Page 4 of 5

Re: Does the Koran say that context is required to understand...

PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:18 pm
by charleslemartel
skynightblaze wrote:I dont understand why an intelligent guy like Cat is wanting to desperately support quran.


I think I get The Cat's point. However, if I get it right then he shouldn't be arguing here. He should take his line of argument to the Islamic sites which argue in favor of the Hadith.

Don't ask me what I think is his point. I can tell you what I think in PMs, and not in a public forum.

Re: Does the Koran say that context is required to understand...

PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:38 am
by The Cat
4.59:
O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger,and those charged with authority among you.
If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah.....

skynightblaze wrote:IF only Allah and his messenger are reliable as per later part which you reddened then why ask us to obey *men of authority*? They too must be reliable...

1. Obey Allah.
2. Obey the Messenger
3. Those charged with authority -among you-.
4. If you differ in -anything- among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger.

This authority was among some of Muhammad's contemporaries like Abu Bakr, Uthman, Umar and Ali. Since the Prophet left no clear
succession, that mentioned authority ceased except that of the Koran. The clear proof that all hadiths are shirk is that Uthman ordered
them all to be -destroyed-.
That's what the authority from Muhammad's contemporaries has done. We shall also notice that Muhammad
in 4.59 isn't mentioned by name but solely as a Revelation carrier. The individual is willingly erased which means that no one by himself
can be an authority beside Allah and the Koran, not even Muhammad as a person but solely as a messenger.

skynightblaze wrote:Unless you provide evidence to the claim that whole of generation formed a false belief I see no reason to accept that.

The simple fact that Abu Huraira (the one who invented the Shahadah) was elevated to the status of 'law giver' (Ahl-i Ray) prove you wrong.
Read again about the Ridda wars over 'authority'. Then hear about the Mutazilite controversy, how Al-Hajjaj bin Yusuf (661-714) killed most
of the lettered dissenters in Saudi Arabia (like Ibn al-Zubayr and his two sons), Persia and Irak, exterminating the Kharijites on the way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharijites
Kharijites insisted on the right to revolt against any ruler who deviated from the example of the Islamic prophet, Muhammad. (...)
The only surviving group.........


skynightblaze wrote:Now I have to agree here that within 200 years some errors and discrepancy is bound to come into hadiths but that doesn’t mean only lies passed from one generation to the other because Bukhari made a lot of efforts to collect the hadiths and he collected only those hadith that were confirmed from multiple sources at the same level. Now if all them were lies its impossible that each level different people lie and their lies match with each other.

Why two hundred years? Because, under the authority of Uthman, a rightful Caliph, all former contemporary hadiths (so much more credible)
have been -destroyed in order to preserve the Koran as faithfully as can be-. Later, Umar and Ali admonished Abu Huraira for attempting to
create others. Yet the same Abu Huraira (he invented the Hajj too) is now the most revered hadith transmitter! Dig it...

Now, about things like the Battle of Badr, it's alright to rely on some historical descriptions (if there's any truly reliable) but it's quite another
to hold anything outside of the Koran as religiously binding. I shall add that the Koran acknowledges the Torah, Gospel, Zabur (the Psalms),
Furkan and Messaniy as binding, so much so that people in doubt (3.7) should: ''if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which
We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee''
(10.94). Not their Imams or Mullahs, the Bible !

And this Bukhari is a sinister joke from any critical analysis, for one thing he rejected -all- Hanafi hadiths!
http://www.quranic.org/
viewtopic.php?p=17395#p17395

Bye.

Re: Does the Koran say that context is required to understand...

PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:37 am
by Q
FYI:



يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ أَطِيعُواْ اللّهَ وَأَطِيعُواْ الرَّسُولَ وَأُوْلِي الأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ ذَلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلاً {59}
[Shakir 4:59] O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end.
[Yusufali 4:59] O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.
[Pickthal 4:59] O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end.

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 4:59]


"Obey Allah and obey the messenger and the ulil amr (those vested with authority through His messenger)."


The command to obey is infinite-total obedience in all material, religious and spiritual matters, therefore, as this verse clearly signifies, the ulil amr must also be as just, wise and merciful as Allah and the Holy Prophet are, and he who - administers the affairs of mankind should be the khalifatullah (vicegerent of Allah) and the waliallah (representative of Allah whom He chooses after equipping him with His wisdom). Please refer to the commentary of al-Baqarah: 30 to 39 and 124; and al-Ma-idah: 55 and 56 and 3 and 67 with reference to the event at Ghadir Khum; and al-Rad: 43; and al-Hud: 17. A careful study of the above references discloses that Ali, and after him, the remaining eleven Imams, in the progeny of the Holy Prophet, Ali and Fatimah, are the true successors of the Holy Prophet who have been referred to as ulil amr in this verse. So the Shias obey and follow the Holy Prophet and the twelve Imams.


It is irrational and senseless to accept any ruler as ulil amr, otherwise men like Yazid bin Mu-awiya will have to be included in the category of ulil amr; and no sane person would say that Allah has enjoined to obey men like Yazid (prototypes of whom were and are many and in abundance since the departure of the Holy Prophet till today) just as one obeys Allah and the Holy Prophet.


From the event of ashira (feast of the near relatives to carry out the divine command of "warn your tribe of near relatives") to the day at Ghadir Khum, the Holy Prophet repeatedly announced the successorship of Ali, therefore, the first step a true Muslim must take to obey the messenger of Allah is to obey and follow Ali ibn abi Talib. Also refer to the "Right Path" and "Peshawar Nights", published by the Peermohammed Ebrahim Trust or Zahra Publications, because the issue of ulil amr and wali has been discussed in depth in these books with authentic references from the well-known books of tafsir (exegesis) and hadith (traditions) written by the Muslim scholars.


Today the Muslim ummah (from Indonesia to Morocco) is in a quandary, because the theoreticians who directly or indirectly served the interests of the despotic rulers, have presented "the obedience to ruler" (even if he is an usurper, a rogue or a ruffian) as a fundamental of religion (known as the theory of ghlu and ghalba-violence and conquest) by misinterpreting this verse. Such theoreticians are their Imams. There is no way leading to emancipation from terror and exploitation if this theory is not rightly rejected once and for all. It is not possible unless the sincere Muslims submit to the teachings of the Ahl ul Bayt.






*****

Re: Does the Koran say that context is required to understand...

PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:46 am
by Q
FYI:
http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/self ... -discourse


....
However, the ulu 'l-amr (those vested with authority) – whoever they might be – do not have the privilege of revelation; they decide and act according to what is right in their opinion; and their opinion and order must be obeyed just like the prophet's opinion and order. That is the reason why Allah has not mentioned them when He orders the believers to refer their disputes to Allah and the Messenger. He says: then if you quarrel about any thing, refer it to Allah and the Messenger if you believe in Allah and the last day. The people thus ordered are the believers, because the verse begins with the address, "O you who believe!" and the quarrel mentioned here must be an internal dispute among the believers. We cannot suppose that the believers would quarrel with those who are vested with authority when they are obligated to obey them. So this quarrel must be among the believers themselves, and it cannot be in matters of orders issued by those vested with authority; rather it has to be about identification of Allah's command in a particular affair, as may be inferred from the next verses which condemn those who resort to the judgment of taghut (infidels) preferring it to the judgment of Allah and His Messenger. A believer must resort in such matters to the religious laws laid down in the Qur'an and the sunnah; and both the Qur'an and the sunnah are final proofs in all affairs, for him who has the ability to understand the law from them. When the ulu'I-amr say that this is what the Qur'an and the sunnah say on this matter, all argument has to stop. When they talk, theirs is the final word, because the verse makes their obedience compulsory without any restriction or condition; and finally every affair returns to the Book of Allah and the sunnah.

It shows that the people with authority - whoever they might be - have no authority to legislate a new law or to abrogate a rule established by the Qur'an or the sunnah. Otherwise, it would serve no purpose to order people to refer their dispute to the Qur'an and the sunnah, to Allah and the Messenger, as may be inferred from the verse 33:36: And it is not for a believing man or a believing woman to have any choice in their affair when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying. Allah decides by giving a law; His Messenger decides by elaborating a divine law, giving an order or pronouncing a judgment. As for the persons vested with authority, they have the power, in executive matters, to decide according to their discretion, and in judicial and general matters, to bring to light the decisions of Allah and His Messenger.

