Hadith Timelines

Shari'a, errancies, miracles and science
User avatar
MesMorial
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:15 am

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by MesMorial »

I do not have time for a long response, but I will respond to 2:151 (since it is what I do):


"Even as We have sent among you a Messenger from among you who recites to you Our communications and purifies you and teaches you the Book and the wisdom and teaches you that which you did not know." (2:151)


Prior to the Qur’an, Muhammad did not know the book (11:49, 42:52). This shows us that everything being taught in 2:151 is in the Qur'an. The Qur'an allowed him to teach them that which they did not know (2:151, 4:113, 6:91).

Messengers come to recite the Message and to teach the Book (e.g. help people to remember and record it simply by reciting). Allah taught the Qur’an (55:1-2) and the Muslims are expected to as well (2:121, 3:79). The wisdom (al hikma) comes from Allah through the Qur’an (17:39, 33:34, 36:2, 43:4, 43:63, 44:4, 54:5). It is (in part) the ability to recognise truth and to adhere to it (2:269, 19:12, 26:21, 26:83, 28:14, 31:2, 31:12, 38:20). See also 17:22-38 for specific examples of wisdom. Use of the word “and” does not mean that there is a complete separateness (e.g. with “the balance” (42:17, 57:25)). Rather it indicates that one is within the other (e.g. 21:48). Finally, the delivery of religious practices (as passed from Ibrahim) will purify believers (e.g. when Muhammad took alms from those who had acknowledged their wrongdoings (9:103 (also see 92:18))). Allah intends to purify Muslims with the Message (5:6).

In 9:41 you will notice a similar sweeping expression. Praying and paying zakat are already a part of obeying "Allah and His Messenger", just as reciting verses and teaching the book (the Qur'an and not ahadith) are a part of purification (5:6, 17:9, 34:6 etc.).

Obviously Muhammad cannot purify people; only the purifying hadith (5:16, 39:23) can do that.

The Messenger was given the “Book and the wisdom” (2:151). The Qur’an contains the wisdom (17:39, 33:34, 36:2, 43:4, 43:63, 44:4, 54:5).

24:41 says that everything knows its prayer and glorification. Glorification is a part of prayer (17:108-111, 50:40).

4:162 says: “The knowledgeable among them and the believers believe in the Revelation…”. The believers are a “part” of those with knowledge (3:18, 13:43, 35:28, 58:11).

2:238 instructs to keep up the prayers, and the “middle prayer”. The “middle prayer” is a part of the prayers.

33:7 says that a covenant was made with the Prophets, and Muhammad, and Isa, and Nuh, and Ibrahim. Each one was a Prophet.

3:3 declares that Allah revealed the Qur’an and that he revealed the Furqan. The Furqan is actually the Qur’an (25:1). Also see 21:48 which says the Prophets were given the Furqan, a light and a reminder (all of them are the Qur’an).


***


When one teaches the book, one teaches the wisdom. When one recites the book, one is teaching the book if the student is listening. If the student is listening and acts on it, he/she will be purified (according to the Qur'an).

The evidence suggests 2:151 does not refer to ahadith.
Last edited by MesMorial on Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:48 am, edited 3 times in total.
FEED MORE MORE - WAKE UP!
- Ryback

http://allpoetry.com/Noctifer

User avatar
MesMorial
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:15 am

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by MesMorial »

Honestly ahadith are not actually need in Islam, aside from the fact they are not sanctioned by the Qur'an.

It would hurt Sunnis more if everyone stopped calling them Muslims. We know that the "mutawatir" standard is completely fallible (as in the moon-splitting), and there is really not much harmony between what the Qur'an says and what ahadith teach.

So we can run with Sunni arguments that ahadith are true. If SKB's approach is good, then assuming that such bad ahadith are true should make them leave whatever they follow.

However, the schizophrenic approach is to prove that following ahadith is idol-worship according to the Qur'an, and, assuming they are true, prove that he was false simply by the fact that he didn't follow it. SKB's approach is included because if Sunnis will leave because they feel guilty, the content of the ahadith will be effective regardless of whether Muhammad was (Islamically) right or wrong in them.

The Cat's approach is to say that Sunnis are idolworshippers, and likewise whether or not the ahadith are true, according to SKB their content should be enough to make them leave Sunnism. However, SKB wants Sunnis to leave the Qur'an too, which is why he argues that ahadith are a part of Islam. The Cat aims to make them reject the ahadith at least.

I think rejecting Sunnis as Muslims is an inevitable step 1, primarily because if Sunnis are going to leave out of guilt, they will do so themselves REGARDLESS of whether they believe ahadith are true or not (we cannot tell people what to believe religiously, but we can at least point out that ahadith are not an option (because they are a product of human action, opinion and processing). Whether or not the Qur'an is, it at least claims to be preserved from God. Please see my essay "Progressive Souls" in the "Religion and God" section of this forum).

That way, ahadith are portrayed negatively whether we think them "authentic" or not. It doesn't matter whether they are true or not: what matters is that people accept them. The authenticity debate is irrelevant to the "guilt factor" which is key to SKB's approach, thus it is simply for the sake of conversation and should not divide people.

If someone wants to take people from the Qur'an, they will have to use the Qur'an to do that, not the ahadith. This is because the Qur'an claims to be divine.

People believe what they want to believe, which is one reason to inform people that they aren't being what they want to be.
Last edited by MesMorial on Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
FEED MORE MORE - WAKE UP!
- Ryback

http://allpoetry.com/Noctifer

User avatar
MesMorial
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:15 am

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by MesMorial »

Skynightblaze is not presently convinced that the Qur'an works without ahadith. That is why most people include the ahadith as part of religious teaching.


