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

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Was Islam ever a true belief?? Did the creator of all things endow mankind with Islam??

Of which Islam are you talking about? In the Koran it isn't even that important...

Do you hold the Quran to have any legitimacy?

[The Cat]

I'm not here to state about myself or my personal convictions. I'm here to debate ideas and topics and this one is about context.

And so your idea of the Koran is confused and, out of this confusion, you're barking at the wrong tree, shoveling your own shadows.

As with Islam (yours or the Koran's?) you're being irrelevant, switching the topic unto me.

I'm not a topic nor want to be. Period.

[sum]

Hello The Cat

Your quote -
My oh my, I can see that you're still within the Islamists' distortions! That's how much they are pervasive...

These are the ones that matter and that we face in the world today.

Your quote -
The Koran in 12.111 and 49.12 condemns all hadiths as conjectures. When it says 'obey Allah and His messenger' what does it mean?
It means that Allah is endorsing Muhammad as a law carrier, such is a messenger and nothing more. Nothing!

What it means is far from clear and the meaning will differ from one person to another. One has to ask, why add "... and His messenger"? The message and guidance are in the Koran and so there is no need to obey the Messenger. If Allah meant what you claim then he should have made it clear and unambiguous - if he was able. Could an interpretation be seen as reasonable if one had to obey the messenger as he directed according to his judgement - in other words obey the messenger because the matter in hand was not adequately explained or covered in the Koran?

Your quote -
12.111: In their history verily there is a lesson for men of understanding. It is no invented story (hadiths) but a confirmation of the
existing (Scripture, i.e. the Bible) and a detailed explanation of everything, and a guidance and a mercy for folk who believe.

The hadiths aren't carrying ANY message from Allah, just hearsays that one heard from one another. They aren't binding but... mischief in the land!

Surely this is not referring to the ahadith but to the Koran. This is yet more lack of clarity which points against a god giving a final guidance for all mankind for all time. Were there any ahadith etc at the time of the "revelations"? If Muhammad was said by Allah to be a perfect example of behaviour for all mankind then one has to ask where was Muhammad`s example of words and deeds recorded in order for people to follow. I regard this matter as more in keeping with "... and obey the messenger".

Muslims believe that the words and deeds of Muhammad come not directly from Allah but are inspired by Allah and that is why they carry so much weight in Islam. It is the muslims` understanding, not ours, that matters.

sum

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

I'm not here to state about myself or my personal convictions. I'm here to debate ideas and topics and this one is about context.

And so your idea of the Koran is confused and, out of this confusion, you're barking at the wrong tree, shoveling your own shadows.

As with Islam (yours or the Koran's?) you're being irrelevant, switching the topic unto me.

I'm not a topic nor want to be. Period.

Excuse me, but I am trying to clarify what you are saying and make your point crystal clear. Is the Quran from God in your opinion?? It seems as though you are giving the Quran legitimacy. So what's the big problem in answering the question?? It's quite a legitimate question and for you to avoid it makes something really beginning to smell foul. You're being as evasive as most Muslims are, and next will probably come the "I'm above it" snobbery act/excuse where you don't have to answer. Seen it before. If I'm shoveling my own shadows, then you must be shoveling your own sh!t.

[skynightblaze]

The job of early commentators was to supply such a context in order to make the koran comprehensible.

Exactly the opposite, Bob. The early commentators hijacked the true meaning of the Koran to turn Muslims into Muhammadans.
Nowadays they are much more following the 'religion of Bukhari' than the deen (righteous path) described by Allah. The so-called
'context' of the Hisham/Bukhari 'religion' were all fabrications, in concerted ways, in order to bring Muslims into the clerical fold.

If they were all fabrications how come the muslims during Bukhari's time promote his book ? Imagine a situation today. I start writing some gibberish about quran by giving it a false context . How many muslims would readily promote my book? If your answer is none then what makes you believe that people during those times would promote bukhari's book if it was complete a lie? It doesnt make sense . There would be quite significant no of people who would know that Bukhari was bullshitting and would oppose him or atleast not promote his book for 1200 years long.

