Answering Christianity Research Center
MAIN BOARD (You must register to post) => GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS => Topic started by: IA on February 27, 2014, 03:21:03 PM
-
Frist of all, I don't want to resume the debate about the validity of hadiths and I don't want to prove that your approach toward hadiths is wrong through this question.
I'm curious to know how do you consider the Quran more reliable than hadiths?
-
Frist of all, I don't want to resume the debate about the validity of hadiths and I don't want to prove that your approach toward hadiths is wrong through this question.
I'm curious to know how do you consider the Quran more reliable than hadiths?
As'salamu Alaikum dear brother,
Sorry to answer first when the question wasn't directed to me, but let me share with you my stand on the Hadiths:
1- I am not a Quran-only. Visit: www.answering-christianity.com/ac11.htm#links.
2- I do, however, believe that the Hadiths volumes, ESPECIALLY THE SAHIH ONES, are filled with lies and consipiracies against:
(a)- Prophet Muhammad (ex: the Prophet got bewtiched by a Jew who supposedly stole a piece of his hair, put it in a comb and hid it under a rock).
(b)- The daughters of Abu Bakr, especially our mother Aisha.
(c)- The Caliphs.
(d)- The Companions.
(e)- The Holy Quran - having false narrations about so-called missing verses and chapters that were not included in the Holy Quran, when no texts were provided. Just empty assertions.
(f)- Islam in general.
For ample more details and examples, please visit: www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm.
3- I do also believe that our Hadiths narrations about how the Holy Quran was compiled are FALSE! Here is why:
(a)- The very complex Text of the Holy Quran clearly shows that it was Divinely Designed, especially when the Holy Text is both Consistent and Miraculous in Its Numerical values even to a vowel level. Visit: www.answering-christianity.com/ac20.htm#links.
4- I believe that there was an ORIGINAL copy that was kept in secret during Prophet Muhammad's days, and that Caliph Uthman's committee only took that ORIGINAL copy and duplicated it. This is also why the Caliph burnt all other false copies.
5- I don't believe that the Holy Quran was fully compiled only during Caliph Uthman's time. I believe it was fully compiled during Prophet Muhammad's days. Again, the Miraculous Complexity of the Holy Quran's Text testifies that there is clearly a Divine Intervention and Design in It.
I hope this helps, insha'Allah.
Take care,
Osama Abdallah
-
As'salamu Alaikum dear brother,
Sorry to answer first when the question wasn't directed to me, but let me share with you my stand on the Hadiths:
Wa Alaikum Salam dear brother,
First of all, if we disagree about something, let this not be a cause for hating each other. Seeing how many great things you are doing for Islam, I feel that I don't even deserve to criticize you, about anything. However, take everything I say just as a sincere advice.
1- I am not a Quran-only. Visit: www.answering-christianity.com/ac11.htm#links.
2- I do, however, believe that the Hadiths volumes, ESPECIALLY THE SAHIH ONES, are filled with lies and consipiracies against:
(a)- Prophet Muhammad (ex: the Prophet got bewtiched by a Jew who supposedly stole a piece of his hair, put it in a comb and hid it under a rock).
(b)- The daughters of Abu Bakr, especially our mother Aisha.
(c)- The Caliphs.
(d)- The Companions.
(e)- The Holy Quran - having false narrations about so-called missing verses and chapters that were not included in the Holy Quran, when no texts were provided. Just empty assertions.
(f)- Islam in general.
For ample more details and examples, please visit: www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm.
There are two cases that talk about the bewitchment of the Prophet:
1. The Quran talks about those Meccans who said that Prophet Muhammad was bewitched. They also accused him of being a sorcerer, a liar etc. Those people were the ones who were accused in the Quran as being wicked.
2. There is a specific event where it is reported that the Prophet was bewitched (please read: http://muslim-responses.com/Black_Magic_on_the_Prophet/Black_Magic_on_the_Prophet_). This does not indicate that he was not a true Prophet, and we don't have any reason to reject this hadith.
Earlier, on some posts you gave more examples of hadiths you reject. I think ThatMuslimGuy and BlackMuslim gave good reasons why those hadiths shouldn't be rejected.
I agree with you, and all Muslims know that not all the hadiths are true. This is something known among the Muslims and islamic scholars. However, your approach in classifying them is wrong. A hadith cannot be rejected just because it seems it contradicts with the Quran (of course that sahih hadiths don't contradict with the Quran. The only ones that can contradict with the Quran are the weak ones), just because it seems like it makes the Prophet look bad or just because it tells us about something impossible or miraculous (we believe in miracles, don't we?).
My advice to you is: more appreciation for knowledge and for the scholars. Hadiths are classified by their chain of narrators or the reliability of the narrators etc. The Science of Hadith is just amazing. You would be amazed to see what strong criterions are used to accept a hadith. Please read some books on the Science of Hadith (http://www.kalamullah.com/hadith.html, scroll it down).
3- I do also believe that our Hadiths narrations about how the Holy Quran was compiled are FALSE! Here is why:
(a)- The very complex Text of the Holy Quran clearly shows that it was Divinely Designed, especially when the Holy Text is both Consistent and Miraculous in Its Numerical values even to a vowel level. Visit: www.answering-christianity.com/ac20.htm#links.
The reson you gave is very strong. However, I'm sure the experts of Hadith have dealt with this. Their books are here, the problem is, we haven't read them. I haven't read any explanation about those type of hadiths, so I can't say anything.
4- I believe that there was an ORIGINAL copy that was kept in secret during Prophet Muhammad's days, and that Caliph Uthman's committee only took that ORIGINAL copy and duplicated it. This is also why the Caliph burnt all other false copies.
5- I don't believe that the Holy Quran was fully compiled only during Caliph Uthman's time. I believe it was fully compiled during Prophet Muhammad's days. Again, the Miraculous Complexity of the Holy Quran's Text testifies that there is clearly a Divine Intervention and Design in It.
Your reasoning about the Miraculous Complexity is strong. However, we can't argue with nonmuslims by simply saying that 'I don't believe' (even if you explain them the Miraculous Complexity) and simply rejecting the narrations. Of course, the Miraculous Complexity will make us believe 100% that the Quran is unchaged, but we cannot just leave those narrations. It requires us to see what those narrations say, to see if they are weak or not (BTW, I have never known if those hadiths you are referring to are classified as true or weak) and to explain them. And all of this is done by scholars. I believe there must be an explanation about those hadiths, there must have been scholars who have written about those hadiths but unfortunately I haven't read them.