@ Skynightblaze;

If you have some specific questions or verses you want to test, please let me know. If we can look at the Qur'an in such a way that it works alone (without contradiction), then that way must be correct.

Cheers.
FEED MORE MORE - WAKE UP!
- Ryback

http://allpoetry.com/Noctifer

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by The Cat »

Hi, MesMorial...

On the whole I usually agree with you, 2.151 doesn't refer to Muhammad's sunna, especially since he wasn't anything new to them,
himself following the sunna (as custom) of his own time. But I have to disagree that the Furkan means the (Arabic) Koran.
MesMorial wrote:3:3 declares that Allah revealed the Qur’an and that he revealed the Furqan. The Furqan is actually the Qur’an (25:1). Also see 21:48 which says the Prophets were given the Furqan, a light and a reminder (all of them are the Qur’an).
How in the world could the Arabic Koran been revealed to the former prophets? It's a chronological impossibility! Implausible...

The Furkan must be linked to those 'seven oft repeated verses' and also to the 'Messani'. It's no coincidence that Furkan is also mentioned
7 times. All these expressions refer to the 7 Noahide laws, which was the basic rule of the Arabic Hanifs, themselves forerunners of Islam.
We had the biased interpretations from the tafsirs, meant to change the Koranic context and estrange the Arabic kitab from the others.

I've dealt quite extensively with this topic before, please have a look...

What was the Criterion/Furkan? -Sura 25 (my first attempt)
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5519" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Allah's Sharia as the 7 Noahide Laws...
viewtopic.php?p=100835#p100835" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Laws Within the Koran (a plain must to know what we're talking about)
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8384" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Korabic Deceptive 'Proper Names' (in the making): viewtopic.php?f=30&t=10230" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
1) --Allah and Koran as deceptive proper names (at the base of the on-going Malaysian controversy).
2) --Al-Kitab (the Book) and al-Hikma (the Wisdom).
3) --The Criterion, Furkan & Messaniy; the oft repeated verses.
4) --The Remembrance (Dhikr)

All the Koranic 'proper names', including Salat and Zakat, Qibla and Ruku, are in need to be reevaluated from their root meanings!
viewtopic.php?p=105518#p105518" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=106098#p106098" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
MesMorial wrote:The Cat's approach is to say that Sunnis are idolworshippers, and likewise whether or not the ahadith are true, according to SKB their content should be enough to make them leave Sunnism. However, SKB wants Sunnis to leave the Qur'an too, which is why he argues that ahadith are a part of Islam. The Cat aims to make them reject the ahadith at least.
The problem with SNB is that his position maintains the legitimacy of the hadiths through the authenticity he recognizes and defends,
which is a self-defeating position. Snb never knew the difference between 'authentic' and 'authenticity', which carries about the same
axial difference we find between 'history' and 'historicity'. The authenticity of the hadiths means that the content is rightful, genuine,
legitimate. This is like recognizing the authenticity/legitimacy of Mein Kampf, instead of merely being authentic as a book!!! See?

On the contrary, my scholarly approach dismiss their very legitimacy by proving the build-up of the forgeries and all this without the
entrenched hatred of SNB's position. Now, I can't use the same arguments against the Koran, as SNB would like, because they did
originate quite differently in time and doing so I'd be drowning my hadiths' refutations all along. That's beyond what SNB can grasp.
MesMorial wrote:If someone wants to take people from the Qur'an, they will have to use the Qur'an to do that, not the ahadith. This is because the Qur'an claims to be divine.
If it was from divine origin, how come it was written/delivered without the much needed diacritical dots,
humans had to invent to avoid faults and to assure the meanings of a book stating to be perfectly clear?

Was the Qur'an First in (perfect) Arabic?
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39999" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can the Koran be... uncreated?
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6500" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is Allah and ar-Rahman the same (or part of a trinity with ISA)?
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5738" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
For 'ISA' too isn't a proper name (that would be Yashu in Arabic) but a divine attribute!
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8769" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by skynightblaze »

MesMorial wrote:
Spoiler! :
I do not have time for a long response, but I will respond to 2:151 (since it is what I do):

"Even as We have sent among you a Messenger from among you who recites to you Our communications and purifies you and teaches you the Book and the wisdom and teaches you that which you did not know." (2:151)


Prior to the Qur’an, Muhammad did not know the book (11:49, 42:52). This shows us that everything being taught in 2:151 is in the Qur'an. The Qur'an allowed him to teach them that which they did not know (2:151, 4:113, 6:91).

Messengers come to recite the Message and to teach the Book (e.g. help people to remember and record it simply by reciting). Allah taught the Qur’an (55:1-2) and the Muslims are expected to as well (2:121, 3:79). The wisdom (al hikma) comes from Allah through the Qur’an (17:39, 33:34, 36:2, 43:4, 43:63, 44:4, 54:5). It is (in part) the ability to recognise truth and to adhere to it (2:269, 19:12, 26:21, 26:83, 28:14, 31:2, 31:12, 38:20). See also 17:22-38 for specific examples of wisdom. Use of the word “and” does not mean that there is a complete separateness (e.g. with “the balance” (42:17, 57:25)). Rather it indicates that one is within the other (e.g. 21:48). Finally, the delivery of religious practices (as passed from Ibrahim) will purify believers (e.g. when Muhammad took alms from those who had acknowledged their wrongdoings (9:103 (also see 92:18))). Allah intends to purify Muslims with the Message (5:6).