I hereby dont say that Bukhari and others are 100 % reliable but saying that everything they wrote is invalid and a lie is also wrong.

You are assuming quran to be the truth and then deciding that hadiths are not required .The case can be very well that the author of quran deluded himself into believing that quran gave all the necessary information along with the context when in reality he gave nothing as far as context is concerned.Infact thats precisely the case .ITs evident from the quran that Muhhamad was a troll . . Mind you every troll claims that he has sufficiently elucidated things and has made everything clear but in reality he hasnt provided any justification for his claims. I see the same case with quran. The claim that quran is complete is indeed hollow.

[skynightblaze]

Indeed if the koran is a clear book of guidance (according to its own self-description) then how can it contain verses that are allegorical and which only Allah can understand - all the more so as 'Allah' does not say which verses are allegorical and which are not?

Bonjour, mon cher Bob.

In my understanding 3.7 means that a Muslim should follow what is clear -to him- yet must avoid whatever interpretation when in doubt about -any passage- unclear to him. This ayat is stating that -whenever- a Muslim doubt he should rest on it, leaving the matter to Allah, instead of following whomever given explanation as diversion (fitnah), so to remain faithful.

It is thus a key ayat allowing Muslims to refrain from -any- clerical intrusion into his faith, if he sincerely doubts (like a context).

Your interpretation is not correct. See this verse

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.

Infact quran asks the muslims to listen and obey also those who have authority amongst them.Now who are the men of authority? During Muhhamads time it were Abu Bakhr followed by Umar followed by Uthman.

There are hadiths confirming this
.See the following hadiths from Sahih Bukhari ..

Volume 5, Book 57, Number 11:

Narrated Jubair bin Mutim:

A woman came to the Prophet who ordered her to return to him again. She said, "What if I came and did not find you?" as if she wanted to say, "If I found you dead?" The Prophet said, "If you should not find me, go to Abu Bakr."


Volume 5, Book 57, Number 7:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

We used to compare the people as to who was better during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle . We used to regard Abu Bakr as the best, then 'Umar, and then 'Uthman .


Volume 5, Book 57, Number 22:

Narrated Abu Said:

The Prophet said, "Do not abuse my companions for if any one of you spent gold equal to Uhud (in Allah's Cause) it would not be equal to a Mud or even a half Mud spent by one of them."

So you see hadiths confirm the quran and tell us that men of authority should be trusted and listened to.The men of authority were none but companions of Muhhamad so hadiths from them are 100 % reliable according to quran (4:59) and the hadiths themselves so if at all Bukhari was truthful then hadiths are absolutely valid because Bukhari quotes the men of authority or companions of Muhhamad. The only way to dismiss hadiths is to prove that Bukhari fabricated every single hadith which I think is not possible to prove and not likely as I explained previously in my post.Also not to forget that Bukhari was considered to be authority and also Hisham so according to quran itself they are the ones to be listened to as they were men of authority.

In short your understanding of the verse 3:7 is faulty. I conclude only one thing that 3:7 was revealed to nullify the damage that the unclear verses of the quran did. Muhhamad already claimed that his quran is perfect and easy to understand and that everything has been made clear but when people interpreted verses differently it defeated all his tall claims so what does Muhhamad do? Pull a verse out of his ass and say that some verses are allegorical so that he doesnt have to explain why people interpret quran differently inspite of it being a clear message.

[skynightblaze]

Another hadith telling us the same...


Volume 5, Book 57, Number 2:

Narrated Imran bin Husain:

"Allah's Apostle said, 'The best of my followers are those living in my generation (i.e. my contemporaries). and then those who will follow the latter" 'Imran added, "I do not remember whether he mentioned two or three generations after his generation, then the Prophet added, 'There will come after you, people who will bear witness without being asked to do so, and will be treacherous and untrustworthy, and they will vow and never fulfill their vows, and fatness will appear among them."

