Page 6 of 19

Re: Hadith Timelines

PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:40 pm
by pr126
SAM wrote:
I ask you one question.. Who's real God?.... There is NO God except Allah....

There are no gods. Never was, except the creations of man's imaginations.

Re: Hadith Timelines

PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:47 pm
by SAM
pr126 wrote:SAM wrote:
I ask you one question.. Who's real God?.... There is NO God except Allah....

There are no gods. Never was.
See.....you don't know the answer.. Who's real God?...

Re: Hadith Timelines

PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:18 pm
by pr126
SAM wrote:
pr126 wrote:SAM wrote:
I ask you one question.. Who's real God?.... There is NO God except Allah....

There are no gods. Never was.
See.....you don't know the answer.. Who's real God?...

The one in your mind that you happened to be programmed with.
Others have been programmed with different deities, and theirs are just as "real" as yours..

Re: Hadith Timelines

PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 3:09 pm
by SAM
pr126 wrote:The one in your mind that you happened to be programmed with.
You don't be fooled by the mind's toys..so tell the mind, "SHUT UP and KEEP QUIET."
Others have been programmed with different deities, and theirs are just as "real" as yours..
Deities part of the creation is not real God. The Hindu Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, Buddha, Statue Mary/Jesus and so on part in idolatrous worship and Sun, Moon and other nature part of God's creation. And (99 names of) Allah, Father(God), Yahweh, whatever names given to the Creator..there are those who believe in one Supreme Being, all-powerful, all-knowing, all- wise, all-loving,

So, Who's real God?.. There is NO God except for Supreme Being alone.

If God does not exist... Definitely NO Shahadah (Testimonial)

Re: Hadith Timelines

PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 3:27 pm
by pr126
SAM wrote:
You don't be fooled by the mind's toys..so tell the mind, "SHUT UP and KEEP QUIET."

Sorry, only Muslims can do that. I can't.

Re: Hadith Timelines

PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 3:34 pm
by SAM
pr126 wrote:SAM wrote:
You don't be fooled by the mind's toys..so tell the mind, "SHUT UP and KEEP QUIET."

Sorry, only Muslims can do that. I can't.
All of you not only for Muslim..

The True Religion of God must know to answer the questions correctly. Now answer my question Who's real God? ...no evasion.

Re: Hadith Timelines

PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 3:49 pm
by sum
Hello SAM

The only significant contributions you make to the topics is to divert the topic onto another topic. Have you anything to say regarding the subject of this thread?

sum

Re: Hadith Timelines

PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 4:00 pm
by SAM
sum wrote:Hello SAM

The only significant contributions you make to the topics is to divert the topic onto another topic.
It is you not me.. You wrote:

Hello MesMorial

You really are a runner, aren`t you? You continuously refuse to answer my simple questions in order to clarify your position. Not only that but there is an element of arrogance and condescension creeping in to your replies.

Please answer my questions -

Do you believe that Allah exists?
Do you believe that the Koran is the true word of Allah?
Do you believe that Muhammad received the alleged revelations?
Do you believe that we all stand before Allah on Judgement Day?

These are very simple questions the answers to which need only a one word reply.

sum


Have you anything to say regarding the subject of this thread?

sum
I found out that skynightblaze, MesMorial and The Cat they have a very good discussion.

Re: Hadith Timelines

PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 5:32 pm
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:Your argument is anything but not sensible. I am still surprised that you are still pursuing the argument and yet at the same time accusing others of not having any substance. You certainly are not that stupid to understand What Darth has been saying. You are degrading yourself to the level of CAT who by now has established his reputation as one of the greatest non muslim (hopefully) trolls on this forum.

Our 'epitome of logic' is left to a bunch of rantings/slanderings in order to 'substantiate' his point!

He's not even aware that, so doing, he's the trolling one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community...
with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

The rest being his usual logical fallacies (ad Hominem, Poisoning the Well) trolled-in as 'answers'.

Re: Hadith Timelines

PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 5:37 pm
by The Cat
Back on topic...

2.151 states that Muhammad should teach 'what they knew not' which can't be the sunna as custom he himself followed.

