part of this debate. Thats strange.

z10
22nd October 2006, 05:29
So you half-disappeared. :)

I meant a response to the 'matn' of the posts. One-liners cannot be considered a response!

How about you respond to that rather than make excuses. That may get us somewhere.



Well you made it a part of this debate. Please read post # 17. Now you do not want to make it a part of this debate. Thats strange.


I made that a part of 'this' debate when 'this' debate was still on the interpretation of the Quran. 'This' debate has now become one solely on hadith and so that thread is irrelevant to this thread.

garbage_can2003
22nd October 2006, 07:19
How about you respond to that rather than make excuses. That may get us somewhere.


Your demand for a debate makes little sense mate unless you can prove that their is a problem with Dr. Khans translation. Please open page iii/iv of vol I of Sahih Bukhari ( I assume you have the full volume on your book shelf) and read the certificate attesting the high degree of precision of the translation from the scholars based in Saudi Arabia.

And this quote of yours from a previous post


The hadith are authenticated right down to the last detail


is a reflection of how unprepared and misinformed you are to speak on this topic. Even the hardcore (well informed) defenders of Hadith do not make this claim!




I made that a part of 'this' debate when 'this' debate was still on the interpretation of the Quran. 'This' debate has now become one solely on hadith and so that thread is irrelevant to this thread.

That thread makes it pretty much clear you are not conversant with the arabic language yourself yet want to have a debate with me about the 'matn' in arabic! :13:

Mercenary
22nd October 2006, 12:36
there is a difference between 'accepting the status quo' and as teamy said first learning of the subject matter and then questioning it.

Are reverts experts in their religions when they start questioning? Were the Sahabah fully versed in the detail of their pagan beliefs before embracing Islam? Should we refuse to accept anyone into Islam who doesn't hold a degree in the faith that they are leaving? If we aren't hypocrites then surely we should expect the same standards for people embracing Islam that we expect from Muslims already in Islam!!


Prime example, garbage can here spent many a page arguing on the 'matn' of hadith, when i asked him to debate with me on the original matn in arabic, he disappeared.

Another prime example is yourself. You said you would answer my question and that you needed time but then you decided not to answer it. You expect others to debate with you when you wont debate yourself, is that not hypocrisy?

Besides which are you fully versed in the Arabic of the Prophet's time? Are you able to enter a debate on the matn in Arabic? If you're not then this challenge is another case of arguing for the sake of arguing. All you're doing is sidestepping the issue by introducing restrictions which you yourself can't facilitate. Even if garbage could discuss the matn in Arabic, can you?


so now we are questioning imam Malik (ra) aswell? SubhanAllah.

And why can we not question Imam Malik? Is he God? Is he a Prophet? Is he one of the Sahabah? Is he one of the Taibeen?

At what stage can we question someone?

Is anyone who has written a book, researched Islam or founded a school of thought beyond error? Are they divinely appointed? Are they perfect humans free from error?

The account that TS repeated here is not something to be celebrated. It's something that we shouldn't repeat because frankly it's quite embarassing.

According to TS, a Muslim made a long arduous journey to someone he considered to be a man of knowledge. No doubt the journey took him away from his family, cost him money and took up valuable time. Now the correct reponse to such a person is not to repeat 'I don't know' till he goes away.

The correct response from a seeker of knowledge and a man of wisdom would be to offer to find the mans answer, to direct the man to where he could get the correct answer, to issue a fatwa (since he is an Imam) on the matter if there is no existing ruling on it or to explain to the man why it wasn't possible to answer the question.

Simply dismissing the man is not something to be proud of or to hold up as a role model.

This is the second example that TS has brought which is hugely flawed and works against him rather than for him!!

Mercenary
22nd October 2006, 12:50
As for my other threads, keep them away from this debate. If you have a bone to pick then bump that thread and we'll discuss it there.