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Spot on SNB. This guy reminds me of Apple Pie, where he creates all of these whacked out scenarios. And clearly, he is giving the Quran legitimacy in his arguments. Essentially, this clown is trying to say that Islam is good and is the true religion, but that some Muslims fouled it up. How could a non Muslim possibly talk that way? Why isn't he a Muslim if it's the true religion or even has any legitmacy?

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

The job of early commentators was to supply such a context in order to make the koran comprehensible.

Exactly the opposite, Bob. The early commentators hijacked the true meaning of the Koran to turn Muslims into Muhammadans.
Nowadays they are much more following the 'religion of Bukhari' than the deen (righteous path) described by Allah. The so-called
'context' of the Hisham/Bukhari 'religion' were all fabrications, in concerted ways, in order to bring Muslims into the clerical fold.

If they were all fabrications how come the muslims during Bukhari's time promote his book ? Imagine a situation today. I start writing some gibberish about quran by giving it a false context . How many muslims would readily promote my book? If your answer is none then what makes you believe that people during those times would promote bukhari's book if it was complete a lie? It doesnt make sense . There would be quite significant no of people who would know that Bukhari was bullshitting and would oppose him or atleast not promote his book for 1200 years long.

I hereby dont say that Bukhari and others are 100 % reliable but saying that everything they wrote is invalid and a lie is also wrong.

Of course, plenty of it is probably true. And without it, how can anybody possibly understand the Quran?? For example, what would we understand about Sura 9 without the historical hadith context? It would make that Sura even worse and an absolute horror show. The Quran mentions the battle of Badr. Well, without the hadiths, then what the heck is that supposed to mean to anybody?

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Muslims believe that the words and deeds of Muhammad come not directly from Allah but are inspired by Allah and that is why they carry so much weight in Islam. It is the muslims` understanding, not ours, that matters.

sum

I thought they believed Muhammad to be reciting the exact letter for letter dictation from Allah through Gabriel. Are you saying that Muslims merely think the Quran was an inspired work, but not a letter for letter dictation?? That would be new to me.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

So 'Allah' states that in the koran, there are Ayat that are Muhkamat, entirely clear and plain, and these are the foundations of the Book which are plain for everyone. And there are Ayat in the Koran that are Mutashabihat which are not clear except for Allah.

If nobody but Allah can understand it's meaning, then why did Allah put it in the Quran?? Obviously, this question didn't occur to Muhammad which is why he made such a stupid statement while trying to make the Quran a "moving target"

[charleslemartel]

Muslims believe that the words and deeds of Muhammad come not directly from Allah but are inspired by Allah and that is why they carry so much weight in Islam. It is the muslims` understanding, not ours, that matters.

sum

I thought they believed Muhammad to be reciting the exact letter for letter dictation from Allah through Gabriel. Are you saying that Muslims merely think the Quran was an inspired work, but not a letter for letter dictation?? That would be new to me.

I think sum was talking about hadith.

[sum]

Hello MBL and CLM

CLM is correct - I was referring to the ahadith.

sum

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Hello MBL and CLM

CLM is correct - I was referring to the ahadith.

sum

Yes, Allah inspired Muhammad to tell us the sun orbits the earth everyday and will one day reverse it's course causing it to rise in the west.

[The Cat]

Were there any ahadith etc at the time of the "revelations"? If Muhammad was said by Allah to be a perfect example of behaviour for all mankind then one has to ask where was Muhammad`s example of words and deeds recorded in order for people to follow. I regard this matter as more in keeping with "... and obey the messenger".

Muslims believe that the words and deeds of Muhammad come not directly from Allah but are inspired by Allah and that is why they carry so much weight in Islam. It is the muslims` understanding, not ours, that matters.

Hi, sum...
There were ahadiths at the time of the revelations and Muhammad was often accused of bringing the 'stories of old'. Still many verses
are telling us that Muhammad must only be considered a plain warner (22.49; 7.188; 11.12; 13.7; 29.50; 38.65; 16.51, etc).

