Do you guys see the problem with Islam?

[mclinkin94]

Watch this video, this is probably the most accurate mainstream representation of the public perception of Islam.

Warning: it has swears and she is a very emotional person, so do not let your children or anyone sensitive to this watch or hear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eI3S_UoCJE&feature=c4-overview&list=UUravYcv6C0CopL2ukVzhzNw

Topics Discussed:

• Death for apostates (not a Quranic concept, stems from hadiths)
• Violence against those people who draw the prophet (not a Quranic concept, stems from Hadiths)
• The prophet being a pedophile (not a Quranic concept, stems from hadiths)
• The prophet being 'evil' (notice how the Quran does not make the prophet look bad like Hadiths)
• Muslim countries following Shariah based on Hadiths (Like Saudi Arabia)"

The problem with Islam is Muslims NOT following the Quran.

The Quran has predicted this and warned us of this:

[Quran 31:6] Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless HADITH, and  divert others from the path of God without knowledge


For those particularly interested in the purely Quranic standing of Jihad and Apostasy please visit:

Jihad:
http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/part_3/the_concept_of_jihad_(P1360).html
http://www.answering-christianity.com/jihad.htm (brother Osama has done great on this one! Used the Quran to demolish baseless Hadiths)

Apostasy:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/apostates.htm
http://answeringislamicskeptics.weebly.com/death-for-apostasy.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_oKXh2oy8E

Contrast this to 'sahih' hadiths that say death to apostates, don't draw pictures of people, kill all non-Muslims, and the ones the demean the prophet.

The Quran calls the prophet a Noble Messenger. Unfortunately, the overall descriptions of him in hadiths don't seem to say the same.

I call for an Islamic revival. Right now the mainstream Islam is wrong and it is not the way of the Quran. The so called Muslim countries are not good examples of the Quranic Islam. Its time to revive Islam. So I encourage you to get out there, write blogs and papers and bring out the true Islam.

[mclinkin94]

Let me tell everyone right now that if I had just superficially examined Islam, I would have NEVER became a Muslim. I was like her at one point..so much misunderstanding!

If it wasn't for my in depth analysis of Islam, I would be just like her. When I went to a mosque for the very first time many years ago do you think I had positive perceptions of Islam?

This is a problem, people don't look at Muslims and "wow, they look like they are peaceful people" or "Wow, they must have the right religion". This is NOT from the media. This is from US! Muslims are making Islam look bad, it is not the media no matter how much we want to blame it.

Muslims are killing Apostates, Muslims are killing innocents etc etc.

The Issue brothers and sisters, is in Hadiths.

The first step to deal with this misrepresentation of Islam, brothers and sisters, is to divorce Islam from the hadiths.

Sorry for this rant, but I do hope Muslims will leave the sect scene and unite as one community. A community who does not blindly believe what the hadiths say about the as-hab of the prophet or his wives or his actions.

[IA]

...

[IA]

...

[Black Muslim]

So in short , because people don't like Islam , we should reject Hadith . That's what seems to be your point of this post .

However, just because someone draws him, we should not use violence against them,

If what you mean is what I think it is , I'd have to disagree . It is reported that the entire body of scholars agreed : Whoever insults Allah or his prophet are apostates if Muslims , breaking treaty if non Muslims .
http://fatwa.islamweb.net/fatwa/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=44469
So what's my point ? Such insolence should be punished . However , it is also agreed that only the leader "Wali Al-Amr" has the right to execute such laws and not civilians .

The Prophet being a pedophile does not stem from hadiths. Yes, he was married to a nine yeas old, but Aisha was engaged before she was married with the Prophet (anyone who has read the Prophet's life knows this). Unless someone comes and says that even the other person who wanted to marry Aisha was a pedophile, this is enough to refute this claim, we don't have to reject the hadiths. It is simply a stupid claim, and Muslim apologists have dealt with it in the best way, refuting it completely. And, do you know that WikiIslam has an article that is called "Pedophilia in the Quran"? Should we now reject the Quran? No, we will defend it.

Could you please not repeat the insult literally ? I don't think it's difficult to say "The accusation of pedophilia against the prophet peace upon him" . And I don't think you should call the ones refuting false accusations against Islam "Apologists" . We're not justifying a crime , we're showing the error of the opponent's way of thinking .
As for this overused stupid accusation , in short , they need to call themselves pedophiles . In USA , states differ in the age of marriage . Some allow it at 16 and some at 20 . So the ones who marry at 20 should call those who marry at 18 "Pedophiles" . Also , the ones who marry at 18 should call the ones who marry at 16 pedophiles . It's a matter of maturity and we don't need permission from sex addicted individuals to accept it .

If a hadith, in some ways makes the Prophet look evil, it must have an explanation and you can find those explanations if you refer to scholars.

Correct . Taking the easy way of denying a narration doesn't help . When we read something and think it's cruel we should think "Am I understanding it right ? Maybe there's a reason for the mentioned act . Maybe there's another full narration while this one is a part of it . I should mind the context" . Islamophobes say "Muhammad killed the Jews of Madinah" ignoring the fact that those same Jews broke the treaty and intended to eradicate Muslims entirely .

I said earlier that no country today follows the Shariah, ask any islamic scholar if you want.

I second that . Some countries might follow SOME of the Islamic law but there isn't any which fully applies it as it has been during the days of Khilafa .

The translation of Sahih International is:
And of the people is he who buys the amusement of speech to mislead [others] from the way of Allah without knowledge and who takes it in ridicule. Those will have a humiliating punishment. (31:6)
So, it is quite important to read the entire verse. The word hadith is used there, but do you know that hadith can also mean a story etc. and not only sayings of our Prophet? And you can see clearly that it has nothing to do with the hadiths that we follow by reading the last sentence (Those will have a humiliating punishment.). So all the scholars, for 1400 years, all of them will have a humiliating punishment? It is clear that it is refering to something else. Please read the explanation (http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/31/index.html#sdfootnote6sym). Using those verses to reject the hadiths is ridiculous.

That's what I've been telling him for days and he keeps ignoring me ! Believe me , he'll just say "The verse is clear . You're dishonest" or something along the line as if you didn't just give him the source .

[mclinkin94]

There are a lot of books (not short videos) that use those types of hadiths to attack Islam, but that does not mean that we will hide behind the Quran and reject the hadiths.

Unfortunately, their attacks on hadiths are reasonable.

Yes, the death penalty for apostates is in the hadiths (http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/of_course_apostates_should_be_killed). What we should do now is to defend the islamic law, the way it is and not to try to change it or to reject it in order to escape attacks from nonmuslims. There are many reasons why the penalty for apostasy is death.

NO! It is against the Quran to kill apostates

Let there be no compulsion in religion.. [2:256]

And if your Lord had pleased, surely all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them; will you then force men till they become believers? [10:99]

15:2-3 "Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God's will) in Islam.   Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them)."

18:29 "Say, 'The truth is from your Lord': Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it)

A section of the People of the Book say: "Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers, but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) Turn back. [3:72]

Read up on this topic.

The same with violence against those people who draw the Prophet.

I know that, that's why I said it. What is so wrong with drawing in the prophet? Did the Quran say not to? It nothing more than a cultural nonsense. Allah is beyond this nonsense.

I understand that it is some kind of emotional issue, but to attack them for it? That is just wrong. Let's use our reason.

The Prophet being a pedophile does not stem from hadiths. Yes, he was married to a nine yeas old

I doubt Aisha reached puberty at 9 years old. This problem definately stems from hadtihs as the Quran says no such thing.

As for the allegation that the Quran supports pedophilia, I dealt with this very subject and so did AnsweringChristianity.com. There is no such thing in the Quran.

http://answeringislamicskeptics.weebly.com/age-of-marriage-in-islam.html

I said earlier that no country today follows the Shariah, ask any islamic scholar if you want.

I agree no country follows Shariah to the fullest extent, but they follow some parts of Shariah in hadiths like death for apostates.

The translation of Sahih International is:
And of the people is he who buys the amusement of speech to mislead [others] from the way of Allah without knowledge and who takes it in ridicule. Those will have a humiliating punishment. (31:6)
So, it is quite important to read the entire verse. The word hadith is used there, but do you know that hadith can also mean a story etc. and not only sayings of our Prophet? And you can see clearly that it has nothing to do with the hadiths that we follow by reading the last sentence (Those will have a humiliating punishment.). So all the scholars, for 1400 years, all of them will have a humiliating punishment?

I am baffled that you would go to such lengths...

Why do you think we refer to hadiths as Hadiths? Because they are hadiths (Amusement of speech). Secondly this verse is exactly warning us about those who uphold these baseless saying to mislead others from the way of Allah. That is exactly what the 'sahih' hadiths do and are.

No, those who followed the actual sayings of the prophet and experienced it themselves will not have a humiliating punishment because they weren't following 'hadiths' and their hadiths most likely did not contradict the Quran. That is a different problem. 

Secondly, you are assuming that scholars in the past have been following Hadiths in place of the Quran. That assumption itself comes from Hadiths! This information you got comes from hadiths. So this is circular reasoning on your part.

