Studying Islam

Post Reply

Username

Invalid Username or Password

Password

Format

Message Icon

Message

- Forum Code is ON
- HTML is OFF

Smilies

[quote]In  continuation………

Having seen the logical flaw in the argument, let us also see some other consequences of such an argument. The Prophet Muhammad was DEPENDENT upon the Arabic language to receive and teach the Qur’an. From whom did he learn the Arabic language? It was the very same Kuffar (Rejecters) who were his enemies. Since the Prophet Muhammad was DEPENDENT upon the KUFFAR for the Arabic language, should he then also have accepted THEIR version of history and Guidance? The answer is NO. Why? Because language is a NATURAL characteristic of human existence, whereas recorded/oral history is not. The same argument can be applied to all his companions and ALL the righteous people before and after him. 
This argument can also be applied to asHaab ul-kahf (the companions of the cave). They are not identified as prophets/messengers in the Qur’an, but as “Righteous Youth”. They left their people because their people were unjust. Were not asHaab ul-kahf dependant upon the language TAUGHT and perpetuated by their people to read/speak and converse with each other about what is right and what is wrong? Thus, according to the logically flawed argument identified above, they should also have accepted the version of law and history written by the very same people who preserved their language. 
Let us move into modern times. Was English the mother language of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s ancestors in Africa? The answer is NO. It was the language of the slave masters who brought his ancestors from Africa. However, MLK was DEPENDENT on this English language to STUDY the laws and constitution of the United States. It was this same language (introduced to his ancestors by the SLAVE MASTERS) which he used to express himself so eloquently in his fight for civil rights and for equality among races in the U.S. However, if he was dependant on the slave masters of his ancestors to learn the English language, which he himself learned from his parents, does that mean he should have accepted their version of history and justice also? The answer is clearly NO. 
We have seen the logical mistake and the consequences of following such an argument above. This argument is nothing but the example of a "drowning man clutching onto a straw". The proponents of Hadith have NO proof for their Hadith from the Qur’an. Thus they are ready to cling to anything and everything that comes their way without considering the logical implications of their arguments. 
To conclude, I would also like to point out that although knowledge of the Arabic language is required to ACCESS the Original Qur’anic Text; it is NOT what DEFINES the Qur’anic meanings. The Qur’an defines its own meanings. Anyone who studies the Qur’an with care notices that the Qur’an itself defines the Qur’anic meanings of (many) words. Here are a few examples: The word “Kaffir” in classical Arabic means “the one who rejects”. However, the Qur’an uses this word to mean “The one who rejects the Message of Allah”. Historians also tell us that the idolaters of Mecca knew about Allah. But the Qur’an defines Allah as the “One and ONLY God” with His many attributes. In fact, when one reads the Qur’an, one sees that the Qur’an defines its own terminology and is not always dependent upon the general classical Arabic terminology used in its time. In addition, the Qur’an is not meant just for the Arabs, but for anyone who seeks Allah’s Guidance: 
“Had We sent this is as a Qur’an other than Arabic, they would have said: ‘Why are its verses not explained in detail?’ What! Non-Arab or Arab, say: ‘It is a Guide and a Healing to those who believe; and for those who believe not, there is a deafness in their ears and it is obscure to them. Such are called to from afar” (41:44)

Samsher.[/quote]

Mode

Check here to be notified by email whenever someone replies to your topic

Show Preview