If you express an opinion it shouldn't be for a 'specific thread'

It should be an opinion that you are able to defend and back up in any thread anywhere like the rest of us.


is a reflection of how unprepared and misinformed you are to speak on this topic. Even the hardcore (well informed) defenders of Hadith do not make this claim!

Exactly. But that post might be one that he can't defend, I'm sure he'll come up with a reason as to why.


That thread makes it pretty much clear you are not conversant with the arabic language yourself yet want to have a debate with me about the 'matn' in arabic! :13:

You haven't figured it out yet? He can't hold that debate with you even if you were the pre-eminent Arabic speaker in the world because he himself can't debate the matn in Arabic. The whole point was to introduce a stalemate and hope that you wouldn't pick up on it.

Interesting that he is always so shocked when anyone else questions a Hadith or a scholar's word but he himself titled a thread 'God is dead' and thought nothing of it.

Ace Base
22nd October 2006, 15:07
Bismilliah hir Rahmaan Ir Raheem

I have no wish to enter the revolving door of refutation and counter-refutation that is this thread because I don't see many knowledge based discussions on here. The sons have google have a position to defend and they will defend it even if we were to ''pass a camel through the eye of a needle'' as the Quraan states. This applies to both sides equally.

I do not say you must be a scholar to speak about this topic nor do I say that the spirit of enquiry must be surpressed. Rather, it is by questioning and discussing the core values of our religion that this Deen has remained alive, of course by Allah's permission.

However, I do say that people so authoritatively stating what the Quraan does say or doesn't must at least speak the language of the Quraan! Is that not reasonable?

Allah says in the Quraan "Laqad Inzalna Quraanan Arabiyun''.

For all those who do read the Quraan, tell me, how do you read it without the ahkaam (principles) of Tajweed (I don't know how I can translate such a heavy word comprehensively, it needs a separate post!) and is Arabic grammar related to Tajweed?

The answer to this question will answer whether or not there should be any dependance on the Hadith or the ''science'' of Ilm Ar Rijaal.

So first, what must be established is whether or not the Quraan contains injunctions to follow the Sunnah for legislative purposes. How can you establish that without hearing the Quraan speak? How can you understand the Quraan, when you don't understand the language it is speaking in?

Islaam is not an Arabic religion but Allah chose to reveal the scriptures in this language and it is obligation on each Muslim to try and learn the language. Whether you are successful in this endeavor or not is not the point as long as you try.

Second, almost anybody can prove anything using just the Quraan. All positions, Hadith and Anti-Hadith, Shia and Sunni, Takfeeri/Jihaadi and Salafi, tee-totaller and drinker can be justified using just the Quraan alone.

The Shia Imaam Khomeni, said in his book ''Tahrirolvaseleh'', about the Quraanic verse ''Ýakhruju min humal lu'lu'oo wal marjaan'' that this refers to Hasan and Hussain radi Allahu Anhumaa. In the abscence of any other guidance can you refute his claim?

Similarly, Mohammed Abduh, the Eygyptian writer said in his book ''Masaail Quraaniyyah'' that Surah Al Feel is symbolism and none of the events stated in there literally happened. Can you refute his claim, without using any other sources but the Quraan?

So you see, without the Hadith, interpretation of the Quraan is a free for all!

It is also interesting to note that the Mu'tazilah existing at the time of the prophet and they were never considered seriously so they eventually died out. However, at various times some form of ''rationalistic'' school of thought has emerged from the woodworks to try and put their spin on Islaam.

The most well known example is Rashaad Khalifah (by the way, those calling him a kaafir, what's your daleel exclusively from the Quraan?!!!) but Rashaad was merely following in the footsteps of his Pakistaani predecessor Ghulam Ahmed Perwez who in turn was influenced by Abdullah Chakralawi (profiles on each in a later thread, I promise, although I'll have to translate most of the stuff which I'm not looking forward to after a hard Ramadaan!).

The spiritual leader and founder of Hizb At Tahrir, Sheikh Nabhaani was an avowed ''hadith rejector'' (Mercenary, you might have more in common with the Tahriris than you ever thought possible!!). Like the followers of Perwez, they don't reject all the Ahadith, but specifically Ahad ones and some other types, but that's for another thread, Inshallah.