Allah has put this verse in their for a reason and the word that refers to the corrupted sayings of the prophet in modern types is hadith. You don't think we called them hadiths for a reason?

The argument can go like this if you didn't understand what I meant:

Premise 1: The Quran speaks of people who uphold baseless stories/amusement in speech to divert others from the path of God
Premise 2: Our 'sahih' hadiths are baseless stories/amusements in speech that do divert others from the path of God
Premise 3: Therefore this Quranic verse is referring to our hadiths

The only controversial premise is premise 2. In defense of premise 2, you have seen contradictions and corruptions in the sahih hadiths--you have seen them go against the Quranic teaching (in the example I showed in apostasy). So the conclusion follows from the premises.

Your issue is circular reasoning. The tafsirs use hadiths to interpret the Quran and you use that to say that I am wrong. That is the biggest no-no. I simply follow what that verse is saying through lexicons, word for word translations, and the context. Speaking of the context, look at the verse that comes right AFTER it.

Quran 31:7 And when our verses are recited to him, he turns away arrogantly as if he had not heard them, as if there was in his ears deafness. So give him tidings of a painful punishment.

I'm seeing a strong mirror to how the Quran says there is no punishment for apostasy and you rejecting those verses in favor of hadiths.

I also wanted to stress the absurdity of using hadiths or the past people's opinions to translate the Quran.

Quran 6:67 For every announcement there is a term, and you will come to know.
Quran 38:88 And you will surely know [the truth of] its information after a time."

If there is a term for every tiding and a period of time in which the Quranic definition will be understood, then how could 7th century people know exactly what the verses are saying if they didn't live in the future times where the verses will be understood?

With no intent to insult, what you said here is absolutely foolish. Are you saying to me that for 1400 years the Muslims were following something they shouldn't have followed?

Nope, I say they followed the real teachings and you follow the corrupted version of those teachings.

This means that Allah could not save the teachings that He revealed.

The teaching Allah revealed is in the Quran. 

Note the words "all things" in 16:89 means all matters, big and small alike. The words "fully detailed" in 6:114 simply means that the Quran contains all the details. It is necessary here to explain exactly what is meant by saying that the Quran contains all the details. The followers of hadith claim that the hadith contains many details that are not to be found in the Quran. This is quite true, however the absence of these details from the Quran is not because the Quran is not fully detailed, but because these details were never decreed by God. The Quran contains all the details that are sanctioned by God and for which we will be held accountable to. The followers of hadith have a wide collection of books which they highly cherish and which contain all sorts of ridiculous details to say the least. The following verse includes a mockery and a warning against such acts of idolatry:

"Or do you have some book in which you are studying? Do you have in it whatever you choose?" 68:37-38

Consequently, and in accordance with 6:114 and other similar verses, all guidance will be derived from the Quran and nothing else.

Do you know that by rejecting the hadiths, you are creating more problems?

The problems created by rejecting hadiths exist, sure, that does not in any way validate the acceptance of Hadiths. It is what it is. For example, if the evidence shows that a scientific theory is wrong, we are to reject it irrespective of the problems it creates.

One last thing. Why Allah says that the Quran is in details, when it doesn't even explain to us how to pray?

Yes Allah Did. What you are implying is that Allah was contradicting himself in the Quran? No.

The Quran says that in the Prayers, it must involve a phase of standing, bowing and prostrating:

Standing:
You shall maintain the Salawaat and the Salat Al-Wusta, and stand devoutly before God." 2:238

Bowing and Prostrating:

"Muhammad-the messenger of God, and those with him are harsh and stern against the disbelievers, but kind and compassionate amongst themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating, as they seek God's blessings and approval" 48:29

" ...... Then once they have prostrated let them be positioned behind you and let another group, who have not yet observed the Salat, observe the Salat with you while remaining cautious and while holding on to their weapons." 4:102

That is it. The Quran is simple on what you have to do. Now to ask for the details on exactly what to do in praying, would be like the Jews asking God exactly how to slaugher the cow. Remember why Chapter 2 of the Quran is called the Baqarah? The story is that Allah comanded the Jews to sacrifice a cow to show their faith in Allah swt. However, rather than complying they kept delaying and procrastinating and asking more and more and more questions until finally Allah swt commanded them to sacrifice a specific strong, beautiful cow, where as before any cow would have sufficed.

Allah just wants you to recite the Quran, stand,bow and prostrate. The specifics don't matter, just do it!

By rejecting the hadiths, this is enough for a nonmuslim to destroy Islam entirely. But, look what a beautiful response comes when you accept the hadiths: http://muslim-responses.com/Is_the_Quran_Incomplete/Is_the_Quran_Incomplete_
And please take from your time to read these articles written by Bassam Zawadi (http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/hadeeth_rejecters). I hope it will help you to understand how illogical it is to reject the hadiths.

To destroy Sunni/Shia/Sufi/other nonsense Islam. Yes. Exactly. Again, irrespective of what hadiths do to please your version of Islam, hadiths stand un-authorative and corrupted. IT doesn't matter what will happen we reject them, you must reasonably conclude that the rejection of hadiths is best.

[Black Muslim]

I know that, that's why I said it. What is so wrong with drawing in the prophet? Did the Quran say not to? It nothing more than a cultural nonsense. Allah is beyond this nonsense.

In Arabic , we have a term for this . It's called دياثة "Dayatha" . If you're cold blooded and don't see any problem in insolence , we are not . Keep the cultural thing to yourself .

I doubt Aisha reached puberty at 9 years old. This problem definately stems from hadtihs as the Quran says no such thing.

Have not I told you that you judge by your own personal liking ? What goes with your "flow" is reasonable and what doesn't is fabrication and corruption . Are you really going to embarrass yourself by going through this ? Because any medical source will tell you females reach puberty - in average - between 6 and 8 , let alone 9 . If you don't like it , then be mad at reality .

I am baffled that you would go to such lengths...

Why do you think we refer to hadiths as Hadiths? Because they are hadiths (Amusement of speech). Secondly this verse is exactly warning us about those who uphold these baseless saying to mislead others from the way of Allah. That is exactly what the 'sahih' hadiths do and are.

No, those who followed the actual sayings of the prophet and experienced it themselves will not have a humiliating punishment because they weren't following 'hadiths' and their hadiths most likely did not contradict the Quran. That is a different problem.

Secondly, you are assuming that scholars in the past have been following Hadiths in place of the Quran. That assumption itself comes from Hadiths! This information you got comes from hadiths. So this is circular reasoning on your part.

Allah has put this verse in their for a reason and the word that refers to the corrupted sayings of the prophet in modern types is hadith. You don't think we called them hadiths for a reason?

The argument can go like this if you didn't understand what I meant:

Premise 1: The Quran speaks of people who uphold baseless stories/amusement in speech to divert others from the path of God
Premise 2: Our 'sahih' hadiths are baseless stories/amusements in speech that do divert others from the path of God
Premise 3: Therefore this Quranic verse is referring to our hadiths

The only controversial premise is premise 2. In defense of premise 2, you have seen contradictions and corruptions in the sahih hadiths--you have seen them go against the Quranic teaching (in the example I showed in apostasy). So the conclusion follows from the premises.

Your issue is circular reasoning. The tafsirs use hadiths to interpret the Quran and you use that to say that I am wrong. That is the biggest no-no. I simply follow what that verse is saying through lexicons, word for word translations, and the context. Speaking of the context, look at the verse that comes right AFTER it.

Quran 31:7 And when our verses are recited to him, he turns away arrogantly as if he had not heard them, as if there was in his ears deafness. So give him tidings of a painful punishment.

I'm seeing a strong mirror to how the Quran says there is no punishment for apostasy and you rejecting those verses in favor of hadiths.

I also wanted to stress the absurdity of using hadiths or the past people's opinions to translate the Quran.

Quran 6:67 For every announcement there is a term, and you will come to know.
Quran 38:88 And you will surely know [the truth of] its information after a time."

If there is a term for every tiding and a period of time in which the Quranic definition will be understood, then how could 7th century people know exactly what the verses are saying if they didn't live in the future times where the verses will be understood?

Told you so , Ilir .
First of all and to show that you're completely shameless and don't have any kind of regret about lying , Hadith means "Talk" . That's what every person with common sense knows . If you don't believe that , you might believe Google translation :
https://translate.google.com.sa/?hl=ar&tab=wT#ar/en/%D8%AD%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%AB
So the whole "Idle of speech" is something you forged to support your false claims having no shame . Either that , or you got an F in Arabic class you said you're taking .
Secondly , saying "Hadith misleads people from the path of God , so I must be right" needs proving itself . And you can never prove that . So don't take it as a given and think we'll ignore your ways in twisting the conversation to what you desire .
And when you say "Secondly, you are assuming that scholars in the past have been following Hadiths in place of the Quran." , that's a blunt lie and a cheap shot . We keep telling you over and over that Quran is the first source of revelation and Sunnah is the second . And Osama wonders why I'm mad with you ?!
Then you rant "Allah has put this verse in their for a reason and the word that refers to the corrupted sayings of the prophet in modern types is hadith. You don't think we called them hadiths for a reason?" . And I say , enough with your fantasies . You're trying to twist the very language itself for your advantage and I'm telling you you're failing .
As for that pathetic argument you're numbering 1 2 3 , I told you . We won't let you take it as a given .
When you say you follow Quran in a word to word translation , I begin to think politics need to learn how to bluntly lie from you . And once again , we won't let you take it as a given that you're "Following Quran" . You don't know the first thing about it . And if I ask you about any part of it , you'll prove your ignorance as you have proved it and keep proving it day in day out . One example is when you claimed saying "Peace upon him" is a human innovation .
As for the sign in Surah of Luqman , that would be 100% you . We say in such cases "He accuses me of his disease and slips away" .
As for your pathetic argument of "Quran is fit for all times" . You're having a serious problem here . Quran is the one fit for all times . Quran doesn't CHANGE to fit the desires of misguided people of those times . No person , scholar or not , will agree with your twisted explanations .

