What do you know about Islam?

[Yossarian]

It is actually a logical explanation...I myself have stated the same thing...people make mistakes and things get mixed up...and of course the simple point that a complete religion cant be complete unless you catch everything...

But then you also have the simple fact that Islam has absolutely no context without the hadith...you don't even know who anyone is...you have no idea when, where or why any verses were revealed...basically the whole biography of Muhammad is based on these sources...

And here is a simple logical point for you...Muhammad never wrote anything down...and he didn't leave a book...it was human beings who formed a complete book...so why do you have faith that these people formed the right book...bare in mind that none of these people are mentioned in the Quran by name and hadith is the only way you even know who they are...you don't even know when it existed without sources you see as flawed...one then has to ask what is it that gives you so much faith in its credibility...

But the simple point you miss is there are dozens and dozens of verses which say follow Allah AND his Messenger...Quran is not a standalone document and doesnt claim to be...

I've posted my opinion on the authencity of, or lack of, the Hadith. It's immaterial to me whether you think it's a logical explanation or not. As for the rest of your post, .... you can post what you like... but it's irrelevant to me considering that you've made so many posts using quotes from Hadith to support your viewpoint. Hadith that, as a general rule, I have serious doubts about as to their authenticity due to the reasons outlined.

You seem to like playing it both ways - on the one hand quoting from Hadith and from the work of 'scholars' who in turn have used the Hadith as their basis, whilst at the same time you also having doubts about the Hadith being authentic.

 

[shaykh]

I've posted my opinion on the authencity of, or lack of, the Hadith. It's immaterial to me whether you think it's a logical explanation or not. As for the rest of your post, .... you can post what you like... but it's irrelevant to me considering that you've made so many posts using quotes from Hadith to support your viewpoint. Hadith that, as a general rule, I have serious doubts about as to their authenticity due to the reasons outlined.

You seem to like playing it both ways - on the one hand quoting from Hadith and from the work of 'scholars' who in turn have used the Hadith as their basis, whilst at the same time you also having doubts about the Hadith being authentic.

Nope...my position is very clear...

Jadz, yourself were giving Islamic opinions...FACT is you were giving Quranist opinions and still are ...NO Sunni follows that perspective and all the opinions I have provided are of the Sunni perspective...I can tell you what the difference is between a Calvinist and Catholic too...fact is beliefs of a strand are clear in scripture...and Sunni works believe the rejection of hadith is disbelief...this is FACT...

As for me...im a disbeliever so I believe all of these things are flawed...if I believed in what Sunnis believed then obviously I would be a Sunni...

The issue is a straightforward one...people talking about Quran only Islam is like someone telling me he is a Catholic but talking using the beliefs of a Jehovas witness...

 

[Yossarian]

Nope...my position is very clear...

Jadz, yourself were giving Islamic opinions...FACT is you were giving Quranist opinions and still are ...NO Sunni follows that perspective and all the opinions I have provided are of the Sunni perspective...I can tell you what the difference is between a Calvinist and Catholic too...fact is beliefs of a strand are clear in scripture...and Sunni works believe the rejection of hadith is disbelief...this is FACT...

As for me...im a disbeliever so I believe all of these things are flawed...if I believed in what Sunnis believed then obviously I would be a Sunni...

The issue is a straightforward one...people talking about Quran only Islam is like someone telling me he is a Catholic but talking using the beliefs of a Jehovas witness...

Fine, believe or disbelieve what suits you. I'll do the same. Just as you are not obliged to justify your beliefs to me, I am not obliged to justify what I believe to you.

And oh, by the way, you're assuming a lot vis-a-vis what beliefs I hold. Here's a clue - you're wrong.

 

[shaykh]

Fine, believe or disbelieve what suits you. I'll do the same. Just as you are not obliged to justify your beliefs to me, I am not obliged to justify what I believe to you.

And oh, by the way, you're assuming a lot vis-a-vis what beliefs I hold. Here's a clue - you're wrong.

What am i assuming?...you reject hadith so you're not Sunni...I haven't assumed anything...i am going by what you are saying...

Sunni and Shia belief are mainstream just as Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox beliefs are mainstream Christians beliefs...i'm just making it clear to the likes of Oz God who asked Islamic questions that your opinions and Jadz are the equivalent of asking a Jehovahs Witness for the opinion of any of those three mainstream strands...

 

[Yossarian]

What am i assuming?...you reject hadith so you're not Sunni...I haven't assumed anything...i am going by what you are saying...

Sunni and Shia belief are mainstream just as Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox beliefs are mainstream Christians beliefs...i'm just making it clear to the likes of Oz God who asked Islamic questions that your opinions and Jadz are the equivalent of asking a Jehovahs Witness for the opinion of any of those three mainstream strands...

You must have been very deeply indoctrinated by whatever group you were part of - before you turned out and rejected it all that is. That has to be the only explanation for you wanting to stick everyone into nice neat pidgeon holes. Well I've news for you - reality doesn't work that way - and neither do an individuals personal religious beliefs. But carry on assuming and pigeonholing if it makes you feel comfortable.

 

[shaykh]

You must have been very deeply indoctrinated by whatever group you were part of - before you turned out and rejected it all that is. That has to be the only explanation for you wanting to stick everyone into nice neat pidgeon holes. Well I've news for you - reality doesn't work that way - and neither do an individuals personal religious beliefs. But carry on assuming and pigeonholing if it makes you feel comfortable.

Not really...you just don't seem to grasp a simple point...

Lets see if i can make it even simpler...

If someone calls themselves a Catholic but says they don't believe Jesus is a Prophet are they Catholic?

If someone calls themselves a Hindu but says their Holy Book is the Quran are they Hindu?...

Categories exist for a reason...

If someone calls themselves a Sunni but says they don't believe mutawaatir hadith are belief this is shirk...its exactly the same as the other examples...

 

[Mughal]

Its cos it is a stupid plan and doesn't agree with logic...if the message is unclear then apparently Prophets have always been sent...yet he seemed to get bored 1400 years ago...

Dear brother shaykh, it seem we are out of frying pan into the fire. To me it appears as if you have become stuck between the rock and the hard place. It is because anything anyone explains to you it is just an excuse in your view yet you have no way to explain how the world should be. You do not want to follow any ideal way of life nor can offer one that others could follow so it appears you are simply talking about things for sake of talking. I don't think its a good way of looking at the real world and mankind in it. Of course we are free to make our own choices but our choices do have consequences for ourselves and each other. The reality is we are alive and living beings and have needs therefore we must fulfil them if we wish to live on, the question therefore is how do we go about fulfilling our needs? The quran tells us a way of life whereby we can do that but you are not accepting that so my point is if you are not accepting the way of life explained by the quran then what do you propose how do we live. It is because my point is no other way of life can give us a life worth living. If there is any way of life that can then let us have it. This is why I am justifying deen of islam as I understand it from the quran in light of real world realities. I do not reject hadis or history or anything else for that matter the quran requires for its proper understanding. However what one needs or does not need is decided by the actual text of the quran as to how it makes proper sense.

My point is what can justify text of the quran in light of the real world realities because the text of the quran is limited and does not cover each and everything so I do not need each and every thing either. All I need is to understand the text of the quran the way it makes sense. If I am going to make a bread or chapaati from flour why do I need all the other irrelevant things as well? If I am going to makie a fruit cake, why do I need the whole lot of other things in it also? When I make a chapaati I only need what is needed for making a chapaati. Likewise if I am going to make a fruit cake then I only need the ingredients that are essential for that and nothing else. You are saying that no it has to be this and that and the other as well because someone else told me so. I am therefore saying that whatever someone else told you is in fact not needed but you are stuck on yes, it is needed. In that case I am showing you with my explanations how exactly things fit together and work perfectly but you continue telling me no I am wrong and have not shown me even once what the better alternative is. If you have anything in your mind lets have it because life cannot stop just because you do not agree with how to live it. It is precisely because life continues we must have a way of life that can safeguard us.

So what I am saying is that the way of life I am showing with help of the quran is the best way of life there is because in my view after having learned a little bit sense there is no better alternative, so why not adopt it? You are calling my idea stupid but where is your better idea so that I could compare the two and accept that your idea is better so let us all follow that? In the very beginning I made it clear that deen of islam is about partnership between man and God ie some things are supposed to come from God and others from man and when they both click we will end up with life that we are supposed to have as explained by God. He has told us things but we take time to understand and do them but we will in the end when we will really try to. At the moment we are not really trying because we think the way we are living our lives is fine. You only come to realise it is not fine when you end up at the receiving end but then it is already too late. This is why we need to educate each other out of things that make life hell for everyone of us to various degrees. So the question is, should we change to something better or stay the way we are?

Our life experiences if we have had any worth mentioning show us that world has been changing for the better but not the peaceful way through educational revolution but through beating up each other and forcing each other to move from our positions which did not suit one or the other group among us ie we have progressed through physical power struggles or wars against each other instead of putting our efforts in learning and doing things with planning and forward thinking. This is what the quranic message is about ie why the hell are you people fighting with each other like animals, sit down, learn sense, plan things and then follow the plan and you are there where awaits you the life told about in the quran.

There is no logic in your position simply saying I should understand God's plan...its me being tested apparently so I would at least like the game to be fair...

Where did I say we are being tested? Tested for what? If you are talking about 67/2 etc that has nothing to do with kind of testing that mullahs talk about. Their idea is that Allah has created us for testing us and if we fail we will end up in hell for ever and if we are successful we will end up in paradise for ever. That is not what the quran says. It is because Allah has created us for knowing him through his act of creation and revelation therefore he has put us through a struggle from birth till death. The rest are ways and means whereby we struggle through life. Some are more successful in life others less depending upon how they go about living their lives ie according to the guidance of Allah or their own ways. What we are told is that if we struggled in life the way we are told our lives will end up blissful, dignified and secure as a proper human community but if we will go about life our own ways then we will make our world a living hell for all of us. Yes people will be awarded or will be made to face consequence of their thoughts and actions but on basis of what they made of their lives under the facing situations and circumstances. Man is only held accountable for what is with in his own capacity provided he made proper use of it. If we live to dominate each other by undermining each other trying to make life of each other hell then what do we deserve an award for it or a good hiding? Likewise if we live to help and support each other do better then do we deserve an award or punishment? There is a big difference between testing and putting one through struggle for accomplishing some end goal. Testing is for finding out something unknown. From each of your reply I only see that you took islam for what it is according to mullahs as per their understanding of islamic sources. My point is push mullahs aside and find your own way towards the quran if you really want to see what the quran has to say. Don't let voices of ignorant mullahs drown the voice of God for you.

The message is completely out of date im afraid...hence why everyone makes the excuses about it was normal back then...

