Support NeoGAF

[Kaeru]

Sort of, though the implication is that this spells further than just Israel.

Surah 5. Al-Maida, Verse no 32

"For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than murder or corruption, it shall be as if be had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind."

As I read it this just applies to jews killing muslims(?)?

Why are muslims using this verse when its not even applied to muslims?
And if its applied to muslims then please explain how and why.

 

[Mustaphadamus]

The Quran also commands to follow the Sunnah, and therefore to avoid such conflict of views in this particular context, the verse of no compulsion in religion is said to relate to non-Muslims, but that in turn opens up a series of other questions. Authentic hadiths are used assupplements to scripture and are presented so as to not conflict. If they appear to, the advice given is that context may be different

Regardless of peoples personal stance on it, the accepted position is that Apostasy is a capital offence, as it once was originally cited in The Bible. I say that in response to those who can't acknowledge that God, at least at one point, introduced the sentence

This isn't correct. If a hadith which is where you would derive the sunnat of Prophet Muhammad *saw* is in conflict with the Quran, then it is not to be believed/followed. Nothing abrogates the Quran.

Quick question. What's the consensus on eating kosher instead if halal. I'm going NYC in April and want to try out Deli and other food. Ive heard its mostly kosher. Some say ots ok some say its not. What shall I what when out there?

it would be better to ask a Shaykh, Imam or Marj'a (Ayatollah if you are Shia) than to ask here. But I know MANY Muslims who purchase kosher. I personally do not eat Halal meat where I am. The people who run these stores here are like savages.

I'm currently working on a research paper on Abu Huraira. Does Muslim-GAF, or pretty much anyone here that knows anything about the man have any opinions (good or bad) regarding him and his contributions to hadith?

that is going to depend on who you ask. For Sunnis he is very important as he is the source for a lot of hadith. However if you ask a shi'a he is seen as a fabricator who supposedly was punished by one of the Rightly Guided Khulafat for some of his lies.

 

[Azih]

As I read it this just applies to jews killing muslims(?)?

Why are muslims using this verse when its not even applied to muslims?
And if its applied to muslims then please explain how and why.

Muslims believe that the religion of Moses is the same as the religion of Muhammad; the same commandments apply. The Quran uses Jews and Christians as examples of people who lapsed from the right practice.

 

[Azih]

Ok, so from the Arab Revolution thread this old chestnut came back up and since it's pretty Off topic there. I'm reposting it here:

Your right in the sense the state can't force people to pray and not sin but that's not the role of the leader of an Islamic state. There role is to implement the sharia and the system of government which the prophet (saw) and his companions after him established.

And no one agrees on what that exactly is and people trying to implement it are forced to rely on sources written by men two hundred years after the fact (the Hadith of course) and further elevates the companions (The Four 'Rightly Guided Caliphs') to a position that is untenable given the history of what happened after the Prophet Muhammad died.

 

[Mustaphadamus]

Ok, so from the Arab Revolution thread this old chestnut came back up and since it's pretty Off topic there. I'm reposting it here:


And no one agrees on what that exactly is and people trying to implement it are forced to rely on sources written by men two hundred years after the fact (the Hadith of course) and further elevates the companions (The Four 'Rightly Guided Caliphs') to a position that is untenable given the history of what happened after the Prophet Muhammad died.

This is very true. They (the rightly guided caliphs) fought each other. And in every war one person is on the side of right and one is on the side of wrong. So it stands to reason that they were not all rightly guided. Also another problem is Abu Huraira and his character, being that many isnad point to him.

 

[Kaeru]

Muslims believe that the religion of Moses is the same as the religion of Muhammad; the same commandments apply. The Quran uses Jews and Christians as examples of people who lapsed from the right practice.

Source for this please, and especially referring to the sura that was mentioned.

 

[Ashes]

Source for this please, and especially referring to the sura that was mentioned.

How did you get the presumption that it only applies jews?
Is this because the text is reffering to jews only?
Well then logically it follows that you are fogetting who the text's audience is. And as such the text is addressing the audience as much as anything.
Thus I would argue that this isn't a case for apples and oranges.
I mean it is logically *possible* that it may only be reffering to jews and thus applies only to jews. But is this the best explanation?
Therefore, I put to you, that you could still claim that this is case, but it is not a compelling argument for me.

 

[Mustaphadamus]

Muslims believe that the religion of Moses is the same as the religion of Muhammad; the same commandments apply. The Quran uses Jews and Christians as examples of people who lapsed from the right practice.

While the Quran does mention the religion of the Jews and Christians have been corrupted we do not follow the 10 commandments. You must remember someone in Judaism borrowed that from the Kemetic religion of Ancient "Egypt" via what is called the 42 negative confessions. As far as I know the ancient "egyptians" were Zandiq/kafireen.

 

[Kaeru]

How did you get the presumption that it only applies jews?
Is this because the text is reffering to jews only?
Well then logically it follows that you are fogetting who the text's audience is. And as such the text is addressing the audience as much as anything.
Thus I would argue that this isn't a case for apples and oranges.
I mean it is logically *possible* that it may only be reffering to jews and thus applies only to jews. But is this the best explanation?
Therefore, I put to you, that you could still claim that this is case, but it is not a compelling argument for me.

Its funny im just trying to get some simple answers, why are you so defensive?
Lets see what the tafsirs say, starting with Tafsir al-Jalalayn:

Because of that, which Cain did, We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoever slays a soul for other than a soul, slain, or for, other than, corruption, committed, in the land, in the way of unbelief, fornication or waylaying and the like, it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoever saves the life of one, by refraining from slaying, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind — Ibn ‘Abbās said [that the above is meant] in the sense of violating and protecting its [a soul’s] sanctity [respectively]. Our messengers have already come to them, that is, to the Children of Israel, with clear proofs, miracles, but after that many of them still commit excesses in the land, overstepping the bounds through disbelief, killing and the like.

Clearly its a message to the Chilren fo Israel(jews) to respect muslim laws, or else(see following sura 5:33).

We can also look at sura 17:100-104 where it clearly describes who the children of Israel are, it is the descendants of Moses, in other words the jews.


So with this said, how can sura 5:32 be used as an argument that a muslim cannot kill another human being? Isnt in fact the case that sura 5 verse 32 is exclusively aimed at jews?

And please correct me if im wrong, I have searched this information on my own and I used www.quran.com and altafsir.com

 

[Shanadeus]

Anyone interested in discussing the inaccuracies of the Qu'ran?
We got a pretty big sperm debate going a couple of pages back in this thread.

 

[crazy monkey]

Its funny im just trying to get some simple answers, why are you so defensive?
Lets see what the tafsirs say, starting with Tafsir al-Jalalayn:



Clearly its a message to the Chilren fo Israel(jews) to respect muslim laws, or else(see following sura 5:33).

We can also look at sura 17:100-104 where it clearly describes who the children of Israel are, it is the descendants of Moses, in other words the jews.


So with this said, how can sura 5:32 be used as an argument that a muslim cannot kill another human being? Isnt in fact the case that sura 5 verse 32 is exclusively aimed at jews?

And please correct me if im wrong, I have searched this information on my own and I used www.quran.com and altafsir.com

ya bani israel has been used through out the quran and it refers to everyone. Muslim Jew and christen from what i know.

Anyone interested in discussing the inaccuracies of the Qu'ran?
We got a pretty big sperm debate going a couple of pages back in this thread.

what was the question? sorry i have not been following the thread for long time now.

 

[Shanadeus]

ya bani israel has been used through out the quran and it refers to everyone. Muslim Jew and christen from what i know.



what was the question? sorry i have not been following the thread for long time now.

Hm, it might have been in the other thread actually.

It was this huge discussion about how the Qu'ran is wrong on where sperm comes from.

 

[Darackutny]

And no one agrees on what that exactly is and people trying to implement it are forced to rely on sources written by men two hundred years after the fact (the Hadith of course) and further elevates the companions (The Four 'Rightly Guided Caliphs') to a position that is untenable given the history of what happened after the Prophet Muhammad died.

