crazy monkey
Banned
Hadith which are verified but numerous sources are the way how we learn to pray and rules regarding everyday life. There is always going to be controversy but you can not deny importance of them.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Official Islamic Thread
- Thread starter AmMortal
- Start date
OttomanScribe
Member
The following of the example of the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is an integral part of worship. When the Qur'an says 'aqim-a salaat' (establish the prayer) the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) says 'pray as I pray'.
This is why we do not simply say 'la-Ilaha Ill-Allah'. The role of the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is so integral that the very statement of his status stands next to the statement of tawhid, in the phrase that makes one Muslim! Mohammed ibn Abdullah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is both Prophet and Messenger, which means he conveys the Message (scripture, in this case the Qur'an) but also gives the law like the Old Testament Prophets (alayhis salaam).
The hadith are merely a way to operationalise this in his absence. The same is true of all the Islamic sciences, aqidah, fiqh, tasawuf, all are means to an end.
We do not 'follow hadith', we follow the Rasul'Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam), the hadith are just a means to that.
Without the context provided in the hadith, how can one understand the Qur'an? It is constantly referring to contemporary occurrences. It refers to multiple companions (radiAllahu anhu), without the traditions of the community, how does one even know who they are?
One of the greatest things that we as Muslims have been given is the traditions of the community, the Sunnah of Mohammed (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is what keeps the religion alive. One does not draw water from a well by cutting the rope!
The Qur'an says 'O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.' (this is the 'Sahih International' translation)
This in itself shows that one refers both to the Message and the Messenger (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam). What in this verse implies that this is a temporary command? How does someone who uses the Qur'an solely understand this verse?
Similarly Allah says 'And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them, and Allah sends astray [thereby] whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.' and '[We sent them] with clear proofs and written ordinances. And We revealed to you the message that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them and that they might give thought.'
Again, these verses show that the role of the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) has the role of 'explanation'. That which was sent down, and the 'making it clear' are distinct.
A few more: 'There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often.'
'It is He who has sent among the unlettered a Messenger from themselves reciting to them His verses and purifying them and teaching them the Book and wisdom - although they were before in clear error'
If the function of the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is merely as a mute transmitter of the Qur'an to the people, then why do so many verses exalt him as an example for others, not to mention a teacher?
'He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah', 'he says naught of his own desire' and 'we have not instructed the Prophet in poetry, nor is it meant for him: this is no less than a message and a Qur'an, making things clear'.
This is why we do not simply say 'la-Ilaha Ill-Allah'. The role of the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is so integral that the very statement of his status stands next to the statement of tawhid, in the phrase that makes one Muslim! Mohammed ibn Abdullah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is both Prophet and Messenger, which means he conveys the Message (scripture, in this case the Qur'an) but also gives the law like the Old Testament Prophets (alayhis salaam).
The hadith are merely a way to operationalise this in his absence. The same is true of all the Islamic sciences, aqidah, fiqh, tasawuf, all are means to an end.
We do not 'follow hadith', we follow the Rasul'Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam), the hadith are just a means to that.
Without the context provided in the hadith, how can one understand the Qur'an? It is constantly referring to contemporary occurrences. It refers to multiple companions (radiAllahu anhu), without the traditions of the community, how does one even know who they are?
One of the greatest things that we as Muslims have been given is the traditions of the community, the Sunnah of Mohammed (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is what keeps the religion alive. One does not draw water from a well by cutting the rope!
The Qur'an says 'O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.' (this is the 'Sahih International' translation)
This in itself shows that one refers both to the Message and the Messenger (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam). What in this verse implies that this is a temporary command? How does someone who uses the Qur'an solely understand this verse?
Similarly Allah says 'And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them, and Allah sends astray [thereby] whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.' and '[We sent them] with clear proofs and written ordinances. And We revealed to you the message that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them and that they might give thought.'
Again, these verses show that the role of the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) has the role of 'explanation'. That which was sent down, and the 'making it clear' are distinct.
A few more: 'There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often.'
'It is He who has sent among the unlettered a Messenger from themselves reciting to them His verses and purifying them and teaching them the Book and wisdom - although they were before in clear error'
If the function of the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is merely as a mute transmitter of the Qur'an to the people, then why do so many verses exalt him as an example for others, not to mention a teacher?
'He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah', 'he says naught of his own desire' and 'we have not instructed the Prophet in poetry, nor is it meant for him: this is no less than a message and a Qur'an, making things clear'.
OttomanScribe
Member
In other news, Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad is coming to Sydney 
and also Nuruddeen Lemu
So blessed alhamduliLlah, I'm going to both their talks insha'Allah t'ala. Sooooo stoked about Shaykh Abdal Hakim... been wanting to see him in person for like 5 years
and also Nuruddeen Lemu So blessed alhamduliLlah, I'm going to both their talks insha'Allah t'ala. Sooooo stoked about Shaykh Abdal Hakim... been wanting to see him in person for like 5 years
The Quran is guaranteed to be the word of God. The Hadiths do not carry the same ironclad guarantee of what the Prophet did or what's being expected from a Muslim. Unless you saw the Prophet himself and he showed you the way, there is nothing in the Quran that tells you to obey it. It only says obey the Prophet and you cannot be 100% sure that what you see or know as Hadith is accurate. You know the Quran is 100% accurate.