It's in continuity with 2.128-9 (Abraham speaking):
...Show us our ways of worship... And raise up in their midst a messenger from among them who shall recite
unto them Thy revelations, and shall instruct them in the Scripture and in wisdom and shall make them grow.


Well, Abraham didn't have the Koran, let alone the hadiths, so the terms 'scripture and wisdom' must refer to something else
from which people can 'grow' (also 4.54). 3.48 and 5.110 further corroborate that 'scripture and wisdom' means what's written
in the heart. 17.39 states that wisdom is defined in the preceding verses. Among them:

--Give the kinsman his due, and the needy, and the wayfarer, and squander not in wantonness.
--Let not thy hand be chained to thy neck nor open it with a complete opening...
--Follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge.
--And walk not in the earth exultant.

These are the wisdom inscribed in the heart, the unwritten scripture, the hidden knowledge.

Re: Hadith Timelines

PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 5:40 pm
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:The rest being his usual logical fallacies (ad Hominem, Poisoning the Well) trolled-in as 'answers'.


Even if you utter the word logic it is as good as a fallacy :lol:. You absolutely have no understanding of those terms that you use.

Re: Hadith Timelines

PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 5:50 pm
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote:The rest being his usual logical fallacies (ad Hominem, Poisoning the Well) trolled-in as 'answers'.


Even if you utter the word logic it is as good as a fallacy. You absolutely have no understanding of those terms that you use.

Thanks for proving -once again- what I've said right above. You are shamelessly signing your own deficiency all over.

Re: Hadith Timelines

PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 6:01 pm
by Ozes
skynightblaze wrote:I absolutely agree with you. Going by this stupid logic everything can be termed as a fabrication. If someone today tries to write about Hitler (66 years after his death i.e in 2011) what is the possibility that he portrays Hitler as a saint and all the people promote his book to understand who Hitler was??. This possibility is nil . Same is the case with islamic history. People would not get away if they falsely portrayed Muhammad as a criminal especially when was a saint in reality.

Now there is one point I think where people often misunderstand. Surely the first official version about Muhammad to appear was Ibn Ishaq however its not true that there was nothing before that. Please read my posts above. Read the spoilers and you will find that there were plenty of ahadith in circulation in the first century and second century hijra itself. This formed basis for Bukhari and others.

The absolute stupidity with this argument is that it accuses the entire generation of muslims in 7th and 8th century of conspiracy. This is a mass generalization . Surely there are a lot of stupid conspiracy theories but this one beats them all. I still dont understand how anyone (except The Cat) can call oneself logical with this argument. I know CAT can still call himself logical because he is an absolute TROLL .He believes that logic is what he types and not what it is actually. :lol:


Indeed, where did all the True Followers Of Muhammed go?
No one protested while countless hadith where recalled showing him to be a vicious warlord?
All these narrators are proper Muslims and to mark all of them as conspirators and liars is ridiculous.

But the biggest point is that the quran clearly is a product of Muhammed's mind. It is as hateful, misogynic, warmongering and paranoia as he was. When you read the hadith, nothing in the quran will surprise you. When you read the quran, nothing in the hadith will surprise you.

Re: Hadith Timelines

PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 6:59 pm
by skynightblaze
Here is a response to this idiot .

viewtopic.php?f=53&p=167675#p167675

@Ozes
The last point that you made is very much valid. Both these books are on the same lines that is crime , crime and crime. If the ahadith were fabrications we would have found drastically different message in the quran. In addition to what you said, there is one more point. This argument assumes that people who were geographically separated as well separated by centuries co-ordinated with each other successfully . Ibn Ishaq came up with islamic biography approx 120 or so years after Muhammad'd death and Ibn Kathir was writing in 13th century. So according to this theory for a period of around 600-700 years , all the muslims were co-ordinating amongst each other perfectly even when they were centuries apart. This theory is fundamentally very weak . It denies basic common sense. Any theory should have strong fundamentals. Thsi theory cannot explain as to how is it possible that every single muslim for 600- 700 years was fabricating books to defame Muhammad. We just need to analyze how many muslims will do it today. Forget about Every muslim doing it today ! It would be great even if we can manage a 100 of them out of 1.2 billion.