There is nothing flawed about those sources since it isn't like the hadiths that they quoted were already known during their time. Take for example, the hadiths of Malik in the Saheehain (two authentic collections). A good chunk of those, right? If you examine those carefully, most of those hadiths are from the Muwatta, which was written in the early 100s. Between Malik, and the Prophet, are two narrators only.

There are also other sources that have reached us today that are older than the Saheehain, like the Musanaf of Abdulrazaq, and Saheefat Suhail bin Abi Salih, that testify to the strength of the Saheehain.

This is very true. They (the rightly guided caliphs) fought each other. And in every war one person is on the side of right and one is on the side of wrong. So it stands to reason that they were not all rightly guided. Also another problem is Abu Huraira and his character, being that many isnad point to him.

Errr... no, they didn't. None of the four caliphs fought each other. Please provide references to back your claim.

that is going to depend on who you ask. For Sunnis he is very important as he is the source for a lot of hadith. However if you ask a shi'a he is seen as a fabricator who supposedly was punished by one of the Rightly Guided Khulafat for some of his lies.

Shias from earlier times didn't really focus on Abu Huraira at all. Try checking what Al-Tusi, Al-Najashi, or even Ibn Al-Ghada'iree said about Abu Huraira. Nothing at all. They don't mention him with praise, or attack him. It was as if he was insignificant to mention. This is more of a tactic by contemporary Shias in order to destroy the credibility of Sunni hadith, simply by attacking the narrator that narrates the most hadiths. Similarly, Sunnis attack narrators like Zurarah bin A'ayan and Ibrahim bin Hashim Al-Qummi due to their high number of hadiths in order to hurt the credibility of Shia hadiths.

He was never punished for fabricating hadiths either. Sure, some narrations stated that he was punished by Omar, but those are through unknown sources. What we do know about Omar is that he allowed Abu Huraira to govern over Bahrain after Al-Ala'a bin Al-Hadrami. How is it possible for Omar to allow him to govern after he punishes him for fabricating hadiths? This is not logical.

 

[Ashes]

Its funny im just trying to get some simple answers, why are you so defensive?

Now, I take great offence at this! Grrr... Arghhhh.



Have you never argued in a debate before? This is standard debate language. <Or maybe you are still reading this in an angry agitated voice?

It's telling that you choose to give my text an 'defensive' voice. Relax.... Maybe you are expecting me to be defensive etc?

Right now I'm at work; in real life I talk slowly... If you read my text in that manner, you may get how I am addressing you.

I stated simply:

how did you get the presumption that it's addresses *only* apply to the jews?
^^^ do you see capital letters there? or put better: which verb in that sentence, led you to believe that I was being defensive? This is actually quite a convienient segway for the argument I made. Reading skills are critical here.
It's possible that I may be angry, and agitated, and defensive... or maybe, I'm just not, I'm following objectively, slowly, what I think is the most intelligent course of discourse analysis.

Texts address readers as much as the people it is referring to. It's *possible* that it is only reffering to the jews. Which led me to my next sentence:
... you know, I'm not bothered... try at least to engage me in debate, by challenging the argument I set out. Or ignore me at will.

 

[liger05]

Ok, so from the Arab Revolution thread this old chestnut came back up and since it's pretty Off topic there. I'm reposting it here:


And no one agrees on what that exactly is and people trying to implement it are forced to rely on sources written by men two hundred years after the fact (the Hadith of course) and further elevates the companions (The Four 'Rightly Guided Caliphs') to a position that is untenable given the history of what happened after the Prophet Muhammad died.

The hadiths were being scrutinized from day 1. While the written book may not of came into place for 200 years after Muhammad (saw) died the sayings of the prophet were being analysed from a very early stage. The khilafah state isn't a utopia and doesn't pretend to be. However it is the Islamic political system and form of government. The difference of opinion in certain issues of fiqh is fine and we have our different schools if thought. However those schools all derive there opinion from the text and that's the key.

 

[Shanadeus]

Shanadeus, I asked about this earlier. Isn't the fluid that becomes semen ultimately comes from different glands inside the body, all in the lower regions? The seminal vesicles produce majority of the fluid that becomes semen that gets stored in testes. The prostrate gland produces the rest of the fluid. Both these glands are located between the backbone and abdomen. And finally, isn't the emission of the fluid directly controlled by the "parasympathetic nervous system" (PNS), which is attached to the spinal cord?

http://calder.med.miami.edu/pointis/ejaculation.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermatogenesis
Quite so.

Spermatogenesis takes place within several structures of the male reproductive system. The initial stages occur within the testes and progress to the epididymis where the developing gametes mature and are stored until ejaculation. The seminiferous tubules of the testes are the starting point for the process, where stem cells adjacent to the inner tubule wall divide in a centripetal direction—beginning at the walls and proceeding into the innermost part, or lumen—to produce immature sperm. Maturation occurs in the epididymis and involves the acquisition of a tail and hence motility.

And it is true that the fluid that becomes semen ultimately comes from the seminal vesicles, which are located here:

The seminal vesicles secrete a significant proportion of the fluid that ultimately becomes semen. Lipofuscin granules from dead epithelial cells gives the secretion its yellowish color. About 60% of the seminal fluid in humans originates from the seminal vesicles, but is not expelled in the first ejaculate fractions which are dominated by spermatozoa and zinc-rich prostatic fluid. The excretory duct of each seminal gland opens into the corresponding vas deferens as it enters the prostate gland. Seminal vesicle fluid is alkaline along with the prostatic fluid, resulting in human semen having a mildly alkaline pH.[2] The alkalinity of semen helps neutralize the acidity of the vaginal tract, prolonging the lifespan of sperm. Acidic ejaculate (pH <7.2) may be associated with blockage of seminal vesicles.

Now semen itself, the fluid that these verses refer to is created in the ball area so to say - before that has occurred it'd be dishonest to call it semen as it by any definition isn't.

It's like saying that saliva comes from the parotid glands (where the serous fluid which partly make up the saliva come from) rather than the submandibular gland - where saliva is produced and later enter the oral cavity via wharton's ducts.


But this argument has been refuted already by people knowing more about the Qu'ran than me:

http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Quran_and_Semen_Production

Badawi must assume that "gushing fluid poured forth" refers to the aorta which according to a book cited by him, Clinical Anatomy, supplies the testes and ovaries with the necessary nutrients and this is what the Quran refers to.[5]

Dr. Badawi’s proposition is debunked with the same explanation given for Naik’s blood circulation proposition.

Lastly, Naik’s explanation of the nerve, blood and lymphatic circular from the abdominal aorta is irrelevant and constitutes the logical fallacy of the red herring. This is because verses 85:6 speak about ‘a drop emitted’, commonly taken to mean semen and semen only as this drop is directly responsible for human reproduction, something which cannot be claimed for nerve signals, blood or lymph. Further, circulation and nerve supply do not correlate with embryonic origin. For example, the blood supply, lymphatics and nerve supply of the lower limbs originate in the abdomen and pelvis. Does that mean the lower limbs embryonically originated in the abdomen and pelvis? No it does not.

 

[Shanadeus]

Eh. Arabic speakers can correct me on this, but there is a word for sperm in Arabic, called "haywaan-something something". It is the same word used to refer to female eggs.

The important thing is when this word was first used, since sperm itself wasn't known until quite a bit later.

As for Surah 86, you are correct it does not use "Nutfa", but uses the "gushing fluids" term, which does in fact originate from the internal abdominal glands, whose ejaculation is assisted by PSNS in the spinal cord. The Nutfa part is the fluid-drop, which comes after the whole thing is constituted. Here's clarification about all the terms and verses.

Transliteration - Allathee ahsana kulla shay-in khalaqahu wabadaa khalqa al-insani min teenin

Literal - Who bettered every thing He created it, and He started/began the human's/mankind's creation from mud/clay .

Yusuf Ali - He Who has made everything which He has created most good: He began the creation of man with (nothing more than) clay,

Pickthal - Who made all things good which He created, and He began the creation of man from clay;

Arberry - who has created all things well. And He originated the creation of man out of clay,

Shakir - Who made good everything that He has created, and He began the creation of man from dust.