In 9:41 you will notice a similar sweeping expression. Praying and paying zakat are already a part of obeying "Allah and His Messenger", just as reciting verses and teaching the book (the Qur'an and not ahadith) are a part of purification (5:6, 17:9, 34:6 etc.).

Obviously Muhammad cannot purify people; only the purifying hadith (5:16, 39:23) can do that.

The Messenger was given the “Book and the wisdom” (2:151). The Qur’an contains the wisdom (17:39, 33:34, 36:2, 43:4, 43:63, 44:4, 54:5).

24:41 says that everything knows its prayer and glorification. Glorification is a part of prayer (17:108-111, 50:40).

4:162 says: “The knowledgeable among them and the believers believe in the Revelation…”. The believers are a “part” of those with knowledge (3:18, 13:43, 35:28, 58:11).

2:238 instructs to keep up the prayers, and the “middle prayer”. The “middle prayer” is a part of the prayers.

33:7 says that a covenant was made with the Prophets, and Muhammad, and Isa, and Nuh, and Ibrahim. Each one was a Prophet.

3:3 declares that Allah revealed the Qur’an and that he revealed the Furqan. The Furqan is actually the Qur’an (25:1). Also see 21:48 which says the Prophets were given the Furqan, a light and a reminder (all of them are the Qur’an).
***

When one teaches the book, one teaches the wisdom. When one recites the book, one is teaching the book if the student is listening. If the student is listening and acts on it, he/she will be purified (according to the Qur'an).

The evidence suggests 2:151 does not refer to ahadith.

That's purely playing with words. If the quran wanted to say that Muhammad will teach everything from the quran it would have said something like " We have sent Muhammad to teach wisdom and things which you didn't know that are mentioned in this book" .But, that is not what it says.

Certainly there can be wisdom besides quran and certainly there can be things which people don't know besides what quran teaches and hence it is not necessary that quran is referring to itself here. Basically we use AND to differentiate between 2 different things. If quran used "AND" between things that are one and the same like your example of "covenants made with prophets and Muhammad, isa..." then following rules of grammar it would mean quran differentiates between Muhammad , ISA and prophets and hence it would mean Muhammad and Isa are not prophets.

I agree that quran does call Muhammad a prophet it contradicts itself in that verse . We follow rules of grammar and interpret the language. That is how an objective person should approach quran.

Btw even I can quote such verses where you can't say one thing is contained within another to make a case.

2:9.
Fain would they deceive Allah and those who believe, but they only deceive themselves, and realise (it) not!

The verse talks about Allah and those who believe . Are both these parties i.e those who believe and Allah one and the same?

So you see quoting such verses leads us to false conclusion because even I can quote many verses to show that quran does differentiate between things when it uses AND.

Secondly, since you have declared yourself as a non muslim let me ask you a fundamental question. If Quran is a lie then whom do muslims follow? Allah or Muhammad? If you are a non muslim you can clearly see that entire quran is all about following Muhammad and hence in such a case how can you claim that Muhammad innocently spoke about following GOd and not himself??

Thirdly, the verse talks about Muhamamad teaching something (though we disagree at this point as to what the teaching is) and hence I ask you where are the teachings of Muhammad? The verse is applicable for entire mankind so if Muhammad was sent to teach people then where are his teachings?

I would agree with you if you want to debunk both quran and the ahadith. Quran is not a book that is worth preaching. I better tell the people truth rather than sugar coating islam with quran alone approach.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by skynightblaze »

@Mesmorial

Here is something for you to laugh.
The Cat wrote: On the contrary, my scholarly approach dismiss their very legitimacy by proving the build-up of the forgeries and all this without the entrenched hatred of SNB's position.
So all the ahadith are forgeries according to the scholarly approach! Very INTERESTING!
The Cat wrote: If it was from divine origin, how come it was written/delivered without the much needed diacritical dots,
but but but who told this person about lack of diacritical dots before the compilation of quran? Quran didn't say this. Guess who told him??? It's a million dollar question :roflmao: .

So you see according to the scholarly approach all the non quranic sources of islam written by muslims are fabrications but yet when needed they become reliable sources of history to base an argument upon :lol:
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

Idesigner
Posts: 1867
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 6:51 pm

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by Idesigner »

The Cat wrote:
Idesigner wrote:If there were 50 versions of Muwatta its not fault of Malik Ibn Anas.
My comment was:
''I'm sure you'll easily pinpoint which one of the 50 versions of his Muwatta is definitively authentic.''
49 versions must be false by definition, So, which one is it? Which one is genuine?

Then, I've asked: ''Learn how the Kharijites were the first 'Koraners''. And you obviously didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharijites" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Read comments by Wikie at the begining. They have a disclaimer and ask the article to be rewritten.

I dont believ Khajarites were true Koran only muslims. They followed Muslim tradition of killing even other muslims who dont agree with them. Read about the word "Takfir". Where Kharijitesotes got their Takfirs? Takfir literally means declaring other muslims apostates or excommunicating them. For the interpretaion Khrijites had to belive in Sharia and jurisprudence. They may call themselves Koran only but they were your garden variety mean motherfriging muslims. All muslims can call them selves koranite if we follow your logic.