Many questions have been asked by either side and several of them have been answered and unless people come in with an active mind, nobody is going to learn anything.

Garbage can already admitted in one of the posts in this thread that he was unlikely to change his mind. It seems that most individuals on here do have their minds made up. Some are turning this into a battle of egos, some into a debating contest, very few into a learning experience.

Ace Base
22nd October 2006, 15:37
The ulemaa from amongst the Shiaa and the Sunni are unanimous in the opinion that Islaam is completed only when the Quraan and the Sunnah are acted upon. You will not find any point in the history of this religion, be it 1400 years ago or 14 years ago where the consensus was contrary to this position.

Even the early Mu'tazilah did not outrightly reject ahadith but rather they chose to interpret certain ayahs in the Quraan based on their intellect even when it was in conflict with the Hadith. However, this thought was short-lived for the very reason that the companions of the Prophet, may Allah be pleased with them, decisively crushed the doubts created by such people.

Islaam does not frown at ''against the grain'' thinking, rather admires it, but what we are dealing with here vis a vis hadith rejectors is against Islaam!

Most Muslims, foremost amongst them is me, are ignorant about even basic things in Islaam and so it is easy for people to sow the seeds of doubt into their minds. For example, the most common misconception doing the rounds is ''All Hadith collected in the Sihaa Sittah (the six Sahih) are authentic, that's why they are called ''sahih'' right?

An example: "'Paradise lies under the feet of the mother'' is a popular hadith reported by Sahih Muslim and Bukhaari. However, the hadith is proven to be inauthentic and hence cannot be attributed to Rasool Allah. The matn (text) of this hadith is jayyid (of a good meaning, correct) so should ''authentic'' and ''inauthentic'' be based on how one feels about the text?

Similarly, you might have heard of the hadith ''The differences within my Ummah is a mercy"'. I don't remember where this has been collected but it is a popular hadith nonetheless and one found in many texts of Fiqh. However, upon examining the isnaad it becomes clear that one of the narrators has a weak memory and another narrator lived in a different time to the one he claimed to have narrated from!

So this is the manner in which a hadith is critiqued, not on whether it agrees with your understanding of Mohammed Muhsin Khan's translation of Sahih Bukhari!

For those who still insist on a matn based examination, then I echo z10s challenge. No, Merc, this is not to maintain a status quo, a stalemate but to humble people into realising their place. Subhaan Allah, most of you went to university to study your chosen careers so you probably know the difference between knowledge and hearsay so why not apply the same rules to Islaam?

If a high speed internet connection and access to google and wikipedia is all it took then today I'd be a brain surgeon.

Ace Base
22nd October 2006, 15:49
We Arabs have a saying, ''many are those who claim to love Leila, but Leila does not love them''.

This is the situation of those who claim that the Quraan is ''all that is needed''. You love Allah's book and Masha Allah that is a very noble sentiment, may Allah make us from those who love His words.

But lets examine closely, now. Did you try and learn the language of your beloved? Did you reflect upon its verses, memorise them, implement them in your lives?

Do you understand what the word ''Quraan'' means? Do you understand the implications of this meaning?

This miracle that the Quraan claims it is- what is so miraculous about it?

The answers to all these questions have direct relation to your stance on Hadith.

tahaqureshi
22nd October 2006, 16:03
I am in awe of Ace Base at the moment. I am speechless. Thank you, thank you for stopping us in our tracks and making us realise the gross mistakes we are committing.

We are indeed taking a path without proper knowledge.

Mercenary
22nd October 2006, 16:10
A fascinating read as per usual Ace but there is something to be said for one's fitrah.

No amount of reading is going to change my basic dislike for the practise of stoning. As the poll on that thread showed, 70%+ of those who accept the practise is authentic would balk at taking part. They can't imagine picking up stones and battering an adulterer to death, it doesn't agree with their fitrah. Wazeeri even produced a Hadith where the Prophet himself didn't want to use the punishment but was left with no choice!