Re: Hadith Timelines

PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 11:49 pm
by darth
MesMorial wrote:Well the word for “difficulty” is better translated as “blame” or “discomfort”. Please think before you type.

"discomfort", "difficulty" is irrelevant. By squabbling over these words you are missing the point. Basically the verse points to an action of mo as being the example to be followed. The quran is telling - by permitting mo everyone else is so permitted. So muslims that want to marry their adopted daughter in laws can do so because mo did so. Thus actions of mo *are* to be used as a guide in the future. In other words the people are taught by mo's example, not recitation.

This verse is very interesting - the verse is in past tense meaning that mo had already committed the act and the quran was merely giving mo's action legtimacy. Whereas, the hadiths tell us that mo married zaid's wife after the verse. So if we were to use only the quran - mo acted first and then allah sent the verse (allah quickly ran to mo's aid?). This verse would point definitively to mo's actions as the guide to follow since it implies that allah guides mo's actions. Think about this.
What came first - mo's actions or quranic verse? Did mo follow the quran or did the quran follow mo's actions? Did the chicken come first or the egg?


MesMorial wrote:Thus according to the Qur'an, Allah was actively easing the Muslims into acceptance of a "taboo".

A mere verse would have been sufficient for that. Here it draws attention to mo's example because mo's example is a guide for what is right or wrong for muslims. You cannot spin it any other way.

MesMorial wrote:The “new sunna” is actually in the Qur’an. It also includes old things already practiced such as marriage besides new things such as fasting in Ramadhan.

what was different from what I said - I said
new sunna = old tribal customs that suited mo + new customs that suited mo.
Quran itself is an invention of mo. So it would contain his new rulings - clear and unclear. The clear ones don't require hadiths for explanations, the not so clear ones do.
(BTW, fasting was followed prior to islam by different tribal sects though not compulsorily. But mo probably copied from the christians)

MesMorial wrote:Following him means following his way of life. Please provide some evidence to support your stubborn, arrogant rejection of reason and proof.

Sorry, your "reason" or "proof" do not hold when quran itself points to an action of mo as a guide for muslims to follow. So you need the documented record of mo's actions. End of case

Re: Hadith Timelines

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:15 am
by MesMorial
Skynightblaze says:

Your argument is anything but not sensible. I am still surprised that you are still pursuing the argument and yet at the same time accusing others of not having any substance. You certainly are not that stupid to understand What Darth has been saying. You are degrading yourself to the level of CAT who by now has established his reputation as one of the greatest non muslim (hopefully) trolls on this forum.


Well hello Skynightblaze. What makes you think Darth’s argument has not been refuted? Anyone with common-sense and no vested interest can see you are peddling leaking barrels (black, oily arguments).


Ozes says:

Indeed, where did all the True Followers Of Muhammed go?
No one protested while countless hadith where recalled showing him to be a vicious warlord?
All these narrators are proper Muslims and to mark all of them as conspirators and liars is ridiculous.

But the biggest point is that the quran clearly is a product of Muhammed's mind. It is as hateful, misogynic, warmongering and paranoia as he was. When you read the hadith, nothing in the quran will surprise you. When you read the quran, nothing in the hadith will surprise you.


The followers of an obligatory “Sunna”, with traceable origins from Shafi, took power. The Qur’an is still inherent and the only valid approach to actual Islam. People accept Islam based on reading the Qur’an, and the Qur’an nowhere says to take another source of law. What you are encouraging is the herd-mindset, scrambling the brain rather than fixing the tumour. You are promoting nothing in the stead of what you promote/hate, therefore you have no direction. You want to eliminate islam, but to do this you define islam for everyone and take the words of a few as gospel.

The Qur’an is not the problem. People’s acceptance of it as true is the basis of islam, not the trailer-trash you talk on about. You seem to equate “believing the Qur’an” with submitting to scholars and twisted interpretations which make no sense. When someone comes along with a better understanding of Islam’s only legitimate authority, you think that calling them “muslim” is an insult even though they promote completely different understandings.

You promote humans-following-humans, and you take your slice by trying to get people to submit to your own perceptions of Islam.