Sarwar - It is He Who created everything in the best manner and began the creation of the human being from clay.

Khalifa - He is the One who perfected everything He created, and started the creation of the human from clay.

Hilali/Khan - Who made everything He has created good, and He began the creation of man from clay.

H/K/Saheeh - Who perfected everything which He created and began the creation of man from clay.

Malik - It is He Who has given the best form to everything that He has created. He originated the creation of man from clay;

QXP - Who created everything in perfect balance. Thus He initiated the creation of man (kind) from hydrated inorganic matter.

Maulana Ali - Who made beautiful everything that He created, and He began the creation of man from dust.

Free Minds - The One who perfected everything He created and He began the creation of the human from mud.

Qaribullah - who perfected everything He created. He originated the creation of the human from clay,

George Sale - It is He who hath made every thing which He hath created exceeding good; and first created man of clay,

JM Rodwell - Who hath made everything which he hath created most good; and began the creation of man with clay;

Asad who makes most excellent everything that He creates. [I.e., He fashions every detail of His creation in accordance with the functions intended for it, irrespective of whether those functions can be understood by us or are beyond the reach of our perception. In the text, the passage comprising verses 7-9 is in the past tense; but since it relates to a continuous act of creation, it signifies the present and the future as well as the past, and may, therefore, be suitably rendered in the present tense.] Thus, He begins the creation of man out of clay; [Cf. note on 23:12. In view of the next verse, this "beginning" of man's creation seems to allude to the basic composition of the human body as such, as well as to each individual's pre-natal existence in the separate bodies of his parents.]

32: 8:

Transliteration - Thumma jaAAala naslahu min sulalatin min ma-in maheenin

Literal - Then He created/made his off spring/descendants from descendent/strain/gene/progeny from humiliated/degraded water.

Yusuf Ali - And made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised:

Pickthal - Then He made his seed from a draught of despised fluid;

Arberry - then He fashioned his progeny of an extraction of mean water,

Shakir - Then He made his progeny of an extract, of water held in light estimation.

Sarwar - He made His offspring come into existence from an extract of insignificant fluid,

Khalifa - Then He continued his reproduction through a certain lowly liquid.

Hilali/Khan - Then He made his offspring from semen of worthless water (male and female sexual discharge).

H/K/Saheeh - Then He made his posterity out of the extract of a liquid disdained.

Malik - then automated the creation of his progeny by an extract of a despicable water;

QXP - Then He made him to be reproduced out of the essence of a humble fluid. (The inorganic matter was hydrated and from its extract life was initiated. Eventually, the evolution reached a point when procreation with male and female gametes was established (37:11)).

Maulana Ali - Then He made his progeny of an extract, of worthless water.

Free Minds - Then He made his offspring from a structure derived from a lowly liquid.

Qaribullah - then He made his offspring from a clot of weak water (semen).

George Sale - and afterwards made his posterity of an extract of despicable water;

JM Rodwell Then ordained his progeny from germs of life, from sorry water:

Asad - then He causes him to be begotten [Lit., "He caused [i.e., as pointed out in note on verse 7 above, "He causes"] his procreation [or "his begetting"] to be out of...", etc.] out of the essence of a humble fluid;

86: 5

Transliteration - Falyanthuri al-insanu mimma khuliqa

Literal - So the human/mankind should look/see from what he was created.

Yusuf Ali - Now let man but think from what he is created!

Pickthal - So let man consider from what he is created.

Arberry - So let man consider of what he was created;

Shakir - So let man consider of what he is created:

Sarwar - Let the human being reflect that from what he has been created.

Khalifa - Let the human reflect on his creation.

Hilali/Khan - So let man see from what he is created!

H/K/Saheeh - So let man observe from what he was created.

Malik - Let man consider from what he is created!

QXP - Let the human being, then, consider out of what he has been created. (And realize the common origin of all mankind. Has there not passed over man an era when he was not even worth mentioning? 76:1)

Maulana Ali - So let man consider of what he is created.

Free Minds - So let man see from what he was created.

Qaribullah - Let the human reflect of what he is created.

George Sale - Let a man consider, therefore, of what he is created.

JM Rodwell - Let man then reflect out of what he was created.

Asad - LET MAN, then, observe out of what he has been created:

86: 6

Transliteration - Khuliqa min ma-in dafiqin

Literal - He was created from water pouring/flowing forcefully.

Yusuf Ali - He is created from a drop emitted-

Pickthal - He is created from a gushing fluid

Arberry - he was created of gushing water

Shakir - He is created of water pouring forth,

Sarwar - He has been created from an ejected drop of fluid

Khalifa - He was created from ejected liquid.

Hilali/Khan - He is created from a water gushing forth

H/K/Saheeh - He was created from a fluid, ejected,

Malik - He is created from an emitted fluid

QXP - He has been created from a turbulent water. (21:30), (24:25).

Maulana Ali - He is created of water pouring forth,

Free Minds - He was created from water that gushes forth.

Qaribullah - He was created from ejaculated water

George Sale - He is created of seed poured forth,

JM Rodwell - He was created of the poured-forth germs,

Asad - he has been created out of a seminal fluid

86: 7

Transliteration - Yakhruju min bayni alssulbi waalttara-ibi
Literal - It emerges/appears from between the spine and the rib bones.

Yusuf Ali - Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:

Pickthal - That issued from between the loins and ribs.

Arberry - issuing between the loins and the breast-bones.

Shakir - Coming from between the back and the ribs.

Sarwar - which comes out of the loins and ribs.

Khalifa - From between the spine and the viscera.

Hilali/Khan - Proceeding from between the back-bone and the ribs,

H/K/Saheeh - Emerging from between the backbone and the ribs.

Malik - that is produced from between the loins and the ribs.

QXP - That issued from between tough rocks and mingled dust.

Maulana Ali - Coming from between the back and the ribs.

Free Minds - It comes out from between the spine and the testicles.

Qaribullah - that issues from between the loins and the ribs.

George Sale - issuing from the loins, and the breast-bones.

JM Rodwell - Which issue from the loins and breastbones:

Asad - issuing from between the loins [of man] and the pelvic arch [of woman].

16: 4

Transliteration - Khalaqa al-insana min nutfatin fa-itha huwa khaseemun mubeenun

Literal - He created the human/mankind from a drop/male's or female's secretion/little water, so then he (the human/mankind) is (a) clear/evident disputer/adversary .

Yusuf - AliHe has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer!

Pickthal - He hath created man from a drop of fluid, yet behold! he is an open opponent.

Arberry - He created man of a sperm-drop; and, behold, he is a manifest adversary.

Shakir - He created man from a small seed and lo! he is an open contender.

Sarwar - He created the human being from a drop of fluid but the human being openly disputes His Word.

Khalifa - He created the human from a tiny drop, then he turns into an ardent opponent.

Hilali/Khan - He has created man from Nutfah (mixed drops of male and female sexual discharge), then behold, this same (man) becomes an open opponent.

H/K/Saheeh - He created man from a sperm-drop; then at once, he is a clear adversary.

Malik - He created man from a drop of semen, yet he is an open contender.

QXP - He created the human being out of male and female gametes. They should be humble before their Creator's Messages instead of being contentious.

Maulana Ali - He created man from a small life-germ, and lo! he is an open contender.

Free Minds - He created man from a seed, but then he becomes clearly in opposition.

Qaribullah - He created mankind from a sperm drop, yet he is a clear adversary.

George Sale - He hath created man of seed; and yet behold, he is a professed disputer against the resurrection.

JM Rodwell - Man hath He created from a moist germ; yet lo! man is an open caviller.

Asad - He creates man out of a [mere] drop of sperm: and lo! this same being shows himself endowed with the power to think and to argues

75: 37

TransliterationAlam yaku nutfatan min manayyin yumna
Literal - Did he not be a drop/male's or female's secretion from sperm/semen , semen being ejaculated/ discharged ?