We make our decisions and base our beliefs mainly through this God given internal radar. It doesn't matter how many books I read or how many people I talk to, I can't imagine that they could ever convince me to believe in stoning as a punishment, it disgusts and alienates me and many others.

However as we both know there are many people who have beaten down their fitrah and would happily stone a stranger for a crime of passion without remorse. You could well argue that these people need guidance and that's what scholars are there for. But it's these same people that are attracted to the dark side of Islam.

If ever we want Muslim unity then the first thing we must sacrifice is the Hadith. Each group claims their own set of Hadiths but all mainstream sects accept the Quran as it is. If there is a barrier to the unity and co-existence of the main sects it's the Hadith.

Also wesbites like faithfreedom and others couldn't exist were it not for many of the juicy Hadith which their livelihood depends upon. The Quran attracts people and awakens thought, the Hadith repel and restrict.

I would be happy to accept Hadith if it was possible to know which ones are 100% authentic but there is no system that can tell us that.


For those who still insist on a matn based examination, then I echo z10s challenge. No, Merc, this is not to maintain a status quo, a stalemate but to humble people into realising their place.

You missed the point Ace, for you to issue the challenge with your command of Arabic is entirely acceptable. For someone who doesn't know Arabic to issue the same challenge is not the same thing!

Ace Base
22nd October 2006, 16:11
Who should we believe?

God or His Unappointed Mafia?

Subhaan Allah, that's intellectual dishonesty. Do you expect a healthy ''discussion'' with such a loaded question?

Why such a confrontational stand, akhi? Why split the Islaamic world into us versus the mullahs? Is this a purely Pakistaani phenomenon, because I see a lot of this on Pakpassion.

Even most most hard-nosed, cynical fellow-Arab secularists never create such a false dichotomy in their discussions with me. Are you trying to apply Pakistaan's experience with religion as a sort of benchmark for all things Islaamic?

As i mentioned earlier, if you understand the basic message of the Quraan, Tawheed, then you won't have a problem with any of the questions you raised in your opening post. Yes, Allah intends for us to try and learn Arabic and He has made it easy for us to learn it.

Proof: Unlike the languages previous scriptures were revealed in, Arabic is alive and flourishing and a major world language. If you speak Urdu, its even easier for you to learn it as the script is, I have been told, almost the same.

The verses you have posted as evidence that the Quraan is easy to understand for everyone is not proof at all as it can equally be argued that it is easy for the ones who speak Arabic. As for the Quraan being for everyone, then yes, it is only if you make it yours- by understanding what it has to say.

In any event, if you understand the essence of the message of the Quraan, then yes, it is easy for everybody, speaker or non-speaker, to follow.

Ace Base
22nd October 2006, 16:18
I strongly disagree, that's a completely irrelevant example.

Sciences are continually evolving. Existing thoughts, principles and processes are being challenged and dismissed or bettered on a daily basis.

Also scholarship in other religions (eg Xtianity) is closer to true scholarship. They challenge long held beliefs and traditions and often prove them to be erroneous. For example the real origins of Christmas, the real history behind the Trinity concept and the discrepancies in the crucifiction story have all been debated, investigated and exposed by Xtian scholars.

On the other hand Islamic scholarship is not scholarship. Scholars in Islam only agree with and reaffirm what was said by scholars before them. For example no other religion would hold the four schools of thought in such high regard so long after the event.

Forget about serious scholarship such as tackling the issue of the myriad weak and contradictory Hadith, Islamic scholars are too frightened to even tackle the views of traditionally accepted scholars of the past!

There is no such thing as a science or such a profession as scholarship within orthodox Islam and we are all the poorer for it!!

Scholarship in Islaam is not scholarship?!

What a preposterous statement!

Akhi, clearly you have a bone to grind with some ''mullah'' out there. I know some Christian friends who were choir boys but are now quite critical of the Christian clergy. I know that we have our fair share of deviant ''mullahs'' but don't take out your unfortunate experiences with them on us!