The message is not out of date if it is, prove it by showing an alternative better way of life than the one in the quran. If you cannot and I can assure you that you cannot because the many questions others have in mind you can see from my replies that I had them in my mind as well otherwise how could I answer any of your questions with such strong rational explanations. Each time I tell you about a point it connects perfectly with what I have explained already. A clear proof that I am talking sense. So I invite you too to start looking for answers of your questions by studying the quran further. It is a book well worth studying because nothing is worth more for humanity than knowing the best way of life for itself in order to get rid of all problems it has created for itself needlessly. I am not making any excuses I am helping you challenge your own wrong ideas on a point that matters most for all of us ie the best way of life that can lead people to blissful, dignified and secure existence.

And lol I have spent plenty of time trying to construct the Deen...but remember in my case the explanation given for our purpose is nonsensical beyond belief...

It is not the explanation given by the quran that is discovered by yourself but the alternative by ignorant mullahs. Why stick to it if you think it is wrong? Why not look for the alternative by yourself with help of the quran as many others do? Life is for learning and doing things so we should not give up on learning and doing things till we breathe our last breaths. We should never give up hope.

regards and all the best.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...at-is-basis-for-human-knowledge-aqal-or-wahee

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?210519-How-do-you-eradicate-poverty

 

[Yossarian]

Not really...you just don't seem to grasp a simple point...

Lets see if i can make it even simpler...

If someone calls themselves a Catholic but says they don't believe Jesus is a Prophet are they Catholic?

If someone calls themselves a Hindu but says their Holy Book is the Quran are they Hindu?...

Categories exist for a reason...

If someone calls themselves a Sunni but says they don't believe mutawaatir hadith are belief this is shirk...its exactly the same as the other examples...

Seem's as if you can't grasp it. So let me put in simple terms for you. A belief is exactly that - something that the individual believes, especially when it come to religion.

Who cares if it doesn't neatly fits into one out of an untold number of pidgeon holes, each one of which has been labelled as being a particular religion / sect / sub-sect / ....../ sub-sub-sub... ??

Why are you so adamant in wanting to compartmentalise and pidgeon hole someone's belief, especially if you don't have a clear idea as to what that is, as if it was an item in a warehouse stock location system located on column X, row Y, aisle Z, of section A, in building B of a warehouse complex, which itself is one of many warehouse facilities dotted around the globe?

 

[CricketCartoons]

This is interesting. According to [MENTION=133972]shaykh[/MENTION] it is clear what you should be labelled as depending on your beliefs, and according to [MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION] you cannot be labelled neatly like that. I have seen tree charts of various muslim sects depending on what fiqh they follow. So is there a category that doesn't fit into these neat descriptions, and prefers to call themselves just Muslims? Shouldn't this have been the way Islam was meant to be. So is it a revival of Islam's original message that some people don't want to be labelled and just call themselves Muslims, or is it a revision of what scholars say and is an innovation in Islam?

 

[shaykh]

This is interesting. According to [MENTION=133972]shaykh[/MENTION] it is clear what you should be labelled as depending on your beliefs, and according to [MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION] you cannot be labelled neatly like that. I have seen tree charts of various muslim sects depending on what fiqh they follow. So is there a category that doesn't fit into these neat descriptions, and prefers to call themselves just Muslims? Shouldn't this have been the way Islam was meant to be. So is it a revival of Islam's original message that some people don't want to be labelled and just call themselves Muslims, or is it a revision of what scholars say and is an innovation in Islam?

Thats not what he stated though...

Yossarian got offended when I said the fact he doesnt believe in hadith doesn't make him Sunni...he can call himself Muslim if he likes...to Jadz credit at least she stated in one of her recent posts that she is not Sunni or Shia...its because she clearly rejects what these groups believe...

I haven't created these groupings...they exist...what makes a Sunni Sunni and a Shia Shia?...there are fundamental differences between the two hence their existence...

Ahmedis don't believe in something fundamental to both Sunnis and Shias...i don't understand why Yossarian wants to be a Sunni so bad...his ideas are clearly Quranist...a Quranist by definition is someone who rejects hadith...so i don't see why he finds that offensive...

I've never met a Jehovas witness who is offended when they are called a Jehovas witness...

 

[Yossarian]

This is interesting. According to [MENTION=133972]shaykh[/MENTION] it is clear what you should be labelled as depending on your beliefs, and according to [MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION] you cannot be labelled neatly like that. I have seen tree charts of various muslim sects depending on what fiqh they follow. So is there a category that doesn't fit into these neat descriptions, and prefers to call themselves just Muslims? Shouldn't this have been the way Islam was meant to be. So is it a revival of Islam's original message that some people don't want to be labelled and just call themselves Muslims, or is it a revision of what scholars say and is an innovation in Islam?

It's not simply that people just don't want to be labelled, it's as you've also said , not everyone fits 'into these neat descriptions'.

If people can be labelled so easily, who decides what new labels should be created and when? After all, within most religions, including Islam and Christianity, there are countless 'labels' and 'sub-labels' that currently exist, when, presumably, each of those religions started with one 'label' and one starting point. ie It is precisely because individuals or groups have differences of views that do not fully fit into the existing norms or 'labels' that someone, from within the new grouping or the existing 'labels', decides to create and attach a new 'label' to those with these new differing views.

And this process has been going on since time immemorial, - that's why so many religions and their sub-divisions exist. And this process will keep on going ad infinitum.

 

[CricketCartoons]

[MENTION=133972]shaykh[/MENTION], what about those people who only reject those hadiths that go contrary to what the Quran says. Not rejecting all hadiths, but only those which go against the spirit of Quran. Of course this is not a scholarly position, but nothing says that scholars decide what is right and wrong in Islam. Islam doesn't have a clergy or priest class, it is meant to be simple enough for the common man to follow. So do you think people who can see contradiction in what the Book says and what some hadith says, cannot reject it? Or that they should stop calling themselves Sunnis if they do?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

This is interesting. According to [MENTION=133972]shaykh[/MENTION] it is clear what you should be labelled as depending on your beliefs, and according to [MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION] you cannot be labelled neatly like that. I have seen tree charts of various muslim sects depending on what fiqh they follow. So is there a category that doesn't fit into these neat descriptions, and prefers to call themselves just Muslims? Shouldn't this have been the way Islam was meant to be. So is it a revival of Islam's original message that some people don't want to be labelled and just call themselves Muslims, or is it a revision of what scholars say and is an innovation in Islam?

Well logically which one corresponds more to the faith as it was first practised? Did the Prophet PBUH or any of the people of that era call themselves Sunnis or Shias or Qadianis? When you start setting down the word of scholars from the 14th century as set in stone you are basically giving divine status to them equal to the Quran and previous prophets. That's not to say they don't provide valuable insight or that hadith do the same. But they aren't infallible and to treat them as such doesn't make sense, that is the point.

 

[Jadz]

[MENTION=30006]Jadz[/MENTION], you didn't answer and I'd like to ask again:

Why is their so much discrimination against Left Handed people?

Sorry, Mamoon, I must have missed you query.

So far as I know, there is no discrimination against left-handed people in Islam. This matter is not even mentioned in the Qur'an.

In the Qur'an, there are constant references to the 'right hand' or the 'right side' or the 'right path', but these are just allusions to righteousness, or the right, truthful and proper way of doing things. Similarly, there are references to the 'left hand', but this too is simply an allusion to unrighteousness, or the false, wrong, improper way of doing things.

There are any number of Muslims who are left-handed, and I have never heard of any of them being discriminated against.

 

[Jadz]

Jadz, I have a lot of respect for you. However, I fail to see how as a woman yourself, you can justify that sexist and degrading practice of keeping women hidden behind like cattle due to male sexual attraction. Can attraction not be both ways? What about women's desires? Why is it not sunnah for women to have to pray in a congregation? Some mosques even employ edict for women to pray outside the mosque itself. Many mosques do not even have a ladies section and if they do, it is completely barred with no access to the imam for the ladies. Why are men's desire that lead them astray is so cared after to the point that women have to bear the brunt of being covered and hidden from the rest of the world so as to not tempt men? Why is self control not prioritized and rewarded instead of punishing the unequal sex? Also, what about women's inability to pray and fast due to period? Why would God be judging a women's "cleanliness" when it should be left to be decided by the individual. What about women having to cover up at home during prayer? Do you honestly believe men and women are "equal" in Islam?

The most tragic part of all this is that after years of surrendering their rights and equality without question, women often justify such practices.

Thank you for your questions

Well, I certainly do not subscribe to the belief - or practice - of hiding, or concealing, women, anywhere at anytime or for whatever purpose or reason. This has nothing to do with Islam, but more to do with controlling women, culture and tradition.

Any masjid which does not have facilities for women, in which they may pray and study, is not following true Islam. If you take a look at the two major mosques in Mecca and Medina, you will observe that women pray alongside men, and that all amenities are available, equally, to both genders.

Unfortunately, there are mosques in the Indian sub-Continent which exclude women, and where they are simply not made welcome. Again, this has nothing to do with Islam, but everything to do with patriarchal societies which seek to control and dominate women.

As regards women covering their hair with shawls and scarves upon entering mosques, this is because they - the mosques - are seen as places of worship, and thus holy, for this reason people tend to dress much more modestly. And this is by no means confined to Muslims, you will see Christians, or Jews, or Hindus or Sikhs, and so on, covering their hair, speaking quietly and dressing very smartly but modestly, upon entering their temples of worship. It is a mark of respect, as well as acknowledgement that one is visiting God's Houses.

For the rest: the Qur'an instructs both men and women to 'lower their gaze' and dress modestly, so as not to be seen as sex objects. Of course women are equally liable to be tempted, as the Qur'an clearly states that both genders are capable of being morally corrupt. Thus, whilst the media focus on women being modestly attired, they fail to point out that Muslim men are modestly dressed too.

I hope this is helpful.

 

[Jadz]

[MENTION=30006]Jadz[/MENTION], an excellent post.

On the question of the authenicity of Hadith, no matter what any 'scholar' says, I find it impossible to believe that an individual, or even a group of individuals, can collate, cross-reference and authenticate, virtually word for word, events that ocurred centuries earlier and were passed down the generations by word of mouth alone. No matter how many supposed independent sources/narrators were used to corroborate any single hadith with supposed complete accuracy, it is virtually impossible not to lose some of the context and nuances.

The sources/narrators for the collation were spread over many different regions & geographical locations, sometimes hundreds of miles apart, having different local customs and speaking different dialects and languages.

Apart from anything else, even those doing the collating would not have been familiar with all the customs and languages/dialects of the narrators, meaning translators would have been required, thus further losing some of the context and nuances.

