What do you know about Islam?

[Cpt. Rishwat]

That is your prerogative...

But there are two simple points in play...

Part of what makes Sunni's Sunni and Shia's Shia is their belief in hadith...

Thus someone stating hadith is a flawed science is something i agree with...but to suggest this is an Islamic position is a falsehood...thats the point...

Hadith isn't a science so if you agree it is a flawed science it really doesn't mean that much.

 

[shaykh]

Hadith isn't a science so if you agree it is a flawed science it really doesn't mean that much.

Lol now that's a bizarre comment...honestly i'm not being rude but you're clueless on this subject...determining the authenticity of hadith is indeed a science...how exactly do you think hadith was collated?...did Bukhari just collect everything?...how do you have strong hadith and weak hadith?...scholars developed a fixed criteria for determining the authenticity of hadith...

'Imam al-Shafi`i states the following requirements for a hadith, which is not Mutawatir, to be acceptable "each reporter should be trustworthy in his religion; he should be known to be truthtul in his narrating, to understand what he narrates, to know how a different expression can alter the meaning, and to report the wording of the hadith verbatim, not only its meaning".'

When a hadith is mutawaatir that is when a hadith has been reported by a large number of narrators who aren't deemed to be able to agree on a lie...

Hadith sciences involve specific criteria and result in a specific classification of hadith...

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

.scholars developed a fixed criteria for determining the authenticity of hadith...

Which means what exactly? Western scholars thought the earth was flat in the 19th century. Is that what you call science?

 

[DHONI183]

What Do You Know About Islam?

Honest answer Speed: no, enslavement of non-Muslims is not permitted. ISIS are not a reliable source for Islam, as many recognize.

During (legitimate) warfare, soldiers are often taken captive, but they are supposed to be treated properly, humanely, and restored to their peoples upon cessation of hostilities.

Of course, people can be employed by Muslims - as maids, drivers or cleaners, or in other capacities - but they receive payment for their work, and are supposed to be treated respectfully and honourably.

During Revelation - and the times preceding that - there was a flourishing slave trade. Muslims were required, wherever possible, to free slaves, and one of the ways of atonement for sins was the freeing of slaves.

I don´t know what the ISIS´ beliefs are on this, but the traditional view is that buying a slave is allowed from an owner, but you can neither buy a free man/woman, nor kidnap anyone and claim his/her ownership.

A question about enslaving people during wars, were only soldiers from the disbelievers captured or also those who whereas belonged to the enemy tribe/community but yet did not engage in the war against the Muslims?

 

[shaykh]

Which means what exactly? Western scholars thought the earth was flat in the 19th century. Is that what you call science?

Lol you're just trolling now...i really can't be bothered to have a discussion about what is and isn't a science...its a silly digression and it moves away from the point being discussed...that being that the collation of hadith was a human endeavor albeit with a fixed methodology...

Try discussing the actual topics being discussed...

 

[shaykh]

I don´t know what the ISIS´ beliefs are on this, but the traditional view is that buying a slave is allowed from an owner, but you can neither buy a free man/woman, nor kidnap anyone and claim his/her ownership.

A question about enslaving people during wars, were only soldiers from the disbelievers captured or also those who whereas belonged to the enemy tribe/community but yet did not engage in the war against the Muslims?

To my understanding ISIS's belief in this area is the same...

I.e enslavement of dhimmi isn't applicable...although the Ottomans violated this principle...this is why Yazidis are eligible for slave status but Christians are not due to the fact that they are jizya payers...

One reality that was permissible before but not applicable now is purchasing existing slaves...with slavery having been abolished in most places purchasing slaves isn't as easy as it once was...although that said human trafficking is a huge market so there is of course still potential to purchase existing slaves...its obviously not as societally acceptable as it once was...

On your final question...generally combatants were any adult males...

Those who were given non combatant status were: women, children, servants, wounded, elderly, priests and disabled.

It was not permitted to kill this category of people due to their non combatant status but it was ok to enslave them or take them as spoils of war...Banu Qurayza as an example involved killing all the men of the tribe and enslaving the women and children...Male POW's are allowed to be excuted according to 3 of the 4 schools of thought...however Hanafi madhab for instance states male POW's shouldn't be executed unless guilty of a crime...the other schools give the ruler to do as he pleases in terms of males...as for women and children they are generally either set free, enslaved or ransomed...

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Lol you're just trolling now...i really can't be bothered to have a discussion about what is and isn't a science...its a silly digression and it moves away from the point being discussed...that being that the collation of hadith was a human endeavor albeit with a fixed methodology...

Try discussing the actual topics being discussed...

I'm discussing exactly what you mentioned there, the collection of hadith being a human endeavour albeit with a fixed methodology.

 

[shaykh]

I'm discussing exactly what you mentioned there, the collection of hadith being a human endeavour albeit with a fixed methodology.

So what is your disagreement exactly?...the way Bukhari collated hadith or what I have said about how Bukhari differentiated between strong and weak hadith?...

cos if it's the former then I don't disagree...I believe hadith collection to be flawed...but that is something Sunnis believe in hence why its important to mention it...

And if its the latter then again i'd ask you to refute what I have said...and tell me how hadith was collated...

 

[Mughal]

On the topic of hadith...i actually agree that its collation is flawed but then i also see the collation of the Quran as flawed...

Dear brother shaykh, the quranic transmission has been flawless. The quran came to us in three different ways independent of each other. In form of written text that has been copied from written copies. In form of memorised words through hufaaz and in form of meanings of the words used in the text.

Anyone who knows about origin of language and its development knows that arabic uses a letter replacement idea in words a lot. It is because arabic is a relatively new language as compared to its sister or ancestral languages such as aramaic, hebrew, ugaritic, phoenician, syriac, akkadian etc. Since arabic comes from other languages so it borrows words from them therefore it ends up using multiple roots to express the very same concept due to transliteration problems between languages. For example, word MAKKAH is also called BAKKAH why? Because these two words arabic borrowed from two or more different languages. It is like word PARAAN and FARAAN. In persian both sounds exists ie P as well as F but in arabic P sound does not exist so the arabs use their own closely resembling sound P which is F. So while persions say PARAAN arabs say FARAAN. The same is case with word PAKISTAN ie arabs say BAKISTAN ie they replace P here with B. This problem exists between languages as a matter of fact. It is also a matter fact that languages have been borrowing from each other heavily. In some cases one language has borrowed from another language directly but in other cases indirectly ie first a word was borrowed by one language so it was modified to suit use of that language and then from that language it was borrowed by another language and was modified to make it suitable for use in that language. So depending on from how many different languages a word has been borrowed by a borrowing language it became pronounced and written in different ways in the very same language this is the case in case of arabic language. In arabic letters like TAA, SAA and TWA are interchangeable because they sound very close. Likewise letter BAA, FAA, MEEM and WOW are interchangeable. The case is same with letters SEEN and SWAAD or letter ZAAL, ZAA, ZWAAD and ZOE, ZWAAD however can also be interchanged with letter DAAL. Same is problem with letter KHAA, QAAF and KAAF. HAA and HAA etc etc. Over a period of time in arabic itself letters and pronunciations became standardised but problems between different languages remain the same even today. Arabs did not modify their language beyond 28 letters or with HAMZAH 29 letter symbols. The quranic text is based upon that standard. There has been no modification in number of letters since the revelation of the quran. So long as quran remains in existence and people keep adhering to it there will not be any modification in arabic language of that nature. However borrowing between arabic and newer languages continues even today and so it continues between other languages as well.

The purpose of this explanation was to show why arabic has more than one root set for a word in some cases. For example, let us take word KITAAB. It has only one root in arabic ie KAAF, TAA and BAA. However this is not the case with word ISRAA. This word has a few roots ie SEEN, RAA and WOW; SEEN RAA and YAA; SEEN, WOW and RAA; and SEEN, YAA and WOW. In ancient times all arabs moved away from each other so were not one people living in one place speaking exactly the very same kind of arabic even though originally they come from same ancestors. Human race is originally one race that comes from same ancestors but people moved away from each other as their needs and situations or circumstances demanded or dictated. After separating each people kept on inventing more things and words to talk about them so today people have come together again but they speak very different from what they learned from their original ancestors though some of the word we can still make out among all people because they remained unchanged or suffered less change. Likewise arabs even though were same people but they moved away from each other and then they were united and there were differences between their spoken language of this nature because each group borrowed from other people of other languages they were in contact with as they needed. All this explanation in my view was necessary to come to the point because it will help people understand something I am going to explain about the originality of quranic text.

As explained above a lot of words in arabic are written using different letters. For example, let us take word SIRAAT. In arabic language word SIRAAT is written in two ways ie using SEEN as its first letter or SWAAD. In some places people write word SIRAAT using letter SWAAD and in others using letter SEEN so word SIRAAT has two roots ie SWAAD, RAA and TWAA and SEEN, RAA and TWAA. If we read the quranic text, no where in the quran word SIRAAT is written with letter SEEN at the beginning and everywhere in the quran word SIRAAT is always written with letter SWAAD. You will agree that if the quran did not come down in written form and people made copies out of their memories then we ought to find that some copies of the quran ought to have in them word siraat written with letter swaad and in others word siraat written with letter seen. Since all copies of the quran contain this word written only and only by using letter swaad then how do we explain this consistency unless people were given a copy of the quran in writing to copy the written text from it exactly as it was? Let me explain this in another way in english. If I dictated to a mixed group of people from different countries to write down word MUHAMMAD, will they all write it exactly as I have it in my mind or will they do it the way they know it according to their own life experiences? An italian person will write muhammad the way he thinks and an english person will write it the way he thinks and a french person will write it the way he thinks etc etc. Some will end up writing muhammad others mohammed and yet other mohamed and so on and so forth. Word SIRAAT is not the only one but there are dozens of such words used in the text of the quran throughout the text of the quran.

The other thing in the quran is letters in the beginning of some surahs. Some of them if were not pronounced as well as written they could confuse people as to they were words or separate letters eg take surah two verse one letters ALIF, LAAM and MEEM. The way they are written in surahs they could be taken for meaningful words because there is a word in arabic which is pronounced ALAM eg see in surah 94 verse one.

Yet other evidence is the fact that the very first verse of the quran is always written the very same way ie BISMILLA HIRRAHMAA NIRRAAHEEM. It is written with 19 letters in it always whereas it is supposed to be written with 20 letters ie ALIF in ISM of BISMILLAH is MISSING. Word ISM is written in surah 96 verse one with ALIF. Anyone will find that all copies of the quran throughout the world are written exactly that way. Had someone dictated the quranic text and people wrote it down then we ought to see very many differences in written texts.

All copies of the quran have no bismillah at the start of surah nine. Had people made copies as they liked then we will have found variations between them some including and some excluding letters, words and verses in the text. So there is water tight evidence that the quran as we have it was written down by the prophet himself and handed down to his people before he passed away. He actually delivered the message of Allah as it was supposed to be delivered otherwise he could not have been chosen as a messenger by Allah. Even we humans do not choose bad workers for getting our works done if we can help it so how could Allah be expected to do such a silly thing as choose someone unfit for the job? That will have ruined the whole plan of Allah for humanity. Had prophet himself not left the quran behind and people fully accepting it they could have ended up divided about it for ever and none could have united them on the basis of the quran after the prophet. Today whatever else muslims do they have only one quran and copies of the quran are available throughout the world even from long time in the past. According to some claims we have copies of the quran even from the time very near to the time of the prophet. Unfortunately we muslims are not good at preservations, research and explorations. It is a miracle in itself for quran to have survived intact till now. The way people claiming to be muslims are busy killing each other it is not going to take very long before they are all gone. Any remaining ones will be done away with by kufaar. But then Allah has a plan of his own so we will come to know whatever awaits for us good or bad.

regards and all the best.

 

[Mughal]

In my view ahadees and fiqh books are of great importance not as primary sources of deen of islam but as documented information about past from the days of the prophet till today as to what muslims have been doing through out generations, why and how and whether it was according to the book of Allah or did they go off the track here and there, now and again . This information can serve in some cases as precedent where need be provided the information is consistent with the quranic requirements.

According to the quran Allah is sole ruler of this universe and it is only and only right of the ruler to dictate the law for his subjects. This is why the quran carries a very different status from hadith or fiqh books ie it has a category of its own. It is because any hadith if it is authentic is still work of people not God be it work of the messenger of Allah because even a messenger of Allah is as much subject to rule of law of Allah as anyone else. In other words people are people and all are subjects or citizens of kingdom of Allah and are accountable for their thoughts and actions to Allah. The messengers of Allah have brought us his messages but they are still part of us the human beings ie they are one of us so just because they are messengers of Allah they have not become exempt from their responsibilities or duties as placed upon them by Allah like other human beings ie they too are supposed to live by rule of law revealed by Allah.

All messengers showed their followers how to come together to form a proper human community by putting in place a constitution through mutual consultations to organise according to it and they put in place a set of laws through mutual consultations to regulate their organised community for carrying out a given program for accomplishing the goals set for them by Allah according to his guidelines with full support of each other. All this information about thoughts and actions of people is reported by people and that is what ahadith and fiqh books are all about.

As for following the messengers as examples, it does not mean imitating them aimlessly but that there is purpose to it. The question is what is that purpose? The quran gives people a way of life including the messenger of Allah so the messenger as an individual has to think out and take steps to try his best to implement the message he has received in form of the quran. So anyone who wants to support him must also do the same ie try his best to think out and take actions to implement the message of the quran to make it a reality in the real world. Following profit does not mean purposeless imitation as mullahs will have us believe because that is simply result of their stupidity. Let me try and explain it clearly to clarify it for all.

Let us suppose that you are a sensible person who knows what to do when you get injured by an accident. One day you get injured by an accident so you put on some bandage on your leg to stop it bleeding and to help it heal. Now for anyone else watching it is an example that if he too gets injured by some accident then he too can use this idea to stop bleeding and to help heal the injury. This is fine. However if anyone watching you gets injured deliberately and does the same thing just to imitate you what will you think of him or say about such a person, particularly if such an action by the person causes problems not only for him but for others as well? This is what mullahs have done to this ummah ie they told people just to repeat words and actions of the prophet needlessly and that they will be rewarded for doing so by Allah. Allah sent his messengers to teach people how to do things they need to do to live properly in this world as proper human community that is an outstanding example for others to follow but instead mullahs have turned muslims into backward people by forcing regression upon them in the name of deen of Allah. People are also to blame because why they act so stupid despite having independent brains and senses and seeing what is going on in this world in which they live. If the messenger of Allah came back today and saw poeple who claim to be his followers acting like people of his time back in 7th century he will be very disappointed. It is because his followers were supposed to be leaders of the world due to the guidance of the quran not its followers and even then lagging behind being dragged along by others. This will remain the situation till muslims get rid themselves of their rulers, money lenders and mullahs. Otherwise the only place these people are going to end up is hell of their own making. Sunnah of the prophet simply mean follow the way of the prophet and what is the way of the prophet? The way of life Allah told everyone to follow ie deen of islam.

Mullahs have deliberately turned ummah backwards because only stupid people could be kept slaves because they can be used and abused with ease without posing much threat to those who try to be their masters. Now people who can rule their own people like slaves, what can stop them from taking any other people slaves if they can do so? This is why islam pushed forth by mullahs has nothing at all to do with actual deen of islam that is revealed in the quran by Allah. Had people understood the sunnah of the prophet properly and followed it faithfully then end result could not be anything other than what the prophet himself got. It is one thing not to do the right thing but quite another not to even know the right thing to do and even worse to take a wrong for a right and then go ahead and do that wrong thinking it as right. This is the actual situation of the ummah that people need to wake up to and retrace their steps back to actual deen of islam. The sooner the better.

 

[shaykh]

The thing is Mughal what is the relevant Sunnah?...you speak about Mullah's causing people to follow things aimlessly but in actuality they have defined what for instance is fard and what is mubah, makrooh or mandoob...they have also helped us understand what rules were specifically for the Prophet...his numerous marriages for instance...scholars also perform ijtihad to provide rulings for new realities...i gave an example earlier of cloning...how does the layman decide if this is ok?...we can agree to disagree but Muslims NEED scholarship cos Islam is possible to interpret otherwise...

On the topic of the Quran...the debate isn't whether different Qurans exist now but the fact that different Qurans were in existence until Uthman adopted one...for the record this was a good move by Uthman cos it ensured universal belief...the reason Muslims accept the Quran hasn't been changed is because Allah says as much in the Quran...but from a rational perspective that claim doesn't make sense...

When Muhammad died there was no book...the Quran was orally given and of course people did write it down but no COMPLETE written text existed...fallible human beings had written it down and memorized it orally...therefore after the prophets death it became the responsibility of fallible human beings to adopt a full book...was Zayd's Quran the only version?...

The Uthmani codification was chosen from a group of other Qurans...after all the reason you burn all the other Qurans is because there are differences between the Quranic versions...so while there might be a uniform Quran now...the whole point for the 19 years after the Prophets death is that there was difference of opinion among fallible human beings as to what the correct Mush'af was...thats a lot of trust to put into Zayd...the fact that Zayds codified version wasn't adopted publicly is a course of concern...Uthman saw it as important as adopting a uniform Quran because of how many different versions there were...and because of how different places were adopting different versions...

So lets say for that the message was given clearly by the Prophet...for the message to be preserved it still relies on humans ability to ensure the correct message was chosen...

'Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sha'm and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to Uthman, 'O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before'. So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa, saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you'. Hafsa sent It to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479).'

Muslims do things in reverse...the Quran says the message is preserved so its believed to be preserved...the Quran praises the companions of the Prophet so Uthman's codification must have been correct...

In short Muhammad neither requested a Mush'af nor did he ok the Mush'af that was written...Uthman did...and he okayed Zayds version...how does Islam's claim of text preservation explain different Mush'afs and of course Uthmans eventual burning of all of those texts?...

 

[Jadz]

In my view ahadees and fiqh books are of great importance not as primary sources of deen of islam but as documented information about past from the days of the prophet till today as to what muslims have been doing through out generations, why and how and whether it was according to the book of Allah or did they go off the track here and there, now and again . This information can serve in some cases as precedent where need be provided the information is consistent with the quranic requirements.

According to the quran Allah is sole ruler of this universe and it is only and only right of the ruler to dictate the law for his subjects. This is why the quran carries a very different status from hadith or fiqh books ie it has a category of its own. It is because any hadith if it is authentic is still work of people not God be it work of the messenger of Allah because even a messenger of Allah is as much subject to rule of law of Allah as anyone else. In other words people are people and all are subjects or citizens of kingdom of Allah and are accountable for their thoughts and actions to Allah. The messengers of Allah have brought us his messages but they are still part of us the human beings ie they are one of us so just because they are messengers of Allah they have not become exempt from their responsibilities or duties as placed upon them by Allah like other human beings ie they too are supposed to live by rule of law revealed by Allah.

All messengers showed their followers how to come together to form a proper human community by putting in place a constitution through mutual consultations to organise according to it and they put in place a set of laws through mutual consultations to regulate their organised community for carrying out a given program for accomplishing the goals set for them by Allah according to his guidelines with full support of each other. All this information about thoughts and actions of people is reported by people and that is what ahadith and fiqh books are all about.

As for following the messengers as examples, it does not mean imitating them aimlessly but that there is purpose to it. The question is what is that purpose? The quran gives people a way of life including the messenger of Allah so the messenger as an individual has to think out and take steps to try his best to implement the message he has received in form of the quran. So anyone who wants to support him must also do the same ie try his best to think out and take actions to implement the message of the quran to make it a reality in the real world. Following profit does not mean purposeless imitation as mullahs will have us believe because that is simply result of their stupidity. Let me try and explain it clearly to clarify it for all.

Let us suppose that you are a sensible person who knows what to do when you get injured by an accident. One day you get injured by an accident so you put on some bandage on your leg to stop it bleeding and to help it heal. Now for anyone else watching it is an example that if he too gets injured by some accident then he too can use this idea to stop bleeding and to help heal the injury. This is fine. However if anyone watching you gets injured deliberately and does the same thing just to imitate you what will you think of him or say about such a person, particularly if such an action by the person causes problems not only for him but for others as well? This is what mullahs have done to this ummah ie they told people just to repeat words and actions of the prophet needlessly and that they will be rewarded for doing so by Allah. Allah sent his messengers to teach people how to do things they need to do to live properly in this world as proper human community that is an outstanding example for others to follow but instead mullahs have turned muslims into backward people by forcing regression upon them in the name of deen of Allah. People are also to blame because why they act so stupid despite having independent brains and senses and seeing what is going on in this world in which they live. If the messenger of Allah came back today and saw poeple who claim to be his followers acting like people of his time back in 7th century he will be very disappointed. It is because his followers were supposed to be leaders of the world due to the guidance of the quran not its followers and even then lagging behind being dragged along by others. This will remain the situation till muslims get rid themselves of their rulers, money lenders and mullahs. Otherwise the only place these people are going to end up is hell of their own making. Sunnah of the prophet simply mean follow the way of the prophet and what is the way of the prophet? The way of life Allah told everyone to follow ie deen of islam.

Mullahs have deliberately turned ummah backwards because only stupid people could be kept slaves because they can be used and abused with ease without posing much threat to those who try to be their masters. Now people who can rule their own people like slaves, what can stop them from taking any other people slaves if they can do so? This is why islam pushed forth by mullahs has nothing at all to do with actual deen of islam that is revealed in the quran by Allah. Had people understood the sunnah of the prophet properly and followed it faithfully then end result could not be anything other than what the prophet himself got. It is one thing not to do the right thing but quite another not to even know the right thing to do and even worse to take a wrong for a right and then go ahead and do that wrong thinking it as right. This is the actual situation of the ummah that people need to wake up to and retrace their steps back to actual deen of islam. The sooner the better.

Thank you, Mughal, for your wonderful insights!

Yes indeed, the Qur'an - being the Word of Allah SWT - is the only true Authority. Allah SWT Himself has protected, preserved and guarded it from all corruption, alteration and distortion, in accordance with His Own Promise. Thus, in light of this Divine Promise, we know that the Qur'an was compiled, completed and in book-form before the Prophet (pbuh) died - this accords with reason and sound common sense, and is in keeping with the Allah SWT's Stated Intention to guard His Book.

As Allah SWT is the sender of Messengers, with His Message, it is the latter which is of paramount importance. Islam is easy to follow and comprehend, but has become complicated over the course of time. People are making the simple unnecessarily complex.

Anyway, may Allah SWT inspire us to follow Him, and not mere human beings, and grant us His Acceptance and Pleasure.

 

[shaykh]

Thank you, Mughal, for your wonderful insights!

Yes indeed, the Qur'an - being the Word of Allah SWT - is the only true Authority. Allah SWT Himself has protected, preserved and guarded it from all corruption, alteration and distortion, in accordance with His Own Promise. Thus, in light of this Divine Promise, we know that the Qur'an was compiled, completed and in book-form before the Prophet (pbuh) died - this accords with reason and sound common sense, and is in keeping with the Allah SWT's Stated Intention to guard His Book.

As Allah SWT is the sender of Messengers, with His Message, it is the latter which is of paramount importance. Islam is easy to follow and comprehend, but has become complicated over the course of time. People are making the simple unnecessarily complex.

Anyway, may Allah SWT inspire us to follow Him, and not mere human beings, and grant us His Acceptance and Pleasure.

Any evidence for the following?...where is there any evidence that the Quran was compiled in book form before the Prophet died...

It's THE position among Sunni and Shia that the Quran was complete i.e. the recited form but the no mush'af (written form)...where have you got this 'completed book' idea from?...

Who compiled it?...am I lying about the Uthmani codification being the version being used?...

And also your position doesn't agree with common sense...if the Prophet is alive and still giving revelation then how are you going to have a completed book when he is alive...everything was written down by various scribes so nothing was missing but there was no formal book...it makes perfect sense that a book be formed after the Prophet died because of course this is where revelation ends...

It took 19 years for an actual book to be adopted...before that people were relying on various codifications along with the oral tradition of the Quran...

Did Zayd ibn Thabit not codify the Quran?...Did Ibn Masud not codify a version of a Quran?...Did Ali not codify a Quran?...did Uthman not decide to adopt one version?...did Uthman not burn all other codifications?...

Your comments are bizarre...i've never heard this completed book BEFORE he died argument anywhere before...

Even the shia who you love state that Ali presented a codified version to Abu Bakr 6 months AFTER the Prophets death but it was rejected...there was no adopted written form until Uthman took power...

Simple question Jadz...

Was there an adopted completed written form of the Quran (Mush'af) prior to the Prophets death?...

I actually challenge you to find ANYTHING which states that there was a Mush'af before the Prophet died...you won't cos no-one disagrees on this...

 

[Blistering Barnacle]

Well, you have asked any number of questions in your post, so I will just address myself to a couple.

1) You do not have to believe in God, or religion, or have faith: but, most people do have belief systems, even if they are atheists, all of which require articles of faith that enable them to understand life, its meaning and ultimate purpose - or not, as the case maybe.

2) Yes, those who believe in a Creator do accept the concept of the Unseen, or, a Realm beyond human perception. So that just as we have an observable universe, there is another - or others - which cannot be observed by the senses or mind.

3) God is not egotistical, human beings are. Believers prefer to submit to their Creator than to other human beings: everyone submits - either consciously or sub-consciously to some kind of authority or power, be it a system or an individual. No-one can operate outside this law. Regarding subconscious submission: we all live and die, work and rest, sleep and awaken, fall ill and regain health, and so on and so forth. Again, no-one has the ability to opt out of these natural states and phases.

4) I believe life is a test: joy, pain, suffering, contentment, love, hate, war, peace and so on, through these human beings acquire greater knowledge, about life and its existence, about qualities or attributes of patience, compassion, humility, generosity, forgiveness, forbearance, etc. Without such insights, human life is rendered shallow and void of real depth, meaning and direction.

5) You are entitled to your beliefs and opinions. Thank you for sharing them here - they are much appreciated

Thanks for replying but you didn't really answer any of my questions in your numbered points as it pertains to faith in Islam or religion in general.

 

[Blistering Barnacle]

One of the problems Islam faces is the fact that there are groups, such as ISIS and Boko Haram, that use the name of the religion to push their agenda.

I don't think I agree with Jadz that "ISIS are really not a good example, because their actions prove them to be non-Muslims".

It's not really for her to say whether they are muslims or not, and it is too easy to dismiss problems and issues with your religion that way.

Here's a better way of looking at it imo (quote from article below). Basically people put their belief systems into religion, it's a two way street:


..every faith is rooted in the soil in which it is planted. It is a fallacy to believe that people of faith derive their values primarily from their Scriptures. The opposite is true. People of faith insert their values into their Scriptures, reading them through the lens of their own cultural, ethnic, nationalistic and even political perspectives...scripture is meaningless without interpretation. Scripture requires a person to confront and interpret it in order for it to have any meaning. And the very act of interpreting a scripture necessarily involves bringing to it one’s own perspectives and prejudices.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/o...nly-one-who-misunderstands-religion.html?_r=0

 

[Blistering Barnacle]

Feel free to refute ANYTHING i have written...

Frankly, you've done nothing but debate points fairly and with some research/work behind you and it seems to me that some people can't handle it and would prefer to attack you personally instead, while contributing nothing.

 

[Mughal]

The thing is Mughal what is the relevant Sunnah?...you speak about Mullah's causing people to follow things aimlessly but in actuality they have defined what for instance is fard and what is mubah, makrooh or mandoob...they have also helped us understand what rules were specifically for the Prophet...his numerous marriages for instance...scholars also perform ijtihad to provide rulings for new realities...i gave an example earlier of cloning...how does the layman decide if this is ok?...we can agree to disagree but Muslims NEED scholarship cos Islam is possible to interpret otherwise...[/quote

Dear brother shaykh, in this very statement you have revealed that you have very little idea what deen of islam is about. It is important that you first make sense of what is meant by word sunnah. Mullahs tell us that islam is whatever the messenger of Allah said, did or approved by his silence when something was said or done before him by someone else. There are plenty of things wrong with this concept of sunnah. To begin with deen of islam is not what any of the prophets said or did or approved by keeping silent when someone else said or did anything. Deen of islam is message of Allah and that is it. It is because all human beings can make mistakes be they messengers of Allah because they are humans first and then messengers of Allah. Of course words and deeds of messengers of Allah are deen but only and only if they are in line with the revelation of Allah. It is because revelation of Allah is the criterion and the standard whereby words or deeds of any human being are supposed to be measured. If person of a messenger was criterion and standard for deen of islam then Allah was bound to make sure any of his messengers was a fully programmed robot because that was the only way a human could be kept from making any mistakes at all. Now if messengers of Allah could make mistakes then how could Allah make them criterion or standard to be followed 100%?

The other thing that was needed for setting up messengers as criterion and standard for deen of islam was, make sure that each and every move of any of the messengers of Allah was fully known to people at all times because nothing should be missed or standard of deen will become incomplete and defective due to missing piece of information. It is not only a very difficult thing to do but very a stupid indeed to think it even possible at all. How many of us human beings can be that good witnesses about any event regarding anyone? Just think about yourself, who could be better witness about yourself than yourself yet how much of things do you remember about yourself which you can report precisely let alone being a witness to what someone else may have done or not done?

As I explained already sunnah can only be what is purposeful and need of humanity and can be practically possible. Anyone defining sunnah in a way that it serves no purpose, is not needed by humanity and is impossible to carry out cannot be a sunnah. No where in the quran Allah tells people to support anyone unless they follow the guidance of Allah be they prophets or other people. As I said already mullahs have made up their own stuff and labelled it islam and that is what we are discussing but I am trying to explain what the deen of islam is in my view as I understand the message of Allah.

Coming to your point that mullahs have told us this or that is FARZ, WAAJIB, SUNNAH and MUSTAHAB or HARAAM, MAKRUH TEHREEMI or MAKRUH TANZIHI etc. This is all nonsense because there is no purpose to this categorisation or classification. First of all there is no sense in permanent classification of anything at all to each and every minute detail because world is not a fixed place rather it is a changing place so people have different aims and objectives or gaols and they demand different responses and because priorities are dependent upon what is need of the time and situation or circumstances therefore deen has to be that much flexible and not a straight jacket to fit all for all times. Fro example, when you are learning you have different priorities and when you are teaching you have different priorities, when you are in state of peace in a state you have different priorities and when you are at war you have different priorities etc etc. Not only that but there has to be a priority order even to decide whether it is fighting or preaching that is to take higher importance? This is why muslims need to wake up to deen of islam and leave mullahs to themselves or they will keep ruining them always as they have been in the past for so many centuries by making fools of them. Of course mullahs have done some good things but was that what they meant to do or those good things simply happened as by product of what mullahs did for themselves and their masters the rulers and money lenders? I hope you are aware of that ie when we make a medicine for curing some disease or illness we end up with medication that has side effects or unwanted results. You set up your business to make money and you do not mean to help others but that happens anyway as a by product without you really wanting it. This is what is called trickled down effect. This is why rich get richer and poor get poorer. If the rich people really wanted to change the world for the better then they had to plan things in a different priority order that fulfilled the purpose of getting poor out of poverty. The trickle down priority order is keeping rich rich and get even richer but to keep poor poor and to get them even poorer.

The main point to remember is that deen of islam is a mission with which Allah sent all his messengers throughout times and places. All people who supported messengers of Allah supported them only because they liked the mission and the basic reason was because this mission taught people how to be proper human community. Since messengers came with a mission from God so they could be example only and only in matters which were related to success of the mission. For example a king sends an army with his general to fight in a battle to win him a war. So the soldiers are supposed to support general in order to win the battle for their king. If soldiers instead of learning about fighting in the battlefield and equipping themselves ready for the battle start doing their own things eg start training for playing football among themselves in the middle of the battlefield will they win the war for their king or will they end up being slaughtered by their opponents and so they will lose the war or fail to accomplish their mission for which they were sent? Likewise muslims are only muslims if they learn the mission of their prophet properly and then do what needs to be done faithfully to make it successful, otherwise just by labelling themselves with label of deen of islam will not save them from failures in the battle for mission of blissful, dignified and secure life for mankind. The examples of messengers of Allah are told about in the quran story after story and the final messenger of Allah was nothing less than them nor were his genuine companions anything less than their genuine companions . This is why any stories about anything in the history books be they compiled by muslims are only true if they are consistent with the quran otherwise they are defective or untrue provided they have not been misinterpreted or misrepresented. When lines are drawn clearly between truth and falsehood people take sides which they think are right for them and then try and throw dirt on their enemies either right before their very eyes or by stabbing them in the back.

From all this explanation it should clear for anyone to see that rulers, money lenders and mullahs have nothing at all to do with deen of islam, if anything they are proving to be worst enemies of deen of islam by their words and deeds be it due to their ignorance about deen of islam or out of animosity towards it and the ummah and rest of human race.

On the topic of the Quran...the debate isn't whether different Qurans exist now but the fact that different Qurans were in existence until Uthman adopted one...for the record this was a good move by Uthman cos it ensured universal belief...the reason Muslims accept the Quran hasn't been changed is because Allah says as much in the Quran...but from a rational perspective that claim doesn't make sense...

When Muhammad died there was no book...the Quran was orally given and of course people did write it down but no COMPLETE written text existed...fallible human beings had written it down and memorized it orally...therefore after the prophets death it became the responsibility of fallible human beings to adopt a full book...was Zayd's Quran the only version?...

The Uthmani codification was chosen from a group of other Qurans...after all the reason you burn all the other Qurans is because there are differences between the Quranic versions...so while there might be a uniform Quran now...the whole point for the 19 years after the Prophets death is that there was difference of opinion among fallible human beings as to what the correct Mush'af was...thats a lot of trust to put into Zayd...the fact that Zayds codified version wasn't adopted publicly is a course of concern...Uthman saw it as important as adopting a uniform Quran because of how many different versions there were...and because of how different places were adopting different versions...

So lets say for that the message was given clearly by the Prophet...for the message to be preserved it still relies on humans ability to ensure the correct message was chosen...

'Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sha'm and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to Uthman, 'O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before'. So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa, saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you'. Hafsa sent It to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479).'

Muslims do things in reverse...the Quran says the message is preserved so its believed to be preserved...the Quran praises the companions of the Prophet so Uthman's codification must have been correct...

In short Muhammad neither requested a Mush'af nor did he ok the Mush'af that was written...Uthman did...and he okayed Zayds version...how does Islam's claim of text preservation explain different Mush'afs and of course Uthmans eventual burning of all of those texts?...