-
I hope mclinkin94 does not use the Miraculous Complexity of the Quran to prove its reliability. It may be used only as a supporting argument because I'm asking how reliable is the Quran from a nonmuslim point of view, and from this point of view, the Quran being a numerical miracle does not indicate that it is unchanged and reliable.
-
My advice to you is: more appreciation for knowledge and for the scholars. Hadiths are classified by their chain of narrators or the reliability of the narrators etc. The Science of Hadith is just amazing. You would be amazed to see what strong criterions are used to accept a hadith. Please read some books on the Science of Hadith (http://www.kalamullah.com/hadith.html, scroll it down).
However, I'm sure the experts of Hadith have dealt with this. Their books are here, the problem is, we haven't read them. I haven't read any explanation about those type of hadiths, so I can't say anything.
This pretty much sums up the whole hadeeth "issue" that ive read so far. Simply lack of reading of the amount of knowledge and books that are out there on Usool Al-Hadeeth.
The Science of Hadeeth is amazing.
-
I'm curious to know how do you consider the Quran more reliable than hadiths?
Hands down , Quran is the first source of revelation . Sunnah is the second one which emphasizes on what it says , explains it , or mention some things it didn't .
-
Salamalaykum akhwaan,
I come in peace :D
I would also like to say that there are hadiths out there that are false, but the hadiths collected by Muslim & Bukhari i believe are authentic. The reason is the amount of criterion that they have to pass to deem reliable. Actually i think there is a scholarly consensus that Bukhari & Muslim hadiths are all authentic save a few. I think 3 hadiths in Bukhari and 6 in Muslim. On these their is Ikhtilaaf between the scholars on their authenticity. Bukhari memorized 300,000 hadiths by heart, out of them he included only 4,000 traditions in his Sahih. These were the 'Sahih of the Sahih'. (The rest are basically repeated, with different chains of narrators). Before he included a hadith in his Jami' he used to offer Salatul Istikhari 2 rakaats and make dua. Subhannalah thats about 14,000 rakaats for the whole Jami'. May Allah bless Imam Bukhari, i advise everyone to read his biography.
salam
-
In case someone didn't understand the question, I'm asking mclinkin94 for the historical evidence that the Quran is authentic.
-
Asalamu Alaikum everyone!
So, I actually a different standing on hadiths than all of you and including brother Osama.
My major thesis is that the Quran did not authorize ANY other source besides itself. AND: It is wrong to use a potentially corrupted source (like hadiths or the bible) to interpret the Quran.
I'm curious to know how do you consider the Quran more reliable than hadiths?
I don't even know how to begin answering this question...
Hadiths contradict themselves
Hadiths contradict the Quran
Hadiths are chinese whispers (my father said that his friend says that his uncles brother says that his mom says that his dad says the prophet Muhmammad says....)
Hadiths make the prophet Muhammad look like a bad person while the Quran makes him a good person
Hadiths are filled with lies
Do I even need to be more clear?
Perhaps the question you are asking, is how do I know the Quran isn't corrupted?????
Well, can we reasonable cite hadiths (potentially and probably corrupted sources) to show that the Quran is preserved? There is no reasoned logic behind this. NO we cannot, just like we cannot use the bible to understand the Quran.
So how do I know the Quran is preserved?
Have you heard of the numerical consistencies of the Quran? If the Quran wasn't preserved, would these consistencies exist? VERY improbable.
God made that possible by installing a mathematical code in the Quran which allows us to have access to the pure Quran, and which allows us to expose any corruption.
Once we have this knowledge, it would not matter if 1000 people printed 1000 different Qurans, all with errors or additions; we would always be able to detect any corruption.And thus the Quran will always be preserved, independent of any printed mushaf.The God given tool is the code 19 which God embedded in the Quran and which controls all features of the book. Besides providing absolute scientific proof that the Quran is the word of God, the code 19 also exposes any alterations in the Quran or additions.
I could also give many examples if you would like.
I hope mclinkin94 does not use the Miraculous Complexity of the Quran to prove its reliability. It may be used only as a supporting argument because I'm asking how reliable is the Quran from a nonmuslim point of view, and from this point of view, the Quran being a numerical miracle does not indicate that it is unchanged and reliable.
My thesis is the Quran did not authorize any other source besides itself. That's it.
To debate this, you must show that the Quran DID authorize another source (hadiths) besides itself. And then I will do a rebuttal and we continue with this.
The addition of the EXACT Quranic manuscripts we have and the Quran being a numerical miracle does indicate that it is unchanged or Allah intervened to perfect his verses. IF you site hadiths (a potentially invalid source) to show the Quran is preserved is just as bad as siting a dishonest person (who you don't know when he is honest) as showing the Quran is preserved.
We are all Muslims, meaning we follow what it is written in the Quran. My thesis is the Quran did not authorize any other book besides itself. And I could flood this forum with verses if you want.
IF you say that the combination of the Quranic manuscripts and the numerical consistency in the Quran are not indicators that the Quran is preserved, provide REASONS as this is not reasoned logic.
I have provided a reason why you cannot use hadiths to determine whether the Quran is corrupted or not. Hadiths are not valid sources. Imagine me citing Wikipedia showing something. But Wikipedia is not a valid source-although it may be right sometimes. That's it...you can't use hadiths because we don't know if they are valid.
If you start shooting the "science" of Hadiths nonsense. I would like to show ONE case of how the science of hadiths is fundamentally flawed:
The science of hadiths is based on the reliability of the people who spread them. Example:
Person 1 said that person 2 said that person 3 said that person 4 said that the prophet said...
If person 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 are reliable people with good character, then the hadith is authentic and ALL muslims believe in them. Okay, here is a case that shows the science of hadiths are fundamentally flawed:
1.) "Can't the hadith corrupter also lie about the chain of transmission" (person 1 lied about who he got his info from)
2.) How do you know any of these people are reliable--by utilizing hadith sources (circular reasoning)
Have you ever played the telephone game in grade school. How often is what that last student says similar to the first studen. This is the world of hadiths.
So how can we possibly use a potentially corrupted source to interpret the Quran? Could I use the bible (potentially corrupted) to interpret the Quran?
-
-
Hadiths contradict themselves
Hadiths contradict the Quran
Hadiths are chinese whispers (my father said that his friend says that his uncles brother says that his mom says that his dad says the prophet Muhmammad says....)
Hadiths make the prophet Muhammad look like a bad person while the Quran makes him a good person
Hadiths are filled with lies
The only contradiction exists in your imagination wither its Quran or Sunnah .