Muhammad is not the perfect example to be followed in the Koran: it's Abraham the upright. Yet it is the Muslim's understanding that
matters of course. But this understanding must be based on something scriptural and, on this ground, 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!

The very name of Muhammad (apart from in brackets) is only written five times in the whole Koran, here's one of them:
3.144: Muhammad is but a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) have passed away before him......

Turning Muslims into idolators (the Shahadah), believing the lies from the Hadiths, worshiping a stone in Mecca, is the fact of the Islamic
clergy, which by the very words of the Koran must be harshly hold accountable. I feel that something like the Protestant Revolution (a sola
scriptura movement) is bound to happen within Islam. That's why I feel that turning the Koranic key into the Islamic lock is most promising,
while having a discourse -within- the Islamic frame of mind, so that they can't dismiss your arguments: Muhammadans are apostates from
the Koranic notion of what a Muslim should be. I urge our fellow members to get aware of the Koran-only movement. If you reject the Koran
at first, then Muslims and Muhammadans are -entitled- to reject you all the same.

The historical Muhammad is far from being clear and with the Year of the Elephant now ascertained by 552 (and not the traditional 570),
everything from the isnad, or chain of transmission, lay broken, groundless....

[The Cat]

Your interpretation is not correct. See this verse

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.

In fact quran asks the muslims to listen and obey also those who have authority amongst them.

I've enlightened your verse differently to underline the fact that in case they differ -in anything among themselves- the sole authority
is that of Allah (i.e. the Koran) ever since the messenger has died. This is emphasized by 4.64: We sent no messenger save that he
should be obeyed by Allah's leave. That is in accordance to the will of Allah (i.e. which is defined in the Koran & in the Koran ONLY).

If they were all fabrications how come the muslims during Bukhari's time promote his book ? Imagine a situation today.

This happened before the printing revolution, yet it is very possible for the authorities to form a false nationalistic belief in a generation
or two, from the example set forth in Japan to institute the Mikado/Bushido deifying the emperor in an otherwise Buddhist country.... In
Islam it was, and still is, a common practice to systematically silence dissidence.

You are assuming quran to be the truth and then deciding that hadiths are not required.

Correction: I am assuming that the Koran is the ultimate truth for 1.2 billion of Muslims and if you reject it from the first, then they are
fully entitled to reject you just the same. To break such a deaf dialogue, one must speak their own Koranic language.

The claim that quran is complete is indeed hollow.

We must deal with the fact that the Koran states otherwise. So the hadiths are shirk when altering the Koran, like imposing rituals,
which they do abundantly. Moreso, they altered the Koran itself by instilling improper meanings just like it is stated for Jews in 4.46!
Muslims had no hadiths for nearly two centuries, like the Umayyads, were they any less Muslims?

Bye.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

rare rare rare rare diculous!!!

ooops, forgot to mention....

bye

[skynightblaze]

Your interpretation is not correct. See this verse

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.

In fact quran asks the muslims to listen and obey also those who have authority amongst them.

I've enlightened your verse differently to underline the fact that in case they differ -in anything among themselves- the sole authority
is that of Allah (i.e. the Koran) ever since the messenger has died. This is emphasized by 4.64: We sent no messenger save that he
should be obeyed by Allah's leave. That is in accordance to the will of Allah (i.e. which is defined in the Koran & in the Koran ONLY).

I wrote that in reference to your claim that one shouldnt refer to anything other than quran or messenger of Allah. Its clear from the verse 4:59 that quran believes that men of authority don’t let people differ or do not misguide people from the deen otherwise why would it recommend people to follow them? 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 and hence one way or the other anyone i.e Allah or his messenger or men of authority are Ok to trust when you have a discrepancy otherwise the muslim has to accept a contradiction here .

If they were all fabrications how come the muslims during Bukhari's time promote his book ? Imagine a situation today.