From their essentially political position, the Kharijites developed extreme doctrines that further set them apart from both mainstream Sunni and Shiʿa Muslims. The Kharijites were particularly noted for adopting a radical approach to Takfir, whereby they declared other Muslims to be unbelievers and therefore deemed them worthy of death. The Kharijites were also known historically as the Shurah (Ar: الشُراة), literally meaning "the buyers" and understood within the context of Islamic scripture and philosophy to mean "those who have traded the mortal life (al-Dunya) for the other life [with God] (al-Aakhirah)", which, unlike the term Kharijite, was one that many Kharijites used to describe themselves.

.. There were and are numerous extremists sects among both shias as well as sunnis. Shias had their Hasassins.All extremist muslimn sects claim to follow Koran . They had no aversion or dislike arguing about sharia, tafsirs and takfir. The problem arose after 9/11 and lo behold we havd Moghuls, Cats, Bahaghats and other who started thumping Koran only.

I was talking abpout koran only guys like you and Mogul who definitely dont preach killing infidels atleast not rightaway. :D You cant compare yourself with boody kharijites / :P

All 50 versions of Muwatta can be true or all of them fabricated and false. Later Bukhari tried his best to compile shahi hadiths which majority sunni sects follow. Later we had continuous tradition with scholars like Ghazali and others. My point is Bukhari , Ghazali and others were not operating in vacuum. Muslim and Islam has continuous tradition and belief system since days of Malik Anas, Ibn Ishaq, Bukhari and Ghazali. Even Khajarites had to invent their own traditions.

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by The Cat »

Idesigner wrote: All 50 versions of Muwatta can be true or all of them fabricated and false. Later Bukhari tried his best to compile shahi hadiths which majority sunni sects follow. Later we had continuous tradition with scholars like Ghazali and others. My point is Bukhari , Ghazali and others were not operating in vacuum. Muslim and Islam has continuous tradition and belief system since days of Malik Anas, Ibn Ishaq, Bukhari and Ghazali. Even Khajarites had to invent their own traditions.
All 50 versions of Muwatta can be true?

That's right Islam had continuous tradition from Malik, yet rather from Shafi'i. No problem. But before that?
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by The Cat »

skynightblaze wrote:So all the ahadith are forgeries according to the scholarly approach! Very INTERESTING!
Tell us why the Islamic tradition says that Muhammad severed his ties with the Jews, expelling them all from Arabia,
while many Syriac accounts stated the opposite, which is corroborated by Umar opening Jerusalem for them to worship.
skynightblaze wrote:who told this person about lack of diacritical dots before the compilation of quran? Quran didn't say this. Guess who told him??? It's a million dollar question.
Bring the cash.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_diacritics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Diacritic ... e_Qur%27an" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That's a case of historical knowledge as apart from the prophetic traditions answering your next question.
skynightblaze wrote:according to the scholarly approach all the non quranic sources of islam written by muslims are fabrications but yet when needed they become reliable sources of history to base an argument upon
How far will you go to show that you haven't the differentiation capacity even of a pitbull?

When we talk about -Islam- we deal with the prophetic hadiths, those related to Muhammad as a source of the Islamic Sharia.
We also have to deal with the biography of the prophet from the siras, of which we have no valid account before ibn Hisham.

Everything else with some historical content must be dealt with independently, according to their own intrinsic historical values.
For example: Umar, Uthman and Ali have much more chances to be historically credible than let's say Ibn Abbas or Huraira.
skynightblaze wrote: the verse talks about Muhamamad teaching something () and hence I ask you where are the teachings of Muhammad?
Silly question to ask: Things that changed from the Koran like the stopping of infanticide (6.151; 60.12; 81.8-9),
the dietary injunctions (2.173; 5.3; 5.5; 6.145; 16.115), the stipulations over slavery (2.177; 4.36; 4.92; 9.60),
contracts (2.282), marriages, prayers, etc. In short all the implantation of the Koranic rulings in the daily of his folks.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
MesMorial
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:15 am

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by MesMorial »

@ SkynNightBlaze;

Ignore the parts that talk from Muslims’ perspective.
That's purely playing with words. If the quran wanted to say that Muhammad will teach everything from the quran it would have said something like " We have sent Muhammad to teach wisdom and things which you didn't know that are mentioned in this book" .But, that is not what it says.
Muhammad was just a warner (35:23), warning of the consequences of certain behaviour compared to other behaviour.

The Arabic Qur’an was revealed to Muhammad so that he could use it to warn the people (6:19, 6:51, 7:2, 19:97, 20:113, 42:7). 38:70 confirms that everything revealed to him was a part of the warning.

Thus Islam is but the Qur’an and its teachings. Muhammad did not explain the Qur’an, but he gave the Qur’an explaining all.
Certainly there can be wisdom besides quran and certainly there can be things which people don't know besides what quran teaches and hence it is not necessary that quran is referring to itself here. Basically we use AND to differentiate between 2 different things. If quran used "AND" between things that are one and the same like your example of "covenants made with prophets and Muhammad, isa..." then following rules of grammar it would mean quran differentiates between Muhammad , ISA and prophets and hence it would mean Muhammad and Isa are not prophets.
The Qur’an breaks rules of grammar because it is emphasising. For example:


“And certainly We gave to Musa and Haroun the Furqan and a light and a reminder for those who would guard (against evil).” (21:48)


The Qur’an is the light (4:174-175, 42:52).
The Qur’an is the reminder (6:90 etc.).

The wisdom (al hikma) “comes from Allah” through the Qur’an (17:39, 33:34, 36:2, 43:4, 43:63, 44:4, 54:5).