To perform a similar task even today, ie to sift through, cross-reference and collate hundreds of thousands of "interviews" of narrators, of events that occurred hundreds of years previously, and passed through the generations orally, with all the lingusitics experts, technology, databases and processing power that currently exists, but without losing any context and nuances, would be nigh on impossible. And yet we are expected to be believe this was achieved over a thousand years ago without the aforementioned technology?

In this very thread, even the likes of Shaykh are alleging that originally there were a number of different versions of the Qu'ran, partly due to inaccuracies being introduced due to the passage of time and differences in dialects, only a few years after the Prophet, and yet we are expected to believe that such differences didn't occur with the hadith even though the passage of time was much longer, the geographal spread and differences in dialects/languages/customs were far greater?

Seems as if the concept of "Chinese whispers" is unknown to many so called 'scholars'.

Thanks Yossarian

I agree with you. If we were to offer hearsay testimony - which is what hadith is: 'he said; she said' - in a man-made court of law, it would be thrown out immediately, and it would not even merit consideration for one second. The standard of truth in Islam is infinitely higher, because here we are dealing with the Word of God - so any false attribution to the Prophet (pbuh) is, ultimately, a false attribution to God. That is shirk, claiming He said/revealed something when He did not.

In any case, I never argue the toss, but simply state my case and leave the rest to Allah SWT. It is His Deen, Book, Prophet(s) and I refuse to engage in disputes about any of them.

 

[Yossarian]

Thats not what he stated though...

Yossarian got offended when I said the fact he doesnt believe in hadith doesn't make him Sunni......

.............................

...i don't understand why Yossarian wants to be a Sunni so bad...his ideas are clearly Quranist...a Quranist by definition is someone who rejects hadith...so i don't see why he finds that offensive...
.

That's the problem with the likes of you who base everything on assumptions. Where have I claimed that I am, or for that matter denied I am, a Sunni, or a Shia .... or anything else? It would appear that you have studied religion a great deal - but understood none of it since you can't see past the assumptions you make.
As I've said said earlier, you are so desperate to pidgeonhole everyone based upon your own assumptions.

 

[kaayal]

Thank you for your questions

Well, I certainly do not subscribe to the belief - or practice - of hiding, or concealing, women, anywhere at anytime or for whatever purpose or reason. This has nothing to do with Islam, but more to do with controlling women, culture and tradition.

Any masjid which does not have facilities for women, in which they may pray and study, is not following true Islam. If you take a look at the two major mosques in Mecca and Medina, you will observe that women pray alongside men, and that all amenities are available, equally, to both genders.

Unfortunately, there are mosques in the Indian sub-Continent which exclude women, and where they are simply not made welcome. Again, this has nothing to do with Islam, but everything to do with patriarchal societies which seek to control and dominate women.

As regards women covering their hair with shawls and scarves upon entering mosques, this is because they - the mosques - are seen as places of worship, and thus holy, for this reason people tend to dress much more modestly. And this is by no means confined to Muslims, you will see Christians, or Jews, or Hindus or Sikhs, and so on, covering their hair, speaking quietly and dressing very smartly but modestly, upon entering their temples of worship. It is a mark of respect, as well as acknowledgement that one is visiting God's Houses.

For the rest: the Qur'an instructs both men and women to 'lower their gaze' and dress modestly, so as not to be seen as sex objects. Of course women are equally liable to be tempted, as the Qur'an clearly states that both genders are capable of being morally corrupt. Thus, whilst the media focus on women being modestly attired, they fail to point out that Muslim men are modestly dressed too.

I hope this is helpful.

Sister Jadz, what's about the verse regarding "hijab and covering" all that in Surah Noor (24:31)?

 

[Eagle_Eye]

That's the problem with the likes of you who base everything on assumptions. Where have I claimed that I am, or for that matter denied I am, a Sunni, or a Shia .... or anything else? It would appear that you have studied religion a great deal - but understood none of it since you can't see past the assumptions you make.
As I've said said earlier, you are so desperate to pidgeonhole everyone based upon your own assumptions.

Do you reject all hadith outright?

He has come out and said, that the "quranist" views of islam in this thread is a tiny minority one and hadith is an essential part of understanding the Quran. I cannot find anything that is incorrect about that.

 

[Jadz]

Sister Jadz, what's about the verse regarding "hijab and covering" all that in Surah Noor (24:31)?

Yes, Verses 30-31 of Chapter 24 state that both men and women must 'lower their gaze' and dress modestly - the first address is to men in Verse 30. However, this does not mean that women are required to hide away from the world, or that they should conceal their identities or personalities. They are not supposed to dress, or behave, in manner which draw attention to their charms, they beauty, they shape - in other words, they are not permitted to behave in a flirty, showy manner, or dress sexily, with revealing clothes.

Men and women are weak, and thus, not allowed to behave in a manner which may lead to moral corruption - such as promiscuity or adultery. Part of proper behaviour is decent clothes, which cover all the areas which must be covered, but this does not mean that women are not allowed to venture out of their homes, or to visit mosques in order to perform prayers.

 

[Yossarian]

Do you reject all hadith outright?

How can you accept, or reject, when it's virtually impossible to verify which is correct and which is not?
I've stated, in post #220, why I say it's impossible to verify.
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...62#post7250162

He has come out and said, that the "quranist" views of islam in this thread is a tiny minority one and hadith is an essential part of understanding the Quran. I cannot find anything that is incorrect about that.

He can say what he like's, just as I can say that pidgeonholing another's beliefs, especially if you don't fully know what they are, into neat little labeled compartments based upon your own assumptions about them is being very simplistic and reeks of someone being indoctrinated to think along those lines - even if they have since parted company with those who were their mentors.

 

[OZGOD]

As per all 4 schools of Sunni Islam, the punishment for apostasy in Islam is death.

The Prophet commanded; “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him” (Hadith Sahih Bukhari 9.84.57)

[utube]VDT5YH9bGmI[/utube]

Jadz just mentioned earlier in this thread on page 1:

6) As mentioned earlier, there is no punishment for apostasy in Islam. What ISIS, or Boko Haram in Nigeria, are doing, ought not to be confused with Islam. They are not practising Islam, they are practising criminality, thuggery and evil. All right-thinking individuals must learn about Islam for themselves, so that the media obsession with groups like ISIS does not result in ignorance of the Islamic Message, which rests upon the Mercy of God.

I'm noticing a lot of different interpretations on things.

So from what I have read so far, the theology of Islam is driven from the following:

- The Quran - the revelations passed on by God to the Prophet Mohammed, collated into a book after his death by his followers, as well as those of other prophets such as appear in the Torah and the Bible
- The Hadith - interpretations of the Quran made by other Islamic scholars from the 4 schools of Islam

From the debate I see on this thread it appears as though there is no general consensus on whether there are contradictions in the Quran. Some believe that there aren't, others feel that there are. But I get the sense that the general majority believe it is more or less consistent, particularly on the big picture things. That said, we're seeing differences in opinion on apostasy as well as a few other things.

As for the hadith, I sense that there is less consensus on them from people here. Some seem to feel that the hadith are essential to understanding the Quran, others feel that the Quran is all you really need.

And since there is no central authority figure (eg like the Pope making an ex cathedra statement) it is up to each individual Muslim to interpret the Quran and the Hadith and live their lives according to those teachings.

I think this is why you get groups like Boko Haram and ISIS et al who may choose to interpret the Quran very literally, like what Just Saying and Shaykh mentioned earlier that punishment for apostasy is death, when other Muslims may choose to interpret it differently.

I also asked a question earlier about imams or mullahs as to what their qualifications were, of if anyone could be one without any training or knowledge. Because it's people like them, or opinion and thought leaders like Anjem Choudhary, that act as influences for other Muslims who may be struggling to interpret the Quran and then go to their mosque for guidance.

 

[RWAC]

[MENTION=30006]Jadz[/MENTION] Why is an abhorrent practice like slavery allowed in Islam, but harmless things like homosexuality punishable?

Surely, a human keeping another human as a slave is horrible on the next level compared to a human having consensual sex with another human, right?

 

[Fallen King]

Sorry, Mamoon, I must have missed you query.

So far as I know, there is no discrimination against left-handed people in Islam. This matter is not even mentioned in the Qur'an.

In the Qur'an, there are constant references to the 'right hand' or the 'right side' or the 'right path', but these are just allusions to righteousness, or the right, truthful and proper way of doing things. Similarly, there are references to the 'left hand', but this too is simply an allusion to unrighteousness, or the false, wrong, improper way of doing things.

There are any number of Muslims who are left-handed, and I have never heard of any of them being discriminated against.

It´s simple really. We have to keep in mind the Qur´an as the primary source, and in cases actually the only source, whilst asking her anything. Does the Qur´an contain stuff about the prohibition to eat with the left hand etc.?

I am pretty sure it has to do with "eating and cleaning" and more. We are supposed to clean ourself by left hand while eat the food by right hand.

This might be discriminatory, but for valid reasons.

 

[RWAC]

I am pretty sure it has to do with "eating and cleaning" and more. We are supposed to clean ourself by left hand while eat the food by right hand.

This might be discriminatory, but for valid reasons.

So if someone cleans with right, and eats with left, is that okay?

 

[Fallen King]

[MENTION=30006]Jadz[/MENTION] Why is an abhorrent practice like slavery allowed in Islam, but harmless things like homosexuality punishable?

Surely, a human keeping another human as a slave is horrible on the next level compared to a human having consensual sex with another human, right?

Islam ended slavery. It is different that slavery is still being used has to do with people - not Islam.

Regarding homosexuality, i can think of one main reason that is to keep mankind alive. If homosexuality was practiced widely in ancient times, then we might not be alive. This is what i can think of. Women need men for procreation and vice-versa, but men-to-men will not serve that purpose unfortunately. There is the reason why the mankind began with Prophet Adam (PBUH) and Hawa (PBUH).

I strongly believe in the rights like 'let people do what they want'. But it comes to Islam, it is pretty much anti-homosexuality for one valid reason; procreation. I know this is not fair, but neither is life. That's how it is.

 

[Fallen King]

So if someone cleans with right, and eats with left, is that okay?

Not really. Because right-hand is also used for religious purpose; one of them is at the end of the prayer where you are supposed to raise your one finger by right hand-side before turn your head right to left.

It is important that right-hand should not be used for dirty stuff.

Certain examples;

An account of one of Muhammad’s meals was illustrative of his obsession: “Milk mixed with water was brought to Allah’s apostle while a bedouin was on his right side and Abu Bakr was on his left. He drank (of it) and then gave (it) to the Bedouin and said: The right, the right (first).”[49] Another account stated: “So Allah’s apostle said to me: O boy! Mention the name of Allah and eat with your right hand.”[50] Likewise, any bathroom duties could not be done with the right hand.[51]

http://bigfaithministries.com/mark-of-the-beast/

-------------------------------------------------------------------

In al-Saheehayn it is narrated that ‘Umar ibn Salamah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “O young boy, say the name of Allaah and eat with your right hand, and eat from what is nearest to you.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (5376) and Muslim (2022).