People’s acceptance of Islam is through the Qur’an, thus FAITH and (IN)VALIDITY OF SUNNA are completely separate issues. Your approach (and Skynightblaze’s) is circular. You assume that promoting a fake version of islam will make people lose faith in it, even though people already accepted it based on their own understanding. Basically you need to buy Islam to get it to work.


@ Skynightblaze;

Before we even get to your preferred history of hadith, please note that as a non-Muslim you already believe the Qur’an is untrue. It is therefore no big deal that an un-divine book may have been replaced by un-divine humans. This is irrelevant. The relevant point is that Muslims can only become “Muslims” by reading the Qur’an, and to believe the Qur’an means you must believe what it actually says.

What does the Qur’an say about hadith?

What is a better approach to the problems of today? A direct attack on the actual problems (achievable through acknowledgement of facts and psychology) (my approach), or a scrambling, directionless approach which relies upon arrogance (yours)?

Your argument might work against a “Qur’an-alone” Muslim, but it will not work against me.


Let us deal with Darth


"discomfort", "difficulty" is irrelevant. By squabbling over these words you are missing the point. Basically the verse points to an action of mo as being the example to be followed. The quran is telling - by permitting mo everyone else is so permitted. So muslims that want to marry their adopted daughter in laws can do so because mo did so. Thus actions of mo *are* to be used as a guide in the future. In other words the people are taught by mo's example, not recitation.


No you have missed my point. Let us go back:

I said:

33:37-38 highlights the importance of avoiding prohibitions not in the Qur’an. Marrying the wife of an adopted son was never prohibited, and even though people knew that, they still felt uncomfortable doing it. Thus according to the Qur'an, Allah was actively easing the Muslims into acceptance of a "taboo".

That was the actual point of the exercise. The marriage was supposed to happen for a reason unrelated to "explaining" the Qur'an. Muhammad, as the most important, would have provided the most encouragement by "piloting" the "trend".


Please study the verses to see the point of the verses.

The Qur’an is a Book of moral and spiritual guidance (e.g. 7:52, 17:9), similitudes/examples (e.g. 3:61, 17:89, 66:1-5), narratives (e.g. 12:3), parables (e.g. 14:24) and real-time Revelations (e.g. 9:5, 33:59). All of these attributes contribute to the guiding quality of its Message.

All Revelation permanent to its addresses is included (e.g. 33:50). Where required, context is provided by the Qur’an itself.


Now everything relevant is in the Qur’an. The episode of Zaid was an example, and since it was relevant, it was explained in the Qur’an. It was a part of Qur’anic guidance (emphasising about not making additional prohibitions), not an example of Muhammad explaining the Qur’an.

You have not yet grasped it, or you are unwilling to acknowledge. It is fine, because I can answer you. You see, your understanding (besides not matching what is written) leads to contradictions later. Mine does not lead to them.

This verse is very interesting - the verse is in past tense meaning that mo had already committed the act and the quran was merely giving mo's action legtimacy. Whereas, the hadiths tell us that mo married zaid's wife after the verse. So if we were to use only the quran - mo acted first and then allah sent the verse (allah quickly ran to mo's aid?). This verse would point definitively to mo's actions as the guide to follow since it implies that allah guides mo's actions. Think about this.
What came first - mo's actions or quranic verse? Did mo follow the quran or did the quran follow mo's actions? Did the chicken come first or the egg?


Yes it had to happen after, because the example would not have worked had everyone known it. It would be a little awkward for two people to “know” they were going to marry.

The verse simply says Allah MADE Muhammad marry Zaid’s wife; it does not say it was approving his decision. The event was supposed to happen, so from the perspective of the Qur’an, there actually never was anything to approve. It is just like when Allah made the Muslims have courage (8:43). There was nothing to approve…Allah was simply setting conditions so that it would have an effect.

Allah made Muhammad marry Zaid’s wife as a means of easing them out of a taboo. Muhammad did not act independently of Allah, therefore Muhammad was participating in a Qur’anic example (guidance) rather than demonstrating “sunna”.

Muhammad was compelled to do something for a reason. That is unconnected to explaining the book.

A mere verse would have been sufficient for that. Here it draws attention to mo's example because mo's example is a guide for what is right or wrong for muslims. You cannot spin it any other way.