In short, as the ulu l-amr have no power of legislation, nor do they have any order other than that which Allah and His Messenger have given in the Qur'an and the sunnah, Allah did not mention them again in connection with referral of disputes, when He said: then if you quarrel about any thing, refer it to Allah and the Messenger. Thus Allah's obedience is in one category and that of the Messenger and those vested with authority, in another. That is why Allah has said: "Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you"........



Re: Does the Koran say that context is required to understand...

PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:23 pm
by sum
Hello Q

It all boils down to "Who are those people in authority?" They could be the ruling Islamic elite in an Islamic state any time after the death of Muhammad. For all time, there will be occasions when there is uncertainty about something which is not specifically covered in the Koran or sunnah and so the responsibility of giving the Islamic ruling will rest upon those in authority.

sum

Re: Does the Koran say that context is required to understand...

PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:40 pm
by sum
Hello The Cat

I have read your comments on the need for context to understand surah 9. However, you seem to have relegated all the unacceptable aspects of surah 9 to that of an historical episode. One then has to ask why is Allah inserting history into his final guidance for all humanity. It has to serve a purpose. The only reasonable purpose that I can see is that the historical account serves as an example for muslims to follow in the future.

The Koran actually says in 60:4 that it is an examole.
060.004
YUSUFALI: There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone": But not when Abraham said to his father: "I will pray for forgiveness for thee, though I have no power (to get) aught on thy behalf from Allah." (They prayed): "Our Lord! in Thee do we trust, and to Thee do we turn in repentance: to Thee is (our) Final Goal.


In many ways, it could be claimed that context is superfluous if it is serving as an example for muslims to follow.

sum

Re: Does the Koran say that context is required to understand...

PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:45 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
The Cat wrote:Bye.


:lol: What a self impressed snot. Ya' just gotta love it.

Re: Does the Koran say that context is required to understand...

PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:13 pm
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:

skynightblaze wrote:IF only Allah and his messenger are reliable as per later part which you reddened then why ask us to obey *men of authority*? They too must be reliable...

1. Obey Allah.
2. Obey the Messenger
3. Those charged with authority -among you-.
4. If you differ in -anything- among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger.

This authority was among some of Muhammad's contemporaries like Abu Bakr, Uthman, Umar and Ali. Since the Prophet left no clear
succession, that mentioned authority ceased except that of the Koran.


You forgot that quran is for all times so this verse by default is applicable even today. Also note the fact that quran doesn’t take the names of these *men of authority*.If only the men like Abu Bakhr,Umar or Uthman were to be followed then quran would have taken names explicitly. It merely says *men of authority* and since this verse is applicable for all times it means muslims are supposed to listen to the men of authority during their times.


The Cat wrote:The clear proof that all hadiths are shirk is that Uthman ordered
them all to be -destroyed-.
That's what the authority from Muhammad's contemporaries has done.


It only proves one thing that Uthman disagreed with the other copies of quran and hence ordered them to be destroyed.You also forget the fact that Bukhari quotes hadiths from the companions of Muhhamad like Uthman ,Umar,Abu Bakhr.Bukhari didn’t give personal opinions on those hadiths. Btw Uthman and Umar weren’t against narration of hadiths provided they were proper.. look at the following hadiths from bukhari …You have to accept them as a source of information as your yourself are relying on sources other than quran ..

Spoiler! :
Volume 1, Book 3, Number 98:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

I said: "O Allah's Apostle! Who will be the luckiest person, who will gain your intercession on the Day of Resurrection?" Allah's Apostle said: O Abu Huraira! "I have thought that none will ask me about it before you as I know your longing for the (learning of) Hadiths. The luckiest person who will have my intercession on the Day of Resurrection will be the one who said sincerely from the bottom of his heart "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah."

And 'Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz wrote to Abu Bakr bin Hazm, "Look for the knowledge of Hadith and get it written, as I am afraid that religious knowledge will vanish and the religious learned men will pass away (die). Do not accept anything save the Hadiths of the Prophet. Circulate knowledge and teach the ignorant, for knowledge does not vanish except when it is kept secretly (to oneself)."


Now since you don’t trust Abu Huraira lets see another companion narrating a hadith where Uthman himself supports Abu Huraira’s position...

Spoiler! :
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 161:

Narrated Humran:

(the slave of 'Uthman) I saw 'Uthman bin 'Affan asking for a tumbler of water (and when it was brought) he poured water over his hands and washed them thrice and then put his right hand in the water container and rinsed his mouth, washed his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out. then he washed his face and forearrlns up to the elbows thrice, passed his wet hands over his head and washed his feet up to the ankles thrice. Then he said, "Allah's Apostle said 'If anyone Performs ablution like that of mine and offers a two-rak'at prayer during which he does not think of anything else (not related to the present prayer) then his past sins will be forgiven.' " After performing the ablution 'Uthman said, "I am going to tell you a Hadith which I would not have told you, had I not been compelled by a certain Holy Verse (the sub narrator 'Urwa said: This verse is: "Verily, those who conceal the clear signs and the guidance which we have sent down...)" (2:159). I heard the Prophet saying, 'If a man performs ablution perfectly and then offers the compulsory congregational prayer, Allah will forgive his sins committed between that (prayer) and the (next) prayer till he offers it.


In short Uthman wasn’t against the narration of reliable hadiths.

The Cat wrote: We shall also notice that Muhammad
in 4.59 isn't mentioned by name but solely as a Revelation carrier. The individual is willingly erased which means that no one by himself
can be an authority beside Allah and the Koran, not even Muhammad as a person but solely as a messenger.


I fail to see your point here.Quran also says plenty of times "Obey the messenger". Why say Obey the messenger if only Allah is to be followed? Even if name of Muhhamad in 4:59 is not taken it is talking about following Muhhamad.Its obvious!.If only quran is to be obeyed then it wouldn’t have said follow the messenger and also follow the men of authority.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Unless you provide evidence to the claim that whole of generation formed a false belief I see no reason to accept that.

The simple fact that Abu Huraira (the one who invented the Shahadah) was elevated to the status of 'law giver' (Ahl-i Ray) prove you wrong.


Shahada wasn’t an invention. Its not only Abu huraira but also others narrating the same thing. One has to say the shahada before converting to islam . see the hadith from Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 24 , . Its from a person called Abu Ma'bad.Another hadith from a person called Al-Bara' bin 'Azib which again talks about Shahada .The hadith is Volume 2, Book 23, Number 450. Also See Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 546 narrated by Anas.

So if it was only Abu Huraira who invented the Shahada how come we see the mention of shahada in the narration of the narrators besides Abu Huraira?We should be seeing only Abu Huraira doing that if that was an invention from him.

Also see “Friendship with Muhammad” from the link below..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_view_of_Abu_Huraira

Wikipedia wrote:"Then Abu Hurayrah made a supplication saying: 'O Lord, I ask You for what my two companions have asked and I ask You for knowledge which will not be forgotten.'"
"The Prophet, peace be on him, said: 'Ameen.'


I don’t know the source of this but it seems that Muhhamad had no problem with knowledge of Abu Huraira.This can also be confirmed from my previous post where I quoted hadiths wherein Muhhamad says that his companions shouldn’t be abused and his generation is the best in conduct and knowledge .So even if we discard this quote from wIkipedia still Abu Huraira can be trusted.

The Cat wrote:Read again about the Ridda wars over 'authority'. Then hear about the Mutazilite controversy, how Al-Hajjaj bin Yusuf (661-714) killed most
of the lettered dissenters in Saudi Arabia (like Ibn al-Zubayr and his two sons), Persia and Irak, exterminating the Kharijites on the way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharijites
Kharijites insisted on the right to revolt against any ruler who deviated from the example of the Islamic prophet, Muhammad. (...)
The only surviving group.........





If today anyone tries rewriting the quran or taking undesired meanings of the quran his fate will be the same.He/she will be killed . Does that mean that quran is a corrupted book? What you said only tells us that they were intolerant of anything other than what they believed but still this isn’t a sufficient proof to prove that they were on the wrong path.They were intolerant but how does that mean they were on the wrong path and completely misguided?


The cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Now I have to agree here that within 200 years some errors and discrepancy is bound to come into hadiths but that doesn’t mean only lies passed from one generation to the other because Bukhari made a lot of efforts to collect the hadiths and he collected only those hadith that were confirmed from multiple sources at the same level. Now if all them were lies its impossible that each level different people lie and their lies match with each other.