Mercenary
22nd October 2006, 16:38
Why such a confrontational stand, akhi? Why split the Islaamic world into us versus the mullahs? Is this a purely Pakistaani phenomenon, because I see a lot of this on Pakpassion.

I believe it's already split along those lines. Any poll I've conducted here on PP (for what it's worth) has returned results that state most doubt Hadith and most disagree with many punishments with their foundations in Hadith. Perhaps it's because we have a mainly western base on PP and their concept of human rights is different to those acceptable to Arab countries


Is this a purely Pakistaani phenomenon, because I see a lot of this on Pakpassion.

Perhaps Pakistanis aren't under the same sort of regimes as the Arabs are in places like Saudi itself. It's not a crime to think in Pakistan as of yet. Many Arabs know that taking strong stands will result in losing their head sooner or later!

Besides which, the focus on Hadith in this thread has given a bit of a false notion about the thread itself. If you read the OP you will see that I was talking about modern scholarship and that I felt it has become a rubber stamping exercise as opposed to scholarship in the past which was far more dynamic.


As i mentioned earlier, if you understand the basic message of the Quraan, Tawheed, then you won't have a problem with any of the questions you raised in your opening post.

Understanding Tawhid doesn't mean that Hadith suddenly become undeniably authentic, understanding Tawhid doesn't make every scholar flawless.


Yes, Allah intends for us to try and learn Arabic and He has made it easy for us to learn it.

Proof: Unlike the languages previous scriptures were revealed in, Arabic is alive and flourishing and a major world language.

I disagree, Allah knows the sort of struggle we have to go through in life. Learning Arabic as a language is something that not every person can afford financially or time wise. So what of those people? Are they never destined to hear Allah's words other than the Arabic version which they cant undestand?

If the Quran is truly a global and near-eternal text then it must pass the test of translation otherwise it's nothing more than a localised phenomena. Besides which, who does one believe?

There is also the argument that the Arabic of the Quran is not the Arabic still spoken today, so who do we believe?

Ace Base
22nd October 2006, 16:38
You're missing the point completely. By exposing the Trinity, the Xtian scholars made it possible for many to brush aside falsehood and re-embraced the original doctrine.

Surely in Islam we can do with critical scholarship on things such as the practise of stoning which is only justified through weak Hadith. We can blow apart many of the myths that allow the subjugation of the Ummah by the Divine Mafia.

Critical scholarship is a must and even the Quran encourages it, it even goes two steps further and sets forth a challenge for someone to produce 10 Surahs like the Quran. But if someone did make the attempt in todays world then they would be the subject of rioting and effigy burning. Is that what Allah had in mind when settting forth the challenge or does He want his followers to enter into debate with these people and beat them comprehensively!!

In the past and in the present times, there have been many, many scholars who have critically examined the science of ''jarh wa ta'deel'' or ''mustalah hadith'' and re-intrepreted Islaamic laws based on the the authenticity of ahaadith.

Imaam Ahmad Ibn Hambal for example, debunked the misconception of the ''three in one'' talaaq showing it to be based on false ahaadith.

Imam Saboonee came out with a critique of the Hadith ''My sahabah are like stars, follow anyone of them to be guided'' and showed how a daeef hadith like this cannot be used for justifying blind following of schools of thought.

Ibn Qayyim Al Jawzee exploded the myth of female-circumcision in Islaam by displaying how the hadiths used to support this practice were wrong.

The ''stoning'' that you talk about has details to it, details which you must go and study before making such a blanket statement.

Ace Base
22nd October 2006, 16:47
I believe it's already split along those lines. Any poll I've conducted here on PP (for what it's worth) has returned results that state most doubt Hadith and most disagree with many punishments with their foundations in Hadith. Perhaps it's because we have a mainly western base on PP and their concept of human rights is different to those acceptable to Arab countries



Perhaps Pakistanis aren't under the same sort of regimes as the Arabs are in places like Saudi itself. It's not a crime to think in Pakistan as of yet. Many Arabs know that taking strong stands will result in losing their head sooner or later!