In Saheeh Muslim (2021) it is narrated that a man ate with his left hand in the presence of the Messenger of Allaah (S). He said: “Eat with your right hand.” He said: I cannot. He said: “May you never be able to,” for nothing was preventing him from doing so but arrogance. And he never raised it to his mouth again.

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) prayed against him so that what he claimed of not being able to do it would come true, because he was too arrogant to follow the truth and he did not observe proper etiquette with the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and his excuse was a lie, and lying to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is not like lying to anyone else.

In Sunan Abi Dawood (33) it is narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: The right hand of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was for his purification and food, and his left hand was for using the toilet and anything that was dirty. Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.

Muslim (262) narrated that Salmaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: He (meaning the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)) forbade any one of us to clean himself with his right hand.

And Muslim (2020) narrated from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “No one among you should eat with his left hand or drink with it, for the shaytaan eats with his left hand and drinks with it.”

Allaah has warned us against disobeying the commands of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as He says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And let those who oppose the Messenger’s (Muhammad’s) commandment (i.e. his Sunnah __ legal ways, orders, acts of worship, statements) (among the sects) beware, lest some Fitnah (disbelief, trials, afflictions, earthquakes, killing, overpowered by a tyrant) should befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them”

[al-Noor 24:63]


This applies if one is able to eat with the right hand. But if one is unable to do so, there is no sin in that. Al-Nawawi said in Sharh Muslim (13/191): The objection to eating and drinking with the left hand applies so long as there is no excuse. If there is an excuse which prevents one from eating and drinking with the right hand because of sickness, injury etc, then it is not makrooh.

Al-Ghazaali said in al-Ihya’ (4/93): Then the One Who gave you two hands to do things with, some of which are noble, such as picking up the Mus-haf, and some are ignoble, such as removing impurities. So if you pick up the Mus-haf with your left hand, and you remove impurities with your right hand, then you have used that which is noble to do something ignoble, and you have neglected its rights and wronged it, and turned away from what is proper.

http://islamqa.info/en/82120

------------------------------------------------

You can research more information about the symbolism of the right-hand in Islam.

 

[RWAC]

Islam ended slavery. It is different that slavery is still being used has to do with people - not Islam.

Regarding homosexuality, i can think of one main reason that is to keep mankind alive. If homosexuality was practiced widely in ancient times, then we might not be alive. This is what i can think of. Women need men for procreation and vice-versa, but men-to-men will not serve that purpose unfortunately. There is the reason why the mankind began with Prophet Adam (PBUH) and Hawa (PBUH).

I strongly believe in the rights like 'let people do what they want'. But it comes to Islam, it is pretty much anti-homosexuality for one valid reason; procreation. I know this is not fair, but neither is life. That's how it is.

Sorry, how did Islam end slavery? All the quotes I've read from the Quran never seem to say don't engage in slavery or you will face hell-fire. Please enlighten me with some references.

Ah the oft-heard argument against homosexuality.

If we allow homosexuality, why do you assume all of us will turn homosexuals? We allow and in fact encourage heterosexuality, but all of us aren't heterosexuals. Why do you assume otherwise when it comes to homosexuality?

Also, we have a problem of over-population in the world currently. So in fact, using your logic, homosexuality should act as a boon in these times as we strive to control human population.

Another angle is in today's age, we can produce babies in test tubes. If babies can be produced at a rate to keep human population at a sustainable level, a world full of homosexuals would be acceptable then right?

 

[RWAC]

Not really. Because right-hand is also used for religious purpose; one of them is at the end of the prayer where you are supposed to raise your one finger by right hand-side before turn your head right to left.

It is important that right-hand should not be used for dirty stuff.

Certain examples;



http://bigfaithministries.com/mark-of-the-beast/

-------------------------------------------------------------------

In al-Saheehayn it is narrated that ‘Umar ibn Salamah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “O young boy, say the name of Allaah and eat with your right hand, and eat from what is nearest to you.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (5376) and Muslim (2022).

In Saheeh Muslim (2021) it is narrated that a man ate with his left hand in the presence of the Messenger of Allaah (S). He said: “Eat with your right hand.” He said: I cannot. He said: “May you never be able to,” for nothing was preventing him from doing so but arrogance. And he never raised it to his mouth again.

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) prayed against him so that what he claimed of not being able to do it would come true, because he was too arrogant to follow the truth and he did not observe proper etiquette with the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and his excuse was a lie, and lying to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is not like lying to anyone else.

In Sunan Abi Dawood (33) it is narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: The right hand of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was for his purification and food, and his left hand was for using the toilet and anything that was dirty. Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.

Muslim (262) narrated that Salmaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: He (meaning the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)) forbade any one of us to clean himself with his right hand.

And Muslim (2020) narrated from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “No one among you should eat with his left hand or drink with it, for the shaytaan eats with his left hand and drinks with it.”

Allaah has warned us against disobeying the commands of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as He says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And let those who oppose the Messenger’s (Muhammad’s) commandment (i.e. his Sunnah __ legal ways, orders, acts of worship, statements) (among the sects) beware, lest some Fitnah (disbelief, trials, afflictions, earthquakes, killing, overpowered by a tyrant) should befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them”

[al-Noor 24:63]


This applies if one is able to eat with the right hand. But if one is unable to do so, there is no sin in that. Al-Nawawi said in Sharh Muslim (13/191): The objection to eating and drinking with the left hand applies so long as there is no excuse. If there is an excuse which prevents one from eating and drinking with the right hand because of sickness, injury etc, then it is not makrooh.

Al-Ghazaali said in al-Ihya’ (4/93): Then the One Who gave you two hands to do things with, some of which are noble, such as picking up the Mus-haf, and some are ignoble, such as removing impurities. So if you pick up the Mus-haf with your left hand, and you remove impurities with your right hand, then you have used that which is noble to do something ignoble, and you have neglected its rights and wronged it, and turned away from what is proper.

http://islamqa.info/en/82120

------------------------------------------------

You can research more information about the symbolism of the right-hand in Islam.

Thanks for the information. So is the usage of right hand mandatory for religious purposes, or can either left or right be used as long as it's done on a consistent basis? I'm saying if someone always uses left hand for religious purposes, and for eating, and right for cleaning from childhood - is that okay?

If right is mandatory for religious rituals, any particular reason why?

Also, since I have often heard Muslims say that Islam is applicable to all times, does the distinction between left and right not become redundant now that we have modern toilets with bidets/spray jets?

 

[Yossarian]

Jadz just mentioned earlier in this thread on page 1:



I'm noticing a lot of different interpretations on things.

So from what I have read so far, the theology of Islam is driven from the following:

- The Quran - the revelations passed on by God to the Prophet Mohammed, collated into a book after his death by his followers, as well as those of other prophets such as appear in the Torah and the Bible
- The Hadith - interpretations of the Quran made by other Islamic scholars from the 4 schools of Islam

From the debate I see on this thread it appears as though there is no general consensus on whether there are contradictions in the Quran. Some believe that there aren't, others feel that there are. But I get the sense that the general majority believe it is more or less consistent, particularly on the big picture things. That said, we're seeing differences in opinion on apostasy as well as a few other things.

As for the hadith, I sense that there is less consensus on them from people here. Some seem to feel that the hadith are essential to understanding the Quran, others feel that the Quran is all you really need.

And since there is no central authority figure (eg like the Pope making an ex cathedra statement) it is up to each individual Muslim to interpret the Quran and the Hadith and live their lives according to those teachings.

I think this is why you get groups like Boko Haram and ISIS et al who may choose to interpret the Quran very literally, like what Just Saying and Shaykh mentioned earlier that punishment for apostasy is death, when other Muslims may choose to interpret it differently.

I also asked a question earlier about imams or mullahs as to what their qualifications were, of if anyone could be one without any training or knowledge. Because it's people like them, or opinion and thought leaders like Anjem Choudhary, that act as influences for other Muslims who may be struggling to interpret the Quran and then go to their mosque for guidance.

It takes a non-Muslim to succinctly summarise in a balanced manner the various posts in this thread, which in turn are a small reflection of the diversity of muslim's views, interpretations and practices about Islam.

IMO This is the Post of The Week.
[MENTION=190]OZGOD[/MENTION] - Thanks!

 

[Fallen King]

Thanks Jadz and MalikMohsin for your answers. Few more questions.

1) Regarding Namaz. Exactly what is namaz? Do u recite verses from koran? What should be it's duration and how often in a day is it mandatory.?

2) For christians Sunday sermons are a must. How is it for a Muslim How often are they supposed to go to a mosque?

3) How does a muslim get introduced to a koran? Do ur parents make you recite it or do u go to special schools for it. What about students who go to non islamic schools? How u do manage.. have all of you guys here read the complete koran.?The reason iam asking this particular question is beacause on pakpassion many posters ask is singing/dancing haram or eating something haram?? And i think to myself if they know their religion they should'nt be asking these kind of questions.? Also i am curious as to how the religious education is imparted.

4) I know men and women are not allowed to participate in prayers together. is it a cultural thing? or is it written in the book.

5) This question may be sensitive so u guys don't have to answer. It is about the raped women requiring 4 witness . Is there any example where this kind of situation has arisen and a woman has been able to punish the rapist based on the 4 witness. I really don't get this law how can a woman prove she has been raped ??



I really appreciate the efforts being made to answer my questions.

Sister Jadz has explained very well with the rest of questions. Regarding first question - bold;


1) Namaaz - or salaat - is prayer, obligatory upon Muslims. Yes, Verses from the Qur'an are recited - usually the shorter ones, with the first Chapter - Al-Faitihah - performed in every unit of prayer. Muslims pray 5 times a day: fajr, dawn; dhur, noon; asr, early afternoon; maghrib, setting of the sun; isha, night. There is also the late night prayer, Tahhajjud, but this is optional.

That is incomplete information. When it comes to prayer, we recite verses from Holy Quran, but before we finish the prayer, we send blessings and Saluations on the Prophet with worthy Saluation. That's Duroof Sharif - can be found in Hadiths attests by Holy Quran regarding sending Blessings and Saluations.

From the source of Holy Quran;

Almighty Allah says: "Surely Allah and His Angels send blessings on the Holy Prophet (Sallal Laahu Alaihi Wasallim). O you who believe! Send Blessings (Durood) and Salutations (Salaams) on the Prophet with worthy Salutation".(Surah al-Ahzab: 56)

In this verse of the Holy Quran, Almighty Allah, His Malaa'ikah and the Muslims have been mentioned as sending Durood upon Sayyiduna Rasoolullah (Sallal Laahu Alaihi Wasallim). So, Durood Shareef is actually "a Du'a in praise of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Sallal Laahu Alaihi Wasallim)."