Since you say the hadiths are just as important as the Quran since the Quran by itself isn't enough, why weren't the Hadiths included as a part of the Quran, or as an addendum/appendix? There wasn't anyone to write a biography on Muhammed and have him put his official seal of approval on it? Quran by itself is full of omissions, vagueness, and it's not a very good book on being clear on what a Muslim needs to do, hence the need for hadiths. This lack of organization and sloppiness means it's man made, and any divine book will have to beat Mathematics as a measure of perfection to be even considered to have a divine source.
That they are not my subjective opinions. The best minds in humanity came together to produce it after the collective experiences of the horrors of war by our race. It's currently where our species stands in the never ending quest of bettering ourselves. We're NEVER reverting back to mutilation, as in it'll never be acceptable again. Death penalty already is not acceptable in many countries and it's only a matter of time where it also gets abolished worldwide.
That's because many people in the more developed and predominantly Christian western countries are rejecting God or at least not needing it and classifying themselves as secular, while most Muslim countries are experiencing high birth rates with the corresponding lack of living standards and poverty. There are many studies done that show that religiousness vs. education and wealth levels are inversely correlated. The rising population of Islam only shows that the Muslim countries for the most part aren't prospering.
That's just saber rattling, as the US did it without their help anyway. They have no problem buying the latest fighter jets from the USA.
OttomanScribe
Member
It is not a matter of being 100% sure, it is a matter of being sure within the bounds of reason. If a Muslim was told by Abu Bakr as-Sadiq (radiAllahu anhu), that the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) had said something yesterday, but he himself had not observed it... and this was verified by Aisha (radiAllahu anha) and Umar (radiAllahu anhu) and Ali (radiAllahu anhu), would they logically be expected not to believe that he (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) had said it?
Allah has guarded the means of understanding the Qur'an just as He has guarded the Qur'an itself. Otherwise the large amounts of commands to obey 'Allah and the Messenger' would have no relevancy.
You have come full circle. I do not find it to be full of omissions and vagueness. It is not a book of law, being only 4% law, rather it is a book of morality and theology. The law was that which was conveyed by the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam). Allah did not put a bunch of laws in the Qur'an because He gave the law to the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam). There is an official biography of the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam), it is the hadith collections and the Sunnah that remains in the community. It does not need to be the direct word of God in order to be something sent by God, or guarded by God.
Ah yes, and war has ended and the UN was successful and we are all skipping off together into a lovely sunset of progress and paradise. Good old UN, based upon a security council made up by the 5 biggest arms dealers in the world. Not at all representing ideals that people sign up to but don't uphold.
The UDHR does not represent some sort of objective moral ideal. It is the product of the European rights tradition, and is as subjective as that. Some of the things I agree with, some I don't, but it has no place in this discussion.
Again you go back to defining success as wealth. The West having wealth does not equate to any moral correctness, it merely explains why you are under the impression that your own values are universal. The wealth of the West was not caused by Western values, just as the poverty of the Muslim world was not caused by Islamic values. These two things merely represent the back and forth of geopolitics.
What does their purchase of arms from the US have to do with anything? What is sabre rattling?
Ottoman, here lies the problem. Not everyone considers these collection of reports to be reliable. Yes Bukhari (and others) made a valiant effort into figuring out which of the hundreds of thousands of sayings circulating at his time were Muhammad's and which weren't, but unfortunately he came too late. He was reporting during a time when forgeries were rampant on a man who lived more than 200 years prior in a different nation collecting narrations which spanned thousands of miles all at a time when information moved at a camels pace in a land that had neither paper or an abundance of scribes. It doesn't help the matter that in the prior centuries both the Abbasids and Ummayads actively circulated forged traditions and that the Muslims had gone through multiple civil wars. How is this at all reliable? 200 years doesn't sound much to us because we live 1400+ years from the Prophet, but 200 years is a lot. Imagine trying to figure out the sayings of a man in living in Mexico in year 1811. Even in our own time reporters often find it hard, without proper recording, to reproduce the exact texts of a speech. Yes, Bukhari is considered an authority, but to say his collection should be considered reliable is a far stretch.
The hadith and the Quran came together in a completely different manner. The Quran was remembered by heart by hundreds if not thousands of people during the Prophet's time, it was arranged by him, and it was written down by his scribes. It was then collected in its entirety as a book by the Prophet's own companion not long after his death. The hadith on the other hand were not written, despite what is claimed, during the time of Muhammad. There is no evidence of this. Only rumors which have been spread online, but no such texts exist. Adding to the problem is the fact that people have been inventing lies about Muhammad from the very beginning which again is recorded in the Quran. (6:112-113).
The Quran was not only collected, but unlike the hadith, it is easy to remember. That is one of its miraculous properties which it testifies to itself (surah Qamar). On top of being easy to remember, God himself has promised to preserve it (surah Hijr). He did not promise to preserve this religion, the sayings of Muhammad, or anything else.
So no, the hadith are in no way equal to the Quran in their coming together or any other way.
God is my witness that I mean no disrespect to his Prophet, but my point stands. We are not equal to the contemporaries of Muhammad. When we read “Obey the Prophet”, we must obey him by obeying the Quran. If he was here right now, I would do whatever he asked, but he isn't nor is any personal memoir or instruction book of his. As Muslims we believe that Muhammad did not invent anything of his own or write a book of his own, it was but an inspiration that was inspired (Surah Najm). He did not write anything nor command his followers to do anything besides what he was inspired (Surah Yunus).
That is exactly what it is though. That is what the hadith are, reports.