Once again, this instance of guidance was an active example set by Allah. Muhammad was never actually the example; the fact that he married the wife of his adopted son would have “broken the ice” with regards to the taboo. The Qur’an could have provided a specific verse, and it did after the active example.

All permitted women are in 4:24-25. The funny thing is that the Qur’an was DISAPPROVING Muhammad’s attitude in 33:37, so the opposite of what you say is actually true. The conditions were set up for an active example.

The active example was more effective since it demonstrated that prophets were imperfect, using Muhammad’s mistakes to re-emphasise the importance of not making additional prohibitions and fearing men more than Allah’s laws.

By your logic, 33:50 should have permitted other Muslims to have the same women. But it didn’t.

what was different from what I said - I said
new sunna = old tribal customs that suited mo + new customs that suited mo.
Quran itself is an invention of mo. So it would contain his new rulings - clear and unclear. The clear ones don't require hadiths for explanations, the not so clear ones do.
(BTW, fasting was followed prior to islam by different tribal sects though not compulsorily. But mo probably copied from the christians)


Again you provide no proof that clarification is needed.

I was referring to fasting in Ramadhan. Please read.

Sorry, your "reason" or "proof" do not hold when quran itself points to an action of mo as a guide for muslims to follow. So you need the documented record of mo's actions. End of case


Unfortunately the end of your case eats its beginning, and turns to nothing.

Cheers.

Re: Hadith Timelines

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:17 am
by MesMorial
The Sunna-supporters on this thread have so far presented gutless arguments.

Re: Hadith Timelines

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:39 am
by darth
MesMorial wrote:
33:37-38 highlights the importance of avoiding prohibitions not in the Qur’an. Marrying the wife of an adopted son was never prohibited, and even though people knew that, they still felt uncomfortable doing it. Thus according to the Qur'an, Allah was actively easing the Muslims into acceptance of a "taboo".


It was not done prior to this incident. Whether you call it a "prohibition" or "frowned upon", it is all one and the same. That is why mo feared the people (again, as per the quran)

MesMorial wrote:That was the actual point of the exercise. The marriage was supposed to happen for a reason unrelated to "explaining" the Qur'an.

The action of mo was the guide - "We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons,"
Why did allah not say instead - "o believers, you may marry your adopted son's wife after they have completed their need of her"
According to your quran this allah caused the action of mo in order to make something clear to believers -
Observing from a neutral viewpoint, mo's action was the catalyst for the verse. But if you are a believer, you need to ask - since allah declares that he was the one that caused mo's actions in this case, perhaps it is absolutely essential to study all of mo's actions because they could have been caused by allah as a guide to believers. Thus study of mo's life and hadiths become essential.


MesMorial wrote:Yes it had to happen after, because the example would not have worked had everyone known it. It would be a little awkward for two people to “know” they were going to marry.

What a silly counter point. All that the quran had to do was the following -
"Hey, mo, you are permitted to marry your son's wife and in future other believers may do so as well".

MesMorial wrote:Allah made Muhammad marry Zaid’s wife as a means of easing them out of a taboo. Muhammad did not act independently of Allah, therefore Muhammad was participating in a Qur’anic example (guidance) rather than demonstrating “sunna”.

Muhammad was compelled to do something for a reason. That is unconnected to explaining the book.

Sorry, the straw you are clutching is pretty weak.

As per the quran the following happened -
a) mo had the hots for zaid's wife
b) mo was afraid of the people's opinion in this matter
c) mo married zaid's wife
d) verse was produced legtimizing mo's action, absolving mo of all blame and declaring that allah was guiding mo's action in order to guide the believers in the future in this matter

As an aside, I wonder how many quranic verses follow the pattern of
Mo acted->[locals disapproved]->verse comes.

MesMorial wrote:The Qur’an could have provided a specific verse, and it did after the active example.

That is the same as saying that the quran provides an active example to guide. Whenever someone explains a point with an example, that example is supposed to make clear the point one is making. In this case the active example of mo's action is meant to make clear/guide believers.