From Hadiths;

Hazrat Anas (radi Allahu anhu) narrates that Sayyiduna Rasoolullah (Sallal Laahu Alaihi Wasallim) said: "He who reads a single Durood upon me, Almighty Allah blesses him ten times, ten of his sins are forgiven, and he is increased ten times in stages (internally). (Mishkaat)

The translation of Durood Salawat


"O Allah, let Your Blessings come upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, as you have blessed Ibrahim and his family. Truly, You are Praiseworthy and Glorious. Allah, bless Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, as you have blessed Ibrahim and his family. Truly, You are Praiseworthy and Glorious".

 

[Fallen King]

Thanks for the information. So is the usage of right hand mandatory for religious purposes, or can either left or right be used as long as it's done on a consistent basis? I'm saying if someone always uses left hand for religious purposes, and for eating, and right for cleaning from childhood - is that okay?

If right is mandatory for religious rituals, any particular reason why?

Also, since I have often heard Muslims say that Islam is applicable to all times, does the distinction between left and right not become redundant now that we have modern toilets with bidets/spray jets?

Well, the right-hand is right-hand and left-hand is left-hand. That's all i can say. Going by your hypothesis sound wonderful for discussion, but we are told to preserve our right-hand for nobility purposes. I guess we have to honor that. Besides, no Religon would prescribe what you are suggesting. Just for the sake of discussion, if one person has been using left-hand for eating while right-hand for cleaning, and then he gets informed that he is doing all wrong, then he must change his ways.


Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) made this point very clear.

In Saheeh Muslim (2021) it is narrated that a man ate with his left hand in the presence of the Messenger of Allaah (S). He said: “Eat with your right hand.” He said: I cannot. He said: “May you never be able to,” for nothing was preventing him from doing so but arrogance. And he never raised it to his mouth again.

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) prayed against him so that what he claimed of not being able to do it would come true, because he was too arrogant to follow the truth and he did not observe proper etiquette with the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and his excuse was a lie, and lying to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is not like lying to anyone else.

 

[RWAC]

Well, the right-hand is right-hand and left-hand is left-hand. That's all i can say. Going by your hypothesis sound wonderful for discussion, but we are told to preserve our right-hand for nobility purposes. I guess we have to honor that.


Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) made this point very clear.

Okay fair enough - issues should not be discussed with logic but dogma should just be followed. I get it.

Anyone else who can shed some more light on the points I raised?

 

[Fallen King]

Okay fair enough - issues should not be discussed with logic but dogma should just be followed. I get it.

Anyone else who can shed some more light on the points I raised?

No religion prescribes what you are asking. There is reason for that. It is unorthodox.

Thanks for the information. So is the usage of right hand mandatory for religious purposes, or can either left or right be used as long as it's done on a consistent basis? I'm saying if someone always uses left hand for religious purposes, and for eating, and right for cleaning from childhood - is that okay?

If you can mention the name of Religion that prescribes the bold, then i can come up with explanation why.

 

[RWAC]

What Do You Know About Islam?

No religion prescribes what you are asking. There is reason for that. It is unorthodox.



If you can mention the name of Religion that prescribes the bold, then i can come up with explanation why.

This is a thread about a particular religion, Islam, with claims to it being the most logical religion.

My question is just based on trying to find the logic behind preferring one hand over the other. You gave an explanation saying it is so because we use the left for cleaning - so you did try to use logic.

Now when I'm just extending your logic and asking what if some person switches the use of each hand, you tell me it is what it is and no other religion prescribes the left hand for eating either.

Again, like I said, I have no issues if there is no logical explanation. I only asked you since you did seem to use some logic to justify the right vs left thing. What is not okay is to use logic only as long as it proves a pre-decided conclusion, and then abandon logic once it stops pointing to that conclusion.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Fallen King]

This is a thread about a particular religion, Islam, with claims to it being the most logical religion.

My question is just based on trying to find the logic behind preferring one hand over the other. You gave an explanation saying it is so because we use the left for cleaning - so you did try to use logic.

Now when I'm just extending your logic and asking what if some person switches the use of each hand, you tell me it is what it is and no other religion prescribes the left hand for eating either.

Again, like I said, I have no issues if there is no logical explanation. I only asked you since you did seem to use some logic to justify the right vs left thing. What is not okay is to use logic only as long as it proves a pre-decided conclusion, and then abandon logic once it stops pointing to that conclusion.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You are asking hypothesis scenario, yet you demand logic explanation for hypothesis scenario.

Maybe your hypothesis scenario requires more context so we can debate for the sake of discussion.

 

[RWAC]

You are asking hypothesis scenario, yet you demand logic explanation for hypothesis scenario.

Maybe your hypothesis scenario requires more context so we can debate for the sake of discussion.

How is this a hypothetical scenario? You are saying as if no one ever uses their right hand for washing. I used my right hand for washing for more than half of my life. If I was a Muslim (not that I have any intentions), am I justified in using my left for eating and praying then?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[just saying]

Jadz just mentioned earlier in this thread on page 1:

[6) As mentioned earlier, there is no punishment for apostasy in Islam. What ISIS, or Boko Haram in Nigeria, are doing, ought not to be confused with Islam. They are not practising Islam, they are practising criminality, thuggery and evil. All right-thinking individuals must learn about Islam for themselves, so that the media obsession with groups like ISIS does not result in ignorance of the Islamic Message, which rests upon the Mercy of God.]

Jadz can start a new school of Islam and bring about her own interpretation, unfortunately her opinions are only her own.

There are 4 schools of Sunni Islam, and all 4 have death penalty for apostates.

The Sharia Law manual for the Shafi'i fiqh says:

``O you who believe, retaliation is prescribed for you regarding the slain...'' (Koran 2:178).)

o1.1 Retaliation is obligatory (A: if the person entitled wishes to take it (dis: o3.8)) against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right. (O: Intentionally is a first restriction and excludes killing someone through an honest mistake, while purely excludes a mistake made in a deliberate injury (def: o2.3), and without right excludes cases of justifiable homicide such as lawful retaliation.)

o1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:
(1) a child or insane person, under any circumstances (O: whether Muslim or non-Muslim.
The ruling for a person intermitently insane is that he is considered as a sane person when in his right mind, and as if someone continously insane when in an interval of insanity. If someone against whom retaliation is obligatory subsequently becomes insane, the full penalty is nevertheless exacted. A homicide committed by someone who is drunk is (A: considered the same as that of a sane person,) like his pronouncing divorce (dis: n1.2));
(2) a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim;
(3) a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O: because a
subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences);
(4) a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) fir killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring;
(5) nor is retaliation permissible to a descendant for (A: his ancestor's) killing someone whose death
would otherwise entitle the descendant to retaliate, such as when his father kills his mother


Reference:
http://www.shafiifiqh.com/maktabah/relianceoftraveller.pdf
Page 239

As you can see an Apostate has the lowest rank in the food chain and even Non-Muslims have permission to kill an Ex-Muslim.

 

[Fallen King]

How is this a hypothetical scenario? You are saying as if no one ever uses their right hand for washing. I used my right hand for washing for more than half of my life. If I was a Muslim (not that I have any intentions), am I justified in using my left for eating and praying then?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Did you? I am guessing you eat the food by left-hand then?

When it comes to prayer, that comes with the protocol as how to pray accordingly in Islam.

Then you can change the habit as i have explained the purpose of right-hand utiliy in great detail.

 

[OZGOD]

Jadz can start a new school of Islam and bring about her own interpretation, unfortunately her opinions are only her own.

There are 4 schools of Sunni Islam, and all 4 have death penalty for apostates.

The Sharia Law manual for the Shafi'i fiqh says:

``O you who believe, retaliation is prescribed for you regarding the slain...'' (Koran 2:178).)

o1.1 Retaliation is obligatory (A: if the person entitled wishes to take it (dis: o3.8)) against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right. (O: Intentionally is a first restriction and excludes killing someone through an honest mistake, while purely excludes a mistake made in a deliberate injury (def: o2.3), and without right excludes cases of justifiable homicide such as lawful retaliation.)

o1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:
(1) a child or insane person, under any circumstances (O: whether Muslim or non-Muslim.
The ruling for a person intermitently insane is that he is considered as a sane person when in his right mind, and as if someone continously insane when in an interval of insanity. If someone against whom retaliation is obligatory subsequently becomes insane, the full penalty is nevertheless exacted. A homicide committed by someone who is drunk is (A: considered the same as that of a sane person,) like his pronouncing divorce (dis: n1.2));
(2) a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim;
(3) a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O: because a
subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences);
(4) a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) fir killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring;
(5) nor is retaliation permissible to a descendant for (A: his ancestor's) killing someone whose death
would otherwise entitle the descendant to retaliate, such as when his father kills his mother


Reference:
http://www.shafiifiqh.com/maktabah/relianceoftraveller.pdf
Page 239

As you can see an Apostate has the lowest rank in the food chain and even Non-Muslims have permission to kill an Ex-Muslim.

Other than ISIS are there countries practicing Shariah where apostates have been executed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[shaykh]

Other than ISIS are there countries practicing Shariah where apostates have been executed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Need to bare in mind a couple of things...

Listing nation states isn't really relevant to the discussion...reason being none of these stations state that they are ruling by Islam...they are nation states not a caliphate....

The Caliphate has always adopted a position on apostasy being death during history...and as mentioned all 4 Sunni schools of thought adopted the same opinion on this issue...the only differentiation was one school stating that the punishment for women was imprisonment till repentance...

The Ottoman State which many view as the last known Caliphate also adopted this rule throughout most of its history...it removed the ruling with the Tanzimat reforms which happened during the Ottoman decline...these reforms pretty much removed most Islamic rulings such as the adoption of interest based economics, abandonment of the jizya tax etc...

These are the states worth comparing to...

But if you do want to know...the following states punish apostasy with execution: Afghanistan, Brunei, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, North Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen...

But as mentioned none of these countries are Islamic states...

 

[OZGOD]

Need to bare in mind a couple of things...

Listing nation states isn't really relevant to the discussion...reason being none of these stations state that they are ruling by Islam...they are nation states not a caliphate....

The Caliphate has always adopted a position on apostasy being death during history...and as mentioned all 4 Sunni schools of thought adopted the same opinion on this issue...the only differentiation was one school stating that the punishment for women was imprisonment till repentance...

The Ottoman State which many view as the last known Caliphate also adopted this rule throughout most of its history...it removed the ruling with the Tanzimat reforms which happened during the Ottoman decline...these reforms pretty much removed most Islamic rulings such as the adoption of interest based economics, abandonment of the jizya tax etc...

These are the states worth comparing to...

But if you do want to know...the following states punish apostasy with execution: Afghanistan, Brunei, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, North Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen...