Every religion has scholars Ottoman. This isn't a good argument. Scholars are not gods nor do they know the unseen. I don't fault Bukhari or any other Muslim for the efforts to come closer to God, I just don't agree with their results. The clear guidance is God's (Surah Luqman, Naml). Fully detailed to what he wishes to detail (Surah An'am). Guidance was God's not Muhammad's. He was the perfect adherent to that guidance though, and before God guided him, he was lost just like any other person (Surah Duha).
I was asked this same question almost verbatim by my good Christian friend regarding the Chrisitians throughout history.
They weren't wrong. They did what they believed was right. They will be judged for what they did, and we for what we do. I don't wish any bad on them, nor do I believe they were misguided, I just don't agree with them. Every day, at least 17 times a day I ask God to “guide me to the straight path, the path you has blessed, not of those who have earned your anger, nor of those who have gone astray”. We all do this, or are supposed to anyways. All we can hope for is to be blessed enough to earn his guidance. So I make my best efforts to know the truth and to do what is right even if the truth is unsettling or unpleasent. I'm sure you do the same. Shafi'i and prior Muslims the same. May God accept our efforts.
“In which hadith after this will they believe?” (al-A`araaf [7]:185).
“These are God’s revelations we recite to you in truth. Then, in which hadith after God
and His revelations will they believe?” (al-Jatheya [45]:6).
“Shall I seek other than God as a source of law and judgment when He is the One who
has sent down the Book to you in detail?” (al-An`am [6]:114).
Also,
“What is wrong with you? How do you judge? Do you have another book which you
study?” (al-Qalam [68]:35-36).
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I was just at my local donair shop and one of the dudes there was Persian Shia and claimed to be a descendant of Mohammad. His friend agreed that he was.
I'm kind of curious.. is this a matter of fact or is it debated/contested who is descended from Mohammad or not?
I'd also be curious to see if DNA analysis has been done on such individuals...
I'm kind of curious.. is this a matter of fact or is it debated/contested who is descended from Mohammad or not?
I'd also be curious to see if DNA analysis has been done on such individuals...
The Quran is seen as a collection of the direct words of God, delivered through the angel Gabriel to the Prophet. Hadiths are the teachings and sayings of the Prophet which further elaborate or explain the words of God. They are distinct but are both important in that they explain how to be a proper Muslim.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, the Quran mentions that the Prophet was sent down to guide his people? How did he do this? Through hadith of course. Hadiths get into more specifics than the Quran, but most if not all hadiths are still supported by the Quran.
The hadiths were more of an answer to the everyday problems of the Muslims, but as mentioned are still supported by what the Quran states.
Everyone and their mom claims to be decsended from him. My family has the same story.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I thought as much.
Not my family. Apparently we are the descendants of one of the Caliphs (Uthman or Umar). We even have a family tree which traces the lineage from then to today (stopping at my sister). Don't know how accurate it is though.
But yeah, the story of being a descendent is a very common one.
Then why even bother with writing the Quran down in the first place? Just have Muhammed show the Muslims the right way and they can take note. No need for a book. As long as is within the bounds of reason, it's all good, right? Also, who determines these "bounds of reason?" Muslim scholars? Who's to guarantee that they are right all the time, like the Quran is?
False. Allah would have at least stamped all the hadiths with its seal of approval after making Muhammed and the Angels arrange it just like it was done with the Quran, if it felt like Quran was not enough by itself.
It is vague on a lot of issues, otherwise all Muslims would believe and understand Islam in exactly the same way, and there wouldn't be a division of Sunnis, Shias, etc.
What proof do you have that Hadith collections are guarded by or even sent by God? They are third party accounts on the Prophet's life. Does it say in the Quran that so and so's hadiths are to be taken as canon? It doesn't.
No, but we're better off now compared to then. The maturization of the human condition is a slow process. Besides, isn't it funny that these 5 biggest arms dealers came up with something that's better than what's described by Allah in the Quran, isn't it? Countries with less human rights violations are unquestionably better places to live than countries with more human rights violations. Look at the quality of living index for countries around the world.
Qatar has the highest GDP per capita in the world yet it's nowhere near the top in the quality of living index. The UAE has a higher GDP per capita compared to the USA, yet it's behind it in the Quality of Life index as well. The lack of personal freedoms associated with being a Muslim country hurt them a lot.
That they won't have any advanced weapons to fight with if they piss the US off.
OttomanScribe
Member
We are not talking about a random man in Mexico in 1811. We are talking about the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) and collections of hadith that drew on already existing compilations and transmissions. I am a student of history, I know how hard it is to keep historical records intact over long periods of time, but when you have so many people, and so many chains of transmissions it becomes inconceivable that those authentic and mutawattir hadith were fabricated.
If the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) says something, and it is remembered by a group of people, who then seperate, to Yemen, to Syria, to Falastin and to Iraq, and then they keep that tradition, that saying, as something they guard, then, one man goes to all those places, and finds the same thing said, in the same words? How does that get fabricated?
You talk about the separation and travel of the Muslims, as though it degrades the reliability of the traditions... why? It reinforces it! The companions of the Rasul'Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) spread far and wide, and took the words of the Messenger (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) with them. When you have 20 people, with 20 separate ways of receiving information, none of whom have crossed paths, yet say the same thing, reciting the same situation in the same words? What mechanism can you present that that is false? Other than coincidence? In which case what a massive coincidence!
The hadith were remembered by heart also, and were also written down by scribes throughout the years following the Caliphat Rashidun. If your father told you of something that the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) had told you, would you not remember it? Would you not take steps to preserve it? What makes you think that the Salaf were so flippant with his memory, with his tradition?