Dear shaykh, anyone who wants to cross examine anything about the quran, he has to begin with the text of the quran and not what anyone else says about the quran. You only need witnesses for something or an event if it is not self evident. The whole thing we need to know about God is right before us in two forms a)in form of the universe as creation of God and b)in form of the quran as revelation of God. Study both in depth and width and the facts will speak for themselves. So as I see it, you are going about the cross examination of the quran the wrong way.

Even if you do go to other witnesses unless you have something in mind to ask them that is relevant to the quran there is no sense in asking them anything. So your line of inquiry has to be in line with the quran regardless it is true or false.

Yet other important point is to have good idea about the supporters and the opponents of the quran and the reasons behind that ie why the people who claim to support the quran support it and why those who oppose it oppose it. If one does not have idea how to go about finding the truth about something then one simply remains confused.

No investigation can start unless something triggers it eg even in case of police, it does not start investing for murder if there is no reason for it to start such an investigation. We humans do not go about doing things we think we do not need to do, instead we stay put till something motivates us to get up and go. So what can trigger the question whether the quran existed in time of the prophet or not and whether the quran is true or false? Somebody must have got up and told people, hey guys! here is a book called the quran I invite you to read it because it can help you become a wise people and once you know what the book says you can become a great people by doing what it says? Also we can question what is all this advertisement on each and every tv channel for? They tell us about new products on daily basis so that if we like what they say about their products we go and buy them and use them and see if they are worth it or waste of our time and money. I cannot see anyone talking about anything about which one has no knowledge, have you? People by nature can only talk about things they become aware of in some sense not otherwise. This is a fact. So if people at the time were talking about the quran and the messenger of Allah to whom it was revealed then they somehow must have become aware of it directly or indirectly and they could not become aware of it unless they were made aware of it. So if they were made aware of it by the messenger of Allah then he must have had the book he was talking about to give it to people otherwise he could not invite people to something he did not have even himself. You cannot invite anyone to a social, political and economic program good or bad unless you have one. Likewise reading and writing was not invented after the revelation of the quran but it was already their and people in the world were already writing books, publishing and reading them long before revelation of the quran. Hindus, Jews, Christian and Zoroastrian etc already had written books before the quran so reading and writing was nothing new for the arabs. If they did not know already how to read and write then how could they all of a sudden produce a book like the quran anyway even if we accept it was written by Muhammad himself? He was an arab and he knew reading and writing and so did many others among arabs. It is mullahs' claim that the messenger of Allah was illiterate and uneducated and the reason behind it was to show the world, how could he have produced the quran if he did not even know how to read and write. The word from which they drive this meaning is UMMI from root ALIF, MEEM and MEEM. The concept that revolves around this root is strength that can be kept or let loose. It is because the root letter ALIF stands for strength or power or stick or staff or authority and letter MEEM stands for water or something that has such properties which help it flow. Something that can be collected in a reservoir or can be let loose to run freely. This is why when knowledge is collected in a mind of person he is called UMMI as well as any person from whom knowledge is kept away ie the ignorant person. In the arabic language this is the main reason a lot of words are used both in positive sense as well as negative sense. For example, in english language we use word innocent. It depends on the sense in which we want to use this word because it can be used both in negative as well as positive sense. It is this very character of the human language that we can make sarcastic use of language whereby we convey the negative message through positive wording. So it depends on what people think about the messengers so they interpret the wording in the quran and hadith or in books of fiqh or history that way. This is why the root ALIF, MEEM and MEEM gives rise words like IMAAM, UMMAH, UMMI etc meaning leader, community, mother etc. A capital city is called UMMUL QURAA ie the mother city or a place wherein people are collected in very large numbers as a community. Something from which someone comes or something upon which someone is based as his foundation eg a community or city or biological mother or an ideology or support or foundation etc etc. So words in arabic have many many meanings and one has to make sure one is choosing the most suitable for the context. The quran is a book like of which is impossible for people to produce because of various reasons but to know all this one has to become aware of what it contains by studying it in depth. For example, the quran explains the ideology for a proper human community, so none can now produce that ideology any more because the quran has already told about it so if anyone wants to challenge the quran on that basis, one will have to come up with an alternative better social ideology for the good of humanity than the one told about in the quran to beat it.

Coming back to origin of the quran, people were told about the quran by the messenger of Allah and how Allah informs his messengers about his mission, read the story of moses in the quran it is all explained in detail in there see surah TWAA HAA 20 and AL-QASAS 28 and elsewhere as well. If anyone wants to know what kind of people messengers of Allah are read the information told about them in suarh 21 al-anbiyaa and elsewhere in the quran as well. It is messengers of Allah themselves who write down the message of Allah and pass it on to their followers gathering them and announcing it to them by an open declaration. The book of Allah is not given to one person in secret. The buzz word is AL-MISAAQ= THE COVENANT. Moreover Allah did not leave any necessary information about himself, his messengers, his books, his people, his mission or his creation out of his book, however it has become buried under nonsense of mullahs in the name of their translations and interpretations of the quran and it make it difficult to see it through that cover up particularly if one is not familiar with real world realities and the language of the quran. Allah did not leave anything essential about deen of islam to hadis collectors and fiqh book makers and to mullahs who dish out new fatwas every day in the name of deen of islam and make people around the world laugh at stupidity of this ummah.

regards and all the best.

 

[Mughal]

Thank you, Mughal, for your wonderful insights!

Yes indeed, the Qur'an - being the Word of Allah SWT - is the only true Authority. Allah SWT Himself has protected, preserved and guarded it from all corruption, alteration and distortion, in accordance with His Own Promise. Thus, in light of this Divine Promise, we know that the Qur'an was compiled, completed and in book-form before the Prophet (pbuh) died - this accords with reason and sound common sense, and is in keeping with the Allah SWT's Stated Intention to guard His Book.

As Allah SWT is the sender of Messengers, with His Message, it is the latter which is of paramount importance. Islam is easy to follow and comprehend, but has become complicated over the course of time. People are making the simple unnecessarily complex.

Anyway, may Allah SWT inspire us to follow Him, and not mere human beings, and grant us His Acceptance and Pleasure.

Thank you dear jadz, I am grateful for your kindness. I am only sharing what I have learned over several decades of my life. May be it will be found useful by coming generations.

God bless and all the best.

 

[shaykh]

Frankly, you've done nothing but debate points fairly and with some research/work behind you and it seems to me that some people can't handle it and would prefer to attack you personally instead, while contributing nothing.

Thanks ...to Mughals credit he is having a civil discussion...can't say that for some of the others...

 

[shaykh]

The thing is Mughal what is the relevant Sunnah?...you speak about Mullah's causing people to follow things aimlessly but in actuality they have defined what for instance is fard and what is mubah, makrooh or mandoob...they have also helped us understand what rules were specifically for the Prophet...his numerous marriages for instance...scholars also perform ijtihad to provide rulings for new realities...i gave an example earlier of cloning...how does the layman decide if this is ok?...we can agree to disagree but Muslims NEED scholarship cos Islam is possible to interpret otherwise...[/quote

Dear brother shaykh, in this very statement you have revealed that you have very little idea what deen of islam is about. It is important that you first make sense of what is meant by word sunnah. Mullahs tell us that islam is whatever the messenger of Allah said, did or approved by his silence when something was said or done before him by someone else. There are plenty of things wrong with this concept of sunnah. To begin with deen of islam is not what any of the prophets said or did or approved by keeping silent when someone else said or did anything. Deen of islam is message of Allah and that is it. It is because all human beings can make mistakes be they messengers of Allah because they are humans first and then messengers of Allah. Of course words and deeds of messengers of Allah are deen but only and only if they are in line with the revelation of Allah. It is because revelation of Allah is the criterion and the standard whereby words or deeds of any human being are supposed to be measured. If person of a messenger was criterion and standard for deen of islam then Allah was bound to make sure any of his messengers was a fully programmed robot because that was the only way a human could be kept from making any mistakes at all. Now if messengers of Allah could make mistakes then how could Allah make them criterion or standard to be followed 100%?

The other thing that was needed for setting up messengers as criterion and standard for deen of islam was, make sure that each and every move of any of the messengers of Allah was fully known to people at all times because nothing should be missed or standard of deen will become incomplete and defective due to missing piece of information. It is not only a very difficult thing to do but very a stupid indeed to think it even possible at all. How many of us human beings can be that good witnesses about any event regarding anyone? Just think about yourself, who could be better witness about yourself than yourself yet how much of things do you remember about yourself which you can report precisely let alone being a witness to what someone else may have done or not done?

As I explained already sunnah can only be what is purposeful and need of humanity and can be practically possible. Anyone defining sunnah in a way that it serves no purpose, is not needed by humanity and is impossible to carry out cannot be a sunnah. No where in the quran Allah tells people to support anyone unless they follow the guidance of Allah be they prophets or other people. As I said already mullahs have made up their own stuff and labelled it islam and that is what we are discussing but I am trying to explain what the deen of islam is in my view as I understand the message of Allah.

Coming to your point that mullahs have told us this or that is FARZ, WAAJIB, SUNNAH and MUSTAHAB or HARAAM, MAKRUH TEHREEMI or MAKRUH TANZIHI etc. This is all nonsense because there is no purpose to this categorisation or classification. First of all there is no sense in permanent classification of anything at all to each and every minute detail because world is not a fixed place rather it is a changing place so people have different aims and objectives or gaols and they demand different responses and because priorities are dependent upon what is need of the time and situation or circumstances therefore deen has to be that much flexible and not a straight jacket to fit all for all times. Fro example, when you are learning you have different priorities and when you are teaching you have different priorities, when you are in state of peace in a state you have different priorities and when you are at war you have different priorities etc etc. Not only that but there has to be a priority order even to decide whether it is fighting or preaching that is to take higher importance? This is why muslims need to wake up to deen of islam and leave mullahs to themselves or they will keep ruining them always as they have been in the past for so many centuries by making fools of them. Of course mullahs have done some good things but was that what they meant to do or those good things simply happened as by product of what mullahs did for themselves and their masters the rulers and money lenders? I hope you are aware of that ie when we make a medicine for curing some disease or illness we end up with medication that has side effects or unwanted results. You set up your business to make money and you do not mean to help others but that happens anyway as a by product without you really wanting it. This is what is called trickled down effect. This is why rich get richer and poor get poorer. If the rich people really wanted to change the world for the better then they had to plan things in a different priority order that fulfilled the purpose of getting poor out of poverty. The trickle down priority order is keeping rich rich and get even richer but to keep poor poor and to get them even poorer.

The main point to remember is that deen of islam is a mission with which Allah sent all his messengers throughout times and places. All people who supported messengers of Allah supported them only because they liked the mission and the basic reason was because this mission taught people how to be proper human community. Since messengers came with a mission from God so they could be example only and only in matters which were related to success of the mission. For example a king sends an army with his general to fight in a battle to win him a war. So the soldiers are supposed to support general in order to win the battle for their king. If soldiers instead of learning about fighting in the battlefield and equipping themselves ready for the battle start doing their own things eg start training for playing football among themselves in the middle of the battlefield will they win the war for their king or will they end up being slaughtered by their opponents and so they will lose the war or fail to accomplish their mission for which they were sent? Likewise muslims are only muslims if they learn the mission of their prophet properly and then do what needs to be done faithfully to make it successful, otherwise just by labelling themselves with label of deen of islam will not save them from failures in the battle for mission of blissful, dignified and secure life for mankind. The examples of messengers of Allah are told about in the quran story after story and the final messenger of Allah was nothing less than them nor were his genuine companions anything less than their genuine companions . This is why any stories about anything in the history books be they compiled by muslims are only true if they are consistent with the quran otherwise they are defective or untrue provided they have not been misinterpreted or misrepresented. When lines are drawn clearly between truth and falsehood people take sides which they think are right for them and then try and throw dirt on their enemies either right before their very eyes or by stabbing them in the back.

From all this explanation it should clear for anyone to see that rulers, money lenders and mullahs have nothing at all to do with deen of islam, if anything they are proving to be worst enemies of deen of islam by their words and deeds be it due to their ignorance about deen of islam or out of animosity towards it and the ummah and rest of human race.



Dear shaykh, anyone who wants to cross examine anything about the quran, he has to begin with the text of the quran and not what anyone else says about the quran. You only need witnesses for something or an event if it is not self evident. The whole thing we need to know about God is right before us in two forms a)in form of the universe as creation of God and b)in form of the quran as revelation of God. Study both in depth and width and the facts will speak for themselves. So as I see it, you are going about the cross examination of the quran the wrong way.

Even if you do go to other witnesses unless you have something in mind to ask them that is relevant to the quran there is no sense in asking them anything. So your line of inquiry has to be in line with the quran regardless it is true or false.

Yet other important point is to have good idea about the supporters and the opponents of the quran and the reasons behind that ie why the people who claim to support the quran support it and why those who oppose it oppose it. If one does not have idea how to go about finding the truth about something then one simply remains confused.

No investigation can start unless something triggers it eg even in case of police, it does not start investing for murder if there is no reason for it to start such an investigation. We humans do not go about doing things we think we do not need to do, instead we stay put till something motivates us to get up and go. So what can trigger the question whether the quran existed in time of the prophet or not and whether the quran is true or false? Somebody must have got up and told people, hey guys! here is a book called the quran I invite you to read it because it can help you become a wise people and once you know what the book says you can become a great people by doing what it says? Also we can question what is all this advertisement on each and every tv channel for? They tell us about new products on daily basis so that if we like what they say about their products we go and buy them and use them and see if they are worth it or waste of our time and money. I cannot see anyone talking about anything about which one has no knowledge, have you? People by nature can only talk about things they become aware of in some sense not otherwise. This is a fact. So if people at the time were talking about the quran and the messenger of Allah to whom it was revealed then they somehow must have become aware of it directly or indirectly and they could not become aware of it unless they were made aware of it. So if they were made aware of it by the messenger of Allah then he must have had the book he was talking about to give it to people otherwise he could not invite people to something he did not have even himself. You cannot invite anyone to a social, political and economic program good or bad unless you have one. Likewise reading and writing was not invented after the revelation of the quran but it was already their and people in the world were already writing books, publishing and reading them long before revelation of the quran. Hindus, Jews, Christian and Zoroastrian etc already had written books before the quran so reading and writing was nothing new for the arabs. If they did not know already how to read and write then how could they all of a sudden produce a book like the quran anyway even if we accept it was written by Muhammad himself? He was an arab and he knew reading and writing and so did many others among arabs. It is mullahs' claim that the messenger of Allah was illiterate and uneducated and the reason behind it was to show the world, how could he have produced the quran if he did not even know how to read and write. The word from which they drive this meaning is UMMI from root ALIF, MEEM and MEEM. The concept that revolves around this root is strength that can be kept or let loose. It is because the root letter ALIF stands for strength or power or stick or staff or authority and letter MEEM stands for water or something that has such properties which help it flow. Something that can be collected in a reservoir or can be let loose to run freely. This is why when knowledge is collected in a mind of person he is called UMMI as well as any person from whom knowledge is kept away ie the ignorant person. In the arabic language this is the main reason a lot of words are used both in positive sense as well as negative sense. For example, in english language we use word innocent. It depends on the sense in which we want to use this word because it can be used both in negative as well as positive sense. It is this very character of the human language that we can make sarcastic use of language whereby we convey the negative message through positive wording. So it depends on what people think about the messengers so they interpret the wording in the quran and hadith or in books of fiqh or history that way. This is why the root ALIF, MEEM and MEEM gives rise words like IMAAM, UMMAH, UMMI etc meaning leader, community, mother etc. A capital city is called UMMUL QURAA ie the mother city or a place wherein people are collected in very large numbers as a community. Something from which someone comes or something upon which someone is based as his foundation eg a community or city or biological mother or an ideology or support or foundation etc etc. So words in arabic have many many meanings and one has to make sure one is choosing the most suitable for the context. The quran is a book like of which is impossible for people to produce because of various reasons but to know all this one has to become aware of what it contains by studying it in depth. For example, the quran explains the ideology for a proper human community, so none can now produce that ideology any more because the quran has already told about it so if anyone wants to challenge the quran on that basis, one will have to come up with an alternative better social ideology for the good of humanity than the one told about in the quran to beat it.

Coming back to origin of the quran, people were told about the quran by the messenger of Allah and how Allah informs his messengers about his mission, read the story of moses in the quran it is all explained in detail in there see surah TWAA HAA 20 and AL-QASAS 28 and elsewhere as well. If anyone wants to know what kind of people messengers of Allah are read the information told about them in suarh 21 al-anbiyaa and elsewhere in the quran as well. It is messengers of Allah themselves who write down the message of Allah and pass it on to their followers gathering them and announcing it to them by an open declaration. The book of Allah is not given to one person in secret. The buzz word is AL-MISAAQ= THE COVENANT. Moreover Allah did not leave any necessary information about himself, his messengers, his books, his people, his mission or his creation out of his book, however it has become buried under nonsense of mullahs in the name of their translations and interpretations of the quran and it make it difficult to see it through that cover up particularly if one is not familiar with real world realities and the language of the quran. Allah did not leave anything essential about deen of islam to hadis collectors and fiqh book makers and to mullahs who dish out new fatwas every day in the name of deen of islam and make people around the world laugh at stupidity of this ummah.

regards and all the best.

Hmm...your position isn't viable...the Quran has several verses which refer to obeying Allah AND his messenger...and where Allah says obeying his messenger is like obeying him...