Why two hundred years? Because, under the authority of Uthman, a rightful Caliph, all former contemporary hadiths (so much more credible)
have been -destroyed in order to preserve the Koran as faithfully as can be-. Later, Umar and Ali admonished Abu Huraira for attempting to
create others. Yet the same Abu Huraira (he invented the Hajj too) is now the most revered hadith transmitter! Dig it...


Uthman wasn’t against the hadiths .I proved that above..As far as Hajj is concerned there is a separate chapter on Hajj in Bukhari hadiths. Its not only Abu Huraira but plenty of people talking about Hajj. If Hajj was an invented concept then so many people cannot repeat the same lie.We should be seeing discrepancy in that case.

The Cat wrote:Now, about things like the Battle of Badr, it's alright to rely on some historical descriptions (if there's any truly reliable) but it's quite another
to hold anything outside of the Koran as religiously binding. I shall add that the Koran acknowledges the Torah, Gospel, Zabur (the Psalms),
Furkan and Messaniy as binding, so much so that people in doubt (3.7) should: ''if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which
We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee''
(10.94). Not their Imams or Mullahs, the Bible !


Muslims cannot refer to previous scriptures because they believe that they are corrupted so this argument is out of window.

The Cat wrote:And this Bukhari is a sinister joke from any critical analysis, for one thing he rejected -all- Hanafi hadiths!
http://www.quranic.org/
viewtopic.php?p=17395#p17395

Bye.


Discarding Hanafi hadiths makes him completely reliable? What kind of logic is that ? Someone's work doesn’t become completely unreliable if he skips some part. The rest of the part can be right and yet the person can miss an important thing and hence such kind of conclusion is weird.The only conclusion that can be drawn from your quote is Bukhari isnt completely reliable but the conclusion cannot be that he is a waste and should be discarded totally.

Re: Does the Koran say that context is required to understand...

PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2010 3:36 am
by Q
Spoiler! :
sum wrote:Hello Q

It all boils down to "Who are those people in authority?" They could be the ruling Islamic elite in an Islamic state any time after the death of Muhammad. For all time, there will be occasions when there is uncertainty about something which is not specifically covered in the Koran or sunnah and so the responsibility of giving the Islamic ruling will rest upon those in authority.

sum




TAQLID : Following a Mujtahid

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

1. * It is necessary for a Muslim to believe in the fundamentals of faith with his own insight and understanding, and he cannot follow anyone in this respect i.e. he cannot accept the word of another who knows, simply because he has said it. However, one who has faith in the true tenets of Islam, and manifests it by his deeds, is a Muslim and Mo'min, even if he is not very profound, and the laws related to a Muslim will hold good for h
im. In matters of religious laws, apart from the ones clearly defined, or ones which are indisputable, a person must:

either be a Mujtahid (jurist)** himself, capable of inferring and deducing from the religious sources and evidence;

or if he is not a Mujtahid himself, he should follow one, i.e. he should act accordi ng to the verdicts (Fatwa) of the Mujtahid;

or if he is neither a Mujtahid nor a follower (Muqallid), he should act on such precaution which should assure him that he has fulfilled his religious obligation. For example, if some Mujtahids consider an act to be haraam, while others say that it is not, he should not perform that act. Similarly, if some Mujtahid consider an act to be obligatory (Wajib) while others consider it to be recommended (Mustahab), he should perform it. Therefore, it is obligatory upon those persons who are neither Mujta hids, nor able to act on precautionary measures (Ihtiyat), to follow a Mujtahid.P


** Mujtahid is a jurist competent enough to deduce precise inferences regarding the commandments from the holy Qur'an and the Sunnah of the holy Prophet by the process of Ijtihad. Ijtihad literally means striving and exerting. Technically as a term of juri sprudence it signifies the application by a jurist of all his faculties to the consideration of the authorities of law with a view to finding out what in all probability is the law. In other words Ijtihad means making deductions in matters of law, in the cases to which no express text is applicable. (See, Baqir Sadr, A Short History of 'llmul Usul, ISP, 1984).

.



http://www.al-islam.org/laws/taqlid.html

Re: Does the Koran say that context is required to understand...

PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2010 5:10 am
by Q
The Cat wrote:, we're left with the Koran, whom
depicts Muhammad as imperfect (40.55; 47.19; 48.2; 53.19-21, etc), sometimes with the blessing of Allah (33.50)!

48.1-2: Lo! We have given thee (O Muhammad) a signal victory, ---That Allah may forgive thee of thy sin (dhanaba) that which is past
and that which is to come, and may perfect His favour unto thee, and may guide thee on a right path....


In chronology this is the 111th sura and still Allah had to 'perfect His favour' unto Muhammad!



fyi

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِ
إِنَّا فَتَحْنَا لَكَ فَتْحًا مُّبِينًا {1}
[Shakir 48:1] Surely We have given to you a clear victory
[Yusufali 48:1] Verily We have granted thee a manifest Victory:
[Pickthal 48:1] Lo! We have given thee (O Muhammad) a signal victory,
[Pooya/Ali Commentary 48:1]
In the sixth year of Hijra, the Holy Prophet had a dream that with his followers he made circuits round the Ka-bah, and performed all the ceremonies of hajj.

Six years had passed since the Holy Prophet had left Makka. Islam had grown during these six years. The pagans had tried to attack the Holy Prophet at various times, but had been defeated. The Holy Prophet desired to perform the umrah in the month of Dhiqada, unarmed, but accompanied with his followers. A large following joined him, to the number of fifteen hundred. Early in the month, the Holy Prophet led his followers to Dhul Hulayfa on the road to Makka. They carried no arms but sheathed sword of a traveller. When they drew near to Makka, they were warned that Quraysh had gathered their allies against them, and that their cavalry under Khalid bin Walid was on the road before them, and with him was Ikrima bin Abu Jahl. As the Holy Prophet did not come to fight, he turned towards the right. At Hudaybiya his camel, Qaswa, stopped and knelt down. The Holy Prophet took it as a divine command and encamped there. There was no water there as the wells were choked up with sand. The Holy Prophet planted an arrow in one of the wells and the water immediately surfaced. The Quraysh sent three emissaries, one after the other, to enquire about his intentions. Urwa, a chief from Taif, said to the Holy Prophet that the Makkans were desperate and that they had resolved to die rather than allow him to enter. He also emphatically told him that as soon as the Makkans would fall upon his followers, they would run and desert him. At this Abu Bakr protested and resented the remark. The emissaries expressed their conviction in the sincerity of the Holy Prophet's intentions but the heathens did not listen to them. Kharrash bin Ummayya and Uthman were sent to the Quraysh but they could not convince them. They only agreed to allow Uthman, if he wished, to perform the rites of umrah.

In view of a possible confrontation, the Holy Prophet summoned all those with him and standing under a tree, took oath from each, of resolute adherence to him, never to flee from the battle field and to fight to the end. Refer to the verse 18 of this surah. This pledge is called "The pledge under the tree".

Mindful of the rout at the day of Khandaq at the hands of Ali the Makkans sent Suhayl bin Amr

with some other representatives to conclude a treaty of peace with the Holy Prophet as soon as they heard of the pledge under the tree. When the terms of the treaty were settled the Holy Prophet asked Ali, his vicegerent, to write down the terms of the treaty. Ali began with "bismillahir rahmanir rahim" but Suhayl said that it should begin as the Makkans used to do: Bismika Allahumma. The Holy Prophet agreed. Again when Ali wrote that "This is the treaty made between Muhammad Rasullullah (the messenger of Allah) and Suhayl bin Amr", Suhayl said that had they accepted Muhammad as the messenger of Allah they would not have taken arms against him, therefore "Muhammad bin Abdullah" should be written. Ali hesitated, then the Holy Prophet himself erased the word rasulullah and wrote bin Abdullah after his name, and told Ali that he would likewise face a similar situation in future. This prophecy came true when a treaty was concluded between Ali and Mu-awiyah after thirty years.

The following terms were put down in the treaty.

(i) There shall be no aggression on the part of any of the two parties for the next ten years, neither shall attack the other or their allies.

(ii) Whosoever wishes to join Muhammad and enter into a league with him shall have the liberty to do so. Likewise whoso wishes to join the Quraysh shall have the liberty to do so.

(iii) If any one goes over to Muhammad and is claimed back by his guardian he shall be sent back; but if any one from the followers of Muhammad returns to the Quraysh, he shall not be sent back.

(iv) Muhammad and his followers shall go back this year without entering the holy precincts.