Yusuf Ali - Was he not a drop of sperm emitted (in lowly form)?

Pickthal - Was he not a drop of fluid which gushed forth?

Arberry - Was he not a sperm-drop spilled?

Shakir - Was he not a small seed in the seminal elements,

Sarwar - Was he not once just a drop of discharged sperm.

Khalifa - Was he not a drop of ejected semen?

Hilali/Khan - Was he not a Nutfah (mixed male and female discharge of semen) poured forth?

H/K/Saheeh - Had he not been a sperm from semen emitted?

Malik - Was he not once a drop of emitted semen?

QXP - Was he not gametes that moved to join?

Maulana Ali- Was he not a small life-germ in sperm emitted?

Free Minds -Was he not a seed from sperm put forth?

Qaribullah - What, was he not an ejaculated drop (of sperm)?

George Sale - Was he not a drop of seed, which was emitted?

JM Rodwell - Was he not a mere embryo?

Asad - Was he not once a [mere] drop of sperm that had been spilt,

80: 18

Transliteration - Min ayyi shay-in khalaqahu
Literal - From what thing He created him?

Yusuf Ali - From what stuff hath He created him?

Pickthal - From what thing doth He create him?

Arberry - Of what did He create him?

Shakir - Of what thing did He create him?

Sarwar - From what has God created him?.

Khalifa - What did He create him from?

Hilali/Khan - From what thing did He create him?

H/K/Saheeh - From what substance did He create him?

Malik - Out of what Allah has created him?

QXP - Out of what thing has He created him?

Maulana Ali - Of what thing did He create him?

Free Minds - From what did He create him?

Qaribullah - From what did He create him?

George Sale - Of what thing doth God create him?

JM Rodwell - Out of moist germs.

Asad - [Does man ever consider] out of what substance [God] creates him?

80: 19

Transliteration - Min nutfatin khalaqahu faqaddarahu

Literal - From a drop/male's or female's secretion He created him, so He predestined/evaluated/estimated him.

Yusuf Ali - From a sperm-drop: He hath created him, and then mouldeth him in due proportions;

Pickthal - From a drop of seed. He createth him and proportioneth him,

Arberry - Of a sperm-drop He created him, and determined him,

Shakir - Of a small seed; He created him, then He made him according to a measure,

Sarwar - He created him from a living germ. He determined his fate

Khalifa - From a tiny drop, He creates him and designs him.

Hilali/Khan - From Nutfah (male and female semen drops) He created him, and then set him in due proportion;

H/K/Saheeh - From a sperm-drop He created him and destined for him;

Malik - Out of a semen-drop! Allah created him and then fashioned him in due proportion,

QXP - From the male and the female gametes He created him, and then fashioned him in due proportion.

Maulana Ali - Of a small life-germ. He creates him, then proportions him,

Free Minds - From a seed He created him and moulded him.

Qaribullah - From a (sperm) drop He created him and then determined him,

George Sale - Of a drop of seed doth He create him; and He formeth him with proportion;

JM Rodwell - He created him and fashioned him,

Asad - Out of a drop of sperm He creates him, and thereupon determines his nature,

76:2

Transliteration - Inna khalaqna al-insana min nutfatin amshajin nabtaleehi fajaAAalnahu sameeAAan baseeran

Literal - That We, We created the human/mankind from a drop/male's or female's secretion mixtures (of secretions), We test him, so We made/created him hearing/listening, seeing/knowing .

Yusuf Ali - Verily We created Man from a drop of mingled sperm, in order to try him: So We gave him (the gifts), of Hearing and Sight.

Pickthal - Lo! We create man from a drop of thickened fluid to test him; so We make him hearing, knowing.

Arberry - We created man of a sperm-drop, a mingling, and We made him hearing, seeing.

Shakir - Surely We have created man from a small life-germ uniting (itself): We mean to try him, so We have made him hearing, seeing.

Sarwar - We created the human being from the union of sperm and egg to test him. We gave him hearing and vision.

Khalifa - We created the human from a liquid mixture, from two parents, in order to test him. Thus, we made him a hearer and a seer.

Hilali/Khan - Verily, We have created man from Nutfah drops of mixed semen (discharge of man and woman), in order to try him, so We made him hearer, seer.

H/K/Saheeh - Indeed, We created man from a sperm-drop mixture that We may try him; and We made him hearing and seeing.

Malik - Indeed, We have created man from the sperm drop, so that We may test him. Therefore, We gave him the faculties of hearing and sight.

QXP - Behold, it is We who have created the human being from marked out cells, male and female gametes, that joined. Then We passed him through subtle changes. And then We made him a being endowed with Hearing and Sight.

Maulana Ali - Surely We have created man from sperm mixed (with ovum), to try him, so We have made him hearing, seeing.

Free Minds - We have created the human from a seed that is mixed, We test him, so We made him hear and see.

Qaribullah - We have created the human from a (sperm) drop, a mixture, testing him; We made him to hear and see.

George Sale - Verily we have created man of the mingled seed of both sexes, that We might prove him: And We have made him to hear and to see.

JM Rodwell - We have created man from the union of the sexes that we might prove him; and hearing, seeing, have we made him:

Asad - Verily, it is We who have created man out of a drop of sperm intermingled, 3 so that We might try him [in his later life]: and therefore We made him a being endowed with hearing and sight.

I will tomorrow try explain why that site you linked me to is pure hogwash.

And an internet cookie to anyone that read through all the translations.

See this is the kind of attitude of "lol, i know more than you" that I don't like from Athiests. You're like that Nizar fellow, who had a holier than thou attitude every time he posted something.

I didn't provide the link to you as my defense case which you need to prosecute. Take it up with the website. If you have absolutely nothing better to do all day than go through Islamic websites, look at their viewpoints, then go to anti-Islamic websites, look at their responses and post the responses here for me, then go ahead and do it. See if I care.

So I changed my mind today, I was going to compare all the translations of each relevant verse with the interpretations which makes it sound correct and show it's all sidestepping the issue and doing some questionable leaps of faiths in the progress of making sense of that verse with today's medical knowledge.

And btw, I am not saying that you've derived your arguments from the site - I'm just using it to clarify my argument. I found these websites useful as I lack knowledge of the Arabic language necessary to make an compelling argument, and what better way of improving my argument by utilizing the knowledge of apostates which probably know the Qu'ran way better than me.

I'll just head straight to the issue instead:

“Nutfa” in Arabic means “very little water” or “a drop of water”. This coincides with man’s water which contains sperms as part of its components. The sperm or (spermatozoon) is reproduced from the despised lowly water (nutfa) and looks like a long-tailed fish (this is one of the meanings of Sulalah).

So nutfa, "very little water", is sperm?
Or do they mean it is semen containing sperm as part of it's component?

The other meaning of Sulalah is "extract", means the essential or best part of something . By either implication, it means "part of a whole" indicating that the origin of creation is from only part of man's fluid and not all of it (which contains many components as shown above) .
Clarifying the role of the nutfa in creation, He the Almighty says;

See translations of verse 86: 5-6

So the gushing water contains the "extract" or "part of whole", aka sperm, which means it must be semen.
But it is not semen until it contains the sperm, and thus it cannot be gushing forth from between the spine and ribs and nor can it be issued/proceed/produced from there as well.

Transliteration - Yakhruju min bayni alssulbi waalttara-ibi
Literal - It emerges/appears from between the spine and the rib bones.

Yusuf Ali - Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:

Pickthal - That issued from between the loins and ribs.

Arberry - issuing between the loins and the breast-bones.

Shakir - Coming from between the back and the ribs.

Sarwar - which comes out of the loins and ribs.

Khalifa - From between the spine and the viscera.

Hilali/Khan - Proceeding from between the back-bone and the ribs,

H/K/Saheeh - Emerging from between the backbone and the ribs.

Malik - that is produced from between the loins and the ribs.

QXP - That issued from between tough rocks and mingled dust.

Maulana Ali - Coming from between the back and the ribs.

Free Minds - It comes out from between the spine and the testicles.

Qaribullah - that issues from between the loins and the ribs.