Sunnah is “A word spoken, or an act done, or a confirmation given by the Holy Prophet Muhammad'

This Quran only position makes absolutely no sense...if one takes that position then the Quran has no context and is simply a bunch of isolated verses...none of the Sahaba followed this and if you accept the Quran then you accept that the Sahaba were deemed the best of people...and how exactly do you determine abrogation?...and i suppose you reject Ijma too?...

Out of interest Mughal is alcohol permissible?
How much zakat does one need to pay?
How does one pray?...

By suggesting Quran only if anything you are the one suggesting the Prophet is a robot whose sole role was to say a few things for people to write down with the freedom to do whatever he wanted in his free time...Quranists have no idea who their Prophet it nor have any desire to...it's an odd position to take...

The point about classification is odd too...you dismiss fard and haram?...with your Islam I can read the Quran, interpret it how I want with my unqualified eyes and do what I like...

and this angle used about 'hadith' contradicting the Quran is a copout too...'I like this hadith' isn't a criteria...matn (meaning) isn't a criteria alone...if some random says something that is in line with the Quran this doesn't mean the Prophet said it...and i find this is a position that hadith rejectors take to not look like hadith rejectors...they accept hadith not based on any real criteria...

That said i do believe hadith collection is flawed...however the point is Islam requires it...and can't be practiced without it...

You as a Muslim take the position it is flawed and reject it despite Allah requiring it everywhere in the Quran...it makes no sense...

I agree that documenting everything the Prophet did is impossible and many hadith have been missed...this is a flaw of Islam as opposed to it not being part of Islam...

Anyhow i might as well provide a few verses:

Obey Allâh and the Messenger, but if they turn their backs, Allâh loves not the disbelievers. (3:32)

And obey Allâh and the Messenger so that you may be blessed. (3:132)

O those who believe, obey Allâh and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. (4:59)

Why not say obey Allah only?...Allah creates a distinction between himself and Muhammad...

And whoever obeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has won a great success. (33:71)/QUOTE]

Again the clue is the word AND..

And obeying the Prophet is the equivalent of obeying Allah...

And whoever obeys the Messenger, thereby obeys Allâh./QUOTE]

There are other verses and other arguments that can be provided but tbf i don't see the logic of people accepting Islam and rejecting Sunnah...

 

[shaykh]

Mughal...just a request...if you use paragraphs more it would be appreciated...it will make your text easier to read...

You haven't actually addressed my questions...which is disappointing...

Of course the prophet didn't reveal Allah's message in secret...but again i will raise my questions and it would be appreciated if you answered them specifically...

I stated that the Prophets message was provided orally and scribes wrote it down...however there was no complete book...its logical...revelations are continuing so why would the book be complete...'mush'af' a book came afterwards and was only codified by Uthman 19 years after the Prophet died...would you like to either agree with this or refute it?...

The decision for the Quran (recitation) to be in a COMPLETE CODIFIED written form was Abu Bakr's decision? True or false?

Uthman adopted a uniform Quran and burned the remaining Qurans...true or false?...

 

[Jadz]

Any evidence for the following?...where is there any evidence that the Quran was compiled in book form before the Prophet died...

It's THE position among Sunni and Shia that the Quran was complete i.e. the recited form but the no mush'af (written form)...where have you got this 'completed book' idea from?...

Who compiled it?...am I lying about the Uthmani codification being the version being used?...

And also your position doesn't agree with common sense...if the Prophet is alive and still giving revelation then how are you going to have a completed book when he is alive...everything was written down by various scribes so nothing was missing but there was no formal book...it makes perfect sense that a book be formed after the Prophet died because of course this is where revelation ends...

It took 19 years for an actual book to be adopted...before that people were relying on various codifications along with the oral tradition of the Quran...

Did Zayd ibn Thabit not codify the Quran?...Did Ibn Masud not codify a version of a Quran?...Did Ali not codify a Quran?...did Uthman not decide to adopt one version?...did Uthman not burn all other codifications?...

Your comments are bizarre...i've never heard this completed book BEFORE he died argument anywhere before...

Even the shia who you love state that Ali presented a codified version to Abu Bakr 6 months AFTER the Prophets death but it was rejected...there was no adopted written form until Uthman took power...

Simple question Jadz...

Was there an adopted completed written form of the Quran (Mush'af) prior to the Prophets death?...

I actually challenge you to find ANYTHING which states that there was a Mush'af before the Prophet died...you won't cos no-one disagrees on this...

Thank you for your response. You are not in a position to challenge me to anything - please refrain from assuming God-like power or authority. You have rejected - wholesale - what you expect me to believe in, so reflect upon that for a moment or two.

With all due respect - I do not follow either Sunni or Shi'a interpretations of the Qur'an, or their versions of Islam. I only follow the Truth, inspired by Allah SWT. Your constant recourse to majority opinion and conventional wisdom in order to corroborate, substantiate or authenticate your view, does not in the least make any difference to me. You may accept what everyone else does, I am not obliged to do likewise.

Now: if you wish to use the Qur'an as the Criterion, then I suggest you ponder upon Q15:9, Q75:16-19 and Q85:21-22, wherein Allah SWT clearly states that He will guard His Book. This follows, logically, that He would hardly have left it to warring Muslims, or the Companions, to collect and compile the Qur'an - burning some copies for good measure. The very idea that different passages of the Qur'an were in the possession of different people is absurd. If all Muslims are agreed upon this narrative, then fine. I am not. And, if you have never heard of this before, then you have heard it now.

 

[shaykh]

Thank you for your response. You are not in a position to challenge me to anything - please refrain from assuming God-like power or authority. You have rejected - wholesale - what you expect me to believe in, so reflect upon that for a moment or two.

With all due respect - I do not follow either Sunni or Shi'a interpretations of the Qur'an, or their versions of Islam. I only follow the Truth, inspired by Allah SWT. Your constant recourse to majority opinion and conventional wisdom in order to corroborate, substantiate or authenticate your view, does not in the least make any difference to me. You may accept what everyone else does, I am not obliged to do likewise.

Now: if you wish to use the Qur'an as the Criterion, then I suggest you ponder upon Q15:9, Q75:16-19 and Q85:21-22, wherein Allah SWT clearly states that He will guard His Book. This follows, logically, that He would hardly have left it to warring Muslims, or the Companions, to collect and compile the Qur'an - burning some copies for good measure. The very idea that different passages of the Qur'an were in the possession of different people is absurd. If all Muslims are agreed upon this narrative, then fine. I am not. And, if you have never heard of this before, then you have heard it now.

No need to get defensive Jadz...I simply raised questions...I don't see where i declared myself to be God...your free to say whatever you like but don't get upset when someone challenges you on what you say...

For anyone else reading this the verses Jadz refers to speak about preservation of the Quran...now Jadz you never answered my question...Qur'an is recitation...Mush'af is written form...can you provide me any evidence that the Quran was in codified written form before the Prophet died...your verses don't claim that...and neither does logic agree with it...explain how a completed document can be existing while the Prophet is still alive?...

But then it occurred to me and you can clarify this...do you accept any historicity of Islam?...I mean you reject hadith...I presume then that you also reject sira?...so the likes of Ibn Ishaq and Tabari who made biographies of the Prophet...

It's an interesting position actually being a Quranist cos you know nothing of your prophet nor his companions...the Quran itself has absolutely no context whatsoever...

A simple question for you...when and how did Muhammad die?...did Abu Bakr exist?...Umar?...Ali?...only one of the companions was mentioned in the Quran that being Zayd...

On what basis are you even speaking about 'warring' Muslims...considering you reject seera?...how do you know Uthman went to war?...this information is only ascertained through seera which you reject...

I was initially going to ask if you felt that Abu Bakr, Umar, Ali, Uthman etc were liars but then i realize that based on your criteria they may never have existed so neither did the Uthman book burning, neither did Zayd's codification etc...did any of these people exist Jadz?...and if so can you explain why you think so?...

There are plenty of additional points to be made but lets leave it like this for now...and see if you actually believe any of Islamic history happened...

 

[kamz]

shaykh sahab, kuch honday ne jo begair parhan likhan tu jahalat wikhaan de ne

kuch honday ne jo ziyada parh likh ke jaahil hojaande tay sui wichhon wi nuqs kadh de ne, ke itthay ay masla tay uthay wo masla hai, zindagi aap mushkil banayi hondi hai..

Translated in english, some people are ignorant because they havent had the luxury to be educated.

But some people are ignorant because they have educated themselves so much, that they would criticise even on the simplest of things and somehow make it look complicated!!!

 

[speed]

yes, I would also like someone to refute shaykh's posts. Because when they are left unchallenged it gives the impression that they are the truth.

Most of his post are based on The sources even if he is an disbeliever.

 

[shaykh]

shaykh sahab, kuch honday ne jo begair parhan likhan tu jahalat wikhaan de ne

kuch honday ne jo ziyada parh likh ke jaahil hojaande tay sui wichhon wi nuqs kadh de ne, ke itthay ay masla tay uthay wo masla hai, zindagi aap mushkil banayi hondi hai..

Translated in english, some people are ignorant because they havent had the luxury to be educated.

But some people are ignorant because they have educated themselves so much, that they would criticise even on the simplest of things and somehow make it look complicated!!!

So what's simple Kamz?...do explain why i am ignorant...

 

[kamz]

So what's simple Kamz?...do explain why i am ignorant...

oh no bro i didnt say you were, i actually enjoyed reading your responses

i was actually tryin to say, why debate something to death, when clearly one line of your post is more than enough, where you clearly mention the word AND

 

[kamz]

oh no bro i didnt say you were, i actually enjoyed reading your responses

i was actually tryin to say, why debate something to death, when clearly one line of your post is more than enough, where you clearly mention the word AND

and explain it in context the whole verse

 

[shaykh]

oh no bro i didnt say you were, i actually enjoyed reading your responses

i was actually tryin to say, why debate something to death, when clearly one line of your post is more than enough, where you clearly mention the word AND

Lol my mistake ...and glad you're enjoying the responses...the 'And' was mentioned at the beginning of the thread but still doesn't seem to have registered ...

 

[KingKhanWC]

shaykh.

What difference does it make whether the Quran was in book form at the time of the Prophet(pbuh)? Every verse was written down and confirmed to be fully accurate by the Prophet(pbuh).

What would be more interesting is for you to describe what made you embrace Islam and then what made you leave Islam?

 

[chacha kashmiri]

When Muhammad died there was no book...the Quran was orally given and of course people did write it down but no COMPLETE written text existed...fallible human beings had written it down and memorized it orally...therefore after the prophets death it became the responsibility of fallible human beings to adopt a full book...was Zayd's Quran the only version?...

The Uthmani codification was chosen from a group of other Qurans...after all the reason you burn all the other Qurans is because there are differences between the Quranic versions...so while there might be a uniform Quran now...the whole point for the 19 years after the Prophets death is that there was difference of opinion among fallible human beings as to what the correct Mush'af was...thats a lot of trust to put into Zayd...the fact that Zayds codified version wasn't adopted publicly is a course of concern...Uthman saw it as important as adopting a uniform Quran because of how many different versions there were...and because of how different places were adopting different versions...

You failed to give the reason why the compilation of the Quran was started under the time of the caliph Abu Bakr
It was began when all the hafidh of the quran began to die in battle in large numbers so hadrat Umar came up with the idea and hadrat Hafsa , the daughter of Umar and wife of the Prophet pbuh played a big part as a hafisa herself and the copy of the quran was kept in her house
This was the copy with hadrat Uthman standardised and everyone agreed upon, the only changes were words like and, what and small words like that, the meaning did not change and everyone agreed with that

 

[shaykh]

shaykh.

What difference does it make whether the Quran was in book form at the time of the Prophet(pbuh)? Every verse was written down and confirmed to be fully accurate by the Prophet(pbuh).

What would be more interesting is for you to describe what made you embrace Islam and then what made you leave Islam?

Not sure how many of the posts in this thread but i'll clarify its importance...

Firstly my post was addressing a Quranist who believes hadith is nonsense because it is the work of fallible people...and that hadith sciences is flawed...and that Allah would never leave the Quran in the hands of fallible human beings...

Jadz suggested that the Quran was a book before the Prophet died...logically wrong and a falsehood if one looks at the sira...

The importance is that if you reject hadith then why agree with the Quran...the Quran was reliant on human scribes...the prophet never wrote anything down...there was also no book when the Prophet died...the Quran was completed but there was no formal codified book...

The preservation of the Quran was done by human beings...Abu Bakr at first via Zayd and then Uthman who came up with a final codified version...

It seems odd to not believe what these people say in terms of hadith but to trust them to maintain the Quran and codify it into a complete Mush'af post Muhammad...

The point about multiple codified versions existed is a side point...shows how human beings made mistakes with the Quran too...its the result of fallibility...Uthman didn't burn a whole host of Qurans cos they were all the same...

 

[shaykh]

You failed to give the reason why the compilation of the Quran was started under the time of the caliph Abu Bakr
It was began when all the hafidh of the quran began to die in battle in large numbers so hadrat Umar came up with the idea and hadrat Hafsa , the daughter of Umar and wife of the Prophet pbuh played a big part as a hafisa herself and the copy of the quran was kept in her house
This was the copy with hadrat Uthman standardised and everyone agreed upon, the only changes were words like and, what and small words like that, the meaning did not change and everyone agreed with that

I actually did mention that in one of the prior posts...that a lot of Muslims died in battle...700 i believe so Abu Bakr felt a need for a codified version...

The problem with your point is that if differences were so minscule then what is the problem with varying codifies...there was enough of a concern that the religion would get corrupted if a uniform version wasnt adopted...this doesnt suggest that the differences were insignificant...these dialect differences were significant enough that they had to be addressed...

Narrated by Anas bin Malik:
Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before."

So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you."

Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue."

They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. '

The Bukhari link is here:

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/66/9

 

[chacha kashmiri]

The point about multiple codified versions existed is a side point...shows how human beings made mistakes with the Quran too...its the result of fallibility...Uthman didn't burn a whole host of Qurans cos they were all the same...

It was for unification
The Muslim world was very divided during Hadrat Uthman's reign

 

[Mughal]

Hmm...your position isn't viable...the Quran has several verses which refer to obeying Allah AND his messenger...and where Allah says obeying his messenger is like obeying him...

Dear brother shaykh, as I see it, the problem seems to be the language and the realities related to it. The quran cannot be understood till people have deep and wide ranging life experiences or knowledge. It is not a school text book that takes you by hand from the day you are born and takes you through life step by step till the day you die, for that Allah has provided mankind with brains and senses as well as bodies and things to observe and learn from. The quran is for guidance of those who are able to make sense of it for running the kingdom of the universe. If a people have no sense what a program is, what goals are, what guidelines are, what community means, what society means, what organisation means, what regulation means, what constitution means, what rule of law means, what institution means, what politics means what economy means, what culture means, what system means, what structure means, what procedure means, what practice means, what ideology means, what action plan means, what ruler means, what subject or citizen means, what serving means, what money lender means, what mullah means and many more other things as well as how they work together or oppose each other then it is not just arabic language that is a problem but the lack of information one has and the lack of sense in putting it together. This is why when a book explains things at a higher level one cannot understand it being unaware of realities the book is talking about. So the solution of the problem is people should learn what they do not know so that they could see what the book is talking about so that then they could judge it if it is talking sense or nonsense and whether it can offer them any solutions to their problems.

No individual can educate ignorant, illiterate and uneducated people from scratch who have not even been to school even in 21st century but there should be and there are people and places for that purpose where people should spend their time for learning all the basics so that they have all the needed education and training for knowledge and skills ie schools, colleges and universities etc.


Mullahs do talk about some terms in their books of fiqh but they have developed a senseless parallel way of life as I have explained already whereby they mask the actual deen of islam and derail the ummah. For example, they use terms like ITAAT, ITIBAA, IJTIHAAD, TAQLEED and QAYAAS etc. Since you know what they means by it and so do all mullah followers I will only explain things the way I understand them.

The most important word in this respect is word IBAADAH from root AIN, BAA and DAAL. AIN means eye, BAA means house and DAAL means door. This root has many different meanings but they all revolve around concept of bond. This is why this word also has meaning of master and slave or founder and founded, originator and originated, ruler and subject, worshipped and worshipper, adorer and the adorn etc etc.

Word IBAADAH shows there is some kind of bond between Allah and people. The question is what is that bond and what is purpose of it? Beside word IBAADAH the quran uses many other words as well for various kinds of relationships between Allah and his creature called human being eg word KHAALIQ tells us Allah is creator and human beings are his creation. Since I have explained already the purpose of human creation according to Allah ie so that people come to know about Allah so I will not repeat that here. I explained already why the quran is a book for mankind for establishing a universal kingdom in the name of Allah. It is in that context I am going to explain the meanings of the words I stated above.

1) Word ITAAT is from root TWAA, WOW and AIN. It has many meanings but one of its meaning is to be one with the idea of another ie to be in agreement with the advice or idea of another ie be one ideologically or be consistent with another person ideologically or be of the same mind or be like minded. Other meanings include obedience, response, acceptance, amenability etc etc.

In the quranic context a person becomes a muslim who voluntarily accepts islam because he agrees with message of God and his messenger and anyone who supports the same ideology or advice or message. Anyone who does not agree with advice of God is termed kaafir. There is no compulsion in islam for making anyone accept islam as a deen. From all this it should be obvious that anyone who is mentally inconsistent with the message of the quran is not a muslim.