The science of Hadith and narrations is the most powerful method of knowing the right from wrong in history . If you're going to refuse it , you should throw the entire history in garbage as its weaker .
That's your own opinion which doesn't concern anyone else . The same way people think of prophet Muhammad peace upon him as a bad person for killing the men of Quraiza WHO INTENED TO ANNIHILATE THE ENTIRE ISLAMIC POPULATION .
Your words are full with lies .
And let me get this straight , your answer to the problem of denying Quran is that there is a Da Vinci code in it ?!
And once again , we return to the accursed circle where you just repeat "That's illogical ! You're unwilling ! The verse is clear !" as if you own logic . And I can just say "No , YOU are unwilling" . But from seeing how you don't respond to anything that kills your arguments , I'll refrain . I really had enough headache . If you keep ignoring the meaning of "Ahsana" agreed on between every single person who speaks Arabic , why would you actually respond to anything I say ?
-
Dont bother Black Muslim. Am sure Mclinkin94, this great scholar, this great Muhaddith who has memorized Quran and got an Ijazah, who has a BA, MA and Phd in Islamic Studies, who has studied Islam for more than 20 years knows better than all the Imams and Scholars. He knows more than Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Imam Abu Dawood, Imam At-Tirmidhi, Imam Ibn Majah, Imam Ibn Rahwaih, Al Ismaili, Baihaqi, Ar Razi, Al Hakim, Ibn Hibban, Ibn Khuzaima, Ad Daraqtuni, Ad Darimi, Ibn As Sakan, Imam Ashafi'i, At Tabaranee, At Tahawi, Ibn Al Qattan, Imam Malik, Ibn Manda, Abu Ya'la, Ibn Al-Jawzi, Al Baghawi, Ad Dhahabi, Al Haythami, Al Maqsidi, Ibn Hajar, Ibn Hazam, Ibn Kathir, Al Nawawi, Ibn Rajab, Al Baghdadi, Sufyan Ath Thawri, As Suyuti, Az Zahiri, Ibn Taymiyyah and the thousands of other scholars and their students who devoted their whole lives so to protect religion of Islam form falling into corruption and help the muslims of later generations. Who traveled thousands of miles just to authenticate one hadith. They faced hardship that you, me or thousand of us would face in a lifetime. They faced hunger, death, poverty, sold all their wealth for knowledge. Only to be shrugged off by someone sitting eating cocoa krispies behind a computer screen.
If he was so knowledgeable and searching for the truth, he would look into the Quran and listen to the evidences for the sunnah.
-
It seems the discussion started again... but I just can't stay without responding.
Before addressing your points on the authenticity of the Quran, I have to clarify something:
If we assume that you haven't answered the question (this doesn't mean you haven't answered it) everything else you say is pointless.
My major thesis is that the Quran did not authorize ANY other source besides itself. AND: It is wrong to use a potentially corrupted source (like hadiths or the bible) to interpret the Quran.
If we assume that you didn't bring any evidence for the authenticity of the Quran, then you can't say that 'the Quran did not authorize any other source' because we don't know if the Quran is true. I hope you understand what I'm saying.
Hadiths contradict themselves
Hadiths contradict the Quran
Hadiths make the prophet Muhammad look like a bad person while the Quran makes him a good person
Hadiths are filled with lies
My thesis is the Quran did not authorize any other source besides itself. That's it.
There was no need to write all of this. Everything you had to show me was evidence for the authenticity of the Quran. Your saying 'Quran did not authorize any other source' without showing us evidence for its authenticity, is the same like saying 'The Bible says that the Quran is corrupted'. As we don't believe the Bible is authentic, you can't use that to prove something else is not authentic. I hope you undestand what I'm saying because I'm not a native english speaker and I find it difficult to express myself in a simple way. So, you didn't have to write all of that.
To debate this, you must show that the Quran DID authorize another source (hadiths) besides itself. And then I will do a rebuttal and we continue with this.
Its a matter of interpretation. It's not that I can't answer yor point about the Quran being the only source or the Quran being explained in details, but its irrelevant to what we are discussing. We will discuss it later. What I can say for now, and I will leave you and all other Muslims to think about this, is that, I don't believe you are right and 99.99% of Muslim scholars are wrong. All of them have read these verses. How could not a single scholar except Rashad Khalifa (who is not a scholar), some Muslims who follow their desires, and you, undestand it in the right way?
If you start shooting the "science" of Hadiths nonsense. I would like to show ONE case of how the science of hadiths is fundamentally flawed:
The science of hadiths is based on the reliability of the people who spread them. Example:
Person 1 said that person 2 said that person 3 said that person 4 said that the prophet said...
If person 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 are reliable people with good character, then the hadith is authentic and ALL muslims believe in them. Okay, here is a case that shows the science of hadiths are fundamentally flawed:
1.) "Can't the hadith corrupter also lie about the chain of transmission" (person 1 lied about who he got his info from)
2.) How do you know any of these people are reliable--by utilizing hadith sources (circular reasoning)
Is this how the Science of Hadith classifies hadiths?! Are you showing me how does a hadith look like or how does the Science of Hadith classify hadiths? Wow! I can't believe you wrote this. Simply, you don't have an idea about the Science of Hadith my brother. Sincerely, I'm quite dissapointed.
Now to the main point:
From what I have seen until now, its crystal clear the you reject history.
I have to recall some earlier posts from our previous discussion:
When we were discussing Quran 31:6 (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.) You said that 'amusement of speech' refers to hadiths. We see that those people who followed 'amusement of speech' or like you say 'hadiths' will be punished. I said that 'how could so many Muslims, almost all of the Muslims be punished' and I used as an evidence the unambiguous, clear historical fact that Muslims, since the early generations, for 1400 years, are following hadiths. You said that this was circular argument because I was using a hadith to prove hadiths. I also said that, ok, if Muslims in the past followed only the Quran, how did they dissapear? We see many small sects surviving for centuries. How could theose Muslims just dissapear? There was no answer from you. From what you said, it was clear that you rejected history, you rejected something which is known, a clear historical fact. This is important to what we are discussing now.