But as mentioned none of these countries are Islamic states...

I thought having Shariah law means you are ruling by Islam?

 

[shaykh]

Jadz just mentioned earlier in this thread on page 1:



I'm noticing a lot of different interpretations on things.

So from what I have read so far, the theology of Islam is driven from the following:

- The Quran - the revelations passed on by God to the Prophet Mohammed, collated into a book after his death by his followers, as well as those of other prophets such as appear in the Torah and the Bible
- The Hadith - interpretations of the Quran made by other Islamic scholars from the 4 schools of Islam

From the debate I see on this thread it appears as though there is no general consensus on whether there are contradictions in the Quran. Some believe that there aren't, others feel that there are. But I get the sense that the general majority believe it is more or less consistent, particularly on the big picture things. That said, we're seeing differences in opinion on apostasy as well as a few other things.

As for the hadith, I sense that there is less consensus on them from people here. Some seem to feel that the hadith are essential to understanding the Quran, others feel that the Quran is all you really need.

And since there is no central authority figure (eg like the Pope making an ex cathedra statement) it is up to each individual Muslim to interpret the Quran and the Hadith and live their lives according to those teachings.

I think this is why you get groups like Boko Haram and ISIS et al who may choose to interpret the Quran very literally, like what Just Saying and Shaykh mentioned earlier that punishment for apostasy is death, when other Muslims may choose to interpret it differently.

I also asked a question earlier about imams or mullahs as to what their qualifications were, of if anyone could be one without any training or knowledge. Because it's people like them, or opinion and thought leaders like Anjem Choudhary, that act as influences for other Muslims who may be struggling to interpret the Quran and then go to their mosque for guidance.

Not quite...

Quran is revelation from Allah delivered by Muhammad...the Mush'af the written form was compiled by his followers following his death...

The Hadith are the sayings and actions of the Prophet...these were also written down and the Prophets ways were practiced by his companions following his death...it wasn't the 4 classical schools that collated hadith...scholars such as Bukhari collated hadith...

The four scholars (this is for Sunnis) adopted positions on issues based on using the Quran and hadith as source references...

Depends what you mean by consensus...within the Sunni strand the position on apostasy is very clear...this isn't an ISIS thing...nor is it a Boko Haram...anyone who has studied the history of Islam is well aware of the fact that this position has been adopted throughout history...this isn't some new position...

There is no specific way of identifying who is a good scholar or not...especially now when Islamic thought is at its weakest...and throughout history these 4 schools of thought have been prominent in the Sunni world...

The Ottoman Empire adopted the hanafi school for instance...

The alternate opinions you are getting on this thread simply represent the views of the person expressing them...I haven't actually pigeonholed Yossarian and told him what he is...but I have told him what he isn't...believing in specifc hadith is part of belief for Sunni Muslims...so Yossarian can state what he likes but he isn't representing the Sunni position who happen to be the majority of Muslims worldwide...Jadz and Mughal argue from a Quranist framework...again this doesn't represent mainstream Islamic thought...Sunni and Shia thought has nothing to do with their ideas and both have stated that they interpret Islam for themselves and do not adopt a school of thought...

You're free to agree with whatever ideas you like...but if you are looking for a general perception of what mainstream Islamic thought is then you are better off examining Sunni and Shia schools of thought...

 

[shaykh]

I thought having Shariah law means you are ruling by Islam?

Yep and ruling by Islam in its totality...a Caliphate is an Islamic state and you can only actually have one Islamic state and one Caliph...

Currently you have nation states who adopt some Islamic rules...they aren't Caliphates and haven't declared themselves to be so...

Currently only ISIS have declared they are a Caliphate...contrary to popular belief Boko Haram are not a separate Caliphate...they have pledged their allegiance to ISIS...

 

[shaykh]

Islam ended slavery. It is different that slavery is still being used has to do with people - not Islam.

Regarding homosexuality, i can think of one main reason that is to keep mankind alive. If homosexuality was practiced widely in ancient times, then we might not be alive. This is what i can think of. Women need men for procreation and vice-versa, but men-to-men will not serve that purpose unfortunately. There is the reason why the mankind began with Prophet Adam (PBUH) and Hawa (PBUH).

I strongly believe in the rights like 'let people do what they want'. But it comes to Islam, it is pretty much anti-homosexuality for one valid reason; procreation. I know this is not fair, but neither is life. That's how it is.

Islam ending slavery is a fallacy...I have discussed this point to death on here...youre propagating a myth...

 

[shaykh]

Islam ended slavery. It is different that slavery is still being used has to do with people - not Islam.

Regarding homosexuality, i can think of one main reason that is to keep mankind alive. If homosexuality was practiced widely in ancient times, then we might not be alive. This is what i can think of. Women need men for procreation and vice-versa, but men-to-men will not serve that purpose unfortunately. There is the reason why the mankind began with Prophet Adam (PBUH) and Hawa (PBUH).

I strongly believe in the rights like 'let people do what they want'. But it comes to Islam, it is pretty much anti-homosexuality for one valid reason; procreation. I know this is not fair, but neither is life. That's how it is.

This is incorrect too...

Homosexual behavior has ALWAYS existed...Abrahamic faiths act as though they addressed a new 'problem'...people practiced homosexual behavior for centuries before Abrahamic faiths arrived and they weren't dying off...

If anything Abrahamic faiths created the idea of sexuality...the Hebrews in fact...the Greeks and Romans who they despised weren't homosexuals...they practiced both hetero and homo behavior...choosing between men and women was a preference...and was viewed that way...it wasn't a permanent state...but the Hebrews adopted a position where you are either gay or straight...behaviours and preferences became identities and fixed...

The world was never gonna die out cos of homosexuals...Muslims just adopted the silly Genesis story of Sodom and Gomorrah which wasn't even about homosexuality...

 

[just saying]

Islam ending slavery is a fallacy...I have discussed this point to death on here...youre propagating a myth...

I wonder, do people propagate myths because; they are misinformed themselves or they purposely hide the truth because it is so damn ugly.

 

[shaykh]

I wonder, do people propagate myths because; they are misinformed themselves or they purposely hide the truth because it is so damn ugly.

Herein lies the issue...I did the same thing to a degree as a believer...I had to find justifications for the abhorrent...so I also once propagated the positive parts i.e. improvement in some areas and left out the negatives even when aware of them...

 

[Fallen King]

Islam ending slavery is a fallacy...I have discussed this point to death on here...youre propagating a myth...

Islam ended slavery in Arab lands and where Islam ruled certainly put stop on slavery. When people from Madina came back, black people came back as free man.

This is incorrect too...

Homosexual behavior has ALWAYS existed...Abrahamic faiths act as though they addressed a new 'problem'...people practiced homosexual behavior for centuries before Abrahamic faiths arrived and they weren't dying off...

If anything Abrahamic faiths created the idea of sexuality...the Hebrews in fact...the Greeks and Romans who they despised weren't homosexuals...they practiced both hetero and homo behavior...choosing between men and women was a preference...and was viewed that way...it wasn't a permanent state...but the Hebrews adopted a position where you are either gay or straight...behaviours and preferences became identities and fixed...

The world was never gonna die out cos of homosexuals...Muslims just adopted the silly Genesis story of Sodom and Gomorrah which wasn't even about homosexuality...

Homosexuality was very common in Soddom. After Sodom community failed to heed the warning of Allah through ITS prophet Lut (PBUH), Allah punished the whole community of Sodom barring Prophet Lut (PBUH) and his family as lesson for the future. The lesson of Sodom served future generations after generations very well until now. Sodom lesson was used as detterent quite effectively until now.

The lesson of Sodom is starting to become myth especially with homosexuality is in increase world-wide scale. I am afraid we or our future generations might witness the repeat of Sodom's lesson.

 

[shaykh]

Islam ended slavery in Arab lands and where Islam ruled certainly put stop on slavery. When people from Madina came back, black people came back as free man.




Homosexuality was very common in Soddom. After Sodom community failed to heed the warning of Allah through ITS prophet Lut (PBUH), Allah punished the whole community of Sodom barring Prophet Lut (PBUH) and his family as lesson for the future. The lesson of Sodom served future generations after generations very well until now. Sodom lesson was used as detterent quite effectively until now.

The lesson of Sodom is starting to become myth especially with homosexuality is in increase world-wide scale. I am afraid we or our future generations might witness the repeat of Sodom's lesson.

No it didn't...

Islam ended enslaving dhimmi and introduced certain rights for the slave...Islam however actively contributed to globalizing slavery...

Internal enslavement was forbidden...but external was fine...you could buy existing slaves and that is exactly what the Islamic empire did...it built a global market where everyone was selling slaves to the Islamic empire...

Also slaves were attained through battle as spoils of war...

And slaves were received as tribute from other lands...

Islam never ended slavery...far from it...

And you get the Sodom and Gomorrah story mixed up...Muslims just stole the story from the Hebrews...there is actually no actual evidence that they were more homosexual there than anywhere else...

And the Hebrew story wasn't even originally portrayed as being about homosexuality but about poor hospitality...Lot's townspeople were inhospitable...the amusing thing about the whole story and this is in both the Muslim and Jewish version is this fantastic Prophet Lut actually offered up his virgin daughters for the townspeople to rape...how anyone can take this story seriously is beyond me...

The Jews transformed this story into a homosexual one...the Christians adopted it so did the Muslims...the story itself was never originally about homosexuality...but was sold that way...

 

[Mughal]

Going back to the original question, we are asked, what do you know about islam?

To answer this question one has to look at what islam really is. Why? Because there are so many things people call islam. All cannot be islam because islam can only be what it is and nothing else.

Sources of islam are one thing and the people who claim to believe in them are another. There are only two possibilities either source and people agree or they disagree. If sources and people who claim to believe in them agree then islam is clear so there cannot be any dispute of any sort among people but problem is that sources and people disagree. Since sources and people disagree therefore there arise two main questions a)do sources agree between themselves or disagree and b)do people agree between themselves or disagree.

We all by now should know that sources of islam disagree between themselves as well as people who claim to believe in them. This being the case the question now becomes, do any of the sources agree within themselves or disagree and do people who claim to believe in them see sources in agreement within themselves or do they not?

Since sources disagree between themselves and people disagree between themselves about the sources hence the need for knowing things in detail so that we could find out the actual truth about islam. Had there been no disagreement then there was no need for going through the process of knowing the truth about islam.

In order to reach the truth about islam we must have a way for finding the truth otherwise we can never know the truth about islam. The question now is, is there a way whereby we could know the truth about islam? Yes, there is. What is that way where by we can know the truth about islam?

Anyone who claims islam is true therefore must show the way that can help us see if islam is true. This is where all people will go quite who talk far too much and never think or question things as they should to see how they fit together. It is one thing to claim islam is true but quite another to prove as well.