(v) Next year Muhammad and his followers may visit Makka for three days, when the Quraysh shall retire therefrom. They will not enter it with any arms, save with a traveller's sword.

The text was written by Ali and was witnessed by some of the most prominent companions.

It is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari, Tazkirat al Karim and Rawdat al Ahbab that Umar bin Khattab expressed himself plainly that he had never before suspected so strongly the truth of Muhammad being the messenger of Allah (it means he had doubted many times before); and said: "Are you not a true messenger of Allah? Why should we then put a blot upon our faith and bear the brunt of humiliation if we are in the right and our adversaries in the wrong?" The Holy Prophet replied: "I am but a messenger of Allah and can do nothing against His will. He will help me."

The treaty of Hudaybiya, which though at the time seemed a set-back to the Muslims, proved in fact the greatest victory for Islam, moral and social, as well as political, and its lessons are expounded in this surah-victory comes from cool courage, devotion, faith and patience.

By virtue of this treaty every individual, each family, clan or tribe was given freedom of choice to join the Holy Prophet in his mission, to profess Islam and convince others to come into the fold of the religion of Allah without any risk of persecution from the disbelievers. Islam was making steady progress throughout the land.




لِيَغْفِرَ لَكَ اللَّهُ مَا تَقَدَّمَ مِن ذَنبِكَ وَمَا تَأَخَّرَ وَيُتِمَّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكَ وَيَهْدِيَكَ صِرَاطًا مُّسْتَقِيمًا {2}
[Shakir 48:2] That Allah may forgive your community their past faults and those to follow and complete His favor to you and keep you on a right way,
[Yusufali 48:2] That Allah may forgive thee thy faults of the past and those to follow; fulfil His favour to thee; and guide thee on the Straight Way;
[Pickthal 48:2] That Allah may forgive thee of thy sin that which is past and that which is to come, and may perfect His favour unto thee, and may guide thee on a right path,
[Pooya/Ali Commentary 48:2]
If even a fleeting thought crosses the mind at the mention of "sinning and being forgiven" to connect it with the conduct of the Holy Prophet, it must be condemned as the worst form of blasphemy.

In the light of what has been written in the commentary of several verses so far studied, the sublime, superior-most and infallible nature of the Holy Prophet's being rules out any possibility, however far-fetched, of laying a sinful act on his doorstep.

In addition to other verses call to memory particularly the commentary of the following verses:

Fatihah: 6 and 7.

Baqarah: 2, 30 to 39, 40, 78, 89, 124, 253, 285,

Ali Imran: 48, 81.

Bara-at: 105,

BaniIsrail: 1,55.

Ahzab: 21, 33.

Mumin: 55.

Muhammad: 15 and 19.

In the commentary of Mumin: 55 the issue of sinning and forgiveness has been thoroughly discussed and there is nothing to add here to reject the preposterous idea of attributing sinning to the Holy Prophet.

Verses 2 to 9 of Najm alone are enough to establish the fact that if any one dares to slander the Holy Prophet with the outlandish conjecture that "as, after all, he was a human being it was natural for him to make mistakes", he is accusing Allah of making those mistakes.

In reality there are two schools of thought among his followers.

One school of thought follows the philosophy of the companions, among whom the shaykhayn (the first and the second caliph), Abu Sufyan and his son Mu-awiyah were very active in giving currency to the theory of "Muhammd was a man like unto us", which created so much confusion about the personality of the Holy Prophet that a large number of Muslims, in all ages, meekly surrender to whatever they have said about him. It was deliberately planned to bring the status of the Holy Prophet to the level of ordinary men so that the run of the mill rulers, whom they wanted to present as heroes of Islam, could be respected and honoured by the common people. To belittle the highest position of the Ahl ul Bayt, established by the sayings and doings of the Holy Prophet which have been mentioned by almost all the authors of traditions, history and tafsir, they found it imperative to spread the mist of incredibility around the infallible messenger of Allah, even by distorting and ignoring the clear and decisive verses of the Quran.

The point of view of the followers of "Muhammad and ali (Ahl ul Bayt) of Muhammad" has been clearly mentioned in the interpretation of all the relevant verses of the Quran. Verse 9 of Najm describes the nearness in perfection of the Holy Prophet to the absolute perfection of Allah as "at a distance of two bows, or still nearer." What the "still nearer" implies is yet unknowable to man. It may have no frontiers. There is no limit to his nearness to Allah's perfection.

As has been mentioned in the commentary of Mumin: 55 and Muhammad: 15 and 19, Allah has granted protection to the followers of the Holy Prophet against their adversaries by the treaty of Hudaybiya. Two years later when the Holy Prophet entered Makka, after the unconditional surrender of the pagans, he had ten thousand men with him. A great victory it was indeed, surpassing all others in its far-reaching effects.

The interpretation of ghafir and zanb have been given in the commentary of Mumin: 55.

The sins of those who opposed the Holy Prophet but afterwards embraced Islam, and the sins of those who would, in future, oppose the religion of Allah but might become Muslims, would be forgiven, as also mentioned in Zumar: 35.

For the completion of Allah's favour refer to the commentary of Ma-idah: 3 and 67.

Guiding the Holy Prophet to the right path after seventeen years of preaching the divine message is meaningless. The people are addressed here through the Holy Prophet, because the welfare of the people is the responsibility of the messenger of Allah. It refers to the guidance provided by Allah in the person of Ali, after the Holy Prophet, at Ghadir Khum, in order to secure the religion of Allah for ever from distortion and corruption.

Aqa Mahdi Puya says:

About the messengers and prophets of Allah the Quran says:

(i) They have been freed from any possibility of sinning.

(ii) Shaytan has no authority over them.

(iii) They follow nothing but revelation revealed to them by Allah.

(iv) They are always on the right path. So every man prays to Allah to keep him on the path of His chosen representatives (Fatihah: 7).

(v) Najm: 2 to 5 say:

"Your companion is not led astray, nor does he err, nor does he speak of his own inclination, it is naught but revelation revealed, taught him the mighty in power,"

Though the above verses refer to the Holy Prophet in particular, but they also cover all the prophets of Allah in general. Now if any sin is connected with them, the Quran would become an unreliable book.

The word zanb should be interpreted as the shortcomings necessitated by the nature of creation in all created beings, because Allah, the creator, is alone above and free of all inherent or intrinsic shortcomings. This is the fact towards which the Quran points out when it is said therein that Allah has freed His prophets from shortcomings and that the holy Ahl ul Bayt have been thoroughly purified, which is the result of ghafar (protection) He grants to His chosen servants.

Ghafir in this verse refers to the redress made available by His grace, otherwise victory in any sense cannot be the cause of forgiveness of any misdeed done under the influence of evil.

Zanb here refers to the state of mind of the Holy Prophet in view of the opposition of the disbelievers and the hypocrites to retard the progress of Islam, which came to an end by the decisive victory mentioned in verse one, political as well as spiritual. It is these kind of shortcomings which can be removed by the victory, or it can prevent its recurrence in future-the completion of Allah's favour on the Holy Prophet.

According to the Ahl ul Bayt zanb, in this verse, means the sin of the people, not of the Holy Prophet.


\

Re: Does the Koran say that context is required to understand...

PostPosted: Sun May 02, 2010 8:52 pm
by The Cat
Q wrote:In the sixth year of Hijra, the Holy Prophet had a dream that with his followers he made circuits round the Ka-bah, and performed all the ceremonies of hajj. Six years had passed since the Holy Prophet had left Makka.

With the Year of the Elephant now ascertained by 552AD, Muhammad's traditional chronology (570/632) crumbles. So when was the 'sixth year of Hijra' ? Worse still, the Abraha inscription doesn't mention Mecca, nor the Quraysh at all, let alone anyone by the name of al-Muttalid.

I shall add that the hadith notions of the Ka-bah and of the Hajj are preposterous to say the least and that Makka isn't even mentioned once in the Koran, not even in 48.24 whereas the classical Arabic pinpoints that Mkk means 'destruction' instead of a proper name indicating a location.

Q wrote:If even a fleeting thought crosses the mind at the mention of "sinning and being forgiven" to connect it with the conduct of the Holy Prophet, it must be condemned as the worst form of blasphemy. In the light of what has been written in the commentary of several verses so far studied, the sublime, superior-most and infallible nature of the Holy Prophet's being rules out any possibility, however far-fetched, of laying a sinful act on his doorstep.