It is (in part) the ability to recognise truth and adhere to it (2:269, 19:12, 26:21, 26:83, 28:14, 31:2, 31:12, 38:20). See 17:22-38 for specific examples of the wisdom (17:39).

The wisdom is the “recipe” in the Book which when we study/follow, will make us wise. It describes the attributes/”nutrition” of the Book (including the stories) from which we can draw wisdom. It is separate from the entity that is “the Book”, but it is inside the Book.

The wisdom is in the Qur’an:


“And when Isa came with clear arguments he said: I have come to you indeed with wisdom…” (43:63)


Isa was also taught the Book and the wisdom (3:48), but people were still expected to judge only by the Injeel (5:47).

Let’s see:


“And keep to mind what is recited in your houses of the communications of Allah and the wisdom; surely Allah is Knower of subtleties, Aware.” (33:34)


The only thing which is ever recited in the Book is the Qur’an (literally “recital”). 33:34 thus confirms that the wisdom is in the Qur’an, being the attributes/”nutrition” of the verses which when followed (somewhat like a recipe), will lead to wise conduct.

One obtains the wisdom by studying the Book. One cannot teach the Book without teaching the wisdom, too.

It also describes the attributes of those who are able to recognise and adhere to truth.

Wisdom is in the Qur’an, not necessarily in men’s ahadith.
Btw even I can quote such verses where you can't say one thing is contained within another to make a case.

2:9.
Fain would they deceive Allah and those who believe, but they only deceive themselves, and realise (it) not!

The verse talks about Allah and those who believe . Are both these parties i.e those who believe and Allah one and the same?

So you see quoting such verses leads us to false conclusion because even I can quote many verses to show that quran does differentiate between things when it uses AND.
Once again, the wisdom is different to the entity that is “the Book”. It is just inside it. The believers are separate from Allah, and they do not have to be inside him. However, these people are pretending to follow the Qur’an when with the Muslims, so they are effectively mocking the Qur’an (Allah) and those who follow it. They are not taking the Qur’an seriously, so they are “indulging” it whilst believing its author does not know what they do behind closed doors. By doing this they automatically deceive the believers.
Secondly, since you have declared yourself as a non muslim let me ask you a fundamental question. If Quran is a lie then whom do muslims follow? Allah or Muhammad? If you are a non muslim you can clearly see that entire quran is all about following Muhammad and hence in such a case how can you claim that Muhammad innocently spoke about following GOd and not himself??
The only thing that Muhammad commanded to do as a matter of religious law was to take the way to Allah (19:36, 25:56-57, 34:46, 57:8).

Following the Qur’an is the “right path” (2:176, 5:43-50, 6:19, 6:114-115, 6:126, 6:153-6:157, 7:184, 7:203, 10:57, 12:111, 16:35, 17:9, 18:27, 34:6, 39:23, 45:6, etc.).

Thirdly, the verse talks about Muhamamad teaching something (though we disagree at this point as to what the teaching is) and hence I ask you where are the teachings of Muhammad? The verse is applicable for entire mankind so if Muhammad was sent to teach people then where are his teachings?
The verse says that the teachings were the book and the wisdom.
FEED MORE MORE - WAKE UP!
- Ryback

http://allpoetry.com/Noctifer

User avatar
MesMorial
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:15 am

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by MesMorial »

Hello The Cat

Well I will have to get a lion avatar.
How in the world could the Arabic Koran been revealed to the former prophets? It's a chronological impossibility! Implausible...
Did it have to be Arabic?
The problem with SNB is that his position maintains the legitimacy of the hadiths through the authenticity he recognizes and defends,
which is a self-defeating position. Snb never knew the difference between 'authentic' and 'authenticity', which carries about the same
axial difference we find between 'history' and 'historicity'. The authenticity of the hadiths means that the content is rightful, genuine,
legitimate. This is like recognizing the authenticity/legitimacy of Mein Kampf, instead of merely being authentic as a book!!! See?

On the contrary, my scholarly approach dismiss their very legitimacy by proving the build-up of the forgeries and all this without the
entrenched hatred of SNB's position. Now, I can't use the same arguments against the Koran, as SNB would like, because they did
originate quite differently in time and doing so I'd be drowning my hadiths' refutations all along. That's beyond what SNB can grasp.
Ahadith carry no philosophical/religious or Qur’anic authority. I am only providing a platform for people to abandon ahadith and follow the Qur’an (if they want to). I run with traditional assumptions such as place of Hajj etc. since I am just working on the root first.
If it was from divine origin, how come it was written/delivered without the much needed diacritical dots,
humans had to invent to avoid faults and to assure the meanings of a book stating to be perfectly clear?

Was the Qur'an First in (perfect) Arabic?
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39999" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can the Koran be... uncreated?
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6500

Is Allah and ar-Rahman the same (or part of a trinity with ISA)?
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5738
For 'ISA' too isn't a proper name (that would be Yashu in Arabic) but a divine attribute!
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8769
Part of reason I left.
FEED MORE MORE - WAKE UP!
- Ryback

http://allpoetry.com/Noctifer

darth
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:16 pm

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by darth »

I am highly confused. 2.151 is very clearly distinguishing the revelations from that which mohammad taught. If the quran is what mohammad taught then the revealed verses are something else and it is not the quran. If quran is the revealed verses, then mo's teachings are somewhere else. You cannot say mo taught the quran and also claim that the quran is the revelation.

User avatar
MesMorial
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:15 am

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by MesMorial »

darth wrote:I am highly confused. 2.151 is very clearly distinguishing the revelations from that which mohammad taught. If the quran is what mohammad taught then the revealed verses are something else and it is not the quran. If quran is the revealed verses, then mo's teachings are somewhere else. You cannot say mo taught the quran and also claim that the quran is the revelation.