MesMorial wrote:By your logic, 33:50 should have permitted other Muslims to have the same women. But it didn’t. e

We are going by the words in the quran. I know you like to mash up everything together and try to fit it to your conclusions (and then pretend that you have been very logical), but it does not work exactly like that . If you want to club everything together the following are the conclusions

a) quran said mo recited the verses and taught (So you need to go to study those explanations/examples)
b) quran used mo's life as an active example to guide people and make things clear
- in some cases by clearly stating that mo's example is to be followed
- in some cases by clearly stating that mo's action are allowed only for mo (special prophetic privilege)
- in some cases by settling mo's inner conflicts (for example absolving him of his promise to hafsa of not going near maria the copt. In such cases allah makes it easy for him to break his promise and do his thing)
- Unless specifically stated other wise in the quran, believers are to be guided by mo's actions .

Now try and disprove all of the above to get your "quran only" philosophy to work.

Good luck!
D
-

Re: Hadith Timelines

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:46 am
by MesMorial

It was not done prior to this incident. Whether you call it a "prohibition" or "frowned upon", it is all one and the same. That is why mo feared the people (again, as per the quran)


It was done afterwards, as I agreed. What is your point?

The action of mo was the guide - "We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons,"
Why did allah not say instead - "o believers, you may marry your adopted son's wife after they have completed their need of her"
According to your quran this allah caused the action of mo in order to make something clear to believers -
Observing from a neutral viewpoint, mo's action was the catalyst for the verse. But if you are a believer, you need to ask - since allah declares that he was the one that caused mo's actions in this case, perhaps it is absolutely essential to study all of mo's actions because they could have been caused by allah as a guide to believers. Thus study of mo's life and hadiths become essential.


The reason they were joined was to break the taboo. Muhammad was also being taught, because his decisions were being disapproved of. Muhammad was also a student of this teaching, thus in no way can you say that his actions were the example. It was an active example staged with certain conditions, just like in 8:43. It was to influence, and Muhammad being compelled to do one thing is different from him simply explaining the Qu’ran.

Explaining the Qur’an is different, because it is not a compelled event. Zaid’s wife may not have agreed to the marriage had it not been a “preordained” event.

If a person (Muslim or not) reads the verse, they see that Muhammad was being corrected and thus they definitely will not follow his every action if it does not agree with the Qur’an. This was an active example, and the Qur’an does give the verse you suggest. If the Qur’an said to follow Muhammad’s actions, it would not have needed to say what it said in 33:37. Basically you say the Qur’an does not sufficiently convey the need to follow Muhammad’s “sunna”, so it needed some vague verse which still does not achieve its supposed motive.

The point of the verses (if you please read them) is that “there is no problem in people doing what Allah has ordained for them” (33:38). It was an admonishment to Muhammad, but it was also extended as an example to others (just like his mistake in 80:1-10). There was never any need to say that people could marry the wives of their adopted sons, because it was never prohibited. The point of the verse was to admonish Muhammad (as it does elsewhere) and use this as an example.

The prophets were not perfect, thus no Muslim would see this the way you want to.

What a silly counter point. All that the quran had to do was the following -
"Hey, mo, you are permitted to marry your son's wife and in future other believers may do so as well".


A very valid counterpoint, unless you change what you believe it was responding to. The point of the verse was to admonish Muhammad (as it does elsewhere) and use this as an example. There was never any need to say that people could marry the wives of their adopted sons, because it was never prohibited.

Your understanding leads to contradictions later, thus it is invalid.

Sorry, the straw you are clutching is pretty weak.

As per the quran the following happened -
a) mo had the hots for zaid's wife
b) mo was afraid of the people's opinion in this matter
c) mo married zaid's wife
d) verse was produced legtimizing mo's action, absolving mo of all blame and declaring that allah was guiding mo's action in order to guide the believers in the future in this matter

As an aside, I wonder how many quranic verses follow the pattern of
Mo acted->[locals disapproved]->verse comes.


The straw is not mine to clutch. Muhammad was ordained to marry Zaid’s wife, and the point was that Allah was admonishing Muhammad for fearing the people more than God’s law (which he already knew did not prohibit marrying wives of adopted sons). People already knew this prohibition wsa false, which is why there is no verse stating it before this. There was never any need to say that people could marry the wives of their adopted sons, because it was never prohibited. The point of the verse was to admonish Muhammad (as it does elsewhere) and use this as an example.