I asked you to bring me evidence that the Quran is reliable, by using your own standard, by rejecting history. You brought as evidence the manuscripts and the numerical miracle, which are indeed strong arguments. But let's just use your silly standards of rejecting true, well known historical facts:
'How do you know if the manuscript has the same verses revealed to prophet Muhammad? If it was not written during the time of the Prophet, it may have been corrupted by Muslims, the same way like hadiths, the Quran might have been corrupted.' By rejecting history, we can go even further and say: 'How do you know prophet Muhammad existed? Perhaps the Quran was written by Arab poets who combined verses in such ways that it looks like numerical miralce etc, etc, etc....' I can give hudreds of hypothesis if I reject history. Of course, what I said is stupid, but you are saying the same when it comes to the hadiths. I wonder, if a nonmuslim historian or academic asks us Muslims for strong evidence that the Quran is authentic, who is that stupid Muslim who will use the numerical miracle to prove that the Quran is authentic? You have to use historical evidence. Are manuscripts historical evidence? Yes, but then you should accept the whole history that is known to be true. The manuscripts by itself are not evidence, because you don't know what happened before the manuscripts were written. You have to accept the islamic history, and you can say for example that 'Muslims in the time of the Prophet learned the Quran by heart, and they recited it every prayer, and the arabs were known as people who could memorize long poems, and then they wrote it etc.' The historical evidence is indeed overwhelming. Then you can also use the numerical miracle as a supporting argument that the Quran was preserved.
So, if you reject history, then you follow your desires and you pick what is true and what is false. You can't say Quran was preserved while saying that hadiths are not the sayings of the Prophet. As you said in one of your posts, 'get informed'. Learn about hadiths, beacuse what you are doing is only following your desires, even if you said sometime ago that you were 'intellectually honest'; so, please be intellectually honest. I can say: If those Arabs were able to make thousands of false sayings, it was also easy for them to corrupt the Quran, or even to make it look like a numerical miracle. How could they produce so many sayings that were not said by someone? Please think about this.
You also said that you don't reject al hadiths. If this is the case, if you think that something might have been said by the Prophet, then this means that your interpretation of those verses in the Quran where it says that the Quran is detailed and that the Quran did not authorize any other source, is wrong by definition.
My point:
It is not possible that all of those sayings are not from our Prophet. Why would Allah do this to us? If we accept that hadiths, at least some of them are sayings of the Prophet, then your interpretation of the Quran is wrong, which means that Muslim scholars, for 14 centuries, have interpreted them right, and praise be to Allah for this.
It is known that for centuries, Muslims have been following hadiths. There are so many books written, all of them containing hadiths (don't say me now that all of those books are also corrupted and that they weren't written by scholars). The Quran (31:6), according to you, and all other verses which contain the word 'hadith' are refering to hadiths. The same argument again: all scholars, who were also linguists, have read those verses. They didn't interpret it as refering to hadiths of the Prophet. Verse 31 of chapter 6 threatens those who follow "the hadiths" with a humiliating punishment. If you believe that 100% of Muslims (excluding some of them + you) will be punished for this, than the discussion is over, and I can't say anything more. This means that the religion of Allah has failed totally, and this means that Allah is also a failure, everything has failed; OK, except some Muslims + you.
-
Dont bother Black Muslim. Am sure Mclinkin94, this great scholar, this great Muhaddith who has memorized Quran and got an Ijazah, who has a BA, MA and Phd in Islamic Studies, who has studied Islam for more than 20 years knows better than all the Imams and Scholars. He knows more than Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Imam Abu Dawood, Imam At-Tirmidhi, Imam Ibn Majah, Imam Ibn Rahwaih, Al Ismaili, Baihaqi, Ar Razi, Al Hakim, Ibn Hibban, Ibn Khuzaima, Ad Daraqtuni, Ad Darimi, Ibn As Sakan, Imam Ashafi'i, At Tabaranee, At Tahawi, Ibn Al Qattan, Imam Malik, Ibn Manda, Abu Ya'la, Ibn Al-Jawzi, Al Baghawi, Ad Dhahabi, Al Haythami, Al Maqsidi, Ibn Hajar, Ibn Hazam, Ibn Kathir, Al Nawawi, Ibn Rajab, Al Baghdadi, Sufyan Ath Thawri, As Suyuti, Az Zahiri, Ibn Taymiyyah and the thousands of other scholars and their students who devoted their whole lives so to protect religion of Islam form falling into corruption and help the muslims of later generations. Who traveled thousands of miles just to authenticate one hadith. They faced hardship that you, me or thousand of us would face in a lifetime. They faced hunger, death, poverty, sold all their wealth for knowledge. Only to be shrugged off by someone sitting eating cocoa krispies behind a computer screen.
If he was so knowledgeable and searching for the truth, he would look into the Quran and listen to the evidences for the sunnah.
Beautiful response. May Allah reward them with the greatest rewards. I see you were discussing with mclinkin94 about evolution in the Quran earlier. There is no need for that now. Since his points about hadiths have been disproved, which means that hadiths are true, then hadiths themselves refute his interpretation of the Quran as a book which is in accordance with evolution.
-
And whoever obeys Allah and the Messenger - those will be with the ones upon whom Allah has bestowed favor of the prophets, the steadfast affirmers of truth, the martyrs and the righteous. And excellent are those as companions. [Quran 4:69]
Say, [O Muhammad], "O mankind, indeed I am the Messenger of Allah to you all, [from Him] to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. There is no deity except Him; He gives life and causes death." So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the unlettered prophet, who believes in Allah and His words, and follow him that you may be guided. [Quran 7:158]
So Mclinkin94 i didnt think i would need to state these verses to someone who says he is a Muslim but there you go. There is the simple proof. If you deny that, which then you are the one to blame only on the day of Judgment. Fear Allah,
Nay! We cast the truth against the falsehood, so that it breaks its head, and lo! it vanishes; and woe to you for what you describe;
-
Hadiths contradict themselves
Hadiths contradict the Quran
Hadiths are chinese whispers (my father said that his friend says that his uncles brother says that his mom says that his dad says the prophet Muhmammad says....)
Hadiths make the prophet Muhammad look like a bad person while the Quran makes him a good person
Hadiths are filled with lies
The only contradiction exists in your imagination wither its Quran or Sunnah .
The science of Hadith and narrations is the most powerful method of knowing the right from wrong in history . If you're going to refuse it , you should throw the entire history in garbage as its weaker .
That's your own opinion which doesn't concern anyone else . The same way people think of prophet Muhammad peace upon him as a bad person for killing the men of Quraiza WHO INTENED TO ANNIHILATE THE ENTIRE ISLAMIC POPULATION .
Your words are full with lies .
And let me get this straight , your answer to the problem of denying Quran is that there is a Da Vinci code in it ?!
And once again , we return to the accursed circle where you just repeat "That's illogical ! You're unwilling ! The verse is clear !" as if you own logic . And I can just say "No , YOU are unwilling" . But from seeing how you don't respond to anything that kills your arguments , I'll refrain . I really had enough headache . If you keep ignoring the meaning of "Ahsana" agreed on between every single person who speaks Arabic , why would you actually respond to anything I say ?