Nope, I say they followed the real teachings and you follow the corrupted version of those teachings.

And kids say Santa Claus exists . That doesn't prove them right by default .

Yes Allah Did. What you are implying is that Allah was contradicting himself in the Quran? No.

The Quran says that in the Prayers, it must involve a phase of standing, bowing and prostrating:

Standing:
You shall maintain the Salawaat and the Salat Al-Wusta, and stand devoutly before God." 2:238

Bowing and Prostrating:

"Muhammad-the messenger of God, and those with him are harsh and stern against the disbelievers, but kind and compassionate amongst themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating, as they seek God's blessings and approval" 48:29

" ...... Then once they have prostrated let them be positioned behind you and let another group, who have not yet observed the Salat, observe the Salat with you while remaining cautious and while holding on to their weapons." 4:102

That is it. The Quran is simple on what you have to do. Now to ask for the details on exactly what to do in praying, would be like the Jews asking God exactly how to slaugher the cow. Remember why Chapter 2 of the Quran is called the Baqarah? The story is that Allah comanded the Jews to sacrifice a cow to show their faith in Allah swt. However, rather than complying they kept delaying and procrastinating and asking more and more and more questions until finally Allah swt commanded them to sacrifice a specific strong, beautiful cow, where as before any cow would have sufficed.

Allah just wants you to recite the Quran, stand,bow and prostrate. The specifics don't matter, just do it!

Didn't I tell you Ilir ? Next time , you'll hear "Friday prayer is an innovation . There are only 3 prayers . You're dishonest !" . Your buddy here says we don't need to know how to pray . Just bowing and prostrating ! If that's not a serious issue then I don't know what it is .

To destroy Sunni/Shia/Sufi/other nonsense Islam. Yes. Exactly. Again, irrespective of what hadiths do to please your version of Islam, hadiths stand un-authorative and corrupted. IT doesn't matter what will happen we reject them, you must reasonably conclude that the rejection of hadiths is best.

I'm saying it straight out , the only corrupted thing here is your mentality . I say it always and will say it again , we won't let you have your way . We won't let you take it as a given . Your cowardice in running away from trying to prove anything you say is matchless . Don't expect it to go "Hadith is corrupted , I'm right , end of the story" . Wither it's you or any other individual trying to misguide people , there's always someone to expose you for who you are .

Sure sure , now everything I said will be ignored and the whole drama of "You're emotional" continues because it's "Fitnah" . While changing the basic fundamental essences of doctrine is a friendly chit chat .

[IA]

...

[Mohammed]

Wont it be better if there was a NIV of Hadiths just like the Bible

[QuranSearchCom]

As'salamu Alaikum dear brothers and sisters,

Brother Mclinkin94, Islam is not a Quran-only religion.  The Holy Quran alone isn't, nor was it made to be, the Book that will give you all of the details of a Divine Command.  This is why we have the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.  And all of this is mentioned in the Holy Quran:

[016:044] (We sent them) with Clear Signs and Books of dark prophecies; and We have sent down unto thee (also) the Message; that thou mayest explain clearly to men what is sent for them, and that they may give thought.

The Holy Quran gives a Command (ex: we have to Pray to Allah Almighty), and the Hadiths explain and detail how to Pray, when to Pray, what state one has to be in to Pray, and what type of Prayers there are:

1-  Prostration.
2-  Supplications.

Be careful of forcing your opinions on your beliefs, akhi.  It's a dangerous thing.  I've been through that route before.  Quran-onlys are empty.  Now this doesn't mean that we have to accept everything in the hadiths collections.  There are lies and blasphemies against the Holy Quran and the Prophet and Allah Almighty that exist in them, and I've written a post on this in the past:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,1166.msg4047.html#msg4047

This is why what agrees with the Holy Quran from the hadiths and also from the Bible and other scriptures is closest to the Truth, but not absolute Truth like the Holy Quran.  And what disagrees with the Holy Quran belongs to the garbage.

To the reader, please visit the following link to see the Overwhelming Scientific Miracles of the Holy Quran that testify to the Holy Book's Divinity:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac20.htm#links


Are we allowed to speak when we fast?

Here is one simple example that will Insha'Allah show you how being a Quran-only is misleading and dangerous and confusing, and can never give you details nor straight Guidance:

1-  It is known that Muslims are Commanded by Allah Almighty to fast the Holy Month of Ramadan:

[002:185] The month of Ramadan in which was revealed the Qur'an, a guidance for mankind, and clear proofs of the guidance, and the Criterion (of right and wrong). And whosoever of you is present, let him fast the month, and whosoever of you is sick or on a journey, (let him fast the same) number of other days. Allah desireth for you ease; He desireth not hardship for you; and (He desireth) that ye should complete the period, and that ye should magnify Allah for having guided you, and that peradventure ye may be thankful.

2-  Now my question to you, are we allowed to speak when we fast?

[019:026] "So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man, say, 'I have vowed a fast to (God) Most Gracious, and this day will I enter into not talk with any human being'"

Wouldn't you agree with me that if it wasn't for the Sunnah in the Hadiths, this issue would be left for us to guess?  You can read more refutations to the Quran-only cult at, and all other Islamic cults, at:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac11.htm#links

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

[IA]

...

[IA]

...

[Black Muslim]

Why am I seeing a "You're playing a game of (My scholars are better than yours)" argument coming up ?

[IA]

...

[QuranSearchCom]

I would advise you, dear brother, to refer to scholars when it comes to the conditions of accepting or rejecting a hadith.

You see that's the core of the problem, akhi.  They're so false and exagurrating that no objective person could take them seriously.  They act as a pack of gangs when defending the hadiths.  I don't like to speak from emotions, but this is the Truth.  I already gave you the link above where we have lies and blasphemies in the hadiths.  I also get turned off when I read nonsense of this kind:

"Imam Bukhari memorized 600,000 Hadiths" (Source)

"Imam Ahmed memorized 1,000,000 Hadiths" (Source)

This is the kind of nonsense that you would say for bedtime stories, or the kind of garbage that shias spew from them lala land fabricated riwayaat (narrations).  It has no value in the world of knowledge and objectivity.  It belongs to the garbage.  This is why I say it again and again, what agrees with the Holy Quran from the hadiths and also from the Bible and other scriptures is closest to the Truth, but not absolute Truth like the Holy Quran.  And what disagrees with the Holy Quran belongs to the garbage.

And yes, after Bukhari and his students carefully filtered out the 600,000 hadiths, they still couldn't avoid having in their final copy the false narrations about monkies stoning an adulteress she-monkey??  There is clearly a consipracy in the hadiths.  And again, visit the link to see the lies and blasphmies that were put on the mouth of the Prophet and some of his companions in the hadiths.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

[IA]

...

[QuranSearchCom]

"Imam Bukhari memorized 600,000 Hadiths" (Source)

"Imam Ahmed memorized 1,000,000 Hadiths" (Source)

I don't have any problem accepting this. There were others who memorized large number of hadiths. I just think we should appreciate the effort of scholars and refer to them when it comes to these problems. However, I generally agree with you.

Then don't expect people to take you seriosly at all when you give in to any statement, akhi.  Again, in the market of knowledge and objectivity, these types of statements and beliefs don't have any value in them, and they end up hurting their own cause.

Just because mom or dad used to say Santa Clause used to come and drop off the presents doesn't mean that we have to believe that Santa exists.  You not rejecting the 600,000 and 1,000,000 hadiths memorizations claims to be the stupidest thing ever said in our Islamic books, almost perfectly fits the Santa Clause example.  Just because scholar X said so, it doesn't mean that he himself isn't a buffoon to begin with; let alone his blind followers.

[IA]

...