2) Word ITIBAA is from root TAA, BAA and AIN. This root also has many different meanings but one of its meaning is to be one with another in practice or action or be consistent with another in actions or support someone in his actions physically. In the quranic context it means practically supporting the messenger of Allah in his mission so that the mission becomes accomplished.


3) Word TAQLEED is from root QAAF, LAAM and DAAL This root also has various meanings but one of its meanings is a tie or band ie something that binds things together for some purpose eg a rope that ties pieces of wood together so that they do not scatter. In the quranic context it means a mechanism that helps followers of deen of islam stick together as one people or ummah for the purpose of unity, peace, progress and prosperity of mankind. It is a way of ensuring constitutional or legal conformity for some purpose.


4) Word IJTIHAAD is from root JEEM, HAA and DAAL. It has many meanings including fighting or war etc but one of its meanings is to make effort for achieving some goal or for fulfilling some task. Word JIHAAD is derived from this root. In the quranic context it means to make effort for leaning the quran properly so that one could use it for guidance of oneself and others in order to implement the message of the quran to make it an actual reality.


5) Word QAYAAS is from root QAAF, ALIF and SEEN and QAAF, YAA and SEEN. This root also has various meanings but one of its meanings is to estimate one thing with help of another thing for some purpose. In the quranic context it means to form an opinion with help of some other similar situation.


The quran is the program of deen of islam and its constitution and law as already explained and from all this explanation it is very easy to see that quran acts as a point of reference for a people who claim to be muslims therefore they ought to be consistent with the quran ideologically and also must follow it in their actions but be united in following it as a people so that the goals or mission set by the quran becomes accomplished.


Points to note

1) Muslims cannot be one ummah ideologically if they fail to accept the quran as sole ideological basis for themselves.

2) Muslims cannot be one ummah if they fail to carry through their commitment to quranic ideology even if they accept the quran as the sole basis for their ideology.

3) Muslims cannot be one ummah unless they see the need for conformity and unity and devise a sensible mechanism to achieve this unity ideologically and in taking any actions for accomplishing the mission.


Taqleed in islam is not about each person heading his own way or each group of people heading in their own way. That spells the end of family, group, company, community, country whatever people think they should be united for eg to be an ummah.


Individuals are free to think each and everything in islam but they must bring their thinking to each other's attention through gatherings at various levels for consultations between themselves as a proper human community and then become one on basis of the idea that is thought of as the best and follow it through together as one people ie no divisions after ummah has decided upon that matter by a simple majority in light of the quran and the ground realities that face ummah regarding some situation.

Sunnah is “A word spoken, or an act done, or a confirmation given by the Holy Prophet Muhammad'

I completely disagree with your definition of sunnah because as I very clearly explained already such a way to follow the messenger of Allah is simply impossible due to being impractical for human beings.

This Quran only position makes absolutely no sense...if one takes that position then the Quran has no context and is simply a bunch of isolated verses...

No brother shaykh that is not the case, not only the quran any book you sit down to read makes sense only if you have the knowledge about things it is talking about not otherwise. It is the knowledge about things the book talks about that helps contextualise the book. No book is ever written by anyone without some purpose in mind, how silly that you think Allah will throw at us random verses that have no purpose so they make no sense whatsoever even if we have learned information about things it is talking about. If you have studied works of scholars of deen of islam you will see all scholars worth the name accept as the basic principle that the quran interprets itself. TAFSEER of the quran by the quran is a well known rule for tafseer of the quran.

none of the Sahaba followed this and if you accept the Quran then you accept that the Sahaba were deemed the best of people...

The companions of the messenger of Allah had nothing other than the quran to make sense of the quran beside their knowledge based upon their own life experiences. The messenger of Allah left us nothing other than the quran and his sunnah the way I explained it. Remember it was his sunnah to work for accomplishing a kingdom in the name of Allah for blissful, dignified and secure existence of ummah and rest of humanity. He did not tell us to wear turbans like him and travel by camels. He told us to be leaders of humanity towards deen of Allah for ensuring well being of humanity.

how exactly do you determine abrogation?...and i suppose you reject Ijma too?...

Derar shaykh, there is no such thing as abrogation in the message of deen of islam, such concepts are created by mullahs to do away with deen of islam so that they could replace it with their own nonsense. Don't be fooled by their misinterpretations of verses like 2/106 etc. It is because the quran is talking about how nations rise and fall in 2/106. There Allah is explaining how he has set-up systems and laws in the universe as a standard for nations to survive or perish depending upon how closely they follow his revelations or reject them. The universe is set-up by Allah to work according to his set laws and his revelation in form of the quran explains all this in all necessary detail. This is why people who follow guidance of Allah always survive and flourish but the rest perish always, some suddenly due to natural causes because they do not prepare themselves in time for natural disasters others perish after prolonged suffering by hands of each other because they live their lives on basis of personal gains at the expense of each other. So people who learn about realities of real world get two advantages a)they survive because they know what is coming in advance in comparison to people who remain ignorant and b)the knowledge of real world also helps them understand the revelation of Allah properly if they decide to study it after all that knowledge they gain from studying the natural world. However if they do not then they have no moral compass so they use their advantages against the disadvantaged people and at the end of the day the reaction of the disadvantaged people comes in leaps and bounds and so perish such people as well in due course. This is what is meant by abrogation you are talking about ie nations that do not try to have what it takes to survive perish ie they are made obsolete or that they are deleted by laws of nature because they fail to meet the standard set for survival of nations.

Out of interest Mughal is alcohol permissible?

Dear shaykh, Allah does not forbid anything at all because forbidding things is a senseless thing to do. You will not be able to understand unless I explain it for you as to what I am saying. In deen of islam state of existence of things and their actions are of vital importance to determine their legality. Allah has created all things including people. He has given man the right to have and use all things he has created but only for well being of oneself and others as a proper human community. To have anything or use anything in a way that may cause harm or destruction of oneself or of proper human community is unlawful. Likewise people are duty bound to have and use things properly ie lawfully to ensure well being of proper human community.

Things are not made unlawful or lawful because it is only to have them or to use them that can prove harmful or beneficial. Suppose, I ask you, is a car lawful or unlawful or a knife lawful or unlawful or a gun lawful or unlawful or a plate lawful or unlawful etc etc, you will become confused and start asking me questions in order to clarify what i am talking about. So merely declaring things lawful and unlawful means nothing at all because it makes no sense. The other reason is that very same thing under different applications can be lawful as well as unlawful. Now if something was declared unlawful then it will not be lawful no matter what and things do not work like that in real world. Such are the points in the quran that prove it word of God beyond a shadow of doubt because in telling people things which require so much learning and thinking by people the quran makes no mistakes at all. This is why the quran clearly states Allah has forbidden harmful uses of things and has allowed good uses of things. See words in the quran like KHABAAIS and TAIYAB etc. In fact Allah asks mullahs how dare you forbid having and using things that make life of people beautiful eg see 7/32. Mullahs of bani israel are particularly talked about in this regard because they forbade things to people which Allah did not.

How much zakat does one need to pay?
How does one pray?...

This has been explained already. Word ZAKAAH in the qurann is not used for 2.5% tax on the rich. It is because in the deen of islam people are a family who live for each other so there does not arise need for such a thing. All share whatever they have because they care for well being of each other. Muslims of today have nothing to do with deen of islam. They are not only not caring and sharing things with each other but in actual fact many of them are busy trying to kill each other. They were supposed to be beacon of hope for the rest of humanity.

I have already explained that word SALAAH is not used in the quran for prayers but for community network ie people are supposed to become a proper human community in the name of Allah and set-up a kingdom that ensures blissful, dignified and secure existence of its people and acts as beacon for rest of humanity to show them how to live in this world properly. People are free to call upon God as and when they feel like it to express their desires and wishes to him. Prayers do not change mind of Allah because if mind of Allah could be changed by people then what will become of his plan for the world and human beings in it? Moreover there are so many people in conflict with each other all the time so whose wishes Allah should grant and and why and whose wishes should he ignore and way? So Allah cannot tell people to pray and then not grant them their wishes. That will be really a bad thing to do to people for Allah. Also minds of people are not always in mood of praying and Allah does not need anyone's praises if they are only a lip service because true glory of Allah can only show through when people establish his kingdom in the universe with help of his guidance and have a great life. Further more Allah has already revealed what he wanted to say to people so he has nothing more to say to people otherwise prophethood had to be continued and there ought to be sent more books by Allah after the quran. However if people do want to know what he has to say, they should study his message and find out. As I explained already what people take as prayer sessions are actually re-affirmations of MISAAQ=Covenant that Allah has exacted from all people through their messengers. This is why there is AZAAN for calling people to come and re-affirm their commitment to mission of Allah as a proper human community.

By suggesting Quran only if anything you are the one suggesting the Prophet is a robot whose sole role was to say a few things for people to write down with the freedom to do whatever he wanted in his free time...Quranists have no idea who their Prophet it nor have any desire to...it's an odd position to take...

What a pity brother shaykh that you are putting your words in my mouth. I did not suggest that the messenger of Allah was a robot that he just delivered the message and wasted rest of his time doing nothing at all. How did he bring about a community and a kingdom if he did not get involved in implementation of the message of Allah? That is why at the end of his time he said to his ummah I am leaving you two things the book of Allah and my work as an example ie the kingdom, so long as you will adhere to the book for attaining and maintaining the kingdom you will be fine. Since ummah gave up the book and the kingdom one can see what has become of it.

All people who learn the quran properly know quite a lot about the messenger of Allah even with out referring to other sources produced by muslims such a hadis and fiqh etc because the quran details all necessary things which humanity needs for ever.

The point about classification is odd too...you dismiss fard and haram?...with your Islam I can read the Quran, interpret it how I want with my unqualified eyes and do what I like...

This has been explained in detail but please do read what I write and try to see the context in which I am responding so that it helps you see deen of islam for what it is worth.

this angle used about 'hadith' contradicting the Quran is a copout too...'I like this hadith' isn't a criteria...matn (meaning) isn't a criteria alone...if some random says something that is in line with the Quran this doesn't mean the Prophet said it...and i find this is a position that hadith rejectors take to not look like hadith rejectors...they accept hadith not based on any real criteria...

Then you go on and say;

That said i do believe hadith collection is flawed...however the point is Islam requires it...and can't be practiced without it...

You as a Muslim take the position it is flawed and reject it despite Allah requiring it everywhere in the Quran...it makes no sense...

Since you agree to what I said there is little for me to add except for Allah requiring hadis. Nowhere in the quran Allah requires hadis but it is good to have historical accounts as well. Had Allah required hadis then the prophet will have made same effort for ensuring recording of the hadis works as well as he made for the quran.

I agree that documenting everything the Prophet did is impossible and many hadith have been missed...this is a flaw of Islam as opposed to it not being part of Islam...

If anything was supposed to be part of deen of islam it had to be preserved, no ifs and buts about it. So what could not be preserved was not necessary for knowing about deen of islam.

Anyhow i might as well provide a few verses:


Obey Allâh and the Messenger, but if they turn their backs, Allâh loves not the disbelievers. (3:32)

And obey Allâh and the Messenger so that you may be blessed. (3:132)

Explained above.

O those who believe, obey Allâh and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. (4:59)

I have already explained everything about the community and the kingdom based upon guidance of Allah. It is a bottom up power structure not top down. Competent people are put in administration by the ummah through mutual consultation to serve community not rule it. This is why there can be consistency between Allah, his book, his messenger and his people. If people rule each other then that consistency is simply impossible because in that case each person is for himself not for others. However if there arises any dispute between the community and its administration then problem should be solved according to the book of Allah just like the messenger himself will have done in light of real world realities so that consistency remains intact.

Why not say obey Allah only?...Allah creates a distinction between himself and Muhammad...

And whoever obeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has won a great success. (33:71)

Again the clue is the word AND..

The distinction is only there to show the involved entities consistency among whom is required for things to work properly.

In arabic language preposition can be used for each other because they are there to complete the sense of the text in a context more than expressing their precise meanings. This is why words like MIN, ALA, BI, FI, LI, ILAA etc etc can be used for each other. One can open up any english translation of the quran and read it through and see what I am saying.

As for particle WOW is concerned, it is not only used as and but also as however, although, behold, even though, but, yet, nonetheless, so, therefore, so that, as well as, that is why, that is how, in that manner, that way, hence, thus, such as, through, via, because, whereas, thereby, whereby etc etc.

And obeying the Prophet is the equivalent of obeying Allah...

And whoever obeys the Messenger, thereby obeys Allâh./QUOTE]

This is about consistency of objectives or purpose or mission that all are one ie Allah, his messengers and his missionaries ie they all agree with each other regarding the goals. This is why it is called party of Allah. Ruler is Allah alone not any of his messengers or any of his people. They are all his subjects and under his jurisdiction.

There are other verses and other arguments that can be provided but tbf i don't see the logic of people accepting Islam and rejecting Sunnah...

I do not see logical consistency in accepting a definition of deen or sunnah that is impossible in practice or serves no purpose.

regards and all the best.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

I actually did mention that in one of the prior posts...that a lot of Muslims died in battle...700 i believe so Abu Bakr felt a need for a codified version...

The problem with your point is that if differences were so minscule then what is the problem with varying codifies...there was enough of a concern that the religion would get corrupted if a uniform version wasnt adopted...this doesnt suggest that the differences were insignificant...these dialect differences were significant enough that they had to be addressed...

Narrated by Anas bin Malik:
Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before."

So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you."

Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue."

They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. '

The Bukhari link is here:

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/66/9

they differed over pronunciation, simply because Islam had spread so far and wide, people began to read the quran in their own different dialects
Nothing more to it

 

[KingKhanWC]

Not sure how many of the posts in this thread but i'll clarify its importance...

Firstly my post was addressing a Quranist who believes hadith is nonsense because it is the work of fallible people...and that hadith sciences is flawed...and that Allah would never leave the Quran in the hands of fallible human beings...

Jadz suggested that the Quran was a book before the Prophet died...logically wrong and a falsehood if one looks at the sira...

The importance is that if you reject hadith then why agree with the Quran...the Quran was reliant on human scribes...the prophet never wrote anything down...there was also no book when the Prophet died...the Quran was completed but there was no formal codified book...

The preservation of the Quran was done by human beings...Abu Bakr at first via Zayd and then Uthman who came up with a final codified version...

It seems odd to not believe what these people say in terms of hadith but to trust them to maintain the Quran and codify it into a complete Mush'af post Muhammad...

The point about multiple codified versions existed is a side point...shows how human beings made mistakes with the Quran too...its the result of fallibility...Uthman didn't burn a whole host of Qurans cos they were all the same...

I don't subscribe to Jadz views on Islam but I think she is sincere in her beliefs.

I don't think there is any strong evidence to suggest mistakes were made with the Quran, as to say it has been altered/changed in the early or later times. Whether you believe or not it has to be agreed the ease in which these verses can be memorized and recited back is pretty extraordinary. Uthman only burnt those Quran's because of a dialect issue with them as far as im aware.

But i genuinely would like to hear why you embraced and left Islam.

 

[shaykh]

I don't subscribe to Jadz views on Islam but I think she is sincere in her beliefs.

I don't think there is any strong evidence to suggest mistakes were made with the Quran, as to say it has been altered/changed in the early or later times. Whether you believe or not it has to be agreed the ease in which these verses can be memorized and recited back is pretty extraordinary. Uthman only burnt those Quran's because of a dialect issue with them as far as im aware.

But i genuinely would like to hear why you embraced and left Islam.

It's a long story but I took on Islam because i was convinced of it when it was presented to me...but the things on which i was convinced then wouldn't work now...

I guess my problem was that i continued reading...and debating...and after a while i started being less certain of what i believed...a few aspects were of concern...i realized i couldn't prove Quran...and found its literary miracle claims far fetched...also came the realization that i wasnt convinced and that while i may officially believe in something i didn't deep down...and realizing that i was hell bound for being sincere made no sense to me...neither did thought about my purpose...

In addition it became very difficult to accept some of views professed in Islam...rationally i have always had arguments that agreed with my thought process however when i believed in Islam i could always make the argument that Allah knows better than I...as someone who doesnt believe i can now express my own thoughts...

Belief and disbelief has never been a choice...i'd love to believe in something but unfortunately i don't...

 

[shaykh]

they differed over pronunciation, simply because Islam had spread so far and wide, people began to read the quran in their own different dialects
Nothing more to it

Different dialects meant that meanings were changing...dialects are different...which means different Quran...people were making mistakes because of how Islam was being spread...and also different areas were adopting different codifices...even if meanings weren't changing words and structures were...

'Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before'

This suggests more of a problem than what you are making out...the desire for a uniform Quran makes perfect rational sense...but makes sense when there are significant differences and you want to avoid confusion...if differences are minimal there is no need...

 

[shaykh]

Read my post to Jadz...all the Quran is is a bunch of arbitrary laws without hadith and seera...absolutely nothing has context without them...the fact that you don't acknowledge abrogation makes everything harder for the layman cos verses are clearly contradictory depending on which of the two stages they are in...

Tbf i'm a little confused as to what Islam means in practice for you...you don't believe in doing 5 prayers, giving zakat...on your alcohol point...alcohol isn't harmful unless in large doses so based on that criteria you're saying it is permissible?...

Tafsir of the Quran requires hadith...the Quran itself doesnt explain why each verse was revealed and when...