So you don't believe in Hadith contradictions? Man do I have something to show you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRdOUQ3h_Zc
IF this method is so perfect, how could these exist in sahih hadiths?
If this method of hadith science is so perfect, why don't you actually defend it rather than say it is perfect. The hadith science method is being attacked by me. The way to gain an argumentative gain is to defend it. I have attacked it by showing it is fundamentally flawed in its method of determining which hadith is sahih.
Secondly, did you assume that when I say "the hadiths depict the prophet muhammad as a bad person" that I was talking about his good deeds as narrated in hadiths...That thing you mentioned, I don't see it as bad. There are horrible things that the hadiths accuse the prophet of doing. But it doesn't matter, the Quran doesn't authorize them anyway.
Thirdly, call it what you like, the code is the code. Read up on it. I heard brother Osama is translating yet another book showing the code!
I have already responded to your "ahsana" inquiry in the other read and I have listed reasons why it is the most valid translation while you presented no response. Take a look. :)
-
Dont bother Black Muslim. Am sure Mclinkin94, this great scholar, this great Muhaddith who has memorized Quran and got an Ijazah, who has a BA, MA and Phd in Islamic Studies, who has studied Islam for more than 20 years knows better than all the Imams and Scholars. He knows more than Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Imam Abu Dawood, Imam At-Tirmidhi, Imam Ibn Majah, Imam Ibn Rahwaih, Al Ismaili, Baihaqi, Ar Razi, Al Hakim, Ibn Hibban, Ibn Khuzaima, Ad Daraqtuni, Ad Darimi, Ibn As Sakan, Imam Ashafi'i, At Tabaranee, At Tahawi, Ibn Al Qattan, Imam Malik, Ibn Manda, Abu Ya'la, Ibn Al-Jawzi, Al Baghawi, Ad Dhahabi, Al Haythami, Al Maqsidi, Ibn Hajar, Ibn Hazam, Ibn Kathir, Al Nawawi, Ibn Rajab, Al Baghdadi, Sufyan Ath Thawri, As Suyuti, Az Zahiri, Ibn Taymiyyah and the thousands of other scholars and their students who devoted their whole lives so to protect religion of Islam form falling into corruption and help the muslims of later generations. Who traveled thousands of miles just to authenticate one hadith. They faced hardship that you, me or thousand of us would face in a lifetime. They faced hunger, death, poverty, sold all their wealth for knowledge. Only to be shrugged off by someone sitting eating cocoa krispies behind a computer screen.
If he was so knowledgeable and searching for the truth, he would look into the Quran and listen to the evidences for the sunnah.
So hold on, people who get Ph.D's are always right? Knowledgeable people are always right, they are infallible. Most of them can't be wrong?
Well clearly you haven't heard of the scientific history in the united states. When the big bang evidence came out, nearly ALL scientists rejected it and appealed to the steady state model. So people you would just give an argument from authority and say "most scientists believe in the steady state model, so the big bang is bogus"
By, the way, do you think there are no Quranist scholars? I could name several.
Secondly, how do you know that information that they traveled so long distances to authenticate a hadith? By using hadiths...
Let's again quote the Quran:
"But none will grasp the message except the men of intellect."
The Holy Quran, Chapter 2, Verse 269
If we assume that you didn't bring any evidence for the authenticity of the Quran, then you can't say that 'the Quran did not authorize any other source' because we don't know if the Quran is true. I hope you understand what I'm saying.
Using hadiths as evidence is unjustified as they are unreliable.
Second, you determine the Quran is the word of God through usage of your intellect and a reflection of Allah's verses. The Quran tells us this! How could you ask this question?
This is one example, there are several examples: Quran (47:24) Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an, or are there locks upon [their] hearts?
So you reflect on the Quran and make the judgment whether it is authentic.
As Muslims, both of us can say the Quran did not state to use hadiths to judge whether it is authentic. It said to use your intellect.
Everything you had to show me was evidence for the authenticity of the Quran.
The evidence for the authenticity of the Quran is the content of the Quran and its numerical characteristics
It's not that I can't answer yor point about the Quran being the only source or the Quran being explained in details, but its irrelevant to what we are discussing. We will discuss it later. What I can say for now, and I will leave you and all other Muslims to think about this, is that, I don't believe you are right and 99.99% of Muslim scholars are wrong. All of them have read these verses. How could not a single scholar except Rashad Khalifa (who is not a scholar), some Muslims who follow their desires, and you, undestand it in the right way?
NO. it is not irrelevant to what we are discussing. The Quran did not authorize any hadith. And as a Muslim, that should really speak to you!
Secondly, the argument from authority does not mean the are necessarily correct. Just because you are unaware of the various Quranist scholars doesn't mean they don't exist. Secondly, the majority opinion of scholars is not valid. The majority view again in science when Darwin's book came out was the evolution is bogus, but they were wrong. The majority view in nazi Germany was that blond haired blue eyed people are the supreme late. Remember what I said earlier about the majority view back then supporing the steady state model rather than the big bang?
How about this, if you like authority arguments, I could just say I don't believe you are right and 99.99% of the shia scholars are wrong. They too have read the verses of the Quran and your hadiths. Do you see why this argument holds no water?
YOU need to show reasons to support hadiths
Is this how the Science of Hadith classifies hadiths?! Are you showing me how does a hadith look like or how does the Science of Hadith classify hadiths? Wow! I can't believe you wrote this. Simply, you don't have an idea about the Science of Hadith my brother. Sincerely, I'm quite dissapointed.
Now to the main point:
From what I have seen until now, its crystal clear the you reject history.
I have to recall some earlier posts from our previous discussion:
When we were discussing Quran 31:6 (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.) You said that 'amusement of speech' refers to hadiths. We see that those people who followed 'amusement of speech' or like you say 'hadiths' will be punished. I said that 'how could so many Muslims, almost all of the Muslims be punished' and I used as an evidence the unambiguous, clear historical fact that Muslims, since the early generations, for 1400 years, are following hadiths. You said that this was circular argument because I was using a hadith to prove hadiths. I also said that, ok, if Muslims in the past followed only the Quran, how did they dissapear? We see many small sects surviving for centuries. How could theose Muslims just dissapear? There was no answer from you. From what you said, it was clear that you rejected history, you rejected something which is known, a clear historical fact. This is important to what we are discussing now.