George Sale - issuing from the loins, and the breast-bones.

JM Rodwell - Which issue from the loins and breastbones:

Asad - issuing from between the loins [of man] and the pelvic arch [of woman].

That's the short version, but I think I made the argument clear enough.

You say that perhaps:

As for Surah 86, you are correct it does not use "Nutfa", but uses the "gushing fluids" term, which does in fact originate from the internal abdominal glands, whose ejaculation is assisted by PSNS in the spinal cord. The Nutfa part is the fluid-drop, which comes after the whole thing is constituted. Here's clarification about all the terms and verses.

But the gushing fluids are as far as I can see, semen containing sperm, and thus cannot originate from between the loins and breastbones/between spine and testicles/between back and the ribs when it fact originate not from between these places but in many several places. That the ejaculation is assisted by the nerves in the spinal cord is also not an good explanation as the nerves aren't responsible part for fertilizing the woman, and even if we were to use that interpretation then it wouldn't fit any of the translations I posted which say it issues forth between the back and ribs/back and loin/ and so on.

I'll try to share my views on the soul and reply to gumshoe as soon as possible.

Just reading through this thread, I am kinda confused with the current debate. A verse has been picked and both sides are arguing how accurate it is in scientific terms?

What does the validity of this verse matter when the Qu'ran has obvious mistakes in other areas?

What other areas would that be?
I've posted several verses and short arguments for why I thought they looked incorrect, while at the same time providing counterarguments to my own arguments.

 

[Darackutny]

The hadiths were being scrutinized from day 1. While the written book may not of came into place for 200 years after Muhammad (saw) died the sayings of the prophet were being analysed from a very early stage. The khilafah state isn't a utopia and doesn't pretend to be. However it is the Islamic political system and form of government. The difference of opinion in certain issues of fiqh is fine and we have our different schools if thought. However those schools all derive there opinion from the text and that's the key.

Ah, I suggest you pick up Dirasaat fil Hadith Al-Nabawi by Mohammed Mustafa Al-A'athami. He collects the names and provides references of tens of companions of the Prophet, and hundreds of Tabi'een that wrote down hadiths into manuscripts.

I don't believe you'd have a hard time finding it in Arabic, but the English is right here if you are interested:

http://ia700300.us.archive.org/1/items/StudiesInHadith/StudiesinHadithMMAzami.pdf

There Arabic version is much longer too. Actually, scratch that, just get the Arabic one.

 

[Ashes]

Damn that's a lot of info....
It's not concise enough to devise a for or against argument. It's poetry, not scientific lexis.

 

[Nemo]

Anyone have a guess estimate on people that just call themselves Muslim and not follow school of thoughts and their branches calling themselves something specific. I assume the biggest percentage calls themselves either Sunni or Shia without delving into specifics but I always thought it was weird how the Quran states Islam being brought into different groups is a no no and then right after the death of the prophet this is exactly what happens

 

[Mustaphadamus]

There is nothing flawed about those sources since it isn't like the hadiths that they quoted were already known during their time. Take for example, the hadiths of Malik in the Saheehain (two authentic collections). A good chunk of those, right? If you examine those carefully, most of those hadiths are from the Muwatta, which was written in the early 100s. Between Malik, and the Prophet, are two narrators only.

There are also other sources that have reached us today that are older than the Saheehain, like the Musanaf of Abdulrazaq, and Saheefat Suhail bin Abi Salih, that testify to the strength of the Saheehain.



Errr... no, they didn't. None of the four caliphs fought each other. Please provide references to back your claim.



Shias from earlier times didn't really focus on Abu Huraira at all. Try checking what Al-Tusi, Al-Najashi, or even Ibn Al-Ghada'iree said about Abu Huraira. Nothing at all. They don't mention him with praise, or attack him. It was as if he was insignificant to mention. This is more of a tactic by contemporary Shias in order to destroy the credibility of Sunni hadith, simply by attacking the narrator that narrates the most hadiths. Similarly, Sunnis attack narrators like Zurarah bin A'ayan and Ibrahim bin Hashim Al-Qummi due to their high number of hadiths in order to hurt the credibility of Shia hadiths.

He was never punished for fabricating hadiths either. Sure, some narrations stated that he was punished by Omar, but those are through unknown sources. What we do know about Omar is that he allowed Abu Huraira to govern over Bahrain after Al-Ala'a bin Al-Hadrami. How is it possible for Omar to allow him to govern after he punishes him for fabricating hadiths? This is not logical.

bro, just go do research on what happened after the death of Rasolollah *saw* and Fatima and Abu Bakr. There was also disagreement between Ali (as), Omar and Fatima. Do you also know that Ali would not give bayat to Abu Bakr after Rasolollah died? Read Seerat Muhammad.

*edit*

You should read about the life of Abu Huraira

 

[crazy monkey]

Anyone have a guess estimate on people that just call themselves Muslim and not follow school of thoughts and their branches calling themselves something specific. I assume the biggest percentage calls themselves either Sunni or Shia without delving into specifics but I always thought it was weird how the Quran states Islam being brought into different groups is a no no and then right after the death of the prophet this is exactly what happens

wasn't that predicted by prophet?

"This affair began with Prophethood and as a mercy; then it will be mercy and Caliphate; afterwards it will change into a cruel monarchy, and finally into an iniquity and tyranny. He also prophesied: Surely, the Caliphate after me will last thirty years; afterwards it will a cruel monarchy. "

Abu Dawud, Sunna, 8; Tirmidhi, Fitan, 48; I. Hanbal, 4.273.

 

[Kaeru]

ya bani israel has been used through out the quran and it refers to everyone. Muslim Jew and christen from what i know.

That seems like an incorrect statement, Bani israel is the decendents of Jakob, son of Isaac which is the son of Abraham...in other words the jews.

Please give me source for your statement.

 

[Ashes]

That seems like an incorrect statement, Bani israel is the decendents of Jakob, son of Isaac which is the son of Abraham...in other words the jews.

Please give me source for your statement.

Carrying on from our argument from before.

Example:
I'm from the uk. Person from middle east tells me that for him, it is okay to beat a woman to death.
I tell him, to realise the woes of his ways, it is wrong to beat a woman to death.

Does that not suggest my philosophy? In that it is wrong to beat a woman to death?
Am I exclusively taking about middle eastern men and women?
Why are you placing an artificial box around it, when common sense dictates that it refers to a wider net?

For me and others, your argument for the exclusivity of it's application to jews, is not a compelling one.

 

[liger05]

bro, just go do research on what happened after the death of Rasolollah *saw* and Fatima and Abu Bakr. There was also disagreement between Ali (as), Omar and Fatima. Do you also know that Ali would not give bayat to Abu Bakr after Rasolollah died? Read Seerat Muhammad.

*edit*

You should read about the life of Abu Huraira

Initially he did not but he did give the bayat to abu bakr.

 

[Darackutny]

bro, just go do research on what happened after the death of Rasolollah *saw* and Fatima and Abu Bakr. There was also disagreement between Ali (as), Omar and Fatima. Do you also know that Ali would not give bayat to Abu Bakr after Rasolollah died? Read Seerat Muhammad.

You said that the caliphs fought each other. Fatima wasn't a caliph. =p

Abu Bakr and Fatima eventually fixed things:

When Fatima became sick, Abu Bakr Al-Sideeq asked if he could visit, so Ali said, "O Fatima, Abu Bakr is asking if he could come in. Should I let him?" She said, "Yes." So, he entered and tried to make peace with her. So he said, "I swear by Allah, I didn't leave my house, wealth, or family, for anything but the satisfaction of Allah, his Prophet, and the satisfaction of you, O Ahlulbayt." Then he tried to make peace with her, and she became satisfied.

(Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya / Al-Sunan Al-Kubra)

*edit*

You should read about the life of Abu Huraira

I did. I read it through it in several sources, like Tabaqat Ibn Sa'ad, Ibn Hajar's Al-Isaba, and hadith books in general that speak about aspects of his life and his merits. I've also read a couple of books by contemporaries on him. What have you read?