The worst form of blasphemy is to portray Muhammad as sinless while the Koran clearly states otherwise. Muhammad have erred (33.37; 9.43; 93.7; 42.52): ''And thus have We inspired in thee (Muhammad) a Spirit of Our command. Thou knewest not what the Scripture was, nor what the Faith.....''

Muhammad brought nothing new as per 41.43 and 46.9: ''Say: I am no new thing among the messengers (of Allah), nor know I what will be done with me or with you. I do but follow that which is inspired in me, and I am but a plain warner.''

There are NO teachings of Muhammad, like his sunna as per the Hadiths.
The only teaching is that of Allah, unless shirk as the Muhammadans do!


49.16-17: ''Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Would ye teach Allah your religion, when Allah knoweth all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth, and Allah is Aware of all things? ---They make it a favour unto thee (Muhammad) that they have surrendered (unto Him). Say: Deem not your Surrender a favour unto me; but Allah doth confer a favour on you, inasmuch as He hath led you to the Faith, if ye are earnest.''

23.44: ''Then We sent our messengers one after another. Whenever its messenger came unto a nation they denied him; so We caused them to follow one another and We made them bywords (stories, tales: hadiths). A far removal for folk who believe not!''


Moreso, when joining 2.30 and 3.59, we find out that Jesus-Christ is to be Allah's earthly viceroy: His authority (warder) on earth!

2.30-31: And when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am about to place a viceroy in the earth, they said: Wilt thou place therein one who will do harm therein and will shed blood, while we, we hymn Thy praise and sanctify Thee ? He said: Surely I know that which ye know not. ---And He taught Adam all the names, then showed them to the angels, saying: Inform Me of the names of these, if ye are truthful.

3.59-60: Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is. ---(This is) the truth from thy Lord (O Muhammad), so be not thou of those who waver (who doubt).


Adam has been taught to think independently, by himself; to use his reason and common sense, while the angels can't. They were created as blind worshipers without free will. Because of this, they were to worship Adam as well as Jesus, created in his likeness, as the Word and Spirit from Allah (3.45; 4.171). In 3.60 Muhammad is commanded not to doubt that Jesus, in the likeness of Adam is Allah's viceroy (regent) on earth. That's what the Islamic clergy corrupted, switching unto Muhammad the earthly regency of the world through the blasphemous hadiths, thus usurping the Koran's authority.

The sunna to be followed is that of Jesus the Messiah, the incarnation of Allah's Word and Spirit, NOT of Muhammad!

3.61-62: ''And whoso disputeth with thee concerning him, after the knowledge which hath come unto thee, say (unto him): Come! We will summon our sons and your sons, and our women and your women, and ourselves and yourselves, then we will pray humbly (to our Lord) and (solemnly) invoke the curse of Allah upon those who lie. ---Lo! This verily is the true narrative (sunna). There is no Allah save Allah and lo! Allah, He verily is, is the Mighty, the Wise.''


The messenger is but a plain warner (15.89; 17.93, 105; 18.110; 4.80-81, etc), NOT a warder... at all!
88.21-22: ''Remind them, for thou art but a remembrancer, Thou art not at all a warder over them.''

But that's exactly what your blasphemous Imams and Mullahs turned Muhammad into, a warder over Muhammadans! Nothing but SHIRK !

Re: Does the Koran say that context is required to understand...

PostPosted: Sun May 02, 2010 8:56 pm
by Chewchy
I was just reading about this question the other night - will see if I can find it... believe that it was in the "Infidels Guide to the Koran".

Re: Does the Koran say that context is required to understand...

PostPosted: Sun May 02, 2010 9:25 pm
by Chewchy
I was unable to find it in the book mentioned before so I must have been something else... I'm also reading "An Abridged Koran" that I highly recommend. This book puts the suras in chronological order, removed the redundant (of which there are many) and has much commentary.

Here's a writing that I thought was also helpful.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpag ... c_id/10467

Re: Does the Koran say that context is required to understand...

PostPosted: Mon May 03, 2010 12:14 am
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:quran is for all times so this verse (4.59) by default is applicable even today. Also note the fact that quran doesn’t take the names of these *men of authority*.If only the men like Abu Bakhr,Umar or Uthman were to be followed then quran would have taken names explicitly. It merely says *men of authority* and since this verse is applicable for all times it means muslims are supposed to listen to the men of authority during their times.

It means that their examples are authoritative for all time. They got their 'authority' from their kinship with the messenger and their closeness (de visu) of the revelations. The last one being Ali, Muawiya started to rely on fabricated hadiths to usurp power, that became the Hanafi school of law. Later, the Abbasid had to create other sets of hadiths to justified theirs: the Shafi'i, Hanbali, etc. more and more traditionalists, more and more blasphemous! See what 12.40 has to say on authority: ''Those whom ye serve beside Him are but names which ye have named, ye and your fathers. Allah hath revealed no sanction (authority) for them. The decision rests with Allah only.....'' There's no authority to any name, let alone hearsays (hadiths).

18.56: ''We send not the messengers save as bearers of good news and warners. Those who disbelieve contend with falsehood in order to refute the Truth thereby. And they take Our revelations and that wherewith they are threatened as a jest.''

skynightblaze wrote:Uthman and Umar weren’t against narration of hadiths provided they were proper......

How come then that they appeared so late? Because both destroyed them ALL (they began to appear with Muawiya)! And that should be binding ! According to the spirit of 4.59, all hadiths should thus be destroyed, especially when conflicting with the Koran. They should be unlawful on the same ground of images, which they are in words; false reproductions.

In Bukhari 1.3.98, which you brought, Huraira wrote (-in the name of Umar!-) ''get it written as I am afraid that religious knowledge will vanish'' a plain blasphemy against the eternal Koran which he couldn't have written. In Bukhari 1.4.161 we read from Human that: ''If a man performs ablution perfectly and then offers compulsory prayer, Allah will forgive his sins committed between that (prayer) and the (next) prayer till he offers it''. It says to refer to 2.159 and is found a dedicated perjury toward the verse and the whole Koran. Intercession is only for Allah to decide as per 39.43-44, more corruptions !

2.159: ''Lo! Those who hide the proofs and the guidance which We revealed, after We had made it clear to mankind in the Scripture: such are accursed of Allah and accursed of those who have the power to curse''. It is exactly what Human has done: hide the proofs and guidance of the revelations to introduce deviances. As such it is accursed by this very ayat.

39.43-44: ''Or choose they intercessors other than Allah ? Say: What! Even though they have power over nothing and have no intelligence ? ---Say: Unto Allah belongeth all intercession.....''

skynightblaze wrote:Quran also says plenty of times "Obey the messenger". Why say Obey the messenger if only Allah is to be followed? Even if name of Muhhamad in 4:59 is not taken it is talking about following Muhhamad.Its obvious!.If only quran is to be obeyed then it wouldn’t have said follow the messenger and also follow the men of authority.

When do we read: ''Obey Allah and Muhammad''? Never, ever... !

64.12: ''Obey Allah and obey His messenger; but if ye turn away, then the duty of Our messenger is only to convey (the message) plainly''.

Again the context is required to understand this meaning of 'obey Allah and His messenger'. It simply relates to the fact that, in his own time, his prophethood was doubted, challenged. Thus, stressing that Muhammad should be obeyed as a messenger means that he should be acknowledge on par with the other messengers in obedience. That is confirmed by 3.144: ''Muhammad is but a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) have passed away before him. Will it be that, when he dieth or is slain, ye will turn back on your heels ? He who turneth back on his heels doth no hurt to Allah, and Allah will reward the thankful.''

skynightblaze wrote:Shahada wasn’t an invention. Its not only Abu huraira but also others narrating the same thing. (...) it seems that Muhhamad had no problem with knowledge of Abu Huraira. (...) Abu Huraira can be trusted.

Huraira can be... trusted because other corrupters said the same (!!!!) I can't belief I'm actually reading this. Huraira as a 'law giver' (by whom laws are enacted) is blasphemous and as an 'aahad' (sole witness of his own testimonies) he's totally unreliable. Umar on Huraira: ''You are an enemy of Allah''; Aisha: ''You tell ahadiths from the Prophet that we never heard of''. So, even from the hadiths themselves, he's unreliable.

45.6-8: ''These are the portents of Allah which We recite (hadiths) unto thee with truth. Then in what fact, after Allah and His portents, will they believe? ---Woe unto each sinful liar, ---Who heareth the revelations of Allah recited unto him, and then continueth in pride as though he heard them not.''

skynightblaze wrote:What you said only tells us that they were intolerant of anything other than what they believed but still this isn’t a sufficient proof to prove that they were on the wrong path.