Being disappointed is not an argument as I am disappointed of all these so called Muslims who reject Allah's words in saying the Quran is complete and fully detailed.
Next, I reject fabricated history or unreliable history like hadiths.
The amusement to speech does refer to hadith. Hadith is nothing more than a bunch of lies. How could so many muslims be punished? Let me ask you this, if the majority of students failed a test that was fair because they didn't study and didn't obey the professor, how could so many students fail?..this is not an argument.
We don't know that Muslims have been following hadiths for 1400 years because the only way you know that is by referring to hadiths. So yes it is circular reasoning.
How did they disappear? How do you know they disappeared? By making the assumption that everyone followed hadiths?
It is not a historical fact, they are fabrications--they may contain some truth though--but we can't know which are truthful
'How do you know if the manuscript has the same verses revealed to prophet Muhammad? If it was not written during the time of the Prophet, it may have been corrupted by Muslims, the same way like hadiths, the Quran might have been corrupted.' By rejecting history, we can go even further and say: 'How do you know prophet Muhammad existed? Perhaps the Quran was written by Arab poets who combined verses in such ways that it looks like numerical miralce etc, etc, etc....' I can give hudreds of hypothesis if I reject history. Of course, what I said is stupid, but you are saying the same when it comes to the hadiths. I wonder, if a nonmuslim historian or academic asks us Muslims for strong evidence that the Quran is authentic, who is that stupid Muslim who will use the numerical miracle to prove that the Quran is authentic? You have to use historical evidence. Are manuscripts historical evidence? Yes, but then you should accept the whole history that is known to be true. The manuscripts by itself are not evidence, because you don't know what happened before the manuscripts were written. You have to accept the islamic history, and you can say for example that 'Muslims in the time of the Prophet learned the Quran by heart, and they recited it every prayer, and the arabs were known as people who could memorize long poems, and then they wrote it etc.' The historical evidence is indeed overwhelming. Then you can also use the numerical miracle as a supporting argument that the Quran was preserved.
So, if you reject history, then you follow your desires and you pick what is true and what is false. You can't say Quran was preserved while saying that hadiths are not the sayings of the Prophet. As you said in one of your posts, 'get informed'. Learn about hadiths, beacuse what you are doing is only following your desires, even if you said sometime ago that you were 'intellectually honest'; so, please be intellectually honest. I can say: If those Arabs were able to make thousands of false sayings, it was also easy for them to corrupt the Quran, or even to make it look like a numerical miracle. How could they produce so many sayings that were not said by someone? Please think about this.
You also said that you don't reject al hadiths. If this is the case, if you think that something might have been said by the Prophet, then this means that your interpretation of those verses in the Quran where it says that the Quran is detailed and that the Quran did not authorize any other source, is wrong by definition.
Okay so there is a lot here and I'm going to summarize. How do we know the Quran is the same one given to Muhammad based on the manuscripts? Again, the numerical miracle. There is no way for anyone to write a Quran with this numerical consistency unless they had a computer. IN fact, we found this consistency by using a computer and we couldn't have found it before. That is how we know the Quranic manuscripts were the ones given to Muhammad. So this pretty much covers the first half of your statement.
There is no various interpretations of the Quran. No amount of word trickery can change the fact that Islam is what God says it is in the Quran. Furthermore, there is a right way of interpreting the verses of the Quran and then there is a wrong way of interpreting the Quran and there is nothing in between these two opposites.Instead of saying that my interpretation of the Quran is wrong by definition by appealing to authority, show me why it is wrong and we discuss.
Your whole argument is that "scholars believe you should follow hadiths, so Islam says you should follow hadiths". This is not how we debate. Give me the arguments of the scholars themselves and I will rebut them here.
It is not possible that all of those sayings are not from our Prophet. Why would Allah do this to us? If we accept that hadiths, at least some of them are sayings of the Prophet, then your interpretation of the Quran is wrong, which means that Muslim scholars, for 14 centuries, have interpreted them right, and praise be to Allah for this.
It is known that for centuries, Muslims have been following hadiths. There are so many books written, all of them containing hadiths (don't say me now that all of those books are also corrupted and that they weren't written by scholars). The Quran (31:6), according to you, and all other verses which contain the word 'hadith' are refering to hadiths. The same argument again: all scholars, who were also linguists, have read those verses. They didn't interpret it as refering to hadiths of the Prophet. Verse 31 of chapter 6 threatens those who follow "the hadiths" with a humiliating punishment. If you believe that 100% of Muslims (excluding some of them + you) will be punished for this, than the discussion is over, and I can't say anything more. This means that the religion of Allah has failed totally, and this means that Allah is also a failure, everything has failed; OK, except some Muslims + you.
Why would Allah do this? Why would Allah test us? Because life is a test. You should know that very well! Hadiths are a test for humanity--and we are failing the test.
Why would Allah create islamic sects and different religions? Life is a test. The Quran explicitly state this.
It doesn't matter whether or not Muslims have been following hadiths. They are wrong.
I do believe Muslims will be punished for supporting hadiths despite Allah's clear words. Just like I believe that several billion people will be punished for not embracing Islam.
Allah doesn't fail, humans fail. Get that straight through your mind. Allah tests us and we fail to accept the message. Humans have been failing the whole time as the Quran consistently shows us. It is no surprise we are failing again.
For some reason Muslims love the prophet more than Allah and I have noticed this. People use the word Muhammad more than they use the word Allah. Ask yourself one more time who do you love more. You will say "of course I love Allah more", but do you? Do you? Don't you think this is an issue in our current Islamic world...Don't you think Humans are failing Allah's test right now?
And whoever obeys Allah and the Messenger - those will be with the ones upon whom Allah has bestowed favor of the prophets, the steadfast affirmers of truth, the martyrs and the righteous. And excellent are those as companions. [Quran 4:69]
Thanks Ali for bringing this up. I have answered this in many other posts in this blog and I feel like I am being repetitive. If you want please take a look at: www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,1445.0.html :This is where I discussed nearly all of these points that Muslims tend to raise. I will explain once more:
Many people still quote this verse and say that it authorizes hadiths. Well, I have 2 verses that explain this very well:
"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
When we look at the above Quranic words, we note that God has defined very clearly the only duty of the Messenger, that being to deliver the message (Quran).
We also have in the above Quranic verses a very strong link between:
1- Obeying the messenger
2- The sole duty of the messenger was to deliver the message
1 + 2 = we must obey the message he delivered.