I do however agree on hadith that it is impossible to form a complete set of the Prophets words and actions...hence Islam is incomplete but then Islam is incomplete without the hadith...it offers a bunch of rules without instructions and as stated already the word AND the Messenger...

i'm just not convinced of your analysis of AND...it makes a lot more sense that the meanings of those verses require two different things...following Allah and his Messenger...the fact that obeying Muhammad is showing how both are as important as each other...

Btw feel free to answer the questions I raised with Jadz...I'd be interested in hearing what your understanding is of history considering you reject hadith also...

 

[DHONI183]

What Do You Know About Islam?

To my understanding ISIS's belief in this area is the same...

I.e enslavement of dhimmi isn't applicable...although the Ottomans violated this principle...this is why Yazidis are eligible for slave status but Christians are not due to the fact that they are jizya payers...

One reality that was permissible before but not applicable now is purchasing existing slaves...with slavery having been abolished in most places purchasing slaves isn't as easy as it once was...although that said human trafficking is a huge market so there is of course still potential to purchase existing slaves...its obviously not as societally acceptable as it once was...

On your final question...generally combatants were any adult males...

Those who were given non combatant status were: women, children, servants, wounded, elderly, priests and disabled.

It was not permitted to kill this category of people due to their non combatant status but it was ok to enslave them or take them as spoils of war...Banu Qurayza as an example involved killing all the men of the tribe and enslaving the women and children...Male POW's are allowed to be excuted according to 3 of the 4 schools of thought...however Hanafi madhab for instance states male POW's shouldn't be executed unless guilty of a crime...the other schools give the ruler to do as he pleases in terms of males...as for women and children they are generally either set free, enslaved or ransomed...

Thank you for your answers, brother.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

So what is your disagreement exactly?...the way Bukhari collated hadith or what I have said about how Bukhari differentiated between strong and weak hadith?...

cos if it's the former then I don't disagree...I believe hadith collection to be flawed...but that is something Sunnis believe in hence why its important to mention it...

And if its the latter then again i'd ask you to refute what I have said...and tell me how hadith was collated...

Hadith collection might well be flawed, there is no way you can say categorically that it was flawless beyond proof. Doesn't really matter what scholars or some Sunnis say or don't say. Hadith are called traditions for a reason, they are there to provide context and guidance, they aren't meant to be infallible or absolute word of God equal to the Quran. Otherwise of course the whole Islamic world would be pledging allegiance to ISIS, but as far as I'm aware not a single Muslim country has done so.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Frankly, you've done nothing but debate points fairly and with some research/work behind you and it seems to me that some people can't handle it and would prefer to attack you personally instead, while contributing nothing.

Yes he's debating most nicely other than accusing people who raise differences of opinion of trolling.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

Different dialects meant that meanings were changing...dialects are different...which means different Quran...people were making mistakes because of how Islam was being spread...and also different areas were adopting different codifices...even if meanings weren't changing words and structures were...

'Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before'

This suggests more of a problem than what you are making out...the desire for a uniform Quran makes perfect rational sense...but makes sense when there are significant differences and you want to avoid confusion...if differences are minimal there is no need...

There were no significant differences, otherwise it would have a perfect reason for the opponentss of hadrat Uthman and even Hadrat Ali to go to war with Hadrat Uthman over as what you're claiming is a very serious charge and akin to blasphemy

They found other faults in him, including promoting ummayads and giving them land which although controversial were much hotly debated over than the unification of the Quran

Your point is nullified just as the claim over the pedophilia (astagfirullah) claim over the prophet (pbuh) as there were numerous other qualms about the Prophet pbuh amongst the quraish but none over his marrying of a 6-9 year old

 

[Mughal]

Read my post to Jadz...all the Quran is is a bunch of arbitrary laws without hadith and seera...absolutely nothing has context without them...

Dear brother shaykh, if you think about it, things do have context but one does not yet have idea how and this is what our journey of discovery is all about. Was the universe there when a person was born? Yes, did one know the context how things fitted together? No. Was it because the universe did not fit together before one was born therefore it had no context or was it one's lack of knowledge about it? You will agree it was lack of one's knowledge about it. It is because when you are born you know absolutely nothing at all. Then learning begins as senses trigger or stimulate you brain and brain starts gathering and processing information. It is then you start putting it together to see how it may fit together. So your brain enters the process of constructing and de-constructing and reconstructing the information till it makes sense of it or looks for more information for it etc etc. I have explained this whole thing in another thread where I talked about origin of knowledge. Anything people do not find ways to understand looks just a jumble of things not just the quran. However when one finds a way to make sense of things then they look either beautiful or ugly. They look beautiful if they benefit one and ugly if they pose danger to one.

the fact that you don't acknowledge abrogation makes everything harder for the layman cos verses are clearly contradictory depending on which of the two stages they are in...

As I said above already that it is your understanding of things that is important not just things. It depends on how much you have learned about things in your life that helps you make sense of things. Learning is all about seeing or discovering connections between things ie how they relate to each other. They could be harmonious or they could be in conflict with each other or may even be harmonious as well as conflicting because it all depends upon from which angles you are viewing them or for what purpose. In case of the quran, the purpose of this book is very clear that it is sent by Allah to guide mankind to a blissful, dignifies and secure existence in the universe. So to view each and every statement of it in that context is of vital importance. Since all verses in the quran can be seen and shown in harmony therefore sensible therefore to see or show them in conflict is wrong. It is because our mind and the universe is designed in such a way that we must go for connecting things in harmony because otherwise things can make no sense to us therefore only if they do not connect that way we can see the conflict ie seeing disunity or disharmony in things is by product of trying to discover harmony in them. This is why when we try to fit things together and they do not fit together so that we could make sense of them then we try others ways to put them together and only give up when we see no way to harmonise things.

Since the statements in the quran can be harmonised with each other by way of simple explanations through other statements from within the quran therefore abrogation concept makes no sense. This also shows that if something can be explained properly then to deliberately twist it is not the right way to go about doing things. Not only that abrogation idea makes no sense in the context of the quran but a serious question arises, why Allah in such a short period of time will need to go back on things he told earlier? Moreover if he was forced to change his mind in just 23 years of prophetic life of his messenger then what about last 1400+years? World never stopped changing even for a moment ever since it was created and put to work. So all these things that mullahs have spread in the ummah are total nonsense and people must get out of this nonsense. The sooner the better or mullahs will keep them in terrible state of knowledge and existence.

Tbf i'm a little confused as to what Islam means in practice for you...you don't believe in doing 5 prayers, giving zakat...on your alcohol point...alcohol isn't harmful unless in large doses so based on that criteria you're saying it is permissible?...

Tafsir of the Quran requires hadith...the Quran itself doesnt explain why each verse was revealed and when...

I do however agree on hadith that it is impossible to form a complete set of the Prophets words and actions...hence Islam is incomplete but then Islam is incomplete without the hadith...it offers a bunch of rules without instructions and as stated already the word AND the Messenger...

This is a question you need to ask those who do these senseless things that have no benefit for humanity or Allah at all nor make any sense in any way. It was a way invented by mullahs to keep people busy through giving them sense of personal piety using different tricks in doing useless things so that they do not have time to question rulers and money lenders and so that that way they could keep on using and abusing them. This is why rulers did not build schools, colleges and universes or hospitals beyond their own personal needs and requirement. If muslims were so rich and powerful then that was all due to their knowledge about real world realities and the quran but when they got the power and riches they gradually turned away from the same thing and the ummah went down hill never to recover. Muslims were anti imperialism and authoritarianism yet ended up imperialists and authoritarians themselves.

The cause of down fall of ummah was not infighting between muslims themselves but open border policy of the ummah. It was due to this policy the kingdom became overwhelmed by incomers from outside. When kingdom lets far too many people in from outside with which it cannot cope it is bound to suffer a fall down as ignorance spreads and poverty and crime start appearing and keep increasing. This is how imperialism got its chance to reappear after it was totally destroyed within jurisdiction of deen of islam. It is because islamic history is not looked though quranic perspective that we have a lot of things wrongly interpreted in it and attributed to deen of islam. Time will come when truth will start appearing again and falsehood will vanish but it is going to take its time and that is because a huge population of humanity is still in terrible state of total ignorance. Only when people wake up each other things will really change. It shows how great people the messengers of Allah were that within a short period of their lives they could gather around them so many people because they could give them great minds that could change the world to this degree. So deen of islam is not a pooja paat spree or a rush for personal piety but doing what needs to be done to make life of mankind blissful, dignified and secure. If people are not going for that then all their claims for being muslims are false because they are just slaves of rulers, money lenders and mullahs.

You will hear people talking about paradise underneath feet of mother but what you will not here them say is who is that mother? It is UMMAH=community or nation. Only if a people as a whole do well all mothers in the community will be safe and sound because people will be a community and if a human population is in terrible state of existence then none of its mothers are going to be safe and sound nor any of their children. So life becomes a paradise if people become a community on basis of the quran but hell otherwise where no one is safe any more. I did not say that you do not need hadis to help understand the quran but only those hadis that explain the quran in its own context. Hadis are not supposed to tell us another kind of islam that is very different or in fact opposite from the islam that is found in the quran.

i'm just not convinced of your analysis of AND...it makes a lot more sense that the meanings of those verses require two different things...following Allah and his Messenger...the fact that obeying Muhammad is showing how both are as important as each other...

I gave you meanings of actual words not just AND for WOW. Moreover open up any translation and see how translators have translated WOW throughout their quranic translations. Allah is a being of very different category and so is his word. The quran is therefore sole authority that cannot be challenge by anyone not even the greatest of his messengers never mind hadis which may not even be a hadis if it is appears to be against the quran.

Btw feel free to answer the questions I raised with Jadz...I'd be interested in hearing what your understanding is of history considering you reject hadith also...

It is a huge undertaking to write history of islam using quran and hadis and other sources and I will be glad if I could complete my work on the quran so that future scholarship of deen of islam could take things further. For me if I lived that long my next task will be to interpret the hadis works, history should be targeted after that in order of importance. If original sources related to deen of islam are interpreted consistently then that will make much easier work of coming scholars of deen of islam.

regards and all the best.

 

[shaykh]

Hadith collection might well be flawed, there is no way you can say categorically that it was flawless beyond proof. Doesn't really matter what scholars or some Sunnis say or don't say. Hadith are called traditions for a reason, they are there to provide context and guidance, they aren't meant to be infallible or absolute word of God equal to the Quran. Otherwise of course the whole Islamic world would be pledging allegiance to ISIS, but as far as I'm aware not a single Muslim country has done so.

Lol I have debated with those who seem to know an iota about what they are talking about...

The fact that you mention ISIS as sole followers of hadith shows how little you know about this subject...i'll say to you what I said to Javelin...if you don't know about a subject don't talk about it...i don't get involved in hinduism convos cos i know nothing...

In short it is a Sunni position to take some hadith as belief...to reject mutawaatir hadith is shirk according to Sunnis...not ISIS...so your position is not a Sunni position...

We can debate forever what Islam is...but different strands have clear criteria and differences...a Jehovahs witness doesnt believe in what Catholics believe and that is clear...different strands are clear on what makes them a strand...so Sunnis don't believe in what you have written at all...

 

[shaykh]

There were no significant differences, otherwise it would have a perfect reason for the opponentss of hadrat Uthman and even Hadrat Ali to go to war with Hadrat Uthman over as what you're claiming is a very serious charge and akin to blasphemy

They found other faults in him, including promoting ummayads and giving them land which although controversial were much hotly debated over than the unification of the Quran

Your point is nullified just as the claim over the pedophilia (astagfirullah) claim over the prophet (pbuh) as there were numerous other qualms about the Prophet pbuh amongst the quraish but none over his marrying of a 6-9 year old

This is actually a credible response...and i can see why some believe this argument even if it doesn't convince me...differences are differences regardless of dialect...and promise of preservation should surely have ensured there wouldn't have been problems yet there was fear that Islam could become corrupted like Christianity...pronunciation differences in any dialect can change meaning and thats the point...this pronunciation differences meant people were misinterpreting Islam...

As for Muhammad comment...its out of place...just cos no-one got annoyed at Muhammad marrying a child doesn't mean much...it shows that it was acceptable at the time...but a lot of things have been acceptable in history...

They used to bury children alive and everyone used to stand by and allow it to happen...does this make it defensible?...of course not...

 

[shaykh]

Thank you for your answers, brother.

You're welcome bro

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Lol I have debated with those who seem to know an iota about what they are talking about...

The fact that you mention ISIS as sole followers of hadith shows how little you know about this subject...i'll say to you what I said to Javelin...if you don't know about a subject don't talk about it...i don't get involved in hinduism convos cos i know nothing...

In short it is a Sunni position to take some hadith as belief...to reject mutawaatir hadith is shirk according to Sunnis...not ISIS...so your position is not a Sunni position...

We can debate forever what Islam is...but different strands have clear criteria and differences...a Jehovahs witness doesnt believe in what Catholics believe and that is clear...different strands are clear on what makes them a strand...so Sunnis don't believe in what you have written at all...

So if there are different strands same as in Christianity or Catholicism as per your examples, how do we know that the Sunni strand that you are putting forward is the authoritative one? It clearly isn't accepted by the Sunni world at large otherwise there would be more countries implementing this doctrine. More at least than the present number of 0.

 

[niishaa]

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.

 

[Jadz]

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.

You are welcome, Niishaa.

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.

2) Muslims may attend mosque as often as they can, and they usually do so when the 'adhaan - call to prayer - is made. Which means Muslims visit their mosques 5 times a day, if possible.

3) Muslims are introduced to the Qur'an at a very early age, where they study it and are taught how to read it in Arabic. Yes, most Muslims have read the entire Qur'an, many times. Usually, children are taught the Qur'an at home, by a qualified teacher, if there are no schools available, or, if they live in non-Muslim countries. However, there are many schools set up, for the express purpose of teaching the Qur'an, even in people's homes.

Regarding Muslims asking questions about what is and is not prohibited: this is because most Muslims are unable to understand Qur'anic Arabic, and thus are forced to seek clarifications from scholars and learned individuals. Otherwise, the Qur'an itself is quite clear, it has very, very few laws, and does not prescribe endless statutes, which would burden the community of believers. Where Muslims are uncertain of a matter - that is, whether it is permitted or not - they are advised to leave it alone.

4) Muslim men and women do pray together, only that the women are located behind their male counterparts. This is not a cultural issue, it is related to the way human beings are designed. Women, being endowed with beauty by God, would cause a stir and distraction if they performed prayers next to, or in front of, men.

5) It is an erroneous idea to suggest that women who have been raped require 4 witnesses. Those witnesses would be required to intervene and prevent the act of rape taking place - they would not be standing there watching, and then step forward to offer witness testimony, they would be in danger of being arrested. It is an offence not to help when a crime is being perpetrated in one's presence - or, to at least call for help.

I have written an article about this, you might find it interesting -


http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...e-And-Its-Burden-Of-Proof-In-Islam&highlight=

 

[niishaa]

You are welcome, Niishaa.

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.

2) Muslims may attend mosque as often as they can, and they usually do so when the 'adhaan - call to prayer - is made. Which means Muslims visit their mosques 5 times a day, if possible.

3) Muslims are introduced to the Qur'an at a very early age, where they study it and are taught how to read it in Arabic. Yes, most Muslims have read the entire Qur'an, many times. Usually, children are taught the Qur'an at home, by a qualified teacher, if there are no schools available, or, if they live in non-Muslim countries. However, there are many schools set up, for the express purpose of teaching the Qur'an, even in people's homes.

Regarding Muslims asking questions about what is and is not prohibited: this is because most Muslims are unable to understand Qur'anic Arabic, and thus are forced to seek clarifications from scholars and learned individuals. Otherwise, the Qur'an itself is quite clear, it has very, very few laws, and does not prescribe endless statutes, which would burden the community of believers. Where Muslims are uncertain of a matter - that is, whether it is permitted or not - they are advised to leave it alone.

4) Muslim men and women do pray together, only that the women are located behind their male counterparts. This is not a cultural issue, it is related to the way human beings are designed. Women, being endowed with beauty by God, would cause a stir and distraction if they performed prayers next to, or in front of, men.

5) It is an erroneous idea to suggest that women who have been raped require 4 witnesses. Those witnesses would be required to intervene and prevent the act of rape taking place - they would not be standing there watching, and then step forward to offer witness testimony, they would be in danger of being arrested. It is an offence not to help when a crime is being perpetrated in one's presence - or, to at least call for help.

I have written an article about this, you might find it interesting -


http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...e-And-Its-Burden-Of-Proof-In-Islam&highlight=

Thanks Jadz and it was quick.

 

[Jadz]

Thanks Jadz and it was quick.

You are welcome, Niishaa - anytime

 

[QazzarFan]

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.

 

[Mamoon]

[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?

 

[OZGOD]

No, Mithun, Islam does not possess such a belief. The earth and universe are aeons old, the Qur'an states this in several places. The Christians interpret Biblical passages in a literal sense, which is why some of them adhere to the 6000-year-old belief.

Regarding the shape of the earth: the Qur'an refers to its roundness, through its Verses about the rotation of the sun, moon, and starts, and the movement of the earth itself. Which is why the Early Muslim scholars discovered the real shape of the earth long before the Europeans did.