"Even as We have sent among you a Messenger from among you who recites to you Our communications and purifies you and teaches you the Book and the wisdom and teaches you that which you did not know." (2:151)


In simple terms, Muhammad recites the verses of the Qur'an. He does not do it just once since people will not always remember it. He recites it for those who will listen. These people will learn it by listening, hence Muhammad will be teaching the book. The wisdom is inside the book (44:4), so one teaches the wisdom with the book. Following it will purify the person (5:6, 33:33, 34:6 etc.).

Muhammad's people did not know the book because they never had a messenger (32:3).

There is no "sunna" in that verse.
FEED MORE MORE - WAKE UP!
- Ryback

http://allpoetry.com/Noctifer

darth
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:16 pm

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by darth »

MesMorial wrote:
In simple terms, Muhammad recites the verses of the Qur'an. He does not do it just once since people will not always remember it. He recites it for those who will listen. These people will learn it by listening, hence Muhammad will be teaching the book. The wisdom is inside the book (44:4), so one teaches the wisdom with the book. Following it will purify the person (5:6, 33:33, 34:6 etc.).
According to the verse mo a) recites the received communication and b)teaches
He is not "teaching" by "reciting". The recitation of the verse is not "teaching". It is merely "reciting". Prophets are not needed for merely "reciting". The purpose here is to teach and make clear what was communicated.
So again, I ask, which are the recited words communicated and which are the teachings of mo?
If the quran is the received communication that was recited by mo, then where do we find the "teaching" of mo ?
If the quran is what mo taught then where is the "scripture" (the verses communicated that were recited)?

User avatar
MesMorial
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:15 am

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by MesMorial »

darth wrote:
MesMorial wrote:
In simple terms, Muhammad recites the verses of the Qur'an. He does not do it just once since people will not always remember it. He recites it for those who will listen. These people will learn it by listening, hence Muhammad will be teaching the book. The wisdom is inside the book (44:4), so one teaches the wisdom with the book. Following it will purify the person (5:6, 33:33, 34:6 etc.).
According to the verse mo a) recites the received communication and b)teaches
He is not "teaching" by "reciting". The recitation of the verse is not "teaching". It is merely "reciting". Prophets are not needed for merely "reciting". The purpose here is to teach and make clear what was communicated.
So again, I ask, which are the recited words communicated and which are the teachings of mo?
If the quran is the received communication that was recited by mo, then where do we find the "teaching" of mo ?
If the quran is what mo taught then where is the "scripture" (the verses communicated that were recited)?
Reciting is teaching, because listening is learning.

You have provided no evidence to support that he "makes clear" anything.

The recited words are in the Qur'an, and the teachings are in the Qur'an. If Muhammad taught anything, it obviously came from "God" in the first place so the point does not actually go anywhere.

So what do you mean by your last question? Perhaps you should read all my posts (here) first.

Cheers.
FEED MORE MORE - WAKE UP!
- Ryback

http://allpoetry.com/Noctifer

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by skynightblaze »

MesMorial wrote:@ SkynNightBlaze;
Ignore the parts that talk from Muslims’ perspective.
Muhammad was just a warner (35:23), warning of the consequences of certain behaviour compared to other behaviour.
The Arabic Qur’an was revealed to Muhammad so that he could use it to warn the people (6:19, 6:51, 7:2, 19:97, 20:113, and 42:7). 38:70 confirms that everything revealed to him was a part of the warning.
If you are trying to tell me that Muhammad was only a warner i.e. he is merely supposed to recite quran and not teach then you are plain wrong. Quran has lot of internal contradictions. While these verses you quoted may tell us that Muhammad was sent only as a warner, other verses indicate that his role was more than a warner. Verse 2:151 is a perfect example of that.

In 2:151, the first part of the verse mentions that Muhammad is supposed to recite the communications.

[002:151] Even as We have sent among you an Apostle from among you who recites to you Our communications


The second part of the verse tells us that Muhammad is supposed to TEACH THE BOOK, WISDOM and THINGS THAT PEOPLE DIDN’T KNOW. The 2nd part of the verse is useless and redundant if the verse wanted to only say that Muhammad would recite Allah’s communication because the first part of the verse already mentioned that.
MesMorial wrote:@ Thus Islam is but the Qur’an and its teachings. Muhammad did not explain the Qur’an, but he gave the Qur’an explaining all.
You don’t have to defend gibberish especially when you have left islam. The verse 2:151 doesn’t say that Muhammad gave the book explaining it all. It clearly says HE IS SUPPOSED TO TEACH THE BOOK. How much are you going to twist now?

Here is the complete verse ..

[002:151] Even as We have sent among you an Apostle from among you who recites to you Our communications and purifies you and teaches you the Book and the wisdom and teaches you that which you did not know.