Besides which, the focus on Hadith in this thread has given a bit of a false notion about the thread itself. If you read the OP you will see that I was talking about modern scholarship and that I felt it has become a rubber stamping exercise as opposed to scholarship in the past which was far more dynamic.



Understanding Tawhid doesn't mean that Hadith suddenly become undeniably authentic, understanding Tawhid doesn't make every scholar flawless.



I disagree, Allah knows the sort of struggle we have to go through in life. Learning Arabic as a language is something that not every person can afford financially or time wise. So what of those people? Are they never destined to hear Allah's words other than the Arabic version which they cant undestand?

If the Quran is truly a global and near-eternal text then it must pass the test of translation otherwise it's nothing more than a localised phenomena. Besides which, who does one believe?

There is also the argument that the Arabic of the Quran is not the Arabic still spoken today, so who do we believe?

You misunderstand, Merc.

I'm questioning the us versus mullah mindset that I find more of a Pakistaani phenomenon. Fine, then, a Pakpassion phenomenon.

What does Saudia have to do with the price of fish?

Saudis, Emaratis, Arabs living in the west have not, by and large made this distinction the Pakistaanis on here seem to do. That's what I was questioning.

Bin Ladin took a strong stance, misguided as he was. So do all the takfeeri, khawaarij rabble you see either in the Arab lands or the West. I don't see your point.

As for you saying that the Quraan of the Arabic is not the Arabic spoken today then is that a question or an allegation?

Because if it is an allegation, you might find it impossible to prove. Just thought that I, as an Arab, might point that out to you.

Ace Base
22nd October 2006, 16:52
Where did I say that translations are an ineffective way of understanding the Quraan's basic message?

Is that what you and the rest of the people on here are trying to do? Seek understanding?

No, rather, you come across as trying to teach us what the Quraan really means. And it is for this reason that I say to you, if you feel qualified enough to tell us what the Quraan is or isn't then surely you speak its language?

Mercenary
22nd October 2006, 16:54
Scholarship in Islaam is not scholarship?!

What a preposterous statement!

Because you say so?

Islamic scholarship is a closed group, in fact i would argue that there is no such thing as Islamic scholarship anymore.

Anyone who questions the validity of Hadith or who starts to do any critical Islamic work which is truly critical of 'accepted' Islamic thinking is called a 'kaffir' and as a result most scholars are happy to maintain the status quo in a field where agreeing with the main body of work is valued more than any groundbreaking research or breakthroughs! No Islamic scholar would get plaudits for disproving something a previous scholar had stated.

The discovery of the dead sea scrolls in Qumran turned Xtian thinking on its head but a similar discovery of buried Qurans in 1972 during the restoration of the Great Mosque of San'a, in Yemen hasnt resulted in anything similar. In that mosque a "paper grave" was uncovered containing tens of thousands of fragments of parchment on which verses of the Qur'an were written. These pages went back as far as the 7th and 8th century AD! Many of the pages from these Qurans differ from the one we have today but how many of you have heard of it? How many Islamic scholars have studied those pages in detail?? How many books do we have on the differences in the Qurans and the reasons for them?

Lets not blindly give today's scholars some really high place in our eyes, they arent interested in getting the truth but much like the vatican they would rather perpetuate the ideas and styles which keep them in a position of power over the 'ordinary muslims'

Do you think if a scholar 'qualified' from one of these elite Islamic universities came out with a book questioning the Hadith to the extent they have been in this thread, would keep his 'qualifications' and be heralded as a hero?

No he would be labelled a kaffir and have a fatwa hanging over his head in a matter of seconds! Sadly thats the state of Islamic scholarship and rather than the Ummah holding these scholars to account we refer any controversial question to them as though they are God's appointed intermediaries!!