What of the Mutawattir hadith? Those that are transmitted to us specifically from those of the community that Allah has affirmed his pleasure with(Surah at-Tawbah). So He is pleased with them, yet they are fabricating all these hadith, lying about Allah and His Messenger (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam)?
The mutawattir hadith have the same classification as the Qur'an. How (sorry if I sound like a broken record) do you reject these?
What evidence do you have that this command is only to his contemporaries? Obeying the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is not merely obeying the Qur'an, that is why there is a distinction made. In order to make the assertion that the command to obey the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is only for his contemporaries, you have to give a reason.
The hadith, especially the mutawattir, represent an almost irrefutable record of the sayings of the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam). They represent a confirmation and explanation of the Qur'an, and contain no contradictions of it. How does a Qur'an alone Muslim decide how much Zakat to pay (it is not mentioned) how does the Qur'an alone Muslim decide how to pray, if not by the Prophet's (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) example? How do they know that that infamous verse does not mean 'beat your wife to a bloody pulp'? How do they know in which order the Qur'an was revealed, in order to know which revelation gains precedence? How do they know how to recite the Qur'an at all?
Why does the Qur'an constantly refer to the role of the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) as not merely a mute conveyor, but a teacher and a lawgiver? What is the point of that if his only job is to give the Qur'an? When Surah al-A'raf tells the believers that the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is the way that the believers know 'what is just and what is evil' and to 'follow him that ye be guided', what are we to take from this if there is no way for modern Muslims to follow that command? If following the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is merely following the Qur'an, then why is the emphasis upon the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) in this verse?
Guidance was given to the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) by God. As you say, he was the perfect adherent to that guidance.
How many Qur'an alone people have their been in history? The further back there go, surely the more there must be? Since the Qur'anic cosmology is that of one of continual decay, punctuated by the coming of Prophets (alayhis salaam) then logically, the further back you go, the more Qur'an alone people there must be. Muslim history must be brimming with them, pious individuals and great scholars...
Yet that is not what I see. The Qur'an alone people I see are all from the West, and few are learned, and, most importantly, they are all my contemporaries. The argument that Allah would lead the community astray so utterly, until some gentleman in 2011 discovers the fact that everyone has been misled, is a strange argument indeed.
You must believe they are misguided, because Allah guides whom He wills and misguides whom He wills. You cannot believe that the entirety of Muslim history, all the Muslims essentially since the passing of the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) are in error, without believing that this was the deliberate misguidance of God. How can you not view your own beliefs as being against Allah's command not to 'create sects'? When you are so clearly divergent from the vast majority of the Ummah?
Amin. I make dua that he who is right is shown the correct way.
If you take the whole verse:
and those that precede and follow it, one cannot in sincerity take this as a reference to the hadith. The lack of translation of the Arabic 'hadith' is telling, when the morphology of the sentence and the word itself makes 'message' or statement' the appropriate translation. It seems a deliberate attempt to create a link between the ahadith, and what is mentioned in the verse, when none exists.
The ahadith are not something believed 'other than' the glory of God, they are confirmation and upholding of the Qur'an and the glory of God. If they constitute a 'statement hereafter' then so does anything said by the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam. Are we to take that this means that the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) only spoke the Qur'an, lest he make 'statements' that people believed? Because if he said 'I am going to the Masjid today' anyone who believed him would be believing in a 'hadith after this'... as 'hadith' in Arabic means a 'piece of information or a message conveyed by people'.
If you look at the verse before hand, this verse is clearly not referring to 'Ayat' in terms of the Qur'an, but 'Ayat' in terms of 'signs' or 'portents':
'[5]And [in] the alternation of night and day and [in] what Allah sends down from the sky of provision and gives life thereby to the earth after its lifelessness and [in His] directing of the winds are signs for a people who reason. [6]Such are the Signs of Allah, which We rehearse to thee in Truth; then in what exposition will they believe after (rejecting) Allah and His Signs?'
The verse above does not imply a 'source of law and judgement' but merely 'Then shall I seek other than Allah as judge'. Who is saying that those who follow the traditions of the community are taking other than God as judge?
Why is this verse taken as being a timeless one, where all those previously mentioned about obeying the Messenger (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) are taken as being temporary? Surely this verse, taken alongside the commandments of using the example of the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) can not be taken to mean what you seem to be asserting, lest it become a contradiction?
OttomanScribe
Member
Reason is naturally referred to. It is what is referred to when one takes the Qur'an as being free from error, or being conveyed to us in full.
The Qur'an was not written down initially, it was compiled, just like the hadith. They were just compiled at different times. The function of the Qur'an is different to the hadith. The hadith are not a 'proof' like the Qur'an is. They have different purposes, that is why there is both.
False? You speak for God now? He 'stamped' Mohammed (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) with His 'seal of approval' and, like I said, the hadith are accounts of Nabi Mohammed (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam).
The divisions between Sunnah and Shia were not, at least initially, religious ones. They stemmed from politics, which are a human failing. The difference amongst the Muslims is not because of the vagueness of the sources, but because of the fallibility of the Muslims. Additionally, scholarly difference exists as a Mercy from God.
Allah does not give commands to the Muslims that are impossible to understand or fulfil. This in itself is enough to take that the Muslims have access to the Messenger of God's (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) in order to be able to take him 'as an example' as the Qur'an commands.