MesMorial wrote: The Qur’an breaks rules of grammar because it is emphasising. For example:
“And certainly We gave to Musa and Haroun the Furqan and a light and a reminder for those who would guard (against evil).” (21:48)

The Qur’an is the light (4:174-175, 42:52).
The Qur’an is the reminder (6:90 etc.).
Quran cannot break the rules of grammar because it says somewhere else that it was revealed in Arabic language so that it is easy for men to understand. Now how in the world can it be easy for men to understand quran especially when quran is breaking rules of a language? As a muslim one has to accept that there is an internal contradiction here if he/she wants to deny it is referring to ahadith or else accept that Quran is talking wisdom other than quran and it is also talking about things other than the ones mentioned in the quran.
MesMorial wrote:
Spoiler! :
The wisdom (al hikma) “comes from Allah” through the Qur’an (17:39, 33:34, 36:2, 43:4, 43:63, 44:4, 54:5).
It is (in part) the ability to recognise truth and adhere to it (2:269, 19:12, 26:21, 26:83, 28:14, 31:2, 31:12, 38:20). See 17:22-38 for specific examples of the wisdom (17:39).

The wisdom is the “recipe” in the Book which when we study/follow, will make us wise. It describes the attributes/”nutrition” of the Book (including the stories) from which we can draw wisdom. It is separate from the entity that is “the Book”, but it is inside the Book.

The wisdom is in the Qur’an:
“And when Isa came with clear arguments he said: I have come to you indeed with wisdom…” (43:63) Isa was also taught the Book and the wisdom (3:48), but people were still expected to judge only by the Injeel (5:47).
That wisdom contained in the quran gets covered when the quran says that Muhammad will teach you the book. The book contains the wisdom and hence saying that Muhammad will teach the book will mean that he will teach the wisdom contained in the book. If what you say is true then there is no need to speak again about the wisdom and THINGs which people didn't know because they would get covered when Muhammad would teach the book.

Since all these things are separated by “AND” we can conclude that Wisdom and things which people didn’t know are in addition to the wisdom in the book i.e. the quran.
MesMorial wrote: Let’s see:
“And keep to mind what is recited in your houses of the communications of Allah and the wisdom; surely Allah is Knower of subtleties, Aware.” (33:34)

The only thing which is ever recited in the Book is the Qur’an (literally “recital”). 33:34 thus confirms that the wisdom is in the Qur’an, being the attributes/”nutrition” of the verses which when followed (somewhat like a recipe), will lead to wise conduct.
Again the same thing here! Ideally communications of Allah is supposed to include wisdom however it is differentiated by placing AND between communications of Allah and WISDOM. Quran cannot break the rules of grammar as proven above and hence we are left with no option to believe that this wisdom is in addition to the wisdom in the quran.
MesMorial wrote: One obtains the wisdom by studying the Book. One cannot teach the Book without teaching the wisdom, too.
I am not denying this however it doesn’t mean that there is no wisdom in addition to the wisdom in the quran.
MesMorial wrote: Wisdom is in the Qur’an, not necessarily in men’s ahadith.
The truth is neither the quran nor the ahadith have any wisdom. If the author of quran can call quran a wisdom I guess calling ahadith as wisdom won’t be a problem.
MesMorial wrote: Once again, the wisdom is different to the entity that is “the Book”. It is just inside it. The believers are separate from Allah, and they do not have to be inside him. However, these people are pretending to follow the Qur’an when with the Muslims, so they are effectively mocking the Qur’an (Allah) and those who follow it. They are not taking the Qur’an seriously, so they are “indulging” it whilst believing its author does not know what they do behind closed doors. By doing this they automatically deceive the believers.
The point I am making is quran uses “And” to differentiate between 2 things. You quote the verses that justify your stance and claim that it is the style of quran. My point is it is not the only style in which quran speaks. It also follows rules of grammar in other cases and uses AND to differentiate.
MesMorial wrote: The only thing that Muhammad commanded to do as a matter of religious law was to take the way to Allah (19:36, 25:56-57, 34:46, 57:8).
Following the Qur’an is the “right path” (2:176, 5:43-50, 6:19, 6:114-115, 6:126, 6:153-6:157, 7:184, 7:203, 10:57, 12:111, 16:35, 17:9, 18:27, 34:6, 39:23, 45:6, etc.).
Just answer a question here. Do you think that followers of Muhammad had no questions at all during all the 23 years of Muhammad’s career??? If they had questions about what is revealed in the quran then whom do they ask?? Muhammad is not supposed to comment according to you but then who was the authority if anyone had questions regarding revealed verses?
MesMorial wrote:
Thirdly, the verse talks about Muhamamad teaching something (though we disagree at this point as to what the teaching is) and hence I ask you where are the teachings of Muhammad? The verse is applicable for entire mankind so if Muhammad was sent to teach people then where are his teachings?
The verse says that the teachings were the book and the wisdom.
Mesmorial, you almost defeat the concept of teacher. You send your child to school. You have a teacher who teaches say history. What do you expect of the teacher? Would it be fine to say that Teachings of the teacher is just the book ? Would it be fine if the teacher merely recites the history book?

A teacher is hired by the school to give explanations and not merely read out what is given in the book. In an attempt to defend Muhammad you totally defeat the concept of a teacher. In this case if quran called Muhammad a teacher it automatically follows that we need explanations from Muhamamad regarding the quran and they can be found only in ahadith, siras and tafsirs. Anyway there is a separate chapter in the Bukhari ahadith titled “Tafsir of the prophet”.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
MesMorial
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:15 am

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by MesMorial »

Let’s break it down. Muhammad had multiple functions, but he achieved them through one responsibility.

“Even as We have sent among you a Messenger from among you who recites to you Our communications…

Muhammad’s responsibility was to recite the Qur’an.