According to the words of Allah, they are.
30.31-32: ''Turning unto Him (only); and be careful of your duty unto Him and establish worship, and be not of those who ascribe partners (unto Him); ---Of those who split up their religion and became schismatics, each sect exulting in its tenets.'' i.e. Shiya'an (sect) as the Hanafi, Shia, Shafi'i, etc. All referring to a different chain of transmission!

2.79: ''Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.''

skynightblaze wrote:Uthman wasn’t against the hadiths. I proved that above. (...) If Hajj was an invented concept then so many people cannot repeat the same lie.We should be seeing discrepancy in that case.


Uthman destroyed all contemporary hadiths so to keep the Koran unadulterated and that should be binding as per 4.59. The same was carried by Omar, he asked that all the pages on which were written the hadiths be brought to him. Then he ordered that they be destroyed, saying: “These are like the Mishnah of the Jewish people” (Ibn Sa'd- Tabakat). And the ritualistic 'Hajj' has nothing to do with what's mentioned in the Koran. If you read the meaning in 22.27-29 and 28.23-27 what has been translated as a 'pilgrimage' is nothing else than an Arabic county fair where breeders and farmers bring their stuff for trading purpose. So corrupted was also the meaning of dua'a (not prayer but 'calling upon') and abad (Ya'budu as in 1.5): is not to 'establish worship' but to serve, to be devoted. In short all so-called ritualistic meanings in the Koran are the fact of clerical corruptions through the hadiths.

skynightblaze wrote:Muslims cannot refer to previous scriptures because they believe that they are corrupted so this argument is out of window.

Show me some Koranic verses stating that the previous scriptures aren't binding. See how this statement (refuted by al-Ghazali and Ibn Khaldum) is itself corruption. If the previous scriptures were corrupted, it means that the Koran erred when confirming them!

5.48: ''And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee......''

skynightblaze wrote:Discarding Hanafi hadiths makes him completely (un)reliable? What kind of logic is that?

It clearly indicates that Bukhari was on a sectarian mission, that he wasn't objective in his researches. That he was on to establish matters apart from the oldest school of laws. Being so obviously partial, he becomes unreliable as a source of guidance. Now, how many years would it take for someone to figure out the authenticy of 600,000 hadiths, many asking him journeys and travels to be checked? With an average of 10 hadiths a day, he would have checked 3,650 hadiths a year and 600,000 would ask him about 180 years on a seven days a week of... non-stop overnight work.

5.49-50: ''So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee......''

p.s. Thanks Chewchy... It's ok.

Re: Does the Koran say that context is required to understand...

PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 2:23 pm
by sum
The discussion has somewhat drifted away from the original question. What is the point of giving context, for example, to surah 9? It will give the historical background but why is history incorporated into a book of guidance which, we are lead to believe, is for all mankind for all time? I claim that it is to provide an example for muslims to follow from that point onwards into the future. Koran 60:4 says that it is an example for muslims to follow and so I maintain that all "historical" contexts are examples for future muslim actions.

What do the muslims think? They are keeping their distance from this topic which is disappointing. Do the muslim nations and groups like the Taliban use the Koraic historical contexts as examples to follow? If they do, then that is the Islam we face today and will in the future. The Cat`s implied scope for reforming Islam is not realistic. Islam is set in its ways which are winning the battle and so there is no logical reason for muslims to change their ways.

sum

Re: Does the Koran say that context is required to understand...

PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 3:38 pm
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:quran is for all times so this verse (4.59) by default is applicable even today. Also note the fact that quran doesn’t take the names of these *men of authority*.If only the men like Abu Bakhr,Umar or Uthman were to be followed then quran would have taken names explicitly. It merely says *men of authority* and since this verse is applicable for all times it means muslims are supposed to listen to the men of authority during their times.

It means that their examples are authoritative for all time. They got their 'authority' from their kinship with the messenger and their closeness (de visu) of the revelations. The last one being Ali,


[004:059]
O ye who believe! Obey God, and obey the Apostle, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to God and His Apostle, if ye do believe in God and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.

My oh My! Your arguments are damaging your reputation.The part in red is a fabrication. No sane person would draw such a conclusion after reading the verse 4.59.Now assuming what you said is correct we still have a problem. How are we going to follow their examples ? Quran doesn’t mention a thing so naturally you have to refer to books other than the quran but all the way you are arguing that no book other than the quran is required.Did you realize that you are contradicting yourself?

The cat wrote:Muawiya started to rely on fabricated hadiths to usurp power, that became the Hanafi school of law. Later, the Abbasid had to create other sets of hadiths to justified theirs: the Shafi'i, Hanbali, etc. more and more traditionalists, more and more blasphemous! See what 12.40 has to say on authority: ''Those whom ye serve beside Him are but names which ye have named, ye and your fathers. Allah hath revealed no sanction (authority) for them. The decision rests with Allah only.....'' There's no authority to any name, let alone hearsays (hadiths).

18.56: ''We send not the messengers save as bearers of good news and warners. Those who disbelieve contend with falsehood in order to refute the Truth thereby. And they take Our revelations and that wherewith they are threatened as a jest.''


In your last post you accused bukhari of not quoting Hanafi hadiths and now you yourself are accepting that they were fabricated and yet you wanted Bukhari to quote them!.Talking about hypocrisy here is one! You aren’t able to keep track of what you are saying.

Secondly the verse 12:40 talks about attributing partners to God i.e worshipping false gods which is no way related to what we are discussing.Bukhari and other companions are not worshipped as Gods but they are followed by muslims because they possess the knowledge of islam i.e understanding of the quran as explained by Muhhamad.There is a difference between worshipping and following someone what they said.

In 4:59 you yourself accept that quran asks us to follow these men of authority (their examples). If following is same as worshipping then going by your own logic even these men(Umar,Uthman,Abu Bakhr) can be said to be worshipped by muslims and that’s blasphemy so in other words you are shooting yourself in the foot. this verse is not talking about what we are discussing.

As far as 18:56 is concerned look at the bolded part. It says those who DISBELIEVE . Now how can this verse be applicable to Bukhari when he was a BELIEVER?


The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Uthman and Umar weren’t against narration of hadiths provided they were proper......

How come then that they appeared so late? Because both destroyed them ALL (they began to appear with Muawiya)! And that should be binding !


Uthman destroyed the copies of quran that were not in harmony with the copy with Hafsa.This doesn’t mean he wanted no hadith at all.We can see from the hadiths that Uthman himself narrates a hadith .Such a conclusion drawn shows desperateness for winning an argument.

The Cat wrote: According to the spirit of 4.59, all hadiths should thus be destroyed, especially when conflicting with the Koran. They should be unlawful on the same ground of images, which they are in words; false reproductions.


If all hadiths are to be rejected or destroyed then how are people going to follow Umar ,Uthman and Abu Bakhr? You accepted that their examples are authoritative for all times(eventhough the verse says no such thing) so now tell me how are you going to follow them? Also what if the hadith is not in conflict with the quran? Why should it be discarded?


The cat wrote:In Bukhari 1.3.98, which you brought, Huraira wrote (-in the name of Umar!-) ''get it written as I am afraid that religious knowledge will vanish'' a plain blasphemy against the eternal Koran which he couldn't have written.


Sahih Muslim B8 #3236

Anas (Allah be pleased with him) reported that some of the Companions of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) asked his (the Prophet's) wives about the acts that he performed in private. Someone among them (among his Companions) said: I will not marry women; someone among them said: I will not eat meat; and someone among them said: I will not lie down in bed. He (the Holy Prophet) praised Allah and glorified Him, and said: What has happened to these people that they say so and so, whereas I observe prayer and sleep too; I observe fast and suspend observing them; I marry women also? And he who turns away from my Sunnah, he has no relation with Me

Before accusing Huraira for blasphemy you need to read the above hadith wherein Muhhamad himself wanted people to follow his Sunnah so taking this quranic verse as authority the first blasphemy is committed by Muhhamad himself and not by Huraira. Huraira is merely repeating what Muhhamad said and hence in that case Muhhamad is at fault rather than Huraira.

Now Sunnah of Muhhamad is obviously not quran and hence it needs to be written down if the future generations are to follow Sunnah of the prophet.