 

[Mustaphadamus]

Initially he did not but he did give the bayat to abu bakr.

Your right, initially he did not. You should look into what events transpired that lead up to him giving bayat. My only point is, they fought and quarreled amongst themselves (the Sahaba)

You said that the caliphs fought each other. Fatima wasn't a caliph. =p

Abu Bakr and Fatima eventually fixed things:

When Fatima became sick, Abu Bakr Al-Sideeq asked if he could visit, so Ali said, "O Fatima, Abu Bakr is asking if he could come in. Should I let him?" She said, "Yes." So, he entered and tried to make peace with her. So he said, "I swear by Allah, I didn't leave my house, wealth, or family, for anything but the satisfaction of Allah, his Prophet, and the satisfaction of you, O Ahlulbayt." Then he tried to make peace with her, and she became satisfied.

(Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya / Al-Sunan Al-Kubra)



I did. I read it through it in several sources, like Tabaqat Ibn Sa'ad, Ibn Hajar's Al-Isaba, and hadith books in general that speak about aspects of his life and his merits. I've also read a couple of books by contemporaries on him. What have you read?

then you should know that he (Abu Huraira) was recalled from Bahrain, and didn't return. He was questionable in terms of character. As for Fatima, I will bring sources later, however she died not speaking to him (Abu Bakr) and he did not go to her funeral either. As for the caliphs, again do the research bro, things were not peaceable between Ali and Abu Bakr or Umar. Eventually Ali put it to the side but things were not good. They fought/quarreled whatever you want to call it. The issues were two fold. The first was how Abu Bakr and Umar rushed to solidify their situation when Rasollah passed and the second issue was with Abu Bakr denying Fatima her inheritance. Not for nothing but I studied under a Mufti for many years when I was younger. The old man was like a grandfather to me. Any shaykh Sunni or Shi'i will not deny what I have told you. They (Sunnis) generally will say it is makruh to speak ill of them. I find that silly to not speak about history and wht happened between them. I will say, some Shi'a are exaggerators/ghulat and will say that Umar even had a physical confrontation with Fatima. However this is unsubstantiated and many Marji3a have come out and said this isn't factual and nothing substantiated that. One of the more famous being Ayat. Fadlallah, which is why many of the ghulat Shi'a hate him.

 

[Darackutny]

Your right, initially he did not. You should look into what events transpired that lead up to him giving bayat. My only point is, they fought and quarreled amongst themselves (the Sahaba)

Eh... actually, there is a view that he did.

&#1601;&#1604;&#1605;&#1575; &#1602;&#1593;&#1583; &#1571;&#1576;&#1608; &#1576;&#1603;&#1585; &#1593;&#1604;&#1609; &#1575;&#1604;&#1605;&#1606;&#1576;&#1585; &#1606;&#1592;&#1585; &#1601;&#1610; &#1608;&#1580;&#1608;&#1607; &#1575;&#1604;&#1602;&#1608;&#1605; &#1601;&#1604;&#1605; &#1610;&#1585;&#1609; &#1593;&#1604;&#1610;&#1575; &#1601;&#1587;&#1571;&#1604; &#1593;&#1606;&#1607;&#1548; &#1601;&#1602;&#1575;&#1605; &#1606;&#1575;&#1587; &#1605;&#1606; &#1575;&#1604;&#1571;&#1606;&#1589;&#1575;&#1585; &#1601;&#1571;&#1578;&#1608;&#1575; &#1576;&#1607;&#1548; &#1601;&#1602;&#1575;&#1604; &#1571;&#1576;&#1608; &#1576;&#1603;&#1585;: &#1575;&#1576;&#1606; &#1593;&#1605; &#1585;&#1587;&#1608;&#1604; &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1607; &#1589;&#1604;&#1609; &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1607; &#1593;&#1604;&#1610;&#1607; &#1608;&#1587;&#1604;&#1605; &#1608;&#1580;&#1578;&#1606;&#1607;&#1548; &#1575;&#1585;&#1583;&#1578; &#1571;&#1606; &#1578;&#1588;&#1602; &#1593;&#1589;&#1609; &#1575;&#1604;&#1605;&#1587;&#1604;&#1605;&#1610;&#1606;&#1567;! &#1601;&#1602;&#1575;&#1604;: &#1604;&#1575; &#1578;&#1579;&#1585;&#1610;&#1576; &#1610;&#1575; &#1582;&#1604;&#1610;&#1601;&#1577; &#1585;&#1587;&#1608;&#1604; &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1607;&#1548; &#1601;&#1576;&#1575;&#1610;&#1593;&#1607;.

This is the view of Imam Muslim, Ibn Khuzaima, Al-Hakim, Al-Bayhaqi, and Ibn Katheer. They hold the opinion that Ali pledged his allegiance twice. Once was during this incident. The second was after the death of Fatima, since he disappeared for quite a while due to her being sick.

then you should know that he (Abu Huraira) was recalled from Bahrain, and didn't return. He was questionable in terms of character.

Abdulrazaq includes in his Musannaf (#20659) that Omar investigated Abu Huraira's claims and accepted his defense. Then asked him to take hold of Bahrain again, then it was Abu Huraira that rejected to return:

&#1601;&#1604;&#1605;&#1575; &#1603;&#1575;&#1606; &#1576;&#1593;&#1583; &#1584;&#1604;&#1603; &#1583;&#1593;&#1575;&#1607; &#1593;&#1605;&#1585; &#1604;&#1610;&#1587;&#1578;&#1593;&#1605;&#1604;&#1607;&#1548; &#1601;&#1571;&#1576;&#1609; &#1571;&#1606; &#1610;&#1593;&#1605;&#1604; &#1604;&#1607;

As for Fatima, I will bring sources later, however she died not speaking to him (Abu Bakr) and he did not go to her funeral either.

I'm familiar with the narration. I've provided another that can be reconciled with this one.

As for the caliphs, again do the research bro, things were not peaceable between Ali and Abu Bakr or Umar. Eventually Ali put it to the side but things were not good. They fought/quarreled whatever you want to call it.

Right, they hated each other so much that Ali married off his daughter Um Kalthoom to Omar, and named his children after them.

The issues were two fold. The first was how Abu Bakr and Umar rushed to solidify their situation when Rasollah passed and the second issue was with Abu Bakr denying Fatima her inheritance.

Ali testified that he heard the Prophet say:

&#1604;&#1575; &#1606;&#1608;&#1585;&#1579; &#1605;&#1575; &#1578;&#1585;&#1603;&#1606;&#1575; &#1589;&#1583;&#1602;&#1577;

What are your thoughts ya Khadim Al-Mehdi?

 

[Azih]

There is nothing flawed about those sources

Whoah, these are human written sources aren't they? You're saying they are perfect?

since it isn't like the hadiths that they quoted were already known during their time. Take for example, the hadiths of Malik in the Saheehain (two authentic collections). A good chunk of those, right? If you examine those carefully, most of those hadiths are from the Muwatta, which was written in the early 100s. Between Malik, and the Prophet, are two narrators only.

You're just transferring the problem of a 'perfect' collection written two hundred years after the death of the Prophet to one written one hundred years after the death of the prophet. It is still ridiculous (especially since the later Saheehain aren't even copies of the older works you mention, they include a whole lot of extra stuff).

This is more of a tactic by contemporary Shias in order to destroy the credibility of Sunni hadith, simply by attacking the narrator that narrates the most hadiths. Similarly, Sunnis attack narrators like Zurarah bin A'ayan and Ibrahim bin Hashim Al-Qummi due to their high number of hadiths in order to hurt the credibility of Shia hadiths.

And don't you think that kind of shit started *FROM DAY ONE* after the prophet died? Of course it did. The 'Ummah' splintered incredibly early on, and fractured further and further *Way* before any book was written that has survived to our time.

While the written book may not of came into place for 200 years after Muhammad (saw) died the sayings of the prophet were being analysed from a very early stage.

well we don't have most of those analyses so we can't really refer to them can we?

The khilafah state isn't a utopia and doesn't pretend to be. However it is the Islamic political system and form of government.