That's interesting you say that Jadz, that was one of my questions above. I used the Genesis story as an example.
Obviously every Christian is different as is every Muslim. But even in Catholic schools (which I went to) they teach science not creationism. I always thought that it was Muslims who interpret the Quran literally, which is why you see all the stoning to death, cutting hands off, crucifixions, enslaving infidel women and children etc, killing apostates, because according to ISIS and their scholars those punishments are in the Quran or in the hadiths.

Without wishing to derail the thread, I wanted to update what I had said earlier. Even Pope Francis has come out and said that evolution is real and belief in evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive. An example of trying to move away from interpreting the Bible literally. Yes there are some Christian fundamentalists that still want to interpret it literally - I suppose they are our version of ISIS.

It is possible to believe in both evolution and the Catholic church’s teaching on creation, Pope Francis has said, as he cautioned against portraying God as a kind of magician who made the universe with a magic wand.

“The big bang, which is today posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creation; rather, it requires it,” the pope said in an address to a meeting at the pontifical academy of sciences.

“Evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because evolution presupposes the creation of beings which evolve.”

Francis, 77, said it was easy to misinterpret the creation story as recounted in the book of Genesis, according to which God created heaven and Earth in six days and rested on the seventh.

“When we read the creation story in Genesis we run the risk of imagining that God was a magician, with a magic wand which is able to do everything,” he said.

“But it is not so. He created beings and let them develop according to internal laws which He gave every one, so they would develop, so they would reach maturity.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/28/pope-says-evolution-and-creation-both-right

 

[shaykh]

So if there are different strands same as in Christianity or Catholicism as per your examples, how do we know that the Sunni strand that you are putting forward is the authoritative one? It clearly isn't accepted by the Sunni world at large otherwise there would be more countries implementing this doctrine. More at least than the present number of 0.

I've answered this question before...there is no such thing as an Islamic state...

Discussion of creeds isn't about people its about scripture...so Sunni strands are judged by their texts not what their practices are in the current day...

There is a discussion about divorce in another thread...Catholicism doesnt agree with divorce...if one looks at scripture then it is clear...Catholic majority countries are slowly starting to remove divorce...this doesn't mean catholicism is changing it means catholics are...

 

[shaykh]

How many Prophets have there been in history?...

Why did he allow his other messages to get corrupted?...

Why was the new message new?...if Judaism and Christianity were God's messages and people had been corrupted then why was there a new religion...why wasn't the old message simply reformed with the same old message?...

This begs the question of why so many different contradictory messages?...

Does everyone receive a message?...

 

[Yossarian]

Thank you for your response. You are not in a position to challenge me to anything - please refrain from assuming God-like power or authority. You have rejected - wholesale - what you expect me to believe in, so reflect upon that for a moment or two.

With all due respect - I do not follow either Sunni or Shi'a interpretations of the Qur'an, or their versions of Islam. I only follow the Truth, inspired by Allah SWT. Your constant recourse to majority opinion and conventional wisdom in order to corroborate, substantiate or authenticate your view, does not in the least make any difference to me. You may accept what everyone else does, I am not obliged to do likewise.

Now: if you wish to use the Qur'an as the Criterion, then I suggest you ponder upon Q15:9, Q75:16-19 and Q85:21-22, wherein Allah SWT clearly states that He will guard His Book. This follows, logically, that He would hardly have left it to warring Muslims, or the Companions, to collect and compile the Qur'an - burning some copies for good measure. The very idea that different passages of the Qur'an were in the possession of different people is absurd. If all Muslims are agreed upon this narrative, then fine. I am not. And, if you have never heard of this before, then you have heard it now.

[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'.

 

[OZGOD]

How do Sunnis look at someone like the Ayatollah Khomeini or the Ayatollah Khamenei?

I'm assuming it would be the same way that Protestants view the Pope. Catholics view the Pope as ex cathedra and the end of a line of apostolic succession descending from St Peter, and as such his teachings are viewed as infallible by Catholics. Protestants believe that Christ alone is the head of the Church and that no human being should be viewed as being in the line of apostolic succession.

 

[niishaa]

How many Prophets have there been in history?...

Why did he allow his other messages to get corrupted?...

Why was the new message new?...if Judaism and Christianity were God's messages and people had been corrupted then why was there a new religion...why wasn't the old message simply reformed with the same old message?...

This begs the question of why so many different contradictory messages?...

Does everyone receive a message?...

I was also thinking the same thing yesterday. Just didn't how to phrase it.

Another question i have always wanted to ask is if jesus is also a prophet in islam. How come he is not revered as prophet Mohammad(PBUH). I mean western media has mocked at jesus many times but no reaction from muslim world but even a little bit neagtivity about prophet mohammed(PBUH) they go crazy.

 

[DHONI183]

What Do You Know About Islam?

[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?

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.?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I've answered this question before...there is no such thing as an Islamic state...

Really? That seems to go directly against everything that your mentors HT/ISIS preach with their Khilafah doctrine. Isn't the Caliphate an Islamic state and isn't it supported by pre-20th century scholars who you usually use as reference for legitimacy as Sunni spokesmen?

 

[Mughal]

How many Prophets have there been in history?...

Dear brother shaykh, the idea behind my explanation of things is to help people become aware about the ways of looking at things so that we all could solve whatever problems we have in our minds. The sharing of such like information can give us courage to disagree with each other but with a solid foundation underneath our feet upon which we stand. Adopting this way of thinking can bring humanity together one day because gradually all of us are going to look for a common foundation as we try to shake each other to our very core. This way only that foundation will prove truly solid that will stand all the pushing and pulling by us all. It is like we are trying to discover a theory of everything. It is far too much task for any single person but together we can make it. It is because task sharing helps. So all I am trying to do along with others is make people aware that we all need to become thinkers and doers rather than time wasters if we really want to see our human population do well in future. We have to start from somewhere so why not from ourselves with help of realities of the real world and the message that is allegedly sent by God? From the realities of real world because we cannot escape them and from the message of God because without its help we can never have as much certainty about things as we can through it.

I do not know how many prophets and scriptures were sent by Allah but I do not think it has any impact on the message of Allah. The quran talks about each and every people having received the message of Allah, be it through a messenger of Allah or through a messenger of messenger of Allah. Let us suppose there were many messengers from Allah as the quran suggests, if there were so many prophets then had Allah told all their details in the quran, could we imagine the size of the text of the quran? No doubt Allah could have told us everything but could we make any use of what he told? It is because our brains despite great things are still very limited to how much they can cope with. Had Allah made any little changes in order to accommodate our suggestions what will have become of plan of Allah? It is like we want to build a house and we have worked out everything for it and then our family members and other relatives and friends start suggesting little things so our original plans go down the drains. This is how little changes in plan of Allah will have required a lot more changes from the beginning to the end therefore such a plan of Allah will not have taken off the ground had he listened to our suggestions. I do not think we human beings can devise any better plan than Allah to challenge him on that. The best way forward will be to examine the plan of Allah in form of the quran and see how we fit in all this so that we could use it to better our lot by working according to it instead of going about doing things against the plan of Allah and ending up in a lot of trouble and then blaming Allah for everything that we ourselves do wrong due to our ignorance and lack of education.

Why did he allow his other messages to get corrupted?...

He did not let anyone corrupt his message for the time period he sent it for. What people did was misinterpreted his messages and misrepresented them just as they do with the quran today. It is part of people having the ability to choose to do as they please including showing opposition for the message of Allah. Nonetheless it was never the case that people changed actual texts in the actual revealed scriptures. What they did was produced other books which they wrote themselves and presented them as revealed scriptures by God. They did this to justify alternative ways of life in the name of God which they invented to suit themselves at the expense of each other, this is how they invented religions. The question then becomes, what happened to the actual revealed scriptures of Allah? Those scriptures served their purpose and were no longer needed because those who opposed them did not bother saving them and those who supported them went on to next scripture, so people who truly followed them made no efforts to save them because they became followers of the newer scriptures and prophets and for that reason they spent their time and energies on propagating them instead of old scriptures. For example, after the quran became available people had no reason to save scriptures given to adam, noah, abraham, moses, david, jesus etc etc. It is because the newer scripture was more suitable for the future and it covered all necessary information about the past.

So the books we have today in the name of towraat, zaboor and injeel etc are not the actual revealed scriptures but they do have plenty of similar information that was in those original scriptures. This information was kept because with totally new foundation the people who invented them could not propagate their ideology. Even though people replaced books from God they still propagated their own writings as scriptures from God. This is why Allah condemns so much alternative ways of life suggested in his name by rulers, money lenders and mullahs. I do not know but if you look into muslim history people always fought over the issue whether islam was deen or mazhab. In recent times that is what was emphasised once more by sir syed ahmed khan, imaam hameeduddeen farahi, dr muhammad iqbal, muhammad ali jinnah, ghulam ahmed parwez, maulana syed abul alaa modoodi and a lot more other people throughout the muslim world.

This issue first surfaced among muslims when grandson of the messenger of Allah was murdered in cold blood by muslims who did not accept islam as addeen. They separated state affairs from commandments of Allah and opened up the idea of religious affairs through mullahs of their empire. Killing all scholar of deen who spoke up against their atrocities and forcing the rest into hiding. This issue of deen versus mazhab powerfully resurfaced due to end of mughal empire in india because muslims became under existential threat after british took over india. Seeing what so called muslims who ruled muslims did to deen of islam already and now even islam as a mazhab was under threat, a poet known as mirza asadullah ghaalib became worried about state of affairs of muslims along with others so he suggested that muslims must do something in order to preserve their heritage. One of his listeners at the time was sir syed. As british went on muslim killing spree hanging people from the trees till dead anywhere and everywhere due to some muslims restarting fights against british empire's taking over of india ie trying resist british occupation of india and trying to make them fed up so that they leave but all such resistances for dealt with fiercely.

Sir syed decided to challenge the british on educational ground instead of fighting them with sword. He began to study deen of islam in detail and began to educate himself about the british as well. As he tried to do that by setting up a school, which turned into a college and later into university the british started funding the madrassas in india in order to produce mullahs instead of scholars of deen of islam and scientists. The british brought in their missionaries and opened up nonsense debates about make beliefs and useless rituals in order to get muslims trapped back into religion so that they accept mullahs as sole authority so that then british could use mullahs to control muslims to get things done the way they wanted. This caused huge problems for sir syed and his supporters because mullahs did not like what sir said about deen of islam in light of real world realities. He questioned many of their nonsense beliefs and useless rituals, not to create troubles among muslims but to wake up muslims to what actual islam was as par his point of view.

The mission of sir syed ultimately became a success despite fierce opposition by mullahs because strength of religion became quite a bit reduced due to limited power of mullahs as more and more schools, colleges and universities were opened up my muslims in india. Sir syed was later supported by imaam farahi as well who questioned mullahs understanding of the quran. He fought mullahs over issue of whether the quranic text had any context or was it a mere collection of random verses. He won this debate. Soon after it was turn of iqbal who challenged mullahs on two points a)islam was a deen not a mazhab and b)shariah as pushed by mullahs is not shariah of deen of islam. Then it was turn of jinnah who with support of ghulam ahmed parwez defeated mullahs on the very points that were originally raised by iqbal. In fact if concept of islam being a deen was rejected then there could be no pakistan today nor islam if sir syed did not succeed in making muslims realise the important of scientific education and study of scripture in light of real world realities. Each time people take a step against deen of islam somehow it makes a come back therefore plan of Allah seems to be on track.

I have already explained in detail why powerful people conspire against deen of islam and muslims and how they try to move muslims away from deen of islam by using various tricks and mechanisms. Madrassa education is one mechanism, building mosques and putting in them madrassa graduate imaams is another, having radio and tv programs and inviting imaams is yet another. Funding production of religion based literature material and its publication is also a way to do the trick. The more these people spread mazhab in the name of islam the more people become exposed to things they never knew about actual deen of islam as by product of activities of opponents of deen of islam and muslims. This is why the more they try to get rid of deen of islam the more it spreads like water seeps through cracks. This is how truth becomes known even through spread of falsehood. It is like atheists say there is no God but in a way they are starting a discussion about God as a by product. You try to produce something but the result is that things as well as something else in addition to that as well.

Why was the new message new?...if Judaism and Christianity were God's messages and people had been corrupted then why was there a new religion...why wasn't the old message simply reformed with the same old message?...

It is because time had changed so the world also changed some of the old information was no longer relevant and some new information became necessary to be told. The older the scripture the simpler it was because the minds of the people were simpler ie they had not discovered many things yet regarding real world realities which could help them discover the message of a more sophisticated scripture from Allah. It is like giving a primary school kid the book that is for higher level of education. Just as newer scripture will have been too sophisticated for older people so older scriptures will have been far too simple for newer generations who by then had discovered a lot more about real world realities. It is a situation like a child and grown up person. If ancient people were given a larger scripture for which they had no means to preserve, it will have become a problem in itself for them instead of a solution for their problems. Hinduism, parsism, judaism, christendom etc etc are no deen of islam they are based partially on deen of islam ie as much as they are in agreement with the quranic teachings. This is why if one studies the quran properly in light of real world realities and then studies these scriptures then one cannot fail to see how they lead to lead to message in the quran. Most people make the mistake that the quran is copied from older scriptures because it contains information about same things. However they fail to realise that the quran puts forth a lot of different information about things the scriptures talk about and in a much better way. One can look into story of adam and see the major differences between what is told in the actual text of the bible in actual hebrw and the quran in actual arabic text. It is because other scriptures were written by people they wrote what they made of the actual text of original revealed scriptures. This is how human elements in other scriptures show up just like in translations of the actual quranic text. It is because even if scripture is revealed by God, people still make sense of of it only to the degree they can so when better information is discovered by them they could see what wrong ideas they had put in the translations of the actual scriptures. This is why other than the quran no other scripture can pass through test of the time. A very clear proof that the origin of the quran is not from human beings.

This begs the question of why so many different contradictory messages?...

Contradictory message did not come from Allah but people created them and they did so because they are creatures with free will so they do what they like. Had Allah limited their free will, then there will have been other problems giving rise to other kind of questions.

Does everyone receive a message?...

The message of Allah has been there in the world always for all but whether individuals received it or not that is another question because each people had there own social set-up and systems in place. In some societies people helped each other to educate themselves but in others they stopped each other. It mainly depends on one's awareness level whether one reaches the level whereat one looks for guidance or not. If one does then one starts looking for it and may even find it as well. People who lack such awareness do not look for it so they remain unaware about it be the quran right in their hands because they remain unaware. To gain awareness does not depend upon guidance of Allah but upon one's own brain, senses, body and realities of real world out there to learn from. The place of revelation only comes after self awareness and awareness about the real world realities and once one arrives at that level then if one sees the need for guidance then one starts looking for it and if one does one could find it as well depending upon how hard one tries.

regards and all the best.

 

[shaykh]

Really? That seems to go directly against everything that your mentors HT/ISIS preach with their Khilafah doctrine. Isn't the Caliphate an Islamic state and isn't it supported by pre-20th century scholars who you usually use as reference for legitimacy as Sunni spokesmen?

No such thing as an Islamic state NOW...

And nice attempt at a dig with the mentors comment...IS would do takfir on HT btw...Salafis believe HT aren't Muslim...so you need to decide which dig you wanna use cos using both is somewhat ridiculous...

Sunni belief is that a Caliphate is the only legitimate rule...and the point is this doesn't exist...so you speaking about nation states is ridiculous...

 

[shaykh]

Dear brother shaykh, the idea behind my explanation of things is to help people become aware about the ways of looking at things so that we all could solve whatever problems we have in our minds. The sharing of such like information can give us courage to disagree with each other but with a solid foundation underneath our feet upon which we stand. Adopting this way of thinking can bring humanity together one day because gradually all of us are going to look for a common foundation as we try to shake each other to our very core. This way only that foundation will prove truly solid that will stand all the pushing and pulling by us all. It is like we are trying to discover a theory of everything. It is far too much task for any single person but together we can make it. It is because task sharing helps. So all I am trying to do along with others is make people aware that we all need to become thinkers and doers rather than time wasters if we really want to see our human population do well in future. We have to start from somewhere so why not from ourselves with help of realities of the real world and the message that is allegedly sent by God? From the realities of real world because we cannot escape them and from the message of God because without its help we can never have as much certainty about things as we can through it.

I do not know how many prophets and scriptures were sent by Allah but I do not think it has any impact on the message of Allah. The quran talks about each and every people having received the message of Allah, be it through a messenger of Allah or through a messenger of messenger of Allah. Let us suppose there were many messengers from Allah as the quran suggests, if there were so many prophets then had Allah told all their details in the quran, could we imagine the size of the text of the quran? No doubt Allah could have told us everything but could we make any use of what he told? It is because our brains despite great things are still very limited to how much they can cope with. Had Allah made any little changes in order to accommodate our suggestions what will have become of plan of Allah? It is like we want to build a house and we have worked out everything for it and then our family members and other relatives and friends start suggesting little things so our original plans go down the drains. This is how little changes in plan of Allah will have required a lot more changes from the beginning to the end therefore such a plan of Allah will not have taken off the ground had he listened to our suggestions. I do not think we human beings can devise any better plan than Allah to challenge him on that. The best way forward will be to examine the plan of Allah in form of the quran and see how we fit in all this so that we could use it to better our lot by working according to it instead of going about doing things against the plan of Allah and ending up in a lot of trouble and then blaming Allah for everything that we ourselves do wrong due to our ignorance and lack of education.