Better things that they have come up with?:
It was my intent to post pictures of the damage done to the human body, the disastrous, horrendous effect, of the weapons of war that the 'maturation' of the human condition has produced. However I do not wish to do so, as gratuitous images benefit no one. Suffice to say, if that represents maturation, then I don't want any of it.
The quality of life index'? Really? That takes into account 'climate and geography' as an indicator pretty much equal to political liberties?
Because there are no other arms dealers or arms producing countries? I mean sure, the US loves to sell guns, but they aren't the only one out there.
Of course, again, relevancy?
Buba Big Guns
Banned
It's usually done by name. For Shias for example, if you have Syed as your title(or a bunch of other sur names) then you are generally regarded as a descendant. Im sure if you did a DNA test you would find that a lot of people are not.
OttomanScribe
Member
I was under the impression that when people say they are 'from the Prophet's (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) family', that they referred to people of Banu Hashim, rather than simply those descended from Ali (radiAllahu anhu) and the Lady Fatima (radiAllahu anha).
There are some 'false Sayyids' out there. However there is a reliable source when it comes to figuring out who is of Banu Hashim; the Kitab al-Ashraf.
There are some 'false Sayyids' out there. However there is a reliable source when it comes to figuring out who is of Banu Hashim; the Kitab al-Ashraf.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Yes, that was it. The man in question said he was called Syed.
That'd be very useful if Mohammed was here, but he isn't. Unless God also gave his approval to whomever recorded Mohammed's actions, the Hadith are not guaranteed to be what God really wants or means.
Do these fallible Muslims debate whether 2+2=4 and divide themselves into different sects based on their interpretation of what 2+2 should equal to? Why can't the Quran be as perfect as Mathematics, it should surely be in God's power to write it that way?
If they're possible to understand, why the need for Hadiths, the accuracy of which can not be guaranteed to the same level as the Quran? Just refer to the Quran since it's so perfect that any Muslim should be able to understand it 100% have no doubts about any single word in it?
Yes, the declaration of human rights is far more humane than what's described in the Quran. Compare the countries that use one with the other and you'll see which ones are better off.
The weapons are a side effect of technological progress, and they're used by both Muslim and non-Muslim countries, so that's not something that differentiates the East and the West.
There are surveys where they asked the people living there, and guess who came out happier?
Guns, especially complex systems such as modern jet planes don't manufacture themselves out of thin air. Besides the massive economical costs that Turkey probably wouldn't be able to afford, such a changeover with the corresponding training, support, and logistics would take years. So yeah, they're pretty much in the US's pocket.
This so silly. The US has the death penalty and Guantanamo bay, the Swiss ban minarets, the UK is debating over having people locked up without charge, the french ban the full face veil, Germany tightly regulates their freedom of speech laws to avoid hate speech against Jewish people, and most of these governments are in one coalition or another that has been in two major wars in the current decade and last.
OttomanScribe
Member
They are guaranteed by logical extension. If Allah tells one to obey the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) and use his example to distinguish right from wrong, then logically you must have access to that example. The access to that example exists in the form of the hadith.
It is not a matter of 2+2=4. Morality doesn't work that way, if it did, you could offer up some objective arguments for it doing so. Morality =/= Maths.
They are possible to understand through the hadith. As I have previously said, the nature of the perfection of the Qur'an is not that which it automatically becomes whatever you want it to be. Humans are fallible, therefore their interpretations will be fallible. The truth is clear, but people will take it and see in it what they will.
Again you make this argument. The countries are better off because they are wealthy and powerful, not because of their morality. Their wealth and power has nothing to do with their morality, indeed it exists in most cases because of a lack of morality.
They are sold to Muslim countries by those who invented them, and those who invented them are those whose technological progress you exalt.
Ah, self-reporting, such an objective measure...
Which is why they do everything the US says, like allow them to invade Iraq through their territory. This is going in circles. Their foreign policy is not defined by the US, which is what I think you are trying to say. If I buy things from a grocery store, am I in the pocket of the grocery store? Of course not.
Quran also contains tidbits from Muhammed's life and his actions, so obeying the Messenger means reading the Quran and obeying what he did as written in the Quran
When someone disregards the hadith, they are not going against God or Muhammed, they're only going against what some people are saying that he did. The people recalling the hadith are not any more special than any other Muslim, only Muhammed is the special one. Therefore, you can freely disregard what they say about Islam since they're not really any more qualified than an ordinary Muslim.
Morality can easily be summed up elegantly with the Golden Rule. Besides a lot of rules of Islam are recited as simply as 2+2=4 in the Quran, such as the one concerning the denial of God, so it can easily be done. It's possible to write a comprehensive and complete set of rules to govern morality.
So, you just admitted that Hadith are fallible since they're the interpretations of men, who are not the Prophet. Thanks for self-destroying your argument.
Look at Iran and just how worse off they became after the Iranian Revolution. They are in a better place economically, but as far as human rights and freedoms are concerned, they're very low on the scale.
There is nothing wrong with self-reporting. It's considered a valid technique, otherwise you wouldn't have millions of studies being done that way. What's your argument for it being a non-objective measure?
I think this is a simple matter of misunderstanding. Obviously, Turkey isn't a "puppet regime" being controlled by US. But on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being completely independent and 10 being a puppet regime, Turkey scores about 7.
crazy monkey
Banned
Interpretation is not the word I would use for hadith. It is collection of sayings by prophet.
Question time: Are shrimp halal? I heard some one argue they are not : |
Since there were no voice recorders at the time, it is a collection of sayings of the prophet as interpreted by fallible men.