[mclinkin94]

First of all and to show that you're completely shameless and don't have any kind of regret about lying , Hadith means "Talk" . That's what every person with common sense knows . If you don't believe that , you might believe Google translation :
https://translate.google.com.sa/?hl=ar&tab=wT#ar/en/%D8%AD%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%AB
So the whole "Idle of speech" is something you forged to support your false claims having no shame . Either that , or you got an F in Arabic class you said you're taking .
Secondly , saying "Hadith misleads people from the path of God , so I must be right" needs proving itself . And you can never prove that . So don't take it as a given and think we'll ignore your ways in twisting the conversation to what you desire .
And when you say "Secondly, you are assuming that scholars in the past have been following Hadiths in place of the Quran." , that's a blunt lie and a cheap shot . We keep telling you over and over that Quran is the first source of revelation and Sunnah is the second . And Osama wonders why I'm mad with you ?!
Then you rant "Allah has put this verse in their for a reason and the word that refers to the corrupted sayings of the prophet in modern types is hadith. You don't think we called them hadiths for a reason?" . And I say , enough with your fantasies . You're trying to twist the very language itself for your advantage and I'm telling you you're failing .
As for that pathetic argument you're numbering 1 2 3 , I told you . We won't let you take it as a given .
When you say you follow Quran in a word to word translation , I begin to think politics need to learn how to bluntly lie from you . And once again , we won't let you take it as a given that you're "Following Quran" . You don't know the first thing about it . And if I ask you about any part of it , you'll prove your ignorance as you have proved it and keep proving it day in day out . One example is when you claimed saying "Peace upon him" is a human innovation .
As for the sign in Surah of Luqman , that would be 100% you . We say in such cases "He accuses me of his disease and slips away" .
As for your pathetic argument of "Quran is fit for all times" . You're having a serious problem here . Quran is the one fit for all times . Quran doesn't CHANGE to fit the desires of misguided people of those times . No person , scholar or not , will agree with your twisted explanations .

Brother Black-Muslim, I ask that you look over the difference between constructive criticism and ad hominem. It does you no favors to insult. And, I won't be responding to any further posts with insults.

My 'pathetic' '1-2-3' argument stands. The Quran refers to people upholding baseless talks diverting others from the path of God and then when they hear the Quran they turn away arrogantly. I am showing you that this baseless talks the Quran is talking about is exactly like the hadiths. The Hadiths are scientifically and Quranically and historically baseless. Yet, you wish to force that heresy down our thoughts.

Now as for the Quran being fit for all times, it is a requirement since the prophet Muhammad is the last prophet unto mankind and therefore the Quran is the last revelation to mankind. It must follow that the Quran be timeless, it doesn't mean the Quran changes, it means our understanding of the Quran would be improved.

Like how we discovered various verses in the Quran that refer to science for example. Here is one:

Quran 21:33 And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.

7th century people believed this means that they float in an orbit around the Earth. 21st century people know that they just float in an orbit-they do!. Notice the preciseness of the Quran and how it supported both beliefs simultaneously without contradicting either. . This is what we mean that the Quran refers to all times and places.

Didn't I tell you Ilir ? Next time , you'll hear "Friday prayer is an innovation . There are only 3 prayers . You're dishonest !" . Your buddy here says we don't need to know how to pray . Just bowing and prostrating ! If that's not a serious issue then I don't know what it is .

Bowing, prostrating, standing and saying the Quran. That is the law of the Quran. It is basic, pure, and simple.

Quran 6:114 Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained?

^That is it, the Quran is fully explained as a source of Law. Any additions are innovations.

[mclinkin94]

You came to this conclusion by using logic, but I have told you that by using logic everyone can come to different conclusions. For me, using my logic, these verses do not even talk about apostates, as I will explain. What's the solution? Referring to the hadiths and the consensus of scholars.

I don't think denouncing logic and saying that it is subjective is right. 2+2 is logically 4 irrespective of whether someone else thinks it is 5. 

Let there be no compulsion in religion.. [2:256]

You cannot force anyone to accept Islam.

This carries a broader implication, that you are not to force religion onto anyone. If anyone wants to leave Islam and you will punish them because they left, you are forcing them to stay a Muslim. This is the definition of religious compulsion.

15:2-3 "Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God's will) in Islam.   Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them)."

You have to call the disbelievers. If they don't believe, you are not required to do something else.

Doesn't that contradict the apostasy hadith?

Quran says you are not required to do something else when they disbelieve, but hadiths say if they disbelieve you are to kill them.

18:29 "Say, 'The truth is from your Lord': Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it)

It is talking about those disbelievers that reject Islam.

So you cannot reject Islam after you become a Muslim?

A section of the People of the Book say: "Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers, but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) Turn back. [3:72]

It has nothing to do with apostasy.

It has everything to do with apostasy! The Quran states there were those who believed part of the time, then disbelieved part of the time in order to confuse and sow discord amongst the believers of the time. If death for apostasy existed, they wouldn't have survived for publicly rejecting Islam.

Notice, I don't think this is the correct explanation for these verses. I just want to show you that, if you want, by using your "intellect", you won't find anywhere that the Quran is against the killing of apostates.

No. Using the objective truth, there is no killing of apostates in the Quran.

I think this is the issue with Islam, I don't think it is reasonable to force hadith interpretations in the Quran. If Allah wanted death for apostates, what would he say? He sure wouldn't say the verses I pointed out.

Now if Allah did not want death for apostates what would he say? Should he be any clearer, should he say "leave those who disbelieve alone, And I'm not kidding, "?

What is so wrong with drawing in the prophet?

You cannot determine what is wrong and what is not; we have the scholars.

Yes the same scholars that believe death to apostates and their double standards. I think the appeal to authority is too strong in Islam and it also stems from hadiths. The Quran wants you to use intellect to see Allah's signs as it says many times, NOT other people's flawed opinions.

I'm not interested on whether you have dealt with that subject. What I wanted to show to you is that just because people find something that they think is evil in Quran or hadiths, we won't reject them automatically.

Absolutely fair point! :D But, the issue is, people are saying it is evil and it is not Quranic and is questionable! It is a misrepresentation. 

No, those who followed the actual sayings of the prophet and experienced it themselves will not have a humiliating punishment because they weren't following 'hadiths' and their hadiths most likely did not contradict the Quran. That is a different problem.

I was not talking about the companions. What about all the scholars, startig from 1400 years ago until today? All of them are going to be punished?

Yes, they will be punished if 3 conditions are met:

1.) They upholded baseless hadiths/talks/sayings
2.) They upholded them and diverted others from Islam
3.) They read the Quran and arrogantly rejected it in favor of the Hadiths (like those who believed in death for apostates)

Quran 31:6-7 And of the people is he who buys the amusement of speech to mislead [others] from the way of Allah without knowledge and who takes it in ridicule. Those will have a humiliating punishment. And when our verses are recited to him, he turns away arrogantly as if he had not heard them, as if there was in his ears deafness. So give him tidings of a painful punishment.

Secondly, you are assuming that scholars in the past have been following Hadiths in place of the Quran. That assumption itself comes from Hadiths! This information you got comes from hadiths. So this is circular reasoning on your part.

Circular? How many times do I need to repeat it? Not only early scholars, but all the scholars, for 1400 years. Are you going to reject the history now?

How do you know that the scholars 1400 years ago upholded hadiths? Oh, yes, through hadiths! The most probably corrupted ones we have today! So yes, it is entirely circular.

"Hadiths are true because they said that people in the past have upholded them. And then you say People in the past upholded hadiths because they are true"

Allah has put this verse in their for a reason and the word that refers to the corrupted sayings of the prophet in modern types is hadith. You don't think we called them hadiths for a reason?

The word used is  lahv al-hadith-amusement of speech, not only hadith. And do you know that Allah uses the word hadith several times in the Quran, but not for amusement of speech?

Yes. The Quran is referring to our hadiths, I have presented 3 premises to prove this argument. This is a deductive argument, that means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion MUST logically follow whether we like it or not.

Premise 1: The Quran speaks of people who uphold baseless stories/amusement in speech to divert others from the path of God
Premise 2: Our 'sahih' hadiths are baseless stories/amusements in speech that do divert others from the path of God
Premise 3: Therefore this Quranic verse is referring to our hadiths

I have defended premise 2. It is more true than it is false. Our hadiths are baseless stories and amusements and do divert people from the path of God.

Who they? You are saying that only those who lived with the Prophet followed the real teachings. So, starting from the second or third century, we all are following something we shouldn't have followed, and we know that these books of hadiths were written many hundred years ago, if you don't reject history of course.

How could we possibly know? WE hope people who lived back then followed the real teachings and we hope those who came later also did. The modern version of hadiths today are questionable so we don't know.

As for the Quran being a book that explains things in details, I just took the example of prayer. There are many many examples where you can see that Quran does not explain things in details.

The Quran does give all the details when it comes to the Laws that Allah wants. You misunderstood me again. It is necessary here to explain exactly what is meant by saying that the Quran contains all the details. The followers of hadith claim that the hadith contains many details that are not to be found in the Quran. This is quite true, however the absence of these details from the Quran is not because the Quran is not fully detailed, but because these details were never decreed by God.

BTW, because we are talking about the prayer, the Quran commands us to pray Jumuah in congregation. How will people pray in congregation if they don't know the details of prayer?

The Quran commands us to wash our hands, how could some people wash their hands if they don't have hands?
The Quran commands us to fast sunrise to sunset, how could we fast if sunrise to sunset lasts 6 months?

The answer is, you figure it out. Remember why Allah got displeased when the Jews in Surat Al baqarah were procrastinating on the slaugher of the cow and asking for specific details? The same thing goes on here.

Allah gave us a mind capable of common sense.