The word Messenger is derived from the word Message. A Messenger delivers a Message. If there was no message there would be no messenger. To Obey the Messenger would thus mean to obey the message he is delivering. the message that the prophet is delivering has been told to us in the Quran that it IS ONLY the Quran.
If we weren't to follow the messenger, then we aren't to follow the message which means we aren't follow Allah.
Say, [O Muhammad], "O mankind, indeed I am the Messenger of Allah to you all, [from Him] to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. There is no deity except Him; He gives life and causes death." So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the unlettered prophet, who believes in Allah and His words, and follow him that you may be guided. [Quran 7:158]
Same as above. We follow the prophet and therefore Allah through following his message because that is his sole duty. So we follow the Quran.
-
-
Of course similar birds are attracted to each other . The problem with all of you is that you act like you caught the wolf by its tail - a common saying - while you don't bother ask or try to know what the explanation to your misunderstanding is . If those Arabic lessons you claim you're taking actually helped , you'd take 10 second of your time and actually read !
http://islamqa.info/ar/185849
The explanations to that are two :
1 - Saying 10 was choosing the nearest multiple of 10 and since it was 13 , 10 was chosen .
2 - The ten mentioned years would be the total number of time when Quran was revealed to the prophet peace upon him as Quran wasn't revealed at once .
So really , if you stopped jumping the gun and bothered read a little you would have found out the the only contradiction only exists in your head . And I DO know that you'll repeat the broken disc of "What an excuse making !" .
Secondly, did you assume that when I say "the hadiths depict the prophet muhammad as a bad person" that I was talking about his good deeds as narrated in hadiths...That thing you mentioned, I don't see it as bad. There are horrible things that the hadiths accuse the prophet of doing. But it doesn't matter, the Quran doesn't authorize them anyway.
Again , that's your own opinion which doesn't concern us . Just ranting "Hadith makes the prophet look bad" holds no value . You probably don't see what happened in context or see its reasons . Not to mention that your standard is your own preference and liking .
Thirdly, call it what you like, the code is the code. Read up on it. I heard brother Osama is translating yet another book showing the code!
Absolute nonsense !! You claim Allah talks to us in Abracadabra ?! You claim that all those people who didn't know the nonsense of this "code" used to be blind believers ?! And then you dare with utmost absurdity compare Sunnah to a game of "Your phone is broken" ?! You don't believe Allah can create humans directly but you believe in a fairy tale such as evolution ?! You don't believe in Hadith but believe in a Da Vinci code ?! And you take the words of Osama over the words of the lord ?! YOU'RE the only one contradicting himself here !
I have already responded to your "ahsana" inquiry in the other read and I have listed reasons why it is the most valid translation while you presented no response. Take a look. :)
Well drop that so called "response" again . The entire body of speakers of Arabic say that "Ahsana" means to make something in a good way , not that a dinosaur turns into a chicken . I already know the method you're going to address this . You'll ignore all of that as if everyone is wrong and you alone are right and say "The verse is clear ! You're unwilling ! Evolution is true and you're derailing people from the path of God !" . So in short you're saying "Let the Arabic language and logic go to hell" .
-
Great response. Dont bother akhi black muslim. He has been shown the evidences and has been refuted. In reality, he is the person that is scared and has doubts about his belief and thats why tries to show evolution in the Quran and thats why he also dismisses the Hadiths. He is the person who feels shy to tell a kafir that the hand of a theif should be cut off. That the Prophet PBUH killed people that attacked him physically and verbally.
THE QURAN AND SUNNAH IS THE TRUTH. WE HEAR AND OBEY
-
As'salamu Alaikum Beloveds,
Here is a Noble Verse for the Quranie brothers and sisters that works for them and against them:
[003:007] He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.
?3:7 ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ????????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ???????
There are Noble Verses that are crystal clear. They're so clear that you don't need Hadiths to further explain them, unless they require detailed explanations, such as Praying and Fasting, etc.... But the Moral Code in the Holy Quran is very rich. I myself was able to extract 195 of them (http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran_moral_code.htm). Yes, 195 of them. These are the Do and Do Not Do Commands in the Holy Quran. I am one of those Muslims who use the Holy Quran very heavily, and use the Hadiths to the minimum. This is not because I don't believe in the Hadiths, but rather because I know that the Holy Quran is rich and is filled with Great Commands that are so Rich that they are more than sufficient to keep a True Believer True with Allah Almighty.
Here is the problem for the Quranie Brothers and Sisters:
When you use only the Holy Quran, then you run into the confusion of the allegorical Noble Verses. Those Noble Verses aren't for just anyone to interpret them. Otherwise, you'd be guessing and living in conjecture, and conjecture is an evil thing:
[053:028] But they have no knowledge therein. They follow nothing but conjecture; and conjecture avails nothing against Truth.
This is where you need the Guidance of the Hadiths, dear brother Mclinkin94. You can't just dismiss all of them as falsehood. And most certainly, no sane person could say that all of them are True and authentic either, especially when they have conspiracies and lies in them (http://www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm) against the Prophet, his wives, and the Holy Quran.
Now, one important point to make is that many of those allegorical Noble Verses consist of what we call today the Scientific Miracles in the Holy Quran (http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac20.htm#links). So they were purposefully made unclear to the first generation Muslims, because these Noble Verses are for us today to discover their True Meanings, and for the generations to come to further discover more from the Holy Quran.
I hope this helps, insha'Allah.
Take care,
Osama Abdallah
-
I am one of those Muslims who use the Holy Quran very heavily, and use the Hadiths to the minimum. This is not because I don't believe in the Hadiths, but rather because I know that the Holy Quran is rich and is filled with Great Commands that are so Rich that they are more than sufficient to keep a True Believer True with Allah Almighty.
True . The noble Quran - As I noticed - focuses more on talking to the minds of people proving the existence of Allah and teaching them morals than Sunnah although it does too . Sunnah of the prophet peace upon him mostly tells us about the methods of worship such as prayer and fasting . And I remember reading for someone that this is of the wisdom of Allah . Because if the noble Quran was to mention everything in detail , it will be difficult for people to memorize it and they might be bored . Just look at the books of Christians and see how it mentions what "That person" ate on dinner for example !
-
-
-
-
-
"Believe in Allah and His Messenger and the light which He sent down." [Al-Qur'an 64:8]
-
-
-
If you were to ask me one, just ONE verse what debunks the whole scene of external revelations beyond the Quran, I will give you the verse. The DEATH-BLOW to your corrupted, sinful version of Islam.
Quran 45:6 These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement other than Allah and His verses will they believe?