There was writing though, right? Sorry, I just saw your post and thought it an odd(ish) stance.
Of course from here we can get into an awkward convoluted conversation about the mechanics of recording sayings but I really don't want that!
Everything in the sea is lawful to eat...
The only thing that would make haram would be if you cooked it with wine or used some form of alcoholic dip...
They were written, quite some time later, as fallible and possibly forgetful men interpreted them from the Prophet, unlike the Quran which is guaranteed to be accurate and infallible by Allah. Think about it, do you remember the exact words of someone you spoke to a couple hours ago let alone a couple hours/days/years ago with 100% accuracy?
Sorry man, I'm not a Muslim so... are the hadith not just the sayings (actions too?) of the Prophet? Or is there room for "interpretation"? If so, is there an easy example you can give?
EDIT: I do but I'm weird like that. Obviously I don't remember everything but I remember what I want to remember. Does that make sense? I got some feedback from a course I was on for work and a guy I'd met during this course said it was "strange slider didn't make notes during the meeting as I was sharing a lot of important information". But I remembered it and all the info made it into the write-up I did. Clearly in that situation I'd recognised the info for what it was and managed to remember it.
RustyNails
Member
People who have "Syed" / "Sayyed" in their names are supposedly descended from Muhammad's children. But it's so hard to verify and everyone tries to claim lineage for bragging purposes, which is stupid and antithetic to Muhammad's message. I had friend who had that elitist attitude because he had Syed in his name. So annoying.
While all "Muslims" follow the Qu'ran and in interpret it differently. Hadith is simply a collection of books written about what the Prophet did or didn't do. Some Hadith hold more value then the other. Some are disregarded all together. This differs for each "stream" in the Islam. Even the most highly regarded ones have contradictions with the Qu'ran. The Qu'ran overrides everything in the end. The problem here is how someone interprets the Qu'ran when faced with contradictions against the various Hadith. The various Hadith are lot more clear cut in language from what I noticed, there are still translation problems to be had though. The Qu'ran is pretty floaty and poetic in a way, but it's way more grounded in reality. The various Hadith have some pretty crazy stuff written in them.
RustyNails
Member
Dude cmon shrimp is the most halal thing on earth. crab and lobster are makrooh from what I heard
Thanks for the explanation; I'll do some further digging online.
Man, life's complicated. But it is what it is.
I used to tame me some lobster so hard back in the day. When my dad told be some people consider it unlawful my world was shattered, he saw it and explained to me what makrooh was for the first time, at some point it went something like
Me: so I can still eat it then?
Dad: well, yes, but you should try to avoid it.
Me: but I won't go to hell for it?
Dad: I guess not.
Me: well let's order some lobster then! omnomnom
Makrooh is such a quilty pleasure for people :lol
RustyNails
Member
crazy monkey
Banned
collection and interpretation there is a huge difference in both of them.
If I Google there are site which states they are not based on scales and something I got confused.
Depends on the madhab. I think Hanafi is the strongest in this regard
OttomanScribe
Member
Yes.. 'tidbits', that don't actually make sense without knowing the seerah, which you can't know without the hadith. Therefore you can't actually obey him without understanding the context, and without the hadith, there is no context. You have know way of knowing Abu Jahl from Abu Bakr (radiAllahu anhu)
When someone disregards the hadith they are going against the majority of the community, and declaring the majority of the community to have been in error before them. This is going against two of Allah's commands 'Ask those who know' and 'do not form sects/separate yourself'.
To say that they are no more qualified than 'any other Muslim' is to say that the only qualification that is worth anything is that of Prophet or Messenger (alayhis salaam) which is clearly not the case. The Qur'an exalts the people of knowledge, and the friends of God. Someone can freely disregard anything, but that will not speak to the wisdom of that disregarding action for sagacity, wisdom, leads to Allah. You can freely disregard me saying 'don't sit down on that bench', but then don't complain when your back is covered in paint.
'Do as you would be done by' is not a sufficient moral foundation for a society and indeed an entire legal system.
It is, however how does one guarantee that the same rule will be understood the same way by everyone? Well of course you have a cross reference for it, in order to ensure that there is an individual who sets the example of how it is to be understood. Throughout the Qur'an, this is something that the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is described as. Hence versus that tell the believers to see him when they have differences. If it is the case that that command is a temporary one, who do they see when they have differences now?
Thanks for making a straw man and showing everyone how serious you are about this discussion. The hadith are not 'interpretations' they are recordings and a method of 'objective' interpretation.
Worse off they became? They became better off, not least because they were not under the rule of the Shah. I am no fan of the Shi'at Ali, but we can surely agree that a country, even a theocratic democracy like Iran, is better when they actually have control of the resources in their country, rather than living in kleptocracy.
Self report is an infamously inaccurate way of gauging anything, from pain to happiness. Of course this does not matter for fluff pieces like a global happiness index, as people other than you do not take them to be objective.
What country is entirely free of the influence of the nations that surround it? On what basis do you make your official ranking of Turkey's independence. It seems to me that their foreign policy has over the last decade ended up often diametrically opposed to the United States. Why then a 7? How do you rank other countries? What, for example, would be Australia? What about Iran?
Nothing like made up rankings.
What Madhab are you?
This is the ruling from SeekersGuidance:
Question: What is the ruling on shrimp and scampi? Are they permissible to consume?
Answer:
In the Hanafi school, it is permitted to eat shrimp according to the soundest position.