We have individuals and groups of people who claim only their understanding of islam is true and the rest are all wrong. This claim is important because when there are differences among people, all cannot be right. There are only two possibilities ie all are wrong or only one of the claimants is right. Why? It is because whenever there occurs a conflict within a source it proves it false beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, you cannot be speaking the truth if you claim to be standing at a given place at a given time yet also claim that you were sitting at the same place and the same time? It is because two opposite events cannot occur from the same source at the same time. This establishes the rule that any conflict between sources or any particular source renders it false. This is why when anyone gives any testimony in court of law as an evidence as a witness to an event and it is found to be contradicting itself or self evident facts it proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the witness has lied in court under oath.

It is very same rule that is used by the quran to claim that it is word of Allah because if it was word of any human being then mankind ought to find in the quran many contradictions. In other words the quran claims to be free of any contradictions within itself as well as with respect to self evident facts. The question now is, is this statement in the quran merely a saying or it is really possible to prove that there is no contradiction within the quran and between the quran and the self evident facts?

As I have explained already in my posts the quran explains very many things about the creation and humanity and since all these are very complex and sophisticated issues yet the quran tackles them smoothly without any difficulty therefore it proves that it is true in its claim of divine origin.

From all this it is not difficult for a person of knowledge to see that only that interpretation of the quran is valid that is free of contradictions not only within the quran but between the quran and self evident facts. This being the case I have explained priority order between sources of islam as well as why they are important in that order ie it is because higher authority is right on basis of higher accuracy when there occurs any conflict between sources. This is why only those reports attributed to the messenger of Allah can be accept possibly true that are consistent with whatever is in the quran according to its non-contradictory interpretation and likewise only those laws in books of fiqh are genuinely based upon the quran that are consistent with it and all else is merely invention invented by other vested interest parties. Who invented what and why can be discussed and proven because people had motives to do that as already explained by myself. It is because whenever there occurs a conflict of interest, those who lose out take steps to try their best to remove the obstacle in their way any way they can. This is why our world is full of corruption because there are so many corrupt people.

The quran is a book and islam is a deen that stand against all kinds of use and abuse by anyone so those who have any advantage over others just want to take undue advantage of others and while the quran is in their way they cannot do so therefore the next thing for them to do is to corrupt the book by way of misinterpretation and misrepresentation to make it suit themselves.

So the question is, how did they do it? Well, we may have heard a saying that where there is a will there is a way. People can move mountains if that is what they decide to do, so misinterpreting a scripture and misrepresenting is nothing that difficult especially if people have been doing it for thousands of years.

 

[DHONI183]

What Do You Know About Islam?

I am pretty sure it has to do with "eating and cleaning" and more. We are supposed to clean ourself by left hand while eat the food by right hand.

This might be discriminatory, but for valid reasons.

Yeah of course, this is the standard answer given to this question, but I was just pointing out to [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] bhai how the Qur´an doesn´t specifically mention this.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Jadz can start a new school of Islam and bring about her own interpretation, unfortunately her opinions are only her own.

There are 4 schools of Sunni Islam, and all 4 have death penalty for apostates.

The Sharia Law manual for the Shafi'i fiqh says:

``O you who believe, retaliation is prescribed for you regarding the slain...'' (Koran 2:178).)

o1.1 Retaliation is obligatory (A: if the person entitled wishes to take it (dis: o3.8)) against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right. (O: Intentionally is a first restriction and excludes killing someone through an honest mistake, while purely excludes a mistake made in a deliberate injury (def: o2.3), and without right excludes cases of justifiable homicide such as lawful retaliation.)

o1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:
(1) a child or insane person, under any circumstances (O: whether Muslim or non-Muslim.
The ruling for a person intermitently insane is that he is considered as a sane person when in his right mind, and as if someone continously insane when in an interval of insanity. If someone against whom retaliation is obligatory subsequently becomes insane, the full penalty is nevertheless exacted. A homicide committed by someone who is drunk is (A: considered the same as that of a sane person,) like his pronouncing divorce (dis: n1.2));
(2) a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim;
(3) a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O: because a
subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences);
(4) a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) fir killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring;
(5) nor is retaliation permissible to a descendant for (A: his ancestor's) killing someone whose death
would otherwise entitle the descendant to retaliate, such as when his father kills his mother


Reference:
http://www.shafiifiqh.com/maktabah/relianceoftraveller.pdf
Page 239

As you can see an Apostate has the lowest rank in the food chain and even Non-Muslims have permission to kill an Ex-Muslim.

Which of these 4 schools of Sunni Islam did the prophet PBUH follow?

 

[chacha kashmiri]

Herein lies the issue...I did the same thing to a degree as a believer...I had to find justifications for the abhorrent...so I also once propagated the positive parts i.e. improvement in some areas and left out the negatives even when aware of them...

You also leave out slave trades Muslim did rally up against just as the Bahia slave trade


As for your accusation of Surah ash-shura about Lut and others being copied from the Torah, you could have had somewhere to stand from if it was revelaed in Medina, but how can you explain when it was revealed in Mecca?

 

[Mamoon]

Sorry, Mamoon, I must have missed you query.

So far as I know, there is no discrimination against left-handed people in Islam. This matter is not even mentioned in the Qur'an.

In the Qur'an, there are constant references to the 'right hand' or the 'right side' or the 'right path', but these are just allusions to righteousness, or the right, truthful and proper way of doing things. Similarly, there are references to the 'left hand', but this too is simply an allusion to unrighteousness, or the false, wrong, improper way of doing things.

There are any number of Muslims who are left-handed, and I have never heard of any of them being discriminated against.

No problem.

Why is it prohibited to eat with your left hand?

 

[Indiafan]

The lesson of Sodom is starting to become myth especially with homosexuality is in increase world-wide scale. I am afraid we or our future generations might witness the repeat of Sodom's lesson.

So with all the evil in the world, with kids getting killed, raped. People suffering, dying. God will smite us all because couple of consenting adults who love each other want to be together without harming anyone else. Fantastic, what a lesson from God! This is where the facade of a God who loves all, is merciful and religious people being merciful and moral starts breaking up. It is clear religion has never tolerated and can never tolerate differences. And this proves the biggest lie about religious messages being for all time, because an all time message would have known that many things we saw as evil have scientific explanations and people are born different in many ways. This is where science is starting to leave behind religion and it's old definition of morality. And the more we start understanding what makes human beings tick, the more we understand that things cannot be pure black or white all the time and people cannot be categorized into sinners and non-sinners so easily

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

No problem.

Why is it prohibited to eat with your left hand?

I just did a google search for that question, it's another one of those that comes from tradition rather than Quran itself.

 

[Mamoon]

I just did a google search for that question, it's another one of those that comes from tradition rather than Quran itself.

Along with people throwing a hundreds hadiths in your face and blurring the lines b/w tradition, culture and hadiths is massive Pandora's box.

I've been publicly scrutinized for eating with my left hand more than I care to remember, but I'm yet to come across a convincing justification and when I see parents forcing their baby to use his/her right hand, it really makes me wonder what the massive deal is in the first place.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

http://quransmessage.com/articles/eating with your left hand FM3.htm

That was what I turned up on a Google search. Worth a look as it is quite a convincing argument.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

http://quransmessage.com/articles/eating with your left hand FM3.htm

That was what I turned up on a Google search. Worth a look as it is quite a convincing argument.

 

[CricketCartoons]

sinister was the latin word for left handedness. so left hand was evil in other cultures too.

 

[Yossarian]

sinister was the latin word for left handedness. so left hand was evil in other cultures too.

The handshake is used to varying degrees in most societies and cultures around the world. Although the origins of the handshake vary from culture to culture, it is generally seen as a sign of greeting, peace or confirming an agreement.

Are there any societies or cultures where the left hand is generally used for the handshake as opposed to the right hand? Even when two left handed individuals shake hands knowing that the other is also left handed? And if not, then why not?

 

[shaykh]

[MENTION=133972]shaykh[/MENTION], what about those people who only reject those hadiths that go contrary to what the Quran says. Not rejecting all hadiths, but only those which go against the spirit of Quran. Of course this is not a scholarly position, but nothing says that scholars decide what is right and wrong in Islam. Islam doesn't have a clergy or priest class, it is meant to be simple enough for the common man to follow. So do you think people who can see contradiction in what the Book says and what some hadith says, cannot reject it? Or that they should stop calling themselves Sunnis if they do?

Within the Sunni strand adoption of Sunnah is the equivalent of accepting the Quran...the others on this forum are welcome to think this is nonsensical but the simple fact is if one thinks that then they aren't Sunni...

This isn't a negative thing...although everything seems to get upset about that...if you believe in Quran only then you're a Quranist...even Eagle Eye, Chacha etc have stated that the adoption of hadith is a Sunni position...

This isn't saying all hadith...different hadith have different categorizations...Sahih hadiths require adoption...

The people who reject this should just not call themselves Sunni...which consequently means they also don't possess a mainstream view which is why the likes of Javelin are getting upset...

Thing is to follow the Quran the Sunni position is that the Prophet must be followed...ive mentioned it a lot of times and only Mughal hhas bothered addressing it...but Allah says to follow him AND his Messenger...

Sit back and think what Islam would be without the hadith...lol there would be no seera...we would have no idea why some verses contradict each other...in short you have no context for anything...

 

[shaykh]

Islam didn't innovate with the left hand thing...so it shouldn't really be singled out...being left handed was negative even during the time of the Greeks...

Islam borrowed a lot from the Hebrews who thought this about left handed people;

'The left hand symbolized the power to shame society, and was used as a metaphor for misfortune, natural evil, or punishment from the gods.'

in Christianity:

'Matthew 25: 32–33, in which sheep represent the righteous and goats represent the fallen: "And he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats. And he shall set the sheep on his right, but the goats on his left."'

The majority of societies have viewed left handedness as negative...

Apparently in Sanskrit the word for left is also a synonym for wicked...

The Incas and Buddhists however viewed left handedness positively...in buddhism for instance the left hand represents Buddhism...

I wouldn't hold this one against Islam...in the US it was once ok to hit children who didn't write with their right hands...

 

[shaykh]

No problem.

Why is it prohibited to eat with your left hand?

The point Jadz makes is true...wording is significant...in most languages 'right' tends to be linked to something positive whilst left isn't...

The allusions of righteousness themselves show a discrimination...the fact that left handedness is an allusion to negativeness is relevant...

Muslims just followed on from everyone else...the greek language for left is sinister...right is linked to dexterity...language is very important...

 

[mithun_minhas]

Awesome thread,

Getting to know a lot of truth.

I am yet to read a convincing argument against what the poster "Shayk" is saying.

Good contributions from Shayk/Yosaarin/Malik Mohsin etc..