What kind of government system is it in which there are no rules of succession and every Khalifah decides last second how to determine the next leader?

However those schools all derive there opinion from the text and that's the key.

But there is no reason to assume the text of the Hadith/Sunna is reliable. It's not of divine origin that's for sure.

 

[Nemo]

wasn't that predicted by prophet?

"This affair began with Prophethood and as a mercy; then it will be mercy and Caliphate; afterwards it will change into a cruel monarchy, and finally into an iniquity and tyranny. He also prophesied: Surely, the Caliphate after me will last thirty years; afterwards it will a cruel monarchy. "

Abu Dawud, Sunna, 8; Tirmidhi, Fitan, 48; I. Hanbal, 4.273.

Right, but that doesn't mean it's OK. Surah 6 : 159 says this:

"Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (all kinds of religious sects), you (O Muhammad SAW) have no concern in them in the least. Their affair is only with Allah, Who then will tell them what they used to do.

So it's acknowledged here too that this will happen, and it says right after that you shouldn't interfere with them (which I agree I have been doing lately a lot but I'm just trying to find answers) since their affair is only with their creator. I never liked the whole labeling thing one bit since I was a child and it's not hard to see why if you look at what is has caused, never ever has it brought forth something good if you ask me.

 

[crazy monkey]

Right, but that doesn't mean it's OK. Surah 6 : 159 says this:



So it's acknowledged here too that this will happen, and it says right after that you shouldn't interfere with them (which I agree I have been doing lately a lot but I'm just trying to find answers) since their affair is only with their creator. I never liked the whole labeling thing one bit since I was a child and it's not hard to see why if you look at what is has caused, never ever has it brought forth something good if you ask me.

That particular section is from one of the hadith. The second part I am sorry but I do not under stand the point brother. Can you explain me in detail or rephrase. Sorry.

 

[Darackutny]

Whoah, these are human written sources aren't they? You're saying they are perfect?

They don't have to be perfect. But you are being extreme by disregarding several thousand hadiths just because there may be a few flaws within them. Do you toss your college books down the drain because the editors made some typos?

You're just transferring the problem of a 'perfect' collection written two hundred years after the death of the Prophet to one written one hundred years after the death of the prophet.

I don't really find it being 200 years late a problem either. Remember, Al-Bukhari said that he 'collected' his book from hadiths that he heard from his scholars. It isn't like he picked them out of thin air. So, the authentic text is just a COLLECTION.

And don't you think that kind of shit started *FROM DAY ONE* after the prophet died? Of course it did. The 'Ummah' splintered incredibly early on, and fractured further and further *Way* before any book was written that has survived to our time.

How do you know? You weren't there. Which sources are you using that caused you to arrive to that conclusion?

 

[Nemo]

That particular section is from one of the hadith. The second part I am sorry but I do not under stand the point brother. Can you explain me in detail or rephrase. Sorry.

The bolded you mean? I'm talking about Sunni and Shia branches (and their schools of law). If someone could answer me why it seems to be so accepted to have these labels and distinctions I'd appreciate it.

 

[Darackutny]

The bolded you mean? I'm talking about Sunni and Shia branches (and their schools of law). If someone could answer me why it seems to be so accepted to have these labels I'd appreciate it.

Labels were never seen as an issue if you stick to the foundations. The names are just there to differentiate between the sects. Breaking off into a sect means forming your own practices.

You don't NEED to call yourself anything though.

 

[Azih]

They don't have to be perfect. But you are being extreme by disregarding several thousand hadiths just because there may be a few flaws within them. Do you toss your college books down the drain because the editors made some typos?

I don't use them as the basis for a religion as the Sunna/Hadith are. That's the point. I mean some claim that there is no deen without them!! They were written by men hundreds of years after the Prophet died!

I don't really find it being 200 years late a problem either. Remember, Al-Bukhari said that he 'collected' his book from hadiths that he heard from his scholars.

Well we don't have the works of the scholars so we don't know what they were like. Forget source criticism we don't even *have* the sources to critique. Just assuming that they were fine as you are doing is incredibly odd.

How do you know? You weren't there.

Well neither were you.

Which sources are you using that caused you to arrive to that conclusion?

Let's see.. um, the split between sunni and shia started around 10 AH, Uthman was killed in a civillian REVOLT against his rule around 35 AH, Ali fought a CIVIL WAR against Muwaiyyah and Aisha right afterwards (the First Fitna),Ali was assassinated around 40 AH, the Muwaiyaah went so far as to have Ali *publicly cursed* to discredit him, and then in 61 AH the *grandson* of the Prophet was massacred by the successor to Muwaiyaah. This is all historical fact.

*ALL* of the sources you mention were written after all of this shit went down. You don't think the political realities of the time affected the scholarship? Please.

 

[Darackutny]

Let's see.. um, the split between sunni and shia started around 10 AH, Uthman was killed in a civillian REVOLT against his rule around 35 AH, Ali fought a CIVIL WAR against Muwaiyyah and Aisha right afterwards (the First Fitna),Ali was assassinated around 40 AH, the Muwaiyaah went so far as to have Ali *publicly cursed* to discredit him, and then in 61 AH the *grandson* of the Prophet was massacred by the successor to Muwaiyaah. This is all historical fact.

*ALL* of the sources you mention were written after all of this shit went down. You don't think the political realities of the time affected the scholarship? Please.

...and where did you get all this information from? =)

 

[Azih]

...and where did you get all this information from? =)

Much like my response to your point about college text books. This is history, not religion.

 

[Darackutny]

Much like my response to your point about college text books. This is history, not religion.

So, they are "facts" because they are so much more reliable? Or they are "facts" because they aren't as important?

 

[Azih]

So, they are "facts" because they are so much more reliable? Or they are "facts" because they aren't as important?

They are human historical facts and are as reliable as human historical facts can be which is to say not reliable enough to be an integral part of a faith.

 

[Darackutny]

They are human historical facts and are as reliable as human historical facts can be which is to say not reliable enough to be an integral part of a faith.

Ah.

So, all of these historical "facts" are equal in their "factuality"? I mean, would it make a difference if the author of the historical work is a contemporary or if he was a classical author that lived in, let's say, the fourth century AH?

How do you reconcile between contradicting versions of history? There are reports of Mu'awiyah condemning those that cursed Ali. Are those facts too?

What are the books that you rely on for your history? Or do you just get your knowledge from family members?

 

[Azih]

Ah.

So, all of these historical "facts" are equal in their "factuality"? I mean, would it make a difference if the author of the historical work is a contemporary or if he was a classical author that lived in, let's say, the fourth century AH?

One would be close to the source, the other would have more sources and more rigorous methodologies to draw from. Kind of a draw, but neither is perfect and neither is without flaw.

What are the books that you rely on for your history? Or do you just get your knowledge from family members?

As many as possible and if there is controversy, there is controversy. The relationship between Muwayiah and Ali may be controversial but how Uthman died, how Ali died, the wars Ali had to fight against Muwaiyaah/Aisha and why, and what happened between Yazid and Hussein however is as certain a historical fact as a historical fact can be.

My *point* in all of this is that the Hadith/Sunnah are human history and not divine revelation. You are bringing up incredibly valid points about how controversial and faulty human history and remembrance is. Why aren't you applying that logic to the Hadith (which is the human recorded history of what the prophet said) and Sunnah (which is the human recorded history of what the prophet did)?

Just as some are driven to portray the First Four Caliphs as awesome to justify the authenticity of the Sunnah and the authority of a Caliphate, others are driven to emphasise the conflicts between the companions of the Prophet to justify the Imamate, and those needs corrupt their respective portrayals of the history of what happened after the Prophet died *and* on what they say about what the Prophet said, how he acted, and what he wanted (hadith and sunnah).

The point is that none of it is reliable enough to be basing a faith on.

 

[RustyNails]

As many as possible and if there is controversy, there is controversy. The relationship between Muwayiah and Ali may be controversial but how Uthman died, how Ali died, the wars Ali had to fight against Muwaiyaah/Aisha and why, and what happened between Yazid and Hussein however is as certain a historical fact as a historical fact can be.