He did not let anyone corrupt his message for the time period he sent it for. What people did was misinterpreted his messages and misrepresented them just as they do with the quran today. It is part of people having the ability to choose to do as they please including showing opposition for the message of Allah. Nonetheless it was never the case that people changed actual texts in the actual revealed scriptures. What they did was produced other books which they wrote themselves and presented them as revealed scriptures by God. They did this to justify alternative ways of life in the name of God which they invented to suit themselves at the expense of each other, this is how they invented religions. The question then becomes, what happened to the actual revealed scriptures of Allah? Those scriptures served their purpose and were no longer needed because those who opposed them did not bother saving them and those who supported them went on to next scripture, so people who truly followed them made no efforts to save them because they became followers of the newer scriptures and prophets and for that reason they spent their time and energies on propagating them instead of old scriptures. For example, after the quran became available people had no reason to save scriptures given to adam, noah, abraham, moses, david, jesus etc etc. It is because the newer scripture was more suitable for the future and it covered all necessary information about the past.

So the books we have today in the name of towraat, zaboor and injeel etc are not the actual revealed scriptures but they do have plenty of similar information that was in those original scriptures. This information was kept because with totally new foundation the people who invented them could not propagate their ideology. Even though people replaced books from God they still propagated their own writings as scriptures from God. This is why Allah condemns so much alternative ways of life suggested in his name by rulers, money lenders and mullahs. I do not know but if you look into muslim history people always fought over the issue whether islam was deen or mazhab. In recent times that is what was emphasised once more by sir syed ahmed khan, imaam hameeduddeen farahi, dr muhammad iqbal, muhammad ali jinnah, ghulam ahmed parwez, maulana syed abul alaa modoodi and a lot more other people throughout the muslim world.

This issue first surfaced among muslims when grandson of the messenger of Allah was murdered in cold blood by muslims who did not accept islam as addeen. They separated state affairs from commandments of Allah and opened up the idea of religious affairs through mullahs of their empire. Killing all scholar of deen who spoke up against their atrocities and forcing the rest into hiding. This issue of deen versus mazhab powerfully resurfaced due to end of mughal empire in india because muslims became under existential threat after british took over india. Seeing what so called muslims who ruled muslims did to deen of islam already and now even islam as a mazhab was under threat, a poet known as mirza asadullah ghaalib became worried about state of affairs of muslims along with others so he suggested that muslims must do something in order to preserve their heritage. One of his listeners at the time was sir syed. As british went on muslim killing spree hanging people from the trees till dead anywhere and everywhere due to some muslims restarting fights against british empire's taking over of india ie trying resist british occupation of india and trying to make them fed up so that they leave but all such resistances for dealt with fiercely.

Sir syed decided to challenge the british on educational ground instead of fighting them with sword. He began to study deen of islam in detail and began to educate himself about the british as well. As he tried to do that by setting up a school, which turned into a college and later into university the british started funding the madrassas in india in order to produce mullahs instead of scholars of deen of islam and scientists. The british brought in their missionaries and opened up nonsense debates about make beliefs and useless rituals in order to get muslims trapped back into religion so that they accept mullahs as sole authority so that then british could use mullahs to control muslims to get things done the way they wanted. This caused huge problems for sir syed and his supporters because mullahs did not like what sir said about deen of islam in light of real world realities. He questioned many of their nonsense beliefs and useless rituals, not to create troubles among muslims but to wake up muslims to what actual islam was as par his point of view.

The mission of sir syed ultimately became a success despite fierce opposition by mullahs because strength of religion became quite a bit reduced due to limited power of mullahs as more and more schools, colleges and universities were opened up my muslims in india. Sir syed was later supported by imaam farahi as well who questioned mullahs understanding of the quran. He fought mullahs over issue of whether the quranic text had any context or was it a mere collection of random verses. He won this debate. Soon after it was turn of iqbal who challenged mullahs on two points a)islam was a deen not a mazhab and b)shariah as pushed by mullahs is not shariah of deen of islam. Then it was turn of jinnah who with support of ghulam ahmed parwez defeated mullahs on the very points that were originally raised by iqbal. In fact if concept of islam being a deen was rejected then there could be no pakistan today nor islam if sir syed did not succeed in making muslims realise the important of scientific education and study of scripture in light of real world realities. Each time people take a step against deen of islam somehow it makes a come back therefore plan of Allah seems to be on track.

I have already explained in detail why powerful people conspire against deen of islam and muslims and how they try to move muslims away from deen of islam by using various tricks and mechanisms. Madrassa education is one mechanism, building mosques and putting in them madrassa graduate imaams is another, having radio and tv programs and inviting imaams is yet another. Funding production of religion based literature material and its publication is also a way to do the trick. The more these people spread mazhab in the name of islam the more people become exposed to things they never knew about actual deen of islam as by product of activities of opponents of deen of islam and muslims. This is why the more they try to get rid of deen of islam the more it spreads like water seeps through cracks. This is how truth becomes known even through spread of falsehood. It is like atheists say there is no God but in a way they are starting a discussion about God as a by product. You try to produce something but the result is that things as well as something else in addition to that as well.



It is because time had changed so the world also changed some of the old information was no longer relevant and some new information became necessary to be told. The older the scripture the simpler it was because the minds of the people were simpler ie they had not discovered many things yet regarding real world realities which could help them discover the message of a more sophisticated scripture from Allah. It is like giving a primary school kid the book that is for higher level of education. Just as newer scripture will have been too sophisticated for older people so older scriptures will have been far too simple for newer generations who by then had discovered a lot more about real world realities. It is a situation like a child and grown up person. If ancient people were given a larger scripture for which they had no means to preserve, it will have become a problem in itself for them instead of a solution for their problems. Hinduism, parsism, judaism, christendom etc etc are no deen of islam they are based partially on deen of islam ie as much as they are in agreement with the quranic teachings. This is why if one studies the quran properly in light of real world realities and then studies these scriptures then one cannot fail to see how they lead to lead to message in the quran. Most people make the mistake that the quran is copied from older scriptures because it contains information about same things. However they fail to realise that the quran puts forth a lot of different information about things the scriptures talk about and in a much better way. One can look into story of adam and see the major differences between what is told in the actual text of the bible in actual hebrw and the quran in actual arabic text. It is because other scriptures were written by people they wrote what they made of the actual text of original revealed scriptures. This is how human elements in other scriptures show up just like in translations of the actual quranic text. It is because even if scripture is revealed by God, people still make sense of of it only to the degree they can so when better information is discovered by them they could see what wrong ideas they had put in the translations of the actual scriptures. This is why other than the quran no other scripture can pass through test of the time. A very clear proof that the origin of the quran is not from human beings.



Contradictory message did not come from Allah but people created them and they did so because they are creatures with free will so they do what they like. Had Allah limited their free will, then there will have been other problems giving rise to other kind of questions.



The message of Allah has been there in the world always for all but whether individuals received it or not that is another question because each people had there own social set-up and systems in place. In some societies people helped each other to educate themselves but in others they stopped each other. It mainly depends on one's awareness level whether one reaches the level whereat one looks for guidance or not. If one does then one starts looking for it and may even find it as well. People who lack such awareness do not look for it so they remain unaware about it be the quran right in their hands because they remain unaware. To gain awareness does not depend upon guidance of Allah but upon one's own brain, senses, body and realities of real world out there to learn from. The place of revelation only comes after self awareness and awareness about the real world realities and once one arrives at that level then if one sees the need for guidance then one starts looking for it and if one does one could find it as well depending upon how hard one tries.

regards and all the best.

And herein lie rational flaws...

Islam claims to be timeless...you give a reason that Allah revealed different messages for different times yet here he seems to have finally decided he cant be bothered to send any new messengers?...

Its especially odd considering now would be a good time for it...all of you are speaking about how Islam is being hijacked etc...so surely the omnipotent God would have known this...so why has he let this happen?...especially when we are led to believe that Islam came because Christianity and Judaism have been corrupted...bit of a stupid idea to leave the same message for 1400 years...

From yours and Jadz perspective scholars have ruined and hijacked Islam and well Allah surely would know?...the funny thing about the claim about preservation of the message is in reality it hasn't been preserved at all...that is your perspective cos you're claiming all these hijackings...

I'll deal with the other points later...

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

No such thing as an Islamic state NOW...

And nice attempt at a dig with the mentors comment...IS would do takfir on HT btw...Salafis believe HT aren't Muslim...so you need to decide which dig you wanna use cos using both is somewhat ridiculous...

Sunni belief is that a Caliphate is the only legitimate rule...and the point is this doesn't exist...so you speaking about nation states is ridiculous...

ISIS declared a caliphate with Baghdadi claiming to be the Khaleef. Or did I understand this wrong as well? BTW, you are using the same reasoning as HT and use the same supporting scholars so it's not a dig to say you are using them as reference or mentors for that matter since you yourself say you were a former Muslim and cite the same sources.

 

[shaykh]

ISIS declared a caliphate with Baghdadi claiming to be the Khaleef. Or did I understand this wrong as well? BTW, you are using the same reasoning as HT and use the same supporting scholars so it's not a dig to say you are using them as reference or mentors for that matter since you yourself say you were a former Muslim and cite the same sources.

Lol now you really are showing your cluelessness...adoption of mutawaatir hadith is a HT thing?...

HT reject Baghdati as Caliph...part of why I find their position laughable because only their Caliphate is acceptable to THEM...I have dismissed HT on this forum...so classing them as my mentors is amusing...

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Lol now you really are showing your cluelessness...adoption of mutawaatir hadith is a HT thing?...

HT reject Baghdati as Caliph...part of why I find their position laughable because only their Caliphate is acceptable to THEM...I have dismissed HT on this forum...so classing them as my mentors is amusing...

So you seem to agree that there is no authoritative opinion accepted by the majority at this time on the "science" of hadith. This was what I was suggesting earlier, now you are saying the same yourself.

What about your other refutation that there is no such thing as an Islamic state now? What does IS stand for? According to your definition I would think they must meet every criteria that you consider authentic.

 

[OZGOD]

Lol now you really are showing your cluelessness...adoption of mutawaatir hadith is a HT thing?...

HT reject Baghdati as Caliph...part of why I find their position laughable because only their Caliphate is acceptable to THEM...I have dismissed HT on this forum...so classing them as my mentors is amusing...

I'm having trouble following. Who is HT? Is that a Shia group?

 

[speed]

How do Sunnis look at someone like the Ayatollah Khomeini or the Ayatollah Khamenei?

I'm assuming it would be the same way that Protestants view the Pope. Catholics view the Pope as ex cathedra and the end of a line of apostolic succession descending from St Peter, and as such his teachings are viewed as infallible by Catholics. Protestants believe that Christ alone is the head of the Church and that no human being should be viewed as being in the line of apostolic succession.

Mixed opinions really, some respect khomeini because he was able to change Iran from a communist styled country into a Somewhat Islamic country, other's simply don't like him because he is a shia and they view shias with suspicion.

 

[shaykh]

I'm having trouble following. Who is HT? Is that a Shia group?

HT is a group known as Hizb Ut Tahrir...basically they are an Islamic group mainly existing in non Muslim countries whose aim is to set up a global Caliphate...bit of an irrelevancy outside of Britain really...and their aim btw isn't to set up an Islamic state in Britain but in the Muslim world...they have no presence anywhere and are a failed organization...

They are a Sunni organization but they have some Shia members...

The reason Rishwat is trying to associate me with them is cos they speak about the Caliphate...the Caliphate isn't unique to HT or ISIS...Muslims believe in it but its in improbably concept cos each organization that claims to set one up is told they aren't following the true path etc...

 

[shaykh]

Mixed opinions really, some respect khomeini because he was able to change Iran from a communist styled country into a Somewhat Islamic country, other's simply don't like him because he is a shia and they view shias with suspicion.

He insulted the Sahaba which gets him a lot of stick...Khamanei did actually ban that practice in comparison...

 

[Mughal]

And herein lie rational flaws...

Islam claims to be timeless...you give a reason that Allah revealed different messages for different times yet here he seems to have finally decided he cant be bothered to send any new messengers?...

Its especially odd considering now would be a good time for it...all of you are speaking about how Islam is being hijacked etc...so surely the omnipotent God would have known this...so why has he let this happen?...especially when we are led to believe that Islam came because Christianity and Judaism have been corrupted...bit of a stupid idea to leave the same message for 1400 years...

From yours and Jadz perspective scholars have ruined and hijacked Islam and well Allah surely would know?...the funny thing about the claim about preservation of the message is in reality it hasn't been preserved at all...that is your perspective cos you're claiming all these hijackings...

I'll deal with the other points later...

Dear brother shaykh, I am surprised with your logic because you are dismissing plan of Allah and making suggestions knowing not what the plan of Allah is or how it works. As I explained already that it is right of Allah to plan to do things as he wants. It is not up to us creatures to tell Allah what to do and how to do it. All we can do is examine whether the plan is workable or not.

It was plan of Allah to start revelation at a particular point in time ie he set some conditions and when they became fulfilled he revealed his message and likewise he set some conditions so when those conditions became fulfilled he stopped sending any more messages. How can we be so sure that he should have started sending messages at such and such time and that he should have stopped doing that at such and such time?

I also gave reasons that help understand the plan of Allah ie the development of humanity and its language as well as stages of its awareness. All these points interconnect fine and there is no flaw. What you are doing is taking that plan and then making suggestions which if you think about them will show up there irrationality. For example, if Allah sent a new prophet today which language will be more useful for his message since it is you who want to make suggestions to Allah? Can you decide upon any? Will other agree with you on that? Not necessarily, so where is sense in asking such questions that lead us back to square one? If Allah revealed any message today all languages that are used by people most have become developed so any message will a have to be much more precise and that will need the amount of text nobody will be able to go through, so where is sense in Allah revealing any message today especially when the one revealed already is still up to date and will go for long time yet to come?

Rulers, money lenders and mullahs have tried their best to mask islam but they have not managed to totally overcome it and they never will and as mankind become more and more aware of their game they are bound to lose. Of course the day the quran disappears or becomes irrelevant to real world realities one can demand of Allah for a new messenger and message. So far there is no need for anything like it the message in the quran is still far ahead of our time.

The problem with your way of thinking is that you are deconstructing deen of Allah before ever trying really hard to construct it properly.

regards and all the best.

 

[shaykh]

Dear brother shaykh, I am surprised with your logic because you are dismissing plan of Allah and making suggestions knowing not what the plan of Allah is or how it works. As I explained already that it is right of Allah to plan to do things as he wants. It is not up to us creatures to tell Allah what to do and how to do it. All we can do is examine whether the plan is workable or not.

It was plan of Allah to start revelation at a particular point in time ie he set some conditions and when they became fulfilled he revealed his message and likewise he set some conditions so when those conditions became fulfilled he stopped sending any more messages. How can we be so sure that he should have started sending messages at such and such time and that he should have stopped doing that at such and such time?

I also gave reasons that help understand the plan of Allah ie the development of humanity and its language as well as stages of its awareness. All these points interconnect fine and there is no flaw. What you are doing is taking that plan and then making suggestions which if you think about them will show up there irrationality. For example, if Allah sent a new prophet today which language will be more useful for his message since it is you who want to make suggestions to Allah? Can you decide upon any? Will other agree with you on that? Not necessarily, so where is sense in asking such questions that lead us back to square one? If Allah revealed any message today all languages that are used by people most have become developed so any message will a have to be much more precise and that will need the amount of text nobody will be able to go through, so where is sense in Allah revealing any message today especially when the one revealed already is still up to date and will go for long time yet to come?

Rulers, money lenders and mullahs have tried their best to mask islam but they have not managed to totally overcome it and they never will and as mankind become more and more aware of their game they are bound to lose. Of course the day the quran disappears or becomes irrelevant to real world realities one can demand of Allah for a new messenger and message. So far there is no need for anything like it the message in the quran is still far ahead of our time.

The problem with your way of thinking is that you are deconstructing deen of Allah before ever trying really hard to construct it properly.

regards and all the best.

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...

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...

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

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...

 

[Energetic]

Islam has about 1.6 billion followers. This is nearly 25% (1/4) of the worlds population. It is unarguably the fastest growing religion in the world especially in Europe and America. It is atm the 2nd largest religion but the most practised religion in the world. About 60% of all Muslims reside in Asia. The 4 largest Muslim populated countries today are Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

 

[just saying]

Islam has about 1.6 billion followers. This is nearly 25% (1/4) of the worlds population. It is unarguably the fastest growing religion in the world especially in Europe and America. It is atm the 2nd largest religion but the most practised religion in the world. About 60% of all Muslims reside in Asia. The 4 largest Muslim populated countries today are Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

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]

 

[shaykh]

Just to add official numbers mean very little...identifying as a Muslim or a Christian doesnt make someone one...if someone says Muhammad isn't the final messenger then are they Muslim...Sunnis think Shia aren't Muslim and vice versa...many twelve's even think Sahaba are apostates...there are people on here practicing Sunnis would say aren't Muslim...

Christians are even more of a disaster...the majority of whom actually disagree with their faith...many nominal followers...

In short pretty much the majority of the world in history is on their way to hell ...

 

[Yossarian]

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)

See my post #220 above, re- why it's virtually impossible for Hadith to be completely accurate and totally authentic.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...Do-You-Know-About-Islam&p=7250162#post7250162

 

[shaykh]

See my post #220 above, re- why it's virtually impossible for Hadith to be completely accurate and totally authentic.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...Do-You-Know-About-Islam&p=7250162#post7250162

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...