Muhammad was never blamed for marrying Zaid’s wife, because that was not what he was being admonished for. It was fearing people and clinging to an old taboo when he knew it was not in the Qur’an.

That is the same as saying that the quran provides an active example to guide. Whenever someone explains a point with an example, that example is supposed to make clear the point one is making. In this case the active example of mo's action is meant to make clear/guide believers.


No, the believers already knew there was no prohibition, so there was no guiding quality in that respect. Muhammad already knew it, which is exactly why he was being admonished. He was admonished for fearing opinion more than breaking free of a fake prohibition. Muhammad’s admonishment was used as an example to others, just like in 80:1-10. Muhammad also made a mistake in 9:43.

Muhammad was compelled to marry. It was set up for an example, because he was clinging to a fake prohibition. Muhammad was not compelled to explain the Qur’an. If Muhammad did not choose to complete his mission, he would have been punished. The marriage was however not his choice given his attitude and what had already passed.

Your understanding is unsupported by what the verses are really saying, and leads to contradictions. Thus it is invalid.

We are going by the words in the quran. I know you like to mash up everything together and try to fit it to your conclusions (and then pretend that you have been very logical), but it does not work exactly like that . If you want to club everything together the following are the conclusions

a) quran said mo recited the verses and taught (So you need to go to study those explanations/examples)
b) quran used mo's life as an active example to guide people and make things clear
- in some cases by clearly stating that mo's example is to be followed
- in some cases by clearly stating that mo's action are allowed only for mo (special prophetic privilege)
- in some cases by settling mo's inner conflicts (for example absolving him of his promise to hafsa of not going near maria the copt. In such cases allah makes it easy for him to break his promise and do his thing)
- Unless specifically stated other wise in the quran, believers are to be guided by mo's actions .

Now try and disprove all of the above to get your "quran only" philosophy to work.

Good luck!


He recited the verses, and an attribute of this mission was teaching people.

33:37 has been explained above. The Qur’an guided in different ways, but 33:37 was not about using his choices or action as an example. It was to admonish him for clinging to a prohibition he knew was not in the Qur’an, thus showing that prophets were imperfect and that human opinion is invalid.

The point of the verses (if you please read them) is that “there is no problem in people doing what Allah has ordained for them” (33:38). It was an admonishment to Muhammad, but it was also extended as an example to others (just like his mistake in 80:1-10). There was never any need to say that people could marry the wives of their adopted sons, because it was never prohibited. The point of the verse was to admonish Muhammad (as it does elsewhere) and use this as an example.

The prophets were not perfect, thus no Muslim would see this the way you want to. Your understanding leads to contradictions, and thus is invalid.


Nowhere did it say to follow his example, except in his commitment to Qur’anic values (not in HOW he followed the Qur’an).

66:1-5 was another admonishment where he was making prohibitions not in the Qur’an. Thus Muhammad’s personal example is not to be followed, unless it follows the Qur’an alone.

Your theory has been refuted.

Cheers.

Re: Hadith Timelines

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:30 pm
by marduk
pr126 wrote:SAM wrote:
I ask you one question.. Who's real God?.... There is NO God except Allah....

There are no gods. Never was, except the creations of man's imaginations.


That round sphere of white light that people meet when they die. Never told any of them that they should be Muslims or that they should worship him like an idol. So whoever this Allah is, he sure isn't the being we meet when we die, nor does that being ever mention Allah or Islam. What are we to make of that? Only possible conclusion; Allah is not the only god, and probably doesn't even exist. If he does exist, he apparently has a partner, who never mentions him. Allah is the invisible idol of the Jews and the Arabs, that's what Allah is. Just stop the idol worship, whether or not it's made of stone. Saying that the idol lives in heaven doesn't make it any less an idol. If you worship it and expect it to reward you for doing so, you're worshiping an idol, period. So you reduce it to a single idol instead of many. How does that make it less an idol? The REAL god doesn't want worship. It makes him feel like a mere idol. Being of Light (BoL) doesn't like that. Let us honor BoL by not worshiping it.