4: 59- O you who believe! Obey Allâh and obey the Messenger (Muhammad SAW), and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority. (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allâh and His Messenger (SAW), if you believe in Allâh and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination.

Indeed the Quran tells us to obey the messenger. But what is the messenger's SOLE duty:

"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 (of the message)" 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

..to deliver the message.

Here is the logic:

Premise 1: We must obey the messenger
Premise 2: The messenger's sole duty is the deliver the message (the message is in verses of the Quran as the Quran also states, the Quran does not say the message is also the oral hadiths)
Premise 3: Therefore we must only obey the message (Quran) in which the messenger has came with.

"Say (O Muhammad), "What is the greatest testimony?" Say, "God is witness between me and you that this Quran has been inspired to me to warn you with it and whomever it reaches." 6:19

This testimony which God describes as "Akbar Shahada" (the Greatest Testimony) commands Muhammad to testify that He received the Quran from God. This testimony speaks of only one revelation received by Muhammad from God which is the Quran. If Muhammad truly received other revelations from God (other than the Quran), would we not find any mention of it in the Quran? Would God hide the fact that He gave Muhammad a revelation independent of the Quran and then command us to obey it?

2: 151- Similarly (to complete My Blessings on you) We have sent among you a Messenger (Muhammad SAW) of your own, reciting to you Our Verses (the Qur'ân) and sanctifying you, and teaching you the Book (the Qur'ân) and the Hikmah (i.e. Sunnah, Islâmic laws and Fiqh - jurisprudence), and teaching you that which you used not to know.

As in 2:151, the word 'Hikmah' means wisdom. The corrupt scholars know that very well but in order to establish a reference in the Quran for the Hadith and Sunna of prophet Muhammad, when there is none, they claim that the word 'Hikmah' refers to the Hadith of Muhammad.

3 major issues:

1.) This verse also exists in 2:231 The word ‘bihee’ (with it) that appears at the end of 2:231, is in the singular mode. It describes one thing and not two. For that reason the words ‘Al-Hikmah’ and ‘Al-Kitab’ must denote one thing and not two, unless of course God is making grammatical mistakes!

If the words ‘Al-Hikmah’ and ‘Al-Kitab’ really referred to the Quran and the Sunna, then the verse should grammatically end with the word ‘bihima’ (with them), which is the plural mode of ‘bihee’.

2.)  The word ‘Al-Hikmah’ is used throughout the Quran as an adjective of the ‘Al-Kitab’ (the Quran). This is made evident in the following verses:

"Y.S., and the Quran Al-Hakim" 36:1-2

"A.L.R., these are the signs of the ‘Kitab Al-Hakim" 10:1 also 31:2

3.) Finally God commands the prophet to rule and arbitrate between the people with Quran and nothing but the Quran:

"We have sent down to you this Kitab, truthfully, in order to arbitrate between the people." 4:105

If the Quran says that we should follow the Prophet, that means that it is fully detailed. If the book A is not detailed but it says that other details that are not here can be found in the book B, then this makes the book A fully detailed because it is giving you the instructions on how to learn thing on details.
Please read those articles written by Bassam Zawadi. They completely destory the belief of those who reject the hadiths. It is impossible to counter the strong arguments he gives.

No. If the Quran says to obey the prophet and says the prophet's duty is ONLY to deliver the Quran, then by obeying ONLY the Quran, we obey the prophet.

As I have demonstrated earlier Book A does not say the details can be found in book B therefore rendering the argument invalid. In fact, book A says the details will only be found in book A.  6:114

[mclinkin94]

As'salamu Alaikum dear brothers and sisters,

Brother Mclinkin94, Islam is not a Quran-only religion.  The Holy Quran alone isn't, nor was it made to be, the Book that will give you all of the details of a Divine Command.  This is why we have the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.  And all of this is mentioned in the Holy Quran:

[016:044] (We sent them) with Clear Signs and Books of dark prophecies; and We have sent down unto thee (also) the Message; that thou mayest explain clearly to men what is sent for them, and that they may give thought.

The Holy Quran gives a Command (ex: we have to Pray to Allah Almighty), and the Hadiths explain and detail how to Pray, when to Pray, what state one has to be in to Pray, and what type of Prayers there are:

1-  Prostration.
2-  Supplications.

Be careful of forcing your opinions on your beliefs, akhi.  It's a dangerous thing.  I've been through that route before.  Quran-onlys are empty.  Now this doesn't mean that we have to accept everything in the hadiths collections.  There are lies and blasphemies against the Holy Quran and the Prophet and Allah Almighty that exist in them, and I've written a post on this in the past:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,1166.msg4047.html#msg4047

This is why what agrees with the Holy Quran from the hadiths and also from the Bible and other scriptures is closest to the Truth, but not absolute Truth like the Holy Quran.  And what disagrees with the Holy Quran belongs to the garbage.

To the reader, please visit the following link to see the Overwhelming Scientific Miracles of the Holy Quran that testify to the Holy Book's Divinity:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac20.htm#links


Are we allowed to speak when we fast?

Here is one simple example that will Insha'Allah show you how being a Quran-only is misleading and dangerous and confusing, and can never give you details nor straight Guidance:

1-  It is known that Muslims are Commanded by Allah Almighty to fast the Holy Month of Ramadan:

[002:185] The month of Ramadan in which was revealed the Qur'an, a guidance for mankind, and clear proofs of the guidance, and the Criterion (of right and wrong). And whosoever of you is present, let him fast the month, and whosoever of you is sick or on a journey, (let him fast the same) number of other days. Allah desireth for you ease; He desireth not hardship for you; and (He desireth) that ye should complete the period, and that ye should magnify Allah for having guided you, and that peradventure ye may be thankful.

2-  Now my question to you, are we allowed to speak when we fast?

[019:026] "So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man, say, 'I have vowed a fast to (God) Most Gracious, and this day will I enter into not talk with any human being'"

Wouldn't you agree with me that if it wasn't for the Sunnah in the Hadiths, this issue would be left for us to guess?  You can read more refutations to the Quran-only cult at, and all other Islamic cults, at:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac11.htm#links

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Hello bro Osama, thanks for taking the time to respond, I know you are very busy.

I can say that I disagree with you here. I don't blindly reject all hadiths, I see no reason to follow them and I see no good reason to believe in them.

For 16:44 it says: “We have sent down to you the reminder (Quran) so that you make evident to the people what was sent to them

The words in 16:44 clearly state that the messenger can only make things clear to the people by means of what is revealed to him (Quran). This is also confirmed in 6:114 which states that the only source of law is the book. In addition, the messenger is prohibited from adding his own teachings to the message he received from God. If he does he would be committing a great error that would incur a severe punishment from God (see 69:44-46).

What this means is that the messenger is authorized only in delivering the message of the Quran and nothing else. All what he preaches and which is from the Quran must be obeyed, but not any other personal teachings that do not have reference or authorization in the Quran. To obey the messenger blindly in every word he ever uttered is the work of those who are intent on making an idol out of the messenger, and they do so by corrupting yet another Quranic verse which says “obey God and the messenger”.

If we read 16:44 and 3:164 on their own it may well appear that the messenger can fully explain the Quran to the people and that he is the teacher of the Quran, but what about when we read 55:1-2 which says that God is the teacher of the Quran?

Also, what about 75:19 where God is speaking to the messenger and tells him clearly that it is He (God) who will explain the Quran?

It is clear that when we read other verses we get a different picture.

As a result, we must arrive at a common meaning which would be in harmony with all the Quranic verses and not just 3:164 and 16:44.

The common meaning is that the messenger delivered the Quran to the people and that he spent all his remaining days preaching the Quran and commanding people to follow it and showing them what the Quran requires them to do. This verse does not in any way imply that the prophet was given a side set of revelations other than the Quran.

“These are God's revelations (Quran) that We recite to you truthfully. In which hadith other than God and His revelations do they believe?” 45:6

It follows that all who say that we need the hadith because the hadith explains the Quran are in fact showing their utter rejection of the command in 45:6 for not accepting any hadith other than the Quran.

Now if you were saying that the prophet was explaining parts of the Quran to people, that is very plausible. I agree. The prophet most likely gave his commentary on the Quran and explaining some things. If he did, it is questionable that they would survive in the hadith literature as they scream out 'corruption'. But in no way does this verse say that the prophet was given other revelations besides the Quran to teach us. The words in 16:44 clearly state that the messenger can only make things clear to the people by means of what is revealed to him (Quran).

---

You raise an interesting question about fasting, I was able to find a source that explains it: http://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/islam/pillars/al-seyaam_(P1194).html

Instead of wasting your time and posting here, you can take a look when you can!

I do however agree with you that if a hadith or any book for that matter, fully supports the Quran, then we are to uphold it. But I disagree that hadiths can have extra commands beyond the Quran. So I take it further, if hadiths say something the Quran does not, you reject it. Same thing goes for the bible, if the bible has commands not in the Quran but doesn't contradict the Quran, we still do not follow it.