The cat wrote: In Bukhari 1.4.161 we read from Human that: ''If a man performs ablution perfectly and then offers compulsory prayer, Allah will forgive his sins committed between that (prayer) and the (next) prayer till he offers it''. It says to refer to 2.159 and is found a dedicated perjury toward the verse and the whole Koran.

2.159: ''Lo! Those who hide the proofs and the guidance which We revealed, after We had made it clear to mankind in the Scripture: such are accursed of Allah and accursed of those who have the power to curse''. It is exactly what Human has done: hide the proofs and guidance of the revelations to introduce deviances. As such it is accursed by this very ayat.



The reason this hadith was mentioned was because of the verse 2:159 .The verse says people conceal the proofs and guidance and hence in order to prevent that Humran quotes the part in red. Humran doesn’t say that this(the part in red)is the meaning of 2:159 but rather he uses 2:159 to justify his stance as to why he narrates that hadith so how does that hadith against 2:159?

The Cat wrote:Intercession is only for Allah to decide as per 39.43-44, more corruptions !


39.43-44: ''Or choose they intercessors other than Allah ? Say: What! Even though they have power over nothing and have no intelligence ? ---Say: Unto Allah belongeth all intercession.....''


I think this verse is talking about worshipping false Gods. This verse is specially aimed at idolators who according to quran take intercessors besides Allah.You can check the context of the verse so it makes no sense to put here irrelevant verses and giving them the meaning you desire.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Quran also says plenty of times "Obey the messenger". Why say Obey the messenger if only Allah is to be followed? Even if name of Muhhamad in 4:59 is not taken it is talking about following Muhhamad.Its obvious!.If only quran is to be obeyed then it wouldn’t have said follow the messenger and also follow the men of authority.

When do we read: ''Obey Allah and Muhammad''? Never, ever... !

64.12: ''Obey Allah and obey His messenger; but if ye turn away, then the duty of Our messenger is only to convey (the message) plainly''.

Again the context is required to understand this meaning of 'obey Allah and His messenger'. It simply relates to the fact that, in his own time, his prophethood was doubted, challenged. Thus, stressing that Muhammad should be obeyed as a messenger means that he should be acknowledge on par with the other messengers in obedience. That is confirmed by 3.144: ''Muhammad is but a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) have passed away before him. Will it be that, when he dieth or is slain, ye will turn back on your heels ? He who turneth back on his heels doth no hurt to Allah, and Allah will reward the thankful.''


Am I really debating a non muslim? Even a dishonest muslim would think twice before making such arguments.

Obeying the messenger= considering him at par with other messengers? 3:144 no way gives the meaning to the verse 64:12 as you explained. I am not interested in playing these word games.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Shahada wasn’t an invention. Its not only Abu huraira but also others narrating the same thing. (...) it seems that Muhhamad had no problem with knowledge of Abu Huraira. (...) Abu Huraira can be trusted.

Huraira can be... trusted because other corrupters said the same (!!!!) I can't belief I'm actually reading this. Huraira as a 'law giver' (by whom laws are enacted) is blasphemous and as an 'aahad' (sole witness of his own testimonies) he's totally unreliable. Umar on Huraira: ''You are an enemy of Allah''; Aisha: ''You tell ahadiths from the Prophet that we never heard of''. So, even from the hadiths themselves, he's unreliable.


You claimed that Uthman destroyed all the hadiths which he thought were false but he leaves only Buraira's hadiths even when they are corrupted! Am I supposed to buy this? Also how come Muhammad made no comments on Abu Huraira? Muhhamad praises all his companions but never did he uttered a word against Abu Huraira.

Muslims would destroy even a tribe or a complete sect who in their opinion attributed lies to Muhhamad so its highly impossible that they let hadiths from Abu Huraira pass without destroying him and his work!

I also quoted a quote from Wikipedia which tells us that Muhhamad had no problems with knowledge of Abu Huraira so whose judgement should we consider? Umar,Aisha or Muhammad’s? If Muhhamad doesn’t have any problem with Huraira are we to reject Huraira’s hadiths on the testimony of Umar and Aisha ? The answer has to be No!


The Cat wrote:45.6-8: ''These are the portents of Allah which We recite (hadiths) unto thee with truth. Then in what fact, after Allah and His portents, will they believe? ---Woe unto each sinful liar, ---Who heareth the revelations of Allah recited unto him, and then continueth in pride as though he heard them not.''


Your argument is horrible! Let me put it into simple words…

There are some sinful liars who hear the revelations of Allah and they reject it and hence Bukhari was a liar!

This is the summary of your argument. Look how horrible it is! You bringing this verse to prove that Bukhari was a fabricator and doesn’t deserve to be trusted.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:What you said only tells us that they were intolerant of anything other than what they believed but still this isn’t a sufficient proof to prove that they were on the wrong path.

According to the words of Allah, they are.
30.31-32: ''Turning unto Him (only); and be careful of your duty unto Him and establish worship, and be not of those who ascribe partners (unto Him); ---Of those who split up their religion and became schismatics, each sect exulting in its tenets.'' i.e. Shiya'an (sect) as the Hanafi, Shia, Shafi'i, etc. All referring to a different chain of transmission!


You need to have one true path of islam before you talk about sects and accusing them of turning away from deen. That’s why precisely we are having the debate.IF Koran only is the true path then Bukhari can be dismissed because he formed a new sect but not otherwise I,e if the true path is also following the hadiths or other books other than quran.Anyone deviating from that path would then be discarded and accused of forming a new sect and going against the quran.

The Cat wrote:2.79: ''Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.''


None claimed Bukhari = Allah or that he is a partner to Allah so this verse doesn’t disprove Bukhari.

The cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Uthman wasn’t against the hadiths. I proved that above. (...) If Hajj was an invented concept then so many people cannot repeat the same lie.We should be seeing discrepancy in that case.


Uthman destroyed all contemporary hadiths so to keep the Koran unadulterated and that should be binding as per 4.59. The same was carried by Omar, he asked that all the pages on which were written the hadiths be brought to him. Then he ordered that they be destroyed, saying: “These are like the Mishnah of the Jewish people” (Ibn Sa'd- Tabakat).


He didn’t destroy hadiths by Abu Huraira when he destroyed the other false hadiths. A point to be noted and it tells us something.!

The Cat wrote: And the ritualistic 'Hajj' has nothing to do with what's mentioned in the Koran. If you read the meaning in 22.27-29 and 28.23-27 what has been translated as a 'pilgrimage' is nothing else than an Arabic county fair where breeders and farmers bring their stuff for trading purpose.


Here are the verses you talk about..

22:27
"And proclaim the Pilgrimage among men: they will come to thee on foot and (mounted) on every kind of camel, lean on account of journeys through deep and distant mountain highways;
[022:028] "That they may witness the benefits (provided) for them, and celebrate the name of God, through the Days appointed, over the cattle which He has provided for them (for sacrifice): then eat ye thereof and feed the distressed ones in want.
[022:029] "Then let them complete the rites prescribed for them, perform their vows, and (again) circumambulate the Ancient House."


Pay attention to the last verse. How is it different from the one mentioned in the hadiths? Performing rituals,going round the Kaba etc are in the quran as well as the hadiths.

Its not just about trading animals but also about worshiping God and performing rituals and offering animals for sacrifice.. Here is a link to *Hajj in the quran ...* as mentioned by the quran.

http://www.submission.org/hajj/quran.html

The Cat wrote:So corrupted was also the meaning of dua'a (not prayer but 'calling upon') and abad (Ya'budu as in 1.5): is not to 'establish worship' but to serve, to be devoted. In short all so-called ritualistic meanings in the Koran are the fact of clerical corruptions through the hadiths.

Elaborate on this please. I didnt understand this.


The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Muslims cannot refer to previous scriptures because they believe that they are corrupted so this argument is out of window.


Show me some Koranic verses stating that the previous scriptures aren't binding. See how this statement (refuted by al-Ghazali and Ibn Khaldum) is itself corruption. If the previous scriptures were corrupted, it means that the Koran erred when confirming them!

5.48: ''And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee......''


I suppose you are arguing from the muslim perspective so this has 2 assumptions :

1)Quran is assumed to be true and hence considered to be an authority in judging the authenticity of hadiths.
2) As per muslim perspective other scriptures are corrupted.

Now when you are opposing the muslim perspective here it means you are arguing from a non muslim perspective now.If that is the case then I challenge you to prove me authenticity of the quran first and then prove that the hadiths are wrong taking quran as the reference .In otherwords you are shifting from one perspective to the other to suit your stance.