Let's break this verse down. The beginning of the verse talks about the Quran. THESE are the verses of Allah in which we recite to you in truth. It is speaking of the Quran. You MUST agree with this as any honest person would. A sentence later, Allah tells you in what statement other than THESE verses will YOU believe? That clearly means that the message include ONLY these verses. Nothing else.
What does that verse tell you??!!!! Does that sound like Allah wants you to follow something else besides these verses (Quran). How could any honest person possibly say so!!! I don't understand!
Lets go a few verses after, so I could warn you of your fate. I am warning you right now as I was instructed to in the Quran.
The verse that come immediately after are:
(Quran 45:7-8) Woe to every sinful liar, Who hears the verses of Allah recited to him, then persists arrogantly as if he had not heard them. So give him tidings of a painful punishment. And when he knows anything of Our verses, he takes them in ridicule. Those will have a humiliating punishment.
You are being tested by Allah as we speak. Are you a sinful liar who hears the clear verses of Allah and then you persist arrogantly as if you had not heard them? If so (which I know you are), then I am giving you tidings of a punishment as Allah ordered me. And when you read Quran 45:6, you take it in ridicule. Indeed, you will have a humiliating punishment if you persist in this kufr.
In my sincere words: Please accept Allah's message and Allah's religion. Do not follow any other religion than the religion of Allah.
You are being tested as we speak. May Allah guide you to the truth.
-
The reason why I support translation 2 is because it seems to better fit the context
For the thousandth time : Ahsana means NOTHING except making something in a good way . So all the points you base on "You can interpret the verse in two ways" are meaningless . You CAN'T interpret the sign in two ways . The word for improving and perfecting something is "Hassana" and it's way different from "Ahsana" . This is the essential matter in the case and you ignore it like it's nothing .
-
The reason why I support translation 2 is because it seems to better fit the context
For the thousandth time : Ahsana means NOTHING except making something in a good way . So all the points you base on "You can interpret the verse in two ways" are meaningless . You CAN'T interpret the sign in two ways . The word for improving and perfecting something is "Hassana" and it's way different from "Ahsana" . This is the essential matter in the case and you ignore it like it's nothing .
And for the Thousandth time, Quran 32:7 could be interpreted that Allah creates or that Allah makes his creation that he already created good. I support the latter. No, you can't interpret a sign in two ways, that is why I show you which way makes the most sense.
And for the Thousandth time, the difference of translation of "perfected" and "good" is not there. Both meanings work and they both mean the same thing.
Secondly, explain why sahih international used the word "perfected". (this is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with my point, whether the translation is good or perfected, my point remains--you never seem to get that). If you make something you already made good, you have improved it. I made a cake. And then I made the cake good. I just made the cake better than its original form. Sahih international understood that and translated the word as "perfected". I have no issue with this either.
Read the rest of Quran 32:7-9. Allah tells us that a common trend in his creation is that he creates and then he creates the creation good. Then he tells us that be began the creation of the human being. And then when it comes to verse 9, the creation of the human being is now good. Allah makes everything that he creates, good/perfect.
I'll continue tomorrow. I need to get some things done.
-
"Sigh"
I'll stop here . Because you apparently dodge whatever doesn't support your doctrine of Darwin and the likes of him .
-
-
-
The Qur'aan itself refers to revelation being received from Allah that is not found in the Qur'aan and here are few examples:
Allah says in the Qur'aan, "And We made the Qiblah (prayer direction towards Jerusalem) which you used to face, only to test those who followed the Messenger (Muhammad)." [Soorah al-Baqarah (2): 143]
This verse shows that Allah had assigned the previous Qiblah of the Muslims but there is no verse in the Qur'aan designating Jerusalem as the previous Qibla. This means that there has to be an alternative form of 'Wahy' (revelation) apart from the Qur'aan through which Allah revealed the previous command of facing towards Jerusalem. This Command is in the Sunnah of the Prophet PBUH.
"And (remember) when the Prophet PBUH disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his wives (Hafsah), so when she told it (to another i.e. Aa'isha), and Allah made it known to him, he informed part thereof and left a part. Then when he told her (Hafsah) thereof, she said, 'Who told you this?' He said, 'The All-Knower, the All-Aware (Allah) has told me." [Soorah at-Tahrim (66): 3]
The verse says, "Allah made it known to him," and yet, there is no verse in the Qur'aan that makes mentions this.
To obey the Prophet is to obey Allah:
He who obeys the Messenger [Muhammad] has indeed obeyed Allah.. (Qur'an 4: 80)
Say [Muhammad to mankind]: 'If you [really] love Allah then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you of your sins.' ...(Qur'an 3: 31)
See whoever follows the Prophets Sunnah follows Allah.
Do not hold the Messenger's calling (you) among you to be like your calling one to the other; Allah indeed knows those who steal away from among you, concealing themselves; therefore let those beware who go against his order lest a trial afflict them or there befall them a painful chastisement. (24:63)
-
If the Companions were with the Prophet and they wanted to leave to go somewhere, it was considered to be one of the necessary aspects of emaan that they should first seek his
permiission:
The true believers are only those, who believe in Allah and His Messenger, and when they are with him on some common matter, they do not leave until they have asked his permission. Verily! Those who ask your permission, those are they who [really] believe in Allah and His Messenger. So if they ask your permission for some affairs of theirs, give permission to whom you will of them, and ask Allah for their forgiveness. Truly, Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Qur'an 24: 62)
If Allah made it a necessary element of faith for the Companions to seek permission to go somewhere when they were with the Prophet, then it is even more obvious that it is a
necessary element of faith for them not to adopt a view in Religion without fIrst seeking his permission.
-
"Sigh"
I'll stop here . Because you apparently dodge whatever doesn't support your doctrine of Darwin and the likes of him .
Do you guys want me to close this thread? Please brothers, I didn't mean for this blog to be compulsive and time devouring. I don't mind disagreements and debates, but I do mind for brothers and sisters here to waste their times and hurt their personal lives. I know that many of you are also students. I don't want this blog to be a distraction.
I tell you what. I am going to close this. And please no more evolution debates! I will debate brother Mclinkin94 on evolution and also on the Hadiths some other time. I owe him these two debates. Brother Mclinkin94, there are stunning End of Times Prophecies and and also Miracles in the Hadiths that are mind-blowing. I did make a post about this in another post yesterday. I will update it with ample Hadiths Insha'Allah. We can't just reject all Hadiths, akhi. I will prove it to you Insha'Allah scientifically and logically.
Ok, this thread is closed. I am very sorry beloveds :(. I hope you understand.
Take care,
Osama Abdallah