[Black Muslim]

I also get turned off when I read nonsense of this kind:

"Imam Bukhari memorized 600,000 Hadiths" (Source)

"Imam Ahmed memorized 1,000,000 Hadiths" (Source)

I'd say this is just emotional ............. anyway , are you saying that just because you're "Turned off" by this it makes it wrong by default ? Ironically , I don't think you'd doubt the story of that guy who memorizes whatever he reads and recall it when needed . I just can't remember the link . If it's true and those two memorized the said numbers , what reason do you have to deem it a lie ?

This is the kind of nonsense that you would say for bedtime stories, or the kind of garbage that shias spew from them lala land fabricated riwayaat (narrations).  It has no value in the world of knowledge and objectivity.  It belongs to the garbage.

Seriously ?! And you talk to me about Fitnah and emotional attacks ?!

And yes, after Bukhari and his students carefully filtered out the 600,000 hadiths, they still couldn't avoid having in their final copy the false narrations about monkies stoning an adulteress she-monkey??  There is clearly a consipracy in the hadiths.

Just because they made mistakes doesn't mean there is a conspiracy . And with a quick search on Google - which apparently seems too difficult to some people - we find out that the story isn't told by the prophet but rather by a follower . That does have a meaning in the science of narrations .
http://www.burhanukum.com/article828.html

Then don't expect people to take you seriosly at all when you give in to any statement, akhi.  Again, in the market of knowledge and objectivity, these types of statements and beliefs don't have any value in them, and they end up hurting their own cause.

Hang on a minute . You have a person memorizing a certain number of narrations and chains and recording them proving that he did . Are you saying that this is a lie just because you think the number is too much ? Still I'll say this in advance , one day , you'll state that you believe something far more unbelievable than this , if I'm around at the time , I'll remind you . And by the way , when you talk about Arabians , the standards are completely different . They were people of language and poetry and none could rival them . That helped them develop excellent memory . Some could even remember a poem of 200 lines in one go and recall it later without a single mistake . If you don't believe it because people from your time and place can't , I also shouldn't believe that Jamaicans mostly win in track races because people where I come from don't .

Brother Black-Muslim, I ask that you look over the difference between constructive criticism and ad hominem.

First of all , I am not your brother . Call me an extremist or a terrorist or whatever you want . If we don't even agree on the fundamental basics , there is no brotherhood whatsoever . Let alone your unbelievable lack of manners when talking about Allah and his prophet .
So what if part of what I say is this ad whatever you keep sticking to ? Why not answer the argument itself ? Isn't that Ad hominem too ?

And, I won't be responding to any further posts with insults.

A nice excuse to not answer the core of the argument .

My 'pathetic' '1-2-3' argument stands. The Quran refers to people upholding baseless talks diverting others from the path of God and then when they hear the Quran they turn away arrogantly. I am showing you that this baseless talks the Quran is talking about is exactly like the hadiths. The Hadiths are scientifically and Quranically and historically baseless. Yet, you wish to force that heresy down our thoughts.

Do you understand a single word I say ? Have you no shame ?! For the 76575906 time , I won't let you take it as granted that Hadith is diverting from Islam . I won't let you take for granted that they are corrupted . I won't let you take it for granted that the so called evolution of man is the way people were created .

Now as for the Quran being fit for all times, it is a requirement since the prophet Muhammad is the last prophet unto mankind and therefore the Quran is the last revelation to mankind. It must follow that the Quran be timeless, it doesn't mean the Quran changes, it means our understanding of the Quran would be improved.

Oh yes you ARE changing it . People through 1450 years follow the rule A , and you show up and say rule A doesn't exist . Hiding behind this excuse is worse than the sin itself .

Quran 21:33 And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.

7th century people believed this means that they float in an orbit around the Earth. 21st century people know that they just float in an orbit-they do!. Notice the preciseness of the Quran and how it supported both beliefs simultaneously without contradicting either. . This is what we mean that the Quran refers to all times and places.

A false example . Quran didn't mention anything about these heavenly bodies floating around anything . It let us discover it ourselves . So people believing so has nothing to do with it . It only said they flort in orbits . The so called "Improving our understanding" would be to know what they float around . The changing and altering of the meaning would be to say that they don't orbit anything . Quran may hold multiple meaning which don't contradict each other . But when you go to signs with no possible different meaning , or a sign explained by another one or Sunnah , then there is no way on Earth we'd let you explain them however you want . Quran won't change for you .

^That is it, the Quran is fully explained as a source of Law. Any additions are innovations.

Lie . When the prophet peace upon him teaches us about prayer then we're absolutely going to take his word as he never speaks of his own . Rather , it is a revelation revealed to him .

[FARHAN_UDDIN]

Brothers please drop this issue here.  :D . Everyone has the right to express his/her opinion. And it's up to an individual whether he/she will except certain things or not. One shouldn't enforce his/her opinion on others. Islam doesn't permit that. I'm saying this to everyone. Not to any particular individual.

 We are all brothers in Islam. May Allah bless us. Ameen.

[IA]

...

[FARHAN_UDDIN]

Brother, we should call the non-believers to Islam. But it's up to them whether they will respond to our call or reject it. If they want to jump into the ditch of hell instead of warnings it's their personal choice. 8)

[IA]

...

[IA]

...

[ThatMuslimGuy]

AsalamuAlaikum,

Its sad to see discussion like this even happening. It has stemmed from:

1. Simple lack of knowledge of Usool Al-Hadeeth. Its methodology, history etc. I suggest everyone spends time learning the basics of this science.
2. The lack of knowledge of the instruction to follow the Sunnah of Muhammad SAW.
3. Using our emotions way to much. Rather than our logic.

[mclinkin94]

  I apologize to mclinkin if he was offended by what I wrote.

I'm not offended by what you wrote, so no reason to worry. 

But, even though I am not offended by the insults, I think it doesn't make a discussion valuable. The more insults, the less constructive criticism, the more-likely the discussion will go nowhere.

I think you know that it is not as simple as 2+2. I don't want to repeat myself because I think I have proved that using only logic to interpret the Quran is wrong.

No I didn't say it was as simple as 2+2=4, I was saying that there is a right and wrong. It is not subjective as you said.

Secondly, you have not proved that only using logic to interpret the Quran is wrong. This is a self defeating statement! Didn't you just use logic to say that using logic to interpret the Quran is wrong?

Denying logic is using logic to deny logic. Denying logic would be devastating to philosophy, science, and even the Quran.

Secondly, the Quran as you know, in many places has said to use your intellect to interpret the Quran

If anyone interprets the Quran using his logic, there won't be consensus in any matter of belief. And without consensus, Islam will be destroyed.

No, there would be a consensus. As I said before logic is either right or wrong.

If someone goes by a 2+2=5 translation of the Quran, it is wrong. There is an objectively right translation and an objectively wrong translation. To figure this out you adhere to reasoned logic.

For example: Quran 1:5 It is You we worship and You we ask for help.

If someone says "you" in this verse refers to Muhammad they are wrong. Their logic is wrong. The ones who say "You" refers to Allah are right.

Brother, it is not circular. I'm not using hadiths, I'm using history. You are being so unsfientific now by rejecting the history. Then, let's exclude early scholars. We know for sure that, for example, four or five centuries all the scholars accepted the hadiths. Are you going to deny that?

History based on hadiths!

I know that scholars accepted hadiths, they do so now! Allah will judge them as they are. Many Muslims sin and many Muslim commit crimes. Having a majority of Muslims committing crimes does not mean that the crime is legal!

I didn't misunderstand you. I know that you want to say that what Quran explains, that's all the details and that's all we need. What I want to say is that using only the Quran creates a lot of problems for Muslims. Just stop and think for some minutes what huge problems would have existed today if Muslims followed only the Quran. There woulnd't have been consensus on anything and I said that consensus is what keeps the Islamic law alive.

My argument was, hadiths are false irrespective of the problems it creates.

2+2=5 is wrong irrespective of the problems it creates if you believe it is 4. Let's assume someone would shoot you if you believe 2+2=4 and you must testify that it equals 5. Irrespective of the problems it creates, 2+2 will always equal 4.

Premise 2 is what you think, it is not true and you haven't defended it. My points remain.

Premise 2 is my entire argument, it reads "Our 'sahih' hadiths are baseless stories/amusements in speech that do divert others from the path of God".

Are hadiths generally baseless stories: Yes, they don't have much historical credibility once you observe the blasphemous ones, the fact that the Quran does not at all even hint that the prophet had a second set of laws to give us, the fact they contradict the Quran and established science.

Do they divert others from the path of God: You betcha, watch the video at the beginning of this thread as an example.

Figure out? If anyone prays how he thinks, how can we pray in congregation?

As I said before, the Quran allows you to adhere to common sense. If you don't have hands to watch, how will you wash your hands? Its common sense.

So what to do in a congregation. The leader would inform everyone and tell them how they are going to pray. It must abide by the Quranic Law. Currently, the way we pray now isn't bad at all, why not just keep it? I don't see a problem with it. Even if the Quran mentioned only 3 prayers, whats the harm in praying the other two? or praying a few more times? Can prayer really be that much of a difficult thing?