The basic criterion is that anything that the Arabs considered ‘fish’ (samak) at time of revelation is permitted. Other produce of the sea is not permitted in the Hanafi school.
Therefore, if “scampi” refers to a shrimp dish made with garlic butter, as in America, then it would be permitted to consume. If it refers to a lobster dish, as commonly done in Europe, it would not be permitted to consume.
A lot of times though, “scampi” served in restaurants is cooked with white wine and so consuming it in such a case would be impermissible. Generally, a person should inquire as to what’s in the recipe, given the abundant usage in the West of wine and pork in dishes.
Wasalam
Faraz Rabbani
Might I suggest that you look up the distinction between 'interpretation' and 'recording'?
RustyNails
Member
OS I am soooooo glad you're back. We missed you in Ramadan!
Yup. We got a family tree too. It was made about 150 years ago I think.
OttomanScribe
Member
is nice to be back.. though man this place is good for procrastination Sposed to be cleaning my house lol. Having people over for a Sundae party on Sunday insha'Allah
pity none of y'all are in Australia, otherwise I'd invite you The Quran is very clear about what is not allowed and explicitly says these (it gives a list) are the ONLY things God has forbidden, but of course God's word isn't good enough for people.
OttomanScribe
Member
One of the things prohibited to eat in the Qur'an is those things that are 'al-khaba'ith' (vile things), how, without the hadith, does one know what is meant by this? Or do we just make it up as we go along?
How does a Qur'an alone person understand the prohibition of al-khaba'ith?
Care to elaborate on this al-khaba'ith? Again, just to be safe; I am seeking knowledge thus asking the question. Just Curious.
As far as I recall these are the only verses in the Quran that specifically and in precise detail command what is allowed/ not allowed:
[2:173] He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah . But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
[5:3] Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah , and [those animals] killed by strangling or by a violent blow or by a head-long fall or by the goring of horns, and those from which a wild animal has eaten, except what you [are able to] slaughter [before its death], and those which are sacrificed on stone altars, and [prohibited is] that you seek decision through divining arrows. That is grave disobedience. This day those who disbelieve have despaired of [defeating] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion. But whoever is forced by severe hunger with no inclination to sin - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
[6:145] Say, "I do not find within that which was revealed to me [anything] forbidden to one who would eat it unless it be a dead animal or blood spilled out or the flesh of swine - for indeed, it is impure - or it be [that slaughtered in] disobedience, dedicated to other than Allah . But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], then indeed, your Lord is Forgiving and Merciful."
[16:115] He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah . But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit] - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
And my personal favorite :
[Quran 6:118] You shall eat from that upon which God's name has been pronounced, if you truly believe in His revelations.
[Quran 6:119] Why should you not eat from that upon which God's name has been mentioned? He has detailed for you what is prohibited for you, unless you are forced. Indeed, many people mislead others with their personal opinions, without knowledge. Your Lord is fully aware of the transgressors.
Ok lets look at the verse.
"Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them. He will enjoin on them that which is right and forbid them that which is wrong. He will make lawful for them all good things and prohibit for them only the foul; and he will relieve them of their burden and the fetters that they used to wear. Then those who believe in him, and honour him, and help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him: they are the successful."
This is saying that the prophet will:
1)Enjoin what is right. The Quran details this (prayer, charity, forgiveness, tawhid, etc.)
2)Forbid what is wrong. The Quran details this (murder, cheating, infidelity, pork, alcohol, ect.)
3)Allow what is lawful. The Quran details this (food that is not prohibited, sex with our wives, divorce, who we can marry, etc.)
4)Prohibit what is foul [khaba'ith]. The Quran details this (pork, animal that is strangled, food that has been sacrificed to another god, alcohol, adultery, who we can't marry, etc.).
That word is used in multiple places, and most of the time it means evil, foul, impure, wicked. For example it says
"And unto Lot we gave judgment and knowledge, and We delivered him from the community that did abominations. Lo! they were folk of evil, lewd.".
Walootan ataynahu hukman waAAilman wanajjaynahu mina alqaryati allatee kanat taAAmalu alkhaba-itha innahum kanoo qawma saw-in fasiqeena.
So are you implying that the Quran has not defined what things are evil/khabītha??
OttomanScribe
Member
This is a reference to the following in Surah al-Ma'idah:
'
And in Surah al-A'raf:
'
I use the Arabic because the English translation often simplifies the multiplicity of meanings of the word in question. It is often translated to 'wicked' or 'evil', because 'vile' does not quite encompass it. However what the Arabic implies is not merely actions (which would refer to wicked and evil) but also specific objects and things consumed. The 'vile things' in this case are taken to also refer to vile foodstuffs. This is the Qur'anic basis for the prohibition of things that were called 'al-Khaba'ith' by the Arabs (and what they would have therefore understood the verse to refer to). Without understanding al-Khaba'ith as such, its use in the Qur'an has no clear meaning. As the myriad of alternate words (lawful, evil etc.) are not used in place. Instead, 'al-Khaba'ith' is used, a word that had specific connotations at the time, connotations that do not translate automatically today.
For those who have the hadith, we know what the word means, and we know what it referred to (as we have the Messenger of God sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam as our Master and guide) however for one who neglects the hadith, al-Khaba'ith has no clear meaning, and the individual is left 'making it up as they go along'.