 

[venomousx]

How can you accept, or reject, when it's virtually impossible to verify which is correct and which is not?
I've stated, in post #220, why I say it's impossible to verify.
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...62#post7250162

He can say what he like's, just as I can say that pidgeonholing another's beliefs, especially if you don't fully know what they are, into neat little labeled compartments based upon your own assumptions about them is being very simplistic and reeks of someone being indoctrinated to think along those lines - even if they have since parted company with those who were their mentors.

[Quran 6:38] We did not leave anything out of this book.
[Quran 7:52] We have given them a scripture that is fully detailed, with knowledge, guidance, and mercy for the people who believe.
[Quran 10:37] This Quran could not possibly be authored by other than God. It confirms all previous messages, and provides a fully detailed scripture. It is infallible, for it comes from the Lord of the universe.
[Quran 12:111] In their history, there is a lesson for those who possess intelligence. This is not fabricated Hadith; this (Quran) confirms all previous scriptures, provides the details of everything, and is a beacon and mercy for those who believe.
The Quran proclaims that the Quran is complete, perfect, and fully detailed.
[Quran 6:114] Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbor any doubt.
[Quran 6:115] The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.
Not doubting the authenticity of some hadith. But after reading these ayat, I can't think of any reason why any text other than the Quran should be a source of religious law for muslims?

 

[Yossarian]

[Quran 6:38] We did not leave anything out of this book.
[Quran 7:52] We have given them a scripture that is fully detailed, with knowledge, guidance, and mercy for the people who believe.
[Quran 10:37] This Quran could not possibly be authored by other than God. It confirms all previous messages, and provides a fully detailed scripture. It is infallible, for it comes from the Lord of the universe.
[Quran 12:111] In their history, there is a lesson for those who possess intelligence. This is not fabricated Hadith; this (Quran) confirms all previous scriptures, provides the details of everything, and is a beacon and mercy for those who believe.
The Quran proclaims that the Quran is complete, perfect, and fully detailed.
[Quran 6:114] Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbor any doubt.
[Quran 6:115] The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.
Not doubting the authenticity of some hadith. But after reading these ayat, I can't think of any reason why any text other than the Quran should be a source of religious law for muslims?

Just to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, my comments re-impossible to verify for the reasons outlined, relate to hadith and not the Qu'ran.

 

[shaykh]

[Quran 6:38] We did not leave anything out of this book.
[Quran 7:52] We have given them a scripture that is fully detailed, with knowledge, guidance, and mercy for the people who believe.
[Quran 10:37] This Quran could not possibly be authored by other than God. It confirms all previous messages, and provides a fully detailed scripture. It is infallible, for it comes from the Lord of the universe.
[Quran 12:111] In their history, there is a lesson for those who possess intelligence. This is not fabricated Hadith; this (Quran) confirms all previous scriptures, provides the details of everything, and is a beacon and mercy for those who believe.
The Quran proclaims that the Quran is complete, perfect, and fully detailed.
[Quran 6:114] Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbor any doubt.
[Quran 6:115] The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.
Not doubting the authenticity of some hadith. But after reading these ayat, I can't think of any reason why any text other than the Quran should be a source of religious law for muslims?

The response to those verses is actually very straightforward...Allah states nothing is left out of the book...in the book it states to follow Allah AND his Messenger... so the Quran doesn't contain instructions on everything but explains where it can be found...

These verses indicate the exact opposite of what you tried to convey...they actually state the indispensability of following the Prophet...

If one takes the Quran as the sole thing for guidance then the fact is this...it isn't complete...this is a logical argument...

So as an example one accepts from the Quran that rape is a crime...but what is the punishment??...the punishment is not in the Quran...

One is required to pay Zakat...this is in the Quran...but how much do you have to pay?...

Allah orders Muslims in the Quran to rule by what he has revealed yet the Quran alone doesn't actually explain how each rule is enacted...should the rapist be executed?...should he be ordered to marry his victim like the Christians said?...should it be a slap on the wrist?...can he pay his victim?...

Quranists want to believe that Muhammed was a postman...

Yet SO MANY verses refute exactly this:

59:7 [...]And whatever the Messenger has given you - take; and what he has forbidden you - refrain from[...]
8:20-21 O you who have believed, obey Allah and His Messenger and do not turn from him while you hear [his order]. And do not be like those who say, "We have heard," while they do not hear.

There are things that the Prophet did and said and these were not revelation...yet the Quran is explicit about the fact that Muslims are obligated to follow the Prophet...

One has to ask what the Prophets role was?...was it simply to say a few things or was it to explain and implement what was in the Quran?...

Obedience to the Prphet is obedience to Allah...

4:80 He who obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah

4:59 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.

So lets think about this for a moment...Allah has a rule for zakat...but doesn't explain in the Quran how to implement the ruling...so what does the Muslim do?...he asks the Prophet...Allah commands a punishment for rape...so what happens when the incident actually takes place...they ask Muhammad...

Obey Allah and his Messenger actually appears four times in the Quran...

Obey Allah and the Messenger appears five times in the Quran...

There is a clear distinction being made...and there are lots and lots of verses in different wording which express this exact same point...

More on the distinction being created:

(33:36) It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.

And honestly if it wasn't already clear...Allah states that people must take whatever Muhammad gives them...

(59:7) And whatever the Messenger has given you - take; and what he has forbidden you - refrain from. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.

Was everything the Prophet did revelation?...of course it wasn't...revelation was from Allah...and part of that revelation tells Muslims to take their questions and seek guidance from revelation and from Muhammad himself...

Honestly there really is no basis for this Quran only approach...it has no logical basis and it contradicts the Quran...

 

[speed]

You may question the authenticity of some/all ahadith but you can't ignore Islamic history especially early islamic history as far as I am aware All the stuff which people get worked up about such as stoning the adulterer, slaves, Apostasy etc were practiced. I personally think this is a more convincing and valid argument than 20/21 century reformist trying to bring new interpretations and totally ignoring what was pretty much the norm for almost 1300 years.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Sit back and think what Islam would be without the hadith...lol there would be no seera...we would have no idea why some verses contradict each other...in short you have no context for anything...

You are assuming that people are rejecting hadith outright which I don't think is the case here. What I would suggest is that there will be many who think hadith has it's place and value but that you can't equate it with the Quran, nor can you treat scholars as infallible so their fatwas can't be challenged. Terms like Sunni, Quranist, Mirzai and the rest are frankly nonsense if they are going to be used in such an illogical manner.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The response to those verses is actually very straightforward...Allah states nothing is left out of the book...in the book it states to follow Allah AND his Messenger... so the Quran doesn't contain instructions on everything but explains where it can be found...

Precisely. Follow Allah and his messenger, not 4 schools of thought laid down by scholars further down the line.

 

[venomousx]

The response to those verses is actually very straightforward...Allah states nothing is left out of the book...in the book it states to follow Allah AND his Messenger...

Yes. My understanding is that since Allah has stated nothing's left out of the book, everything we need to know about the prophet PBUH should be found inside it. About the other things that you mentioned, my 'personal' belief is that we aren't meant to be robots and do things the exact same way. I believe God has provided us with a brain to understand the Quran and implement it according to our understanding. But if you feel, Allah wants you to follow hadith, go right ahead! But I'm against people implementing hadith as a part of Islamic law on others in muslim countries like ours.

 

[shaykh]

You are assuming that people are rejecting hadith outright which I don't think is the case here. What I would suggest is that there will be many who think hadith has it's place and value but that you can't equate it with the Quran, nor can you treat scholars as infallible so their fatwas can't be challenged. Terms like Sunni, Quranist, Mirzai and the rest are frankly nonsense if they are going to be used in such an illogical manner.

Then one has to ask...why you choose to follow some hadith and not follow others?...what criteria have you developed?...is it meaning?...is it chain of narration?...

How do you address the myriad of verses many of which i haven't listed cos there are so many which relate to following the Quran and Muhammad?...

 

[shaykh]

Yes. My understanding is that since Allah has stated nothing's left out of the book, everything we need to know about the prophet PBUH should be found inside it. About the other things that you mentioned, my 'personal' belief is that we aren't meant to be robots and do things the exact same way. I believe God has provided us with a brain to understand the Quran and implement it according to our understanding. But if you feel, Allah wants you to follow hadith, go right ahead! But I'm against people implementing hadith as a part of Islamic law on others in muslim countries like ours.

Ok so you say Allah never left anything out of the book...

Allah says in verse after verse to follow him AND his Messenger...

It's actually not about what I feel at all...if you're going to follow the Quran as you claim then it necessitates following the hadith...

You posted a bunch of verses which you used out of context...

You have simply responded to me with your personal feelings which don't have any relevance to a theological discussion...

 

[venomousx]

You may question the authenticity of some/all ahadith but you can't ignore Islamic history especially early islamic history as far as I am aware All the stuff which people get worked up about such as stoning the adulterer, slaves, Apostasy etc were practiced. I personally think this is a more convincing and valid argument than 20/21 century reformist trying to bring new interpretations and totally ignoring what was pretty much the norm for almost 1300 years.

It may be true that stoning etc was practised back then but Allah hasn't ordered us to stone adulterers in the Quran. If something was the norm at that time, doesn't mean we need to follow it today.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Then one has to ask...why you choose to follow some hadith and not follow others?...what criteria have you developed?...is it meaning?...is it chain of narration?...

You would have to ask someone else I don't really pay much mind to this stuff usually, I am not particularly religious and never have been. But I am just pointing out the flaw in accepting hadiths or scholars as equal to the Quran which is supposed to be the direct word of God. I am just surprised that so many people beat about the bush picking holes in hadiths or traditions and don't go for the jugular and attack the Quran itself, then there is no wiggle room. After all the Quran does command death for apostates. Why not pick that as your battle and go from there?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Chopping hands off for theft is another Quranic injunction. That would be another one to question. Look I'm doing all the work for you guys.

 

[venomousx]

Ok so you say Allah never left anything out of the book...

Allah says in verse after verse to follow him AND his Messenger...

It's actually not about what I feel at all...if you're going to follow the Quran as you claim then it necessitates following the hadith...

You posted a bunch of verses which you used out of context...

You have simply responded to me with your personal feelings which don't have any relevance to a theological discussion...

I agreed with you dude. 'Follow Him and His Messenger' for me means reading the Quran and taking only It as a source regarding Prophet PBUH. When these ayat were revealed, people could actually observe him PBUH which is something I can't do. Moreover, there is a Sahih Hadith quoting Prophet PBUH saying that 'Don't record anything of me except the Quran' What do you think about that? I find it very amusing that the people who spent all their lives recording and evaluating the sayings of Holy Prophet included this as an authentic hadith as well.

 

[Pakz]

Can the Quran be reinterpreted in different context or not?