The main message was the Quran, because when it comes to nonbelievers, they wouldn't be bothered about details in faith, practical issues etc. that are found in hadiths. If we assume that it does not mention hadiths, that doesn't mean that hadiths do not exist. It also separates following the Prophet from following the Quran, and I have used this verse many times, and if you accept that the Quran is for all the times, this is enough to accept hadiths: O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result. (4:59)
If we go by your standard, it says o you who have believed, not o you companions of the Prophet. Also, "those in authority among you" shows clearly that Allah calls upon all Muslims, because if it was only for the Muslims who lived during the time of the Prophet, the highest authority was the Prophet himself.

If the Quran did not mention the prophet's hadiths and told us that the Quran is the only hadith to follow and that the sunnah of Allah (not Muhammad) is the only sunnah and that the Quran says the Quran is fully clarified in your laws!--Does that sound like Allah wanted you to follow Hadiths?

Quran 4:59 explained in detail:

This glorious ayat has been subject to deliberate manipulation by the Muslim Imams and scholars in many Muslim countries. They have used the words "those in charge among you" in order to claim that the religious guru's have a right according to the Quran to have authority over the people and that they should be obeyed without question.

In order to analyse this claim we must research the Quranic content with regards to this issue.

The first part of this ayat is straightforward, as in numerous other ayat we read the command to obey God and obey the messenger. It has been shown that obeying God and obeying the messenger are one and the same thing since the messenger's sole duty is to deliver God's message (5:92), hence we do not need to elaborate on this issue here. If we are to obey the messenger and the messenger's duty is to deliver the message, and the Quran makes it clear that message is only in the Quran, then by obeying the Quran, we are obeying the messenger and we are obeying God.

This leaves us with the task of understanding the words "those in charge among you". Do these words rightly give the religious guru's their claimed right to control the people and be entitled to receive the total obedience of the believers?

The term "those in charge among you" covers a wide variety of people. In order to determine who is actually entitled to have rightful authority over us, it would be quite logical to assert that this authority must be in accordance to God's law, in other words it must be a God given authority, and not an authority that is self claimed.

The following are some examples of rightful and righteous authority that is in harmony with the Quranic teachings:

1- For a young boy/girl they should obey their parents who have authority over them during their younge dependent years.

2- For a wife, she must obey her husband (in righteousness) as God decreed in the Quran.

3- For an employee, he/she must obey their boss who has authority over them, but only within the framework of the profession.

4- For citizens, they must obey the established authorities (e.g. the courts, the police, etc). They must obey the law of the land as long as it does not violate God's law.

Other cases may also be made that relate to authority in righteousness and in harmony with God's law.

Now we ask, do the clergy and the religious guru's have authority over the believers in accordance to 4:59?

It can be easily demonstrated with the aid of the Quran that the authority God speaks of in 4:59 does NOT cover the men of religion (e.g. Imam's, guru's .. etc). The religious figures (e.g. Imams, gurus, ... etc) have NO AUTHORITY over the believers.

First, the Quran stresses the fact that it is forbidden to follow any law other than the law of God, that being the Law of the Quran:

"Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book (the Quran) fully detailed ?" 6:114

Again, this does not mean that the Quran is the only revelation that the Prophet received.

Again, think about it this way, if Allah wanted us to follow Hadiths as a scriptural authority, why would he make the Quran clear that it is the only authority and not at all even hint that the prophet received another set of laws.

Let's assume he hided it, it does not mean anything. A better question would be: would God let Muslims for 1400 years (or for some centuries, or for a century if you reject history, even if it is stupid to believe that Muslims followed only the Quran for some centuries, then suddenly all those only-Quran Muslims disappeared and Muslims started to follow the hadiths. You can see small sects surviving for centuries.) follow something for which He will punish them?
I said what I had to say and I think my points remain, the main of them being: Muslims following hadiths for centuries, and I showed that it is not a circular argument and that believing that Muslims once followed only the Quran is historically absurd, which means that your true Islam was never among the Muslims. I don't want to run away, but I think that if we continue to debate, this will escalate to an ineffective polemic. However, please reply and answer the points I brought if you want. I'm going to read them but I won't reply. If you disagree with me, then we have to agree to disagree. All I can do is pray to Allah so you will become a true Muslim, a true follower of Prophet Muhammed, peace be upon him. Brother, I call you to be sincere and just think about the main point I brought, and may Allah guide you and all of us!

Well again, you are assuming that the earliest Muslims were following Hadiths in spite of the Quran. But even assuming they did, they are still accountable for their deeds.

Why would Allah allow it? Allah has allowed a lot of things. He has allowed Christianity and Judiasm to get corrupted. He has allowed earlier prophets to die.

Life is a test as the Quran states. If you don't have a choice to follow the wrong answer to the test, then it defeats the purpose of the test. If you are writing a multiple choice test, you have to make sure to give people a choice between the wrong and right answers. Asking this question would be like asking why the professor lets his students fail the exam.

The reality is, if people met the 3 conditions in Quran 31:6-7, they will be punished.

Now for your claim that the true-Islam has never been among Muslims, how do you know this? By adhering and believing in Hadiths. So my argument of circular reasoning remains.

I have replied to the points you made, I hope you find them reasonable and I hope Allah guides you to the true path of the Quran.

I believe that by adhering the Quran, that you are adhering to the prophet's commands given by Allah and you are a true follower of the Quran as the prophet's only duty is to give the message of the Quran.

Please do not assume that I am insincere, this is what the Quran wants as I believe I have proved.

Given that the Quran:

• Makes no reference to another source of law given to the prophet besides it (no where in the Quran is there any indication that Muhammad received anything from God other than the Quran.)
• Specifically tells you that it is the only source of law
• Tells us to obey the messenger and his duty is only to give the Quran thereby making the Quran the only source of law
• says that the Sunnah of Allah is the only sunnah (why would Allah say this if we are to follow Muhammad's Sunnah all Allah would have had to do is say "And Muhammad's Sunnah")
• makes it clear that there is no other hadith than the one of Allah in the Quran (recited revelations) that we are to follow (45:6)
•   The Quran confirms that for every prophet there will be enemies of human and jinn devils who will fabricate fancy sayings (hadith) and attribute them to the Prophet to deceive the people: 6:112[/b]
• Or do you have some book in which you are studying?" 68:37 In 68:37 God is mocking those who have other books than the Quran which they follow.
• "So in which Hadith, other than this, do they believe" 77:50, In 77:50 is yet another clear mockery at all who follow other than the Quran. Does that sound like Allah wanted us to follow anything besides the Quran?

You have every right to deny our Hadith collection. The Quran could not be any more clear.

I hope you think this through


 

[QuranSearchCom]

You have every right to deny our Hadith collection. The Quran could not be any more clear.

As'salamu Alaikum dear brother Mclinkin94 and all of the brothers and sisters reading,

Akhi Mclinkin94,

Your statement above and beliefs go against the Holy Quran that you use to reject the Hadiths:

[016:044] (We sent them) with Clear Signs and Books of dark prophecies; and We have sent down unto thee (also) the Message; that thou mayest explain clearly to men what is sent for them, and that they may give thought.

The Holy Quran couldn't be any clearer about following what Prophet Muhammad commanded, akhi.  The problem with the hadiths collections, and the conspiracies and blasphemies that exist in them doesn't nullify all of the Hadiths.  It's like the Bible akhi.  We can't just dismiss all of it.  We know there is Truth in it.  Yet, we also know that it is not Absolute Divine Truth like the Holy Quran.

The Hadiths to me are like the Bible.  I am very careful with them.  A Hadith is a lie until proven otherwise.  This is how I approach the Hadiths.  It's like the Bible's and the other old Scriptures' verses.  They too are man-made lies until proven otherwise.  This is why the closest they get to is "closest to the Truth, but not Absolute Truth like the Holy Quran".  I already mentioned that above and gave the reasons and link to why.



Where is the proof for my statement above?

From http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,1166.msg4047.html#msg4047:

I was asked before how can I substantiate the following statement from the Holy Quran:

Here is the bottom line:  What agrees with the Holy Quran from the hadiths and also from the Bible and other scriptures is closest to the Truth, but not absolute Truth like the Holy Quran.  And what disagrees with the Holy Quran belongs to the garbage.

Here is the proof from the Holy Quran:

[016:044] (We sent them) with Clear Signs and Books of dark prophecies; and We have sent down unto thee (also) the Message; that thou mayest explain clearly to men what is sent for them, and that they may give thought.

[004:115] After the guidance has been revealed and explained, if anyone parts his way with the messenger and follows a path different from that of the believers, then We will divert him along his (chosen) path. We will hurl him in the hell (in the hereafter). What a despicable destination!

[006:046] Say, “Have you (ever) considered? What if Allah took away your hearing and your sight, and sealed off your heart? Is there a god besides Allah, who could give you back these senses?” Observe, how We explain the revelations in detail. Yet, they turn away (disdainfully).

[006:055] In this manner, We explain Our revelations in detail, so that the ways of the criminals would become (widely known and) well recognized.