…and purifies you…

Muhammad purifies his people by bringing a new way of life. This new way of life enjoins conduct which purified them. For instance, when Muhammad took alms from those who had acknowledged their wrongdoings (9:103):


“Take alms out of their property, you would cleanse them and purify them thereby…” (9:103)


This is because giving alms purifies one’s soul:


“Who gives away his wealth, purifying himself.” (92:18)


The Islamic way of life purifies people, thus Allah purifies people with the message:


“Allah does not desire to put on you any difficulty, but He wishes to purify you…” (5:6)


“Those are they for whom Allah does not desire that He should purify their hearts.” (5:41)


“Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you…” (33:33)

…and teaches you the Book and the wisdom…

Obviously people cannot be purified without wisdom. When Muhammad recited the Qur’an, he was also teaching people the book and its wisdom. He was teaching them what he had been taught:


“The Lord of Mighty Power has taught him.” (53:5)


“The Beneficent Allah taught the Qur’an.” (55:1-2)


The wisdom (al hikma) comes from Allah through the Qur’an (17:39, 33:34, 36:2, 43:4, 43:63, 44:4, 54:5).


We know that ALL of the wisdom is in the Qur’an because Isa was also taught the Book and the wisdom (3:48), but people were still expected to judge only by the Injeel (5:47).


“Therein every wise affair is made distinct.” (44:4)


The wisdom is the “recipe” in the Book which when one studies/follow, will make them wise. It describes the attributes/”nutrition” of the Book (including the stories) from which one can draw wisdom.

It is distinct from the Book in the same way that recipes are distinct from a recipe book.


“And keep to mind what is recited in your houses of the communications of Allah and the wisdom; surely Allah is Knower of subtleties, Aware.” (33:34)


The only thing which is ever recited in the Book is the Qur’an (literally “recital”). 33:34 thus confirms that the wisdom is in the Qur’an, being the attributes/”nutrition” of the verses which when followed (somewhat like a recipe), will lead to wise conduct.

Therefore one obtains the wisdom by studying the Book. One cannot teach the Book without teaching the wisdom, too.

Muhammad could not teach the Book without reciting it, and he could not teach it without teaching the wisdom, too.

…and teaches you that which you did not know.”

Muhammad could not teach the book and the wisdom without reciting it. He could not teach the book and the wisdom without teaching something they did not know.

For example, suppose Billy Bob Bean is teaching clueless kids. He wants to teach them the Qur’an, but he will not be able to tell them anything without teaching them something they did not know (since they do not know anything).

An attribute of the book and the wisdom was that people did not know it.


“Allah has revealed to you the Book and the wisdom, and He has taught you what you did not know.” (4:113)


“Say: Who revealed the Book which Musa brought, a light and a guidance to men, which you make into scattered writings which you show while you conceal much? And you were taught what you did not know, (neither) you nor your fathers.” (6:91)


Therefore in teaching the book and the wisdom, Muhammad was also teaching what they did not know (the book):


“You did not know what the Book was.” (42:52)


***


Indeed, the word “and” implies that all these duties are separate things. This is because they are separate functions/attributes of the one duty.

For example, in 6:91 we saw that the Qur’an was a light. Because it was a light, it was guidance. Similarly, because Muhammad taught the book and the wisdom, he taught them what they did not know.


“And certainly We gave to Musa and Haroun the Furqan and a light and a reminder for those who would guard (against evil).” (21:48)


The Qur’an is the light (4:174-175, 42:52).
The Qur’an is the reminder (6:90 etc.).


Reciting the verses, teaching the book and the wisdom, purifying people and teaching what they did not know were all attributes of one duty (delivering the Qur’an).


“Nothing is on the messenger except the conveyance.” (5:99)


There is no additional explanation of what is being conveyed.

Now if you continue I will have to think you are a Sunni :-|
Last edited by MesMorial on Tue Nov 15, 2011 2:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
FEED MORE MORE - WAKE UP!
- Ryback

http://allpoetry.com/Noctifer

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by skynightblaze »

Mesmorial wrote:Now if you continue I will have to think you are a Sunni :-|
YOu have taken CAT as your scholar and he makes the same arguments and thats why you are repeating his stupid arguments. Going by your logic you are a nazi if you believe that hitler carried out genocide. We don't deny the holocaust of jews. We accept it as a fact and condemn Hitler. Same is applicable here. We don't deny ahadith just because they portray Muhammad in negative light . We accept them and condemn Muhammad. It is obvious to any sane person that quran is hinting towards teachings of Muhammad. I don't think your latest post deserves a response.

I attack islam using ahadith. I call Muhammad all sorts of names using those ahadith. Since when did sunnis do that?
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
charleslemartel
Posts: 2884
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:01 pm
Location: Throne Of Allah

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by charleslemartel »

MesMorial wrote: Wisdom is in the Qur’an, not necessarily in men’s ahadith.
Since I haven't read most of your posts, may I ask you if you mean to say that the Quran is from God, and not from a man or men?
Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.

Idesigner
Posts: 1867
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 6:51 pm

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by Idesigner »

charleslemartel wrote:
MesMorial wrote: Wisdom is in the Qur’an, not necessarily in men’s ahadith.
Since I haven't read most of your posts, may I ask you if you mean to say that the Quran is from God, and not from a man or men?

Dear Mesmemorial,

What has made you to think there is no wisdom in Hadith. Hadiths are full of wisdom and it portrays Islamic belief system of Mohemmeds life time. . All those customs, superstitions, cruelty, unscientific belief system etc was there in that society. Nothing to feel ashamed about.Koran chanting Arabs were no Newtons or Einsteins. So manythings I found in Hadiths which confirms Koranic verses.Especially the Jew hatred is common theme of Koran as well as Hadiths.

Id.

Post Reply