My *point* in all of this is that the Hadith/Sunnah are human history and not divine revelation. You are bringing up incredibly valid points about how controversial and faulty human history and remembrance is. Why aren't you applying that logic to the Hadith (which is the human recorded history of what the prophet said) and Sunnah (which is the human recorded history of what the prophet did)?

Just as some are driven to portray the First Four Caliphs as awesome to justify the authenticity of the Sunnah and the authority of a Caliphate, others are driven to emphasise the conflicts between the companions of the Prophet to justify the Imamate, and those needs corrupt their respective portrayals of the history of what happened after the Prophet died *and* on what they say about what the Prophet said, how he acted, and what he wanted (hadith and sunnah).

The point is that none of it is reliable enough to be basing a faith on.

The 4 Caliphs were not dynastic. Yes the early caliphate is unfortunately very sad politics wise. As soon as Abu bakr took caliphate, some of the tribes in the north revolted. Some of the folks abandoned the faith as soon as Muhammad died, and some false prophets started appearing and conspiring against Medina. Abu bakr was engulfed with quelling down these rebellions. There was just no schism between Ali and the rest of the companions, but the followers of Ali wanted a division because according to them, caliphate/imamate is "divinely guided". It's really unfortunate that Ali had to go to war with Aisha and Hasan and Hussein had to be martyred. But the point is that the Rashidun Caliphate was not dynastic like the subsequent Ummayad and Ottoman. Of course there will be resistance to the form of centralized governance that Caliphate was establishing. People were used to be ruled by their tribal leaders, not by some vague authority in Medina. After the fourth Caliph though, the caliphate became dynastic especially now since the Shiat Ali formed their own set of rules.

 

[Darackutny]

One would be close to the source, the other would have more sources and more rigorous methodologies to draw from. Kind of a draw, but neither is perfect and neither is without flaw.

So, the criteria of accepting contradicting historical narrations revolves around:

1- The amount of sources
2- Closeness to the historical event

Anything else?

Do you know that your view is more extreme than that of the Mu'atazilites? They argued that only hadiths that are mutawatir are to be accepted.

 

[Mustaphadamus]

Eh... actually, there is a view that he did.

&#1601;&#1604;&#1605;&#1575; &#1602;&#1593;&#1583; &#1571;&#1576;&#1608; &#1576;&#1603;&#1585; &#1593;&#1604;&#1609; &#1575;&#1604;&#1605;&#1606;&#1576;&#1585; &#1606;&#1592;&#1585; &#1601;&#1610; &#1608;&#1580;&#1608;&#1607; &#1575;&#1604;&#1602;&#1608;&#1605; &#1601;&#1604;&#1605; &#1610;&#1585;&#1609; &#1593;&#1604;&#1610;&#1575; &#1601;&#1587;&#1571;&#1604; &#1593;&#1606;&#1607;&#1548; &#1601;&#1602;&#1575;&#1605; &#1606;&#1575;&#1587; &#1605;&#1606; &#1575;&#1604;&#1571;&#1606;&#1589;&#1575;&#1585; &#1601;&#1571;&#1578;&#1608;&#1575; &#1576;&#1607;&#1548; &#1601;&#1602;&#1575;&#1604; &#1571;&#1576;&#1608; &#1576;&#1603;&#1585;: &#1575;&#1576;&#1606; &#1593;&#1605; &#1585;&#1587;&#1608;&#1604; &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1607; &#1589;&#1604;&#1609; &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1607; &#1593;&#1604;&#1610;&#1607; &#1608;&#1587;&#1604;&#1605; &#1608;&#1580;&#1578;&#1606;&#1607;&#1548; &#1575;&#1585;&#1583;&#1578; &#1571;&#1606; &#1578;&#1588;&#1602; &#1593;&#1589;&#1609; &#1575;&#1604;&#1605;&#1587;&#1604;&#1605;&#1610;&#1606;&#1567;! &#1601;&#1602;&#1575;&#1604;: &#1604;&#1575; &#1578;&#1579;&#1585;&#1610;&#1576; &#1610;&#1575; &#1582;&#1604;&#1610;&#1601;&#1577; &#1585;&#1587;&#1608;&#1604; &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1607;&#1548; &#1601;&#1576;&#1575;&#1610;&#1593;&#1607;.

This is the view of Imam Muslim, Ibn Khuzaima, Al-Hakim, Al-Bayhaqi, and Ibn Katheer. They hold the opinion that Ali pledged his allegiance twice. Once was during this incident. The second was after the death of Fatima, since he disappeared for quite a while due to her being sick.





Abdulrazaq includes in his Musannaf (#20659) that Omar investigated Abu Huraira's claims and accepted his defense. Then asked him to take hold of Bahrain again, then it was Abu Huraira that rejected to return:

&#1601;&#1604;&#1605;&#1575; &#1603;&#1575;&#1606; &#1576;&#1593;&#1583; &#1584;&#1604;&#1603; &#1583;&#1593;&#1575;&#1607; &#1593;&#1605;&#1585; &#1604;&#1610;&#1587;&#1578;&#1593;&#1605;&#1604;&#1607;&#1548; &#1601;&#1571;&#1576;&#1609; &#1571;&#1606; &#1610;&#1593;&#1605;&#1604; &#1604;&#1607;




I'm familiar with the narration. I've provided another that can be reconciled with this one.



Right, they hated each other so much that Ali married off his daughter Um Kalthoom to Omar, and named his children after them.




Ali testified that he heard the Prophet say:

&#1604;&#1575; &#1606;&#1608;&#1585;&#1579; &#1605;&#1575; &#1578;&#1585;&#1603;&#1606;&#1575; &#1589;&#1583;&#1602;&#1577;

What are your thoughts ya Khadim Al-Mehdi?

I will put together a response soon 7abeebi but my question to you right now is why call me Khadim el mahdi (servant of the Mahdi)? I am not a believer in the Mahdi at all. I believe it is bid3a personally (just my personal opinion and the one held by my former Shaykh as well)

 

[Kaeru]

Carrying on from our argument from before.

Example:
I'm from the uk. Person from middle east tells me that for him, it is okay to beat a woman to death.
I tell him, to realise the woes of his ways, it is wrong to beat a woman to death.

Does that not suggest my philosophy? In that it is wrong to beat a woman to death?
Am I exclusively taking about middle eastern men and women?
Why are you placing an artificial box around it, when common sense dictates that it refers to a wider net?

For me and others, your argument for the exclusivity of it's application to jews, is not a compelling one.

This doesnt mean anything to me, im not interested in your philosophical arguments since youre a(excuse me) nobody that has no authority to interpret the qur'an or the tafsirs. What im looking for is an official source that contradicts what I say or confirms it, not a philsophical discussion about how you or me interpret it.

 

[Ashes]

This doesnt mean anything to me, im not interested in your philosophical arguments since youre a(excuse me) nobody that has no authority to interpret the qur'an or the tafsirs. What im looking for is an official source that contradicts what I say or confirms it, not a philsophical discussion about how you or me interpret it.

Wow. You best hope the mods don't pop in cause; such obvious trolling has been banned before iirc.

I answered your query to the best of my ability. And I've answered your query through common sense. You leave me no option but to accept that you seem intent on denying common sense then.

 

[kobashi100]

Just found this video on youtube.

The Ulema and their struggle for the Khilafah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT7NEA6T_Iw&feature=player_embedded#at=192

 

[SmokyDave]

Just found this video on youtube.

The Ulema and their struggle for the Khilafah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT7NEA6T_Iw&feature=player_embedded#at=192

Man, the modern world really spits in your eye, doesn't it?

 

[Ashes]

Man, the modern world really spits in your eye, doesn't it?

:lol I don't know why I found that so funny.

 

[Kinitari]

Being Muslim was so exhausting, I'm glad I'm done with that noise. That being said, if anyone has any questions about what it's like being an ex-muslim, I can answer some I guess. I feel as though a lot of people have misconceptions about the Islamic world.