So the real genuine Hadiths that are Quran-Approved are the ones that directly explain and detail the Holy Quran's Commands.  Not every word that came out of the Prophet's mouth is a legitimate Hadith:

Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari: "The Prophet used to invoke Allah, saying, "Allahumma ighfirli khati'ati wa jahli wa israfi fi amri, wa ma anta a-'lamu bihi minni. Allahumma ighfirli hazali wa jiddi wa khata'i wa amdi, wa kullu dhalika 'indi"

WHICH READS IN ENGLISH AS:

"O Allah! Forgive my mistakes and my ignorance and my exceeding the limit (boundaries) of righteousness in my deeds; and forgive whatever You know better than I. O Allah! Forgive the wrong I have done jokingly or seriously, and forgive my accidental and intentional errors, all that is present in me."  (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 75, Number 408))

This is why those who say that the Prophet never spoke out of his own desire, and that every word he spoke was an inspiration are all in error.  The following Noble Verses that they use only refer to the Holy Quran's Revelations:

[053:002]  You companion has neither erred, nor has he gone astray,
[053:003]  Nor does he speak out of his own desire.
[053:004]  It is nothing but pure revelation revealed by God.
[053:005]  The Lord of the Mighty Powers has taught him (i.e., Angel Gabriel),

Those who say that Prophet Muhammad was a "Walking Quran", and that every single word he spoke was an inspiration are full of rubbish nonsense.

I hope this helps, insha'Allah

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

[mclinkin94]

You have every right to deny our Hadith collection. The Quran could not be any more clear.

As'salamu Alaikum dear brother Mclinkin94 and all of the brothers and sisters reading,

Akhi Mclinkin94,

Your statement above and beliefs go against the Holy Quran that you use to reject the Hadiths:

[016:044] (We sent them) with Clear Signs and Books of dark prophecies; and We have sent down unto thee (also) the Message; that thou mayest explain clearly to men what is sent for them, and that they may give thought.

The Holy Quran couldn't be any clearer about following what Prophet Muhammad commanded, akhi.  The problem with the hadiths collections, and the conspiracies and blasphemies that exist in them doesn't nullify all of the Hadiths.  It's like the Bible akhi.  We can't just dismiss all of it.  We know there is Truth in it.  Yet, we also know that it is not Absolute Divine Truth like the Holy Quran.

The Hadiths to me are like the Bible.  I am very careful with them.  A Hadith is a lie until proven otherwise.  This is how I approach the Hadiths.  It's like the Bible's and the other old Scriptures' verses.  They too are man-made lies until proven otherwise.  This is why the closest they get to is "closest to the Truth, but not Absolute Truth like the Holy Quran".  I already mentioned that above and gave the reasons and link to why.



Where is the proof for my statement above?

From http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,1166.msg4047.html#msg4047:

I was asked before how can I substantiate the following statement from the Holy Quran:

Here is the bottom line:  What agrees with the Holy Quran from the hadiths and also from the Bible and other scriptures is closest to the Truth, but not absolute Truth like the Holy Quran.  And what disagrees with the Holy Quran belongs to the garbage.

Here is the proof from the Holy Quran:

[016:044] (We sent them) with Clear Signs and Books of dark prophecies; and We have sent down unto thee (also) the Message; that thou mayest explain clearly to men what is sent for them, and that they may give thought.

[004:115] After the guidance has been revealed and explained, if anyone parts his way with the messenger and follows a path different from that of the believers, then We will divert him along his (chosen) path. We will hurl him in the hell (in the hereafter). What a despicable destination!

[006:046] Say, “Have you (ever) considered? What if Allah took away your hearing and your sight, and sealed off your heart? Is there a god besides Allah, who could give you back these senses?” Observe, how We explain the revelations in detail. Yet, they turn away (disdainfully).

[006:055] In this manner, We explain Our revelations in detail, so that the ways of the criminals would become (widely known and) well recognized.

So the real genuine Hadiths that are Quran-Approved are the ones that directly explain and detail the Holy Quran's Commands.  Not every word that came out of the Prophet's mouth is a legitimate Hadith:

Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari: "The Prophet used to invoke Allah, saying, "Allahumma ighfirli khati'ati wa jahli wa israfi fi amri, wa ma anta a-'lamu bihi minni. Allahumma ighfirli hazali wa jiddi wa khata'i wa amdi, wa kullu dhalika 'indi"

WHICH READS IN ENGLISH AS:

"O Allah! Forgive my mistakes and my ignorance and my exceeding the limit (boundaries) of righteousness in my deeds; and forgive whatever You know better than I. O Allah! Forgive the wrong I have done jokingly or seriously, and forgive my accidental and intentional errors, all that is present in me."  (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 75, Number 408))

This is why those who say that the Prophet never spoke out of his own desire, and that every word he spoke was an inspiration are all in error.  The following Noble Verses that they use only refer to the Holy Quran's Revelations:

[053:002]  You companion has neither erred, nor has he gone astray,
[053:003]  Nor does he speak out of his own desire.
[053:004]  It is nothing but pure revelation revealed by God.
[053:005]  The Lord of the Mighty Powers has taught him (i.e., Angel Gabriel),

Those who say that Prophet Muhammad was a "Walking Quran", and that every single word he spoke was an inspiration are full of rubbish nonsense.

I hope this helps, insha'Allah

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Asalamu Alaikum brother Osama! I hope I am not wasting your time as I am sure you have more important work to do!

I agree with you 99%. I don't reject all hadiths blindly, my argument is we don't need them and there is no good reason to put your faith in them. My biggest issue with hadiths is how people use them to interpret the Quran! This is the issue. 

Many verses in the Quran maintain multi-layered meanings so that it gives the Quran flexibility for people to adapt it in the future. The Quran does this so that it could support 7th century belief and modern belief simultaneously! You have seen many examples of this. For example, the hidden scientific clues in the Quran. The Quranic support for evolution--it is beautiful how the Quran worded verses and allowed different translations for them so that it supports 7th century and modern belief! The Quran is worded precisely to allow for its flexibility in time and space.

The hadiths stop this flexibility and say that a certain Quranic verse must be translated this way because the prophet allegedly said ________(insert lie here)_________.

Brother Farhan has listed as example with one of the verses dealing with cosmic rays. Brother BlackMuslim has given us his reason for rejecting the Quran support for evolution through utilizing hadiths to interpret the Quran. He is literally saying "the hadith says this therefore the Quran means this" .This is the kind of stuff that really stops the progression of Islam and this is the stuff that diverts others from Islam.
-------------------------------------------------

What I did disagree with though, was your usage of Quran 16:44. This does not authorize the hadith as an additional source besides the Quran. The words in 16:44 clearly state that the messenger can only make things clear to the people by means of what is revealed to him (Quran-The Quran says only the Quran was revealed to him). This is also confirmed in 6:114 which states that the only source of law is the book. In addition, the messenger is prohibited from adding his own teachings to the message he received from God. If he does he would be committing a great error that would incur a severe punishment from God (see 69:44-46).

What this means is that the messenger is authorised only in delivering the message of the Quran and nothing else. All what he preaches and which is from the Quran must be obeyed, but not any other personal teachings that do not have reference or authorisation in the Quran. To obey the messenger blindly in every word he ever uttered is the work of those who are intent on making an idol out of the messenger.

If we read 16:44 and 3:164 on their own it may well appear that the messenger can fully explain the Quran to the people and that he is the teacher of the Quran, but what about when we read 55:1-2 which says that God is the teacher of the Quran?

Also, what about 75:19 where God is speaking to the messenger and tells him clearly that it is He (God) who will explain the Quran?

It is clear that when we read other verses we get a different picture.

As a result, we must arrive at a common meaning which would be in harmony with all the Quranic verses and not just 3:164 and 16:44.

The common meaning is that the messenger delivered the Quran to the people and that he spent all his remaining days preaching the Quran and commanding people to follow it and showing them what the Quran requires them to do.

However, the messenger cannot guide anyone or guarantee that all people will understand the true message of the Quran. It is God, and God alone, who can guide the people and truly explain the message of the book to the ones who deserve the guidance.
The Quranic verses which confirm this truth are numerous.

So now that we have established that Quran 16:44 means that the prophet will explain to people the Quran. Does that mean that we are to follow another set of laws beyond the Quran? No. It means we are to follow just the Quran and the prophet helped slightly in the past. The hadiths, as you have stated, are questionable. So we don't know what the prophet said. So when you get hadiths like kill all apostates--a concept the Quran doesn't teach, then the prophet did not say that. If you get a hadith that contradicts a discovered meaning of the Quran, like some science verses--then again you are to reject that hadiths because the prophet most-likely did not say that.

With this in mind, any hadiths that gives more information that the Quran is to be rejected. Any hadith that contradicts the  Quran is to be rejected.

So if we are to hold this viewpoint, what is the point of hadiths if they are just going to support the Quran? Why do we need them? Wouldn't the Quran just suffice?

Another way we could look at Quran 16:44: The word used is لتبين which means to make clear or to show and ends with they might give thought. That kind of shifts the responsibility of making sense of the remembrance on to the reader. There is no clear connotation that the Prophet Pbuh was assigned the task of explaining God's words. And even if that was true it would still not automatically qualify the Hadith reports as explanations. Every report in the Hadith literature would still need to pass the standard of evidence detailed in the Quran and 99.9% of the reports don't make the cut.