This happened before the printing revolution, yet it is very possible for the authorities to form a false nationalistic belief in a generation
or two, from the example set forth in Japan to institute the Mikado/Bushido deifying the emperor in an otherwise Buddhist country.... In
Islam it was, and still is, a common practice to systematically silence dissidence.

I suppose you are arguing from the point of view of a muslim. The same argument can be used against quran too but would any muslim accept my argument? The answer is No!. so unless you provide evidence to the claim that whole of generation formed a false belief I see no reason to accept that. These are wild claims .

:You are assuming quran to be the truth and then deciding that hadiths are not required.

Correction: I am assuming that the Koran is the ultimate truth for 1.2 billion of Muslims and if you reject it from the first, then they are
fully entitled to reject you just the same. To break such a deaf dialogue, one must speak their own Koranic language.

I showed you 4:59 . I am using the quranic language itself to prove the Koran only muslims that their own manual tells them to follow men of authority. It makes no sense for quran to ask people to follow them if quran believed they were misguiding people.If its misguiding people then its quran ‘s fault rather than muslim’s fault.

The claim that quran is complete is indeed hollow.

We must deal with the fact that the Koran states otherwise. So the hadiths are shirk when altering the Koran, like imposing rituals,
which they do abundantly. Moreso, they altered the Koran itself by instilling improper meanings just like it is stated for Jews in 4.46!

Quran also asks us to obey messenger and men of authority .Obeying messenger implies following some book other than the quran because muslims believe that quran is the word to word dictation of Allah and not Muhhamad so the question to quran only muslims is which book should they follow if not Bukhari and other hadith collectors?.

Muslims had no hadiths for nearly two centuries, like the Umayyads, were they any less Muslims?

Let me throw a similar question at you. Quran wasn’t a book and didn’t exist as a standard and unique copy until Uthman collected it and burned rest of the copies that differed from copy with Hafsa but that was around 10-15 years after Muhhamad died . Now how were the companions of Muhhamad supposed to refer to quran when quran wasn’t a even a book until 10-15 years after Muhhamad’s death assuming what you said is true i.e in case of differing they should resort to quran ??

How does one solve this problem? The companions of Muhhamad or the men of authority ! There is the answer to your and as well as my question . Companions of Muhhamad narrated the quran from memory and they collected it and that’s why people could still remain muslims inspite of absence quran so same can be the case for 2 generations after Muhhamad as they could remain muslims and understand the context because of the transfer of knowledge by the companions from one generation to the other and hence it was Ok if they didnt have the hadith.

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.

[skynightblaze]

Spot on SNB. This guy reminds me of Apple Pie, where he creates all of these whacked out scenarios. And clearly, he is giving the Quran legitimacy in his arguments. Essentially, this clown is trying to say that Islam is good and is the true religion, but that some Muslims fouled it up. How could a non Muslim possibly talk that way? Why isn't he a Muslim if it's the true religion or even has any legitmacy?

I dont understand why an intelligent guy like Cat is wanting to desperately support quran.All these attempts are done by quran only muslims to whitewash the sins of Muhhamad so that they can make islam acceptable to the society and they dont have to be ashamed of what their prophet did. Cat should be a muslim if he really believes that quran is legitimate but it seems from his posts that he doesnt.He is arguing from muslim perspective .

[skynightblaze]

Of course, plenty of it is probably true. And without it, how can anybody possibly understand the Quran?? For example, what would we understand about Sura 9 without the historical hadith context? It would make that Sura even worse and an absolute horror show. The Quran mentions the battle of Badr. Well, without the hadiths, then what the heck is that supposed to mean to anybody?

This defeats the claim that quran is a clear book. I think Muhhamad was a troll. Look at BMZ he also does the same .He claims that he has answered everything but when in reality he hasnt given proofs for his claims.Trolls do the same and hence we see quran being a poorly written book and yet claiming itself to be clear . The verse 3:7 is nothing but an attempt for controlling damage done by unclear verses.