Mercenary
22nd October 2006, 16:58
As for you saying that the Quraan of the Arabic is not the Arabic spoken today then is that a question or an allegation?

Because if it is an allegation, you might find it impossible to prove. Just thought that I, as an Arab, might point that out to you.

I was repeating an argument someone was making against using the Quran without Hadith. He said something like 'The Arabic of today is not the same Arabic used in the Quran.'

I was asking which version is true.

Mercenary
22nd October 2006, 16:59
No, rather, you come across as trying to teach us what the Quraan really means. And it is for this reason that I say to you, if you feel qualified enough to tell us what the Quraan is or isn't then surely you speak its language?

Very presumptious


Where did I say that translations are an ineffective way of understanding the Quraan's basic message?

I'm glad you agree.

Ace Base
22nd October 2006, 17:13
Do you think if a scholar 'qualified' from one of these elite Islamic universities came out with a book questioning the Hadith to the extent they have been in this thread, would keep his 'qualifications' and be heralded as a hero?

No he would be labelled a kaffir and have a fatwa hanging over his head in a matter of seconds! Sadly thats the state of Islamic scholarship and rather than the Ummah holding these scholars to account we refer any controversial question to them as though they are God's appointed intermediaries!!

That, Mrcenary, is also very presumptuous.

"Back in the days'', when the state policy was ''Asha'ri'' it was a crime to say that the Quraan is not a creation.

Khalifa Haroon Rasheed, may Allah have mercy upon him, did not belive in a gentle slap on the wrists to correct people. Oh, no! Off with the head it was.

Imaam Ahmed Ibn Hambal was ordered to the court to state his views.

One thousand seventeen other scolars were present (Although, the Arab historian Al Shanqeeti records one thousand twenty one but I say lets go with the lower figure).

Ibn Hambal looked around and realised all of them, faced with death, had actually stated the official line as their beliefs. Imaam Ahmed knew that Allah would excuse him for lying for as the Quraan states, when faced with death, a Muslim is allowed to lie.

However, he also realised the responsibility of scholarship or independant thought of preserving the Sunnah.

So he said to the Khaleefah:" Yaa Ameer Al Moumineen, inna Al Quraanu Kalimatul Allah waa Qalimatu Allahi Ghairu Khuliq!"

''Indeed, the Quraan is Allah's words and Allah's words, emanating from the Creator cannot be a creation!''

Do you still believe Islaams scholar's are not willing to challenge the establishment?

Ace Base
22nd October 2006, 17:15
Very presumptious



I'm glad you agree.

Sorry, its the Arabic language syndrome! In Arabic we use ''you'' for both singular and plural depending on the context.

Of course, I didn't mean just you or you specifically, I meant that the contributors to this thread ''come across'', ''seem to be'' teaching us something!

Ace Base
22nd October 2006, 17:36
Just to summarise my position on this topic, because I really do feel that all I can do here is rant:

1. The Quraan and the Sunnah as per the understanding of the Pious Predecesors is what is required to be followed by Muslims.

2. The Quraan is meant to understood. Merely reading it is of no benefit whatsoever. For non-Arabic speakers AND Arabic speakers, the better your Arabic, the more you're likely to understand its deeper, more profound aspects.

3. In Islaam, each person is obliged to research an Islaamic position to the best of his or her ability. Part of this research might involving asking an expert ( a scholar, for instance) but as long as the person has taken all possible steps to acquire knowledge about a particular issue, then the person is, Insha Allah, not blameworthy, as long as he does not force his point of view or his ''ijtehaad'' upon other people.

4. The steps undertaken for research must be in line with what the Prophet sallahu alahi wassalaam ordered: "Search for evidences from the Quraan, Sunnah and the application of both of these by the Sahaabah''.

5. All the Ahadith are not sahih, otherwise what would be the point of the science of criticising ahadith?

6. Last, the man who collected the hadith prohibiting the collection of hadith, what was he?

And with that, I end my participation in this thread.

May Allah guide us all, accept our fasting in this month grant us humility.

Wassalaam