What this highlights is that the one who claims to follow 'only the Qur'an' is not following only the Qur'an, they are following the Qur'an, and the stuff they make up as they go along. This is in contrast to those who are Sunni, and follow the Messenger of God's explanation of the Qur'an, fulfilling the Qur'anic commandment to take him as an example, as well as following the traditions and scholars of the community, fulfilling Allah's commandment to 'ask those who know'.
If 'those who know' refers to none other than 'well, my own intellect of course', then it seems a strange command indeed... being plural and all.
OttomanScribe
Member
Evil is not a translation for al-khaba'ith. Al-Khaba'ith refers to those things that are vile to the Arabs at the time, not those things that are merely unlawful. If what is meant by khabith is the unlawful things, then there is a word for that, and it is not al-khaba'ith. Indeed in your dot points you show this, by showing a distinction between the wrong and the 'foul'. How do you know what either of these mean? I mean on a basic level, what trust do you have in Arabic at all?
Considering how the language has changed... and the fact that those same scholars that preserved the hadith are those that preserved Arabic in its classical form? Do you distrust their transmission of the hadith, and yet somehow trust that their transmission of the language itself is flawless? To know what khaba'ith means, you need to know what it meant to the Arabs, to know what it meant to the Arabs, you need the language that is given to you from the scholars. The meaning of khaba'ith is 'vile things' which, to the Arabs, would have referred to a specific grouping of foul things. Hence there being a distinction between those things that are wrong, and those things that are vile.
If you take the Qur'an alone, do you sit by yourself and teach yourself Arabic? For, if not, and you learn classical Arabic, then all the meanings of all the words that you learn are being transmitted to you through the same methods as the hadith.
The Quran isn't written by the Arabs, it is from God and He has very clearly defined what is vile and evil as I pointed above.
edit: I have to go for now, I will respond to your earlier posts later. Anyways, it seems like you want more than what the Quran has detailed. I don't agree at all with your argument that the Quran doesn't explain what God finds vile. I don't even see how anyone could possibly make that argument, I'm baffled.
OttomanScribe
Member
The Qur'an was conveyed to the Arabs in the language that they understood. When He said 'al-Khaba'ith', it meant a specific thing to the Arabs at the time, as I elaborated. That thing is not what you mean when you say 'vile' in English.
I don't 'want more than what the Qur'an has detailed' I want to follow in the footsteps of the one whom Allah repeatedly commanded me to take as an example and to obey. I do not abandon Sayyidina Rasul'Allah sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam as simply a mute transmitter. I also do not believe that Allah would lead the entire community astray except for you and a few others who have recently begun to argue for this understanding.
I take Allah's command to 'obey the Messenger (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam)' very seriously. I take Allah's command to take him as an example very seriously, hopefully as seriously as his companions, and those who followed after them, who made it their lifetime work to ensure that that example was not lost. With the traditions of the Muslims and the Sunnah, the Qur'an makes absolute sense as Allah's revelation to the Ummah that would come to us today. Without them, it becomes whatever you want it to be.
Though I am sure that you do not follow it to the letter. For if you did so, why would you not amputate the limbs of any thief you see, no questions asked? Why are you not striking heads from non-Muslims right now, as all the laws for the conduct of Jihad are contained in the Sha'riah, not the Qur'an... and, without the hadith you have no way of knowing in what order revelation came.
For all you know, the entire Muslim communities prohibition on alcohol is false, as for, as far as you know, the prohibition of khamr came first, not second.
Doesn't it all sound so utterly ridiculous to you?
The Quran says that not only it's easy to understand and remember, but also that you should not consult any other source besides itself. Nowhere in the Quran is it said to follow the Hadiths, there is no mention of it. In fact, verses of the Quran that order you to obey Muhammed indicate that it was meant for when he was alive, because they order you do go an consult him if you can't come to an agreement. It does not say to consult others flawed recordings of his teachings, it says to consult him directly. Obeying the Prophet does not mean to obey what some people interpret about him. God has given you the intelligence to figure it out for yourself.
Argumentum ad populum is fallacious reasoning, because using the same exact argument I can argue that Christianity is the real deal and forget about Islam, since there are more Christians than Muslims in the world. Don't forget that when Muhammed was first spreading Islam, he was in the minority too.
You are wrong on this, there are no "friends" of God, only allies in the surah you're talking about. An ally of Allah is a Muslim believer who has 100% faith in Allah and Follows Muhammed without question. Besides, praising someone is a much different than ordering all your believers to follow them, and there is no such order in the Quran.
It is a sufficient moral foundation, and a lot of the details of laws in many legal systems are simply applications of the golden rule to various situations that have cropped up in history.
When the book says if you do A, the punishment is B without any special language for extenuating circumstances, that's exactly what it means and no further explanation is needed. It's as clear as 2+2=4. You might argue that this is far too rigid to be a practical legal system, but you'd be doubting the perfectness and the completeness of the Quran by doing so.
Objective interpretation is when something is recorded on video from all angles. Any recording method that depends on human memory and interpretation can not be objective by definition.
Not on a social level and especially not if you were a female. If Iran was so good, why does it still have a negative immigration rate? Why did so many people flee Iran and they still do to this day citing the oppressive theocracy as the biggest reason?
Who knows one's happiness or pain better than the person experiencing it?
Really, why haven't they left NATO? Why do they continue to award large military contracts to the US, Europe, and even Israel? Why did they recently allow a missile defense base to be built on their soil? How come American planes still take off from Incirlik and fly sorties above Iraq, sometimes even dropping bombs?
Australia would be a 9 or 10, while Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea would be a 1.