The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Discarding Hanafi hadiths makes him completely (un)reliable? What kind of logic is that?

It clearly indicates that Bukhari was on a sectarian mission, that he wasn't objective in his researches. That he was on to establish matters apart from the oldest school of laws. Being so obviously partial, he becomes unreliable as a source of guidance. Now, how many years would it take for someone to figure out the authenticy of 600,000 hadiths, many asking him journeys and travels to be checked? With an average of 10 hadiths a day, he would have checked 3,650 hadiths a year and 600,000 would ask him about 180 years on a seven days a week of... non-stop overnight work.


That’s clearly exaggeration. Well collecting those many hadiths are impossible so forget about sifting between them. Using logic we can filter out the truth from falsehood!I never claimed bukhari is 100 % reliable. I would rate his hadiths as 75 % Ok but you want to tell people here that he lied completely which is unreasonable.

The Cat wrote:5.49-50: ''So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee......''


Looks like you have taken an oath of misquoting verses. 5:49-50 is talking about people of previous scriptures . Its asking the muslims not to follow vain desires of jews and Christians and it has got nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Re: Does the Koran say that context is required to understand...

PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 4:24 am
by skynightblaze
@The Cat

As far Abu Huraira is concerned the point I am trying to make is Abu Huraira didnt invent the thing about writing the knowledge of the scripture.Muhhamad wanted his Sunnah to be followed by people and hence writing it down was necessary so that justifies as to why Abu Huraira decided to write down the religious knowledge.Had Muhhamad not said this then Abu Huraira then you would have a point against Abu Huraira for taking matters into his hand but since Muhhamad himself stated this it only means that Abu Huraira was carrying out the wishes of his prophet.

I am using hadith to defend the position of the hadith just as a muslim is allowed to use quran to defend quran. Now please dont come up with arguments like the narrator was another corrupter of hadith as you previously said .Thats a weak argument!We are taking all the sources into consideration as a source of information to find out the truth and secondly you need to prove that every single narrator was corrupter otherwise merely saying I am quoting another corrupter makes no sense unless you prove that.Now this doesnt mean that I am considering hadith in preference to quran. If according to you this is blasphemy as per quran then its because of Muhhamad and not Abu Huraira as it was binding upon Huraira to obey and follow what his prophet said.

Re: Does the Koran say that context is required to understand...

PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 5:34 am
by Q
Spoiler! :
[quote="skynightblaze. ]As far as 18:56 is concerned look at the bolded part. It says those who DISBELIEVE . Now how can this verse be applicable to Bukhari when he was a BELIEVER?


Sahih Muslim B8 #3236

Anas (Allah be pleased with him) reported that some of the Companions of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) asked his (the Prophet's) wives about the acts that he performed in private. Someone among them (among his Companions) said: I will not marry women; someone among them said: I will not eat meat; and someone among them said: I will not lie down in bed. He (the Holy Prophet) praised Allah and glorified Him, and said: What has happened to these people that they say so and so, whereas I observe prayer and sleep too; I observe fast and suspend observing them; I marry women also? And he who turns away from my Sunnah, he has no relation with Me

Before accusing Huraira for blasphemy you need to read the above hadith wherein Muhhamad himself wanted people to follow his Sunnah so taking this quranic verse as authority the first blasphemy is committed by Muhhamad himself and not by Huraira. Huraira is merely repeating what Muhhamad said and hence in that case Muhhamad is at fault rather than Huraira.

Now Sunnah of Muhhamad is obviously not quran and hence it needs to be written down if the future generations are to follow Sunnah of the prophet.


fyi



In CH. LVL: v 79 God declares the Ahl al-bayt as the persons purified by him to be constantly in touch with the Quran in its original, hidden, well protected, exalted and purified form. This fact has been explained and supported by celebrated statements of the Holy Prophet , narrated by a large number of his companions to this effect that he was leaving two inseparable entities among his followers
I.e.
the book of God and his Itrat (Ahl al-bayt ) and that whoever adheres to these two shall be saved from going astray.

But to reduce the importance of and counter the above declaration made by the Holy Prophet another statement has also been narrated from the Holy Prophet on the authority of Abu Haraira whose reliability has remained always questionable. His narration is that the Holy Prophet said:
‘I have left among you two things : if you adhere to them both, you shall not go astray after me; ie., the Book of God and my Sunnah.’

The text itself does not stand a sound critical scrutiny. There is no doubt that the Sunnah in the sense of the Holy Prophet’s Sayings , actions and endorsement has the same authoritative status as the Qur’an, but the question is that the Qur’an was in a written form and distinctly recorded to be referred to while the Holy Prophet’s Sunnah was not then recorded in a distinct form to be adhered to when disputes would arise. On the contrary the disputants used to take advantage of the unrecorded Sunnah against each other. Therefore, to declare such a controversial source to have the same authoritative status as the Qur’an would not only be meaningless but would mean encouraging controversies . The tern Itrat or Ahl al-bayt was well defined and known to everybody as the embodiment of the teachings of the Holy Prophet. In short, to follow the Sunnah as it is in our hands will lead to controversies and errors but to follow the Itrat along with the Qur’an would mean following the Kitab and Sunnah in its true sense which would save the adherents from going astray and committing errors. Therefore, we shall leave the tradition of Abu Huraira to himself and his followers.


Re: Does the Koran say that context is required to understand...

PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 5:49 am
by Q
Spoiler! :
skynightblaze wrote:@The Cat

As far Abu Huraira is concerned the point I am trying to make is Abu Huraira didnt invent the thing about writing the knowledge of the scripture.Muhhamad wanted his Sunnah to be followed by people and hence writing it down was necessary so that justifies as to why Abu Huraira decided to write down the religious knowledge.Had Muhhamad not said this then Abu Huraira then you would have a point against Abu Huraira for taking matters into his hand but since Muhhamad himself stated this it only means that Abu Huraira was carrying out the wishes of his prophet.

I am using hadith to defend the position of the hadith just as a muslim is allowed to use quran to defend quran. Now please dont come up with arguments like the narrator was another corrupter of hadith as you previously said .Thats a weak argument!We are taking all the sources into consideration as a source of information to find out the truth and secondly you need to prove that every single narrator was corrupter otherwise merely saying I am quoting another corrupter makes no sense unless you prove that.Now this doesnt mean that I am considering hadith in preference to quran. If according to you this is blasphemy as per quran then its because of Muhhamad and not Abu Huraira as it was binding upon Huraira to obey and follow what his prophet said.


http://www.al-islam.org/ENCYCLOPEDIA/chapter9/3.html




Abu Hurairah or Paul?

Perhaps you have heard of the name "Paul" (spelling?). There was a
Paul as the disciple of Jesus. But this famous Paul is not that one.
He is a person who (some say) did not see Jesus himself except in his
dreams. He was against the christians on those days, and after a
revelation in a dream, he became christian, and he became the father
of todays' christianity. Nobody asked him those days:

Where have you been my son when Jesus was on the cross?
Why do you claim that you can now expand, explain, and
defend the religion which you fought for a few years?

My point is that: He became the base of christianity and the source of
revelation. Everything, then, came through him. Several rules and
theology of christianity, all came through his sentences which were
not in the original religion at the beginning. How many sentences, you
think, caused christians to deviate from their true roots?

There is a person named as Abu Hurairah whose history I will bring
after a while. This man says himself:

-------
1.113:
-------

Narrated Abu Huraira:

There is none among the companions of the Prophet who has narrated
more Hadiths than I except 'Abdallah bin Amr (bin al-'As) who used to
write them and I never did the same.


All nine volumns of Sahih Bukhari contains 7068 traditions. From these
traditions, about 1100 traditions are narrated from this man, in other
words, 15.56% of the whole traditions in Sahih Bukhari (almost 1/6).
(I will soon give you the number of traditions narrated by Abu Hurairah
in Sahih Muslim.)





Re: Does the Koran say that context is required to understand...

PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 1:46 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
Can anybody tell me why a Christian persecuting tax collector, living a pretty good life, would suddenly decide to embrace that which he condemned and suffer a great deal because of it, including multiple imprisonments and ultimately death, and yet still maintain his story throughout?? Why would somebody lie in order to cause himself so much pain and continue to do so until his death? A liar needs to profit, like the 20% profit prophet did, in order to keep lying. Otherwise, it's senseless. The liar would stop if it no longer benefited him and would definitely stop if it hurt him.