| Author | Topic |
sista_amina
NEW ZEALAND
|
 Posted - Friday, June 5, 2009 - 6:57 PM 
| Assalamualaikum Sister Avaien. Our first muallim is the personality of Muhammad sws and he taught us Quran first of all. Why would anybody object on the fact that his teachings are sometimes used to explain Quran? When they are not even contradicting Quran? What is not acceptable is to prefer a so quoted hadith on a clear verdict of Quran when there is an obvious contradiction. |
|
bapii
INDIA
|
Posted - Monday, June 8, 2009 - 9:53 AM
quote:
Assalamualaikum Sister Avaien. Our first muallim is the personality of Muhammad sws and he taught us Quran first of all. Why would anybody object on the fact that his teachings are sometimes used to explain Quran? When they are not even contradicting Quran? What is not acceptable is to prefer a so quoted hadith on a clear verdict of Quran when there is an obvious contradiction.
|
|
raushan
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
|
Posted - Monday, June 8, 2009 - 11:21 AM
quote:
Brother, I don’t need any hadis to understand the simple meanings of 17:110.
Avi
dear avi,
I think we should clear some essentials of this discussions first.
What do you mean by Qura'n?I mean the one ,complete arabic text written by scribes of prophet, or the English/urdu translation which we have now and frequently quoting from that or else do you have your own personal translation.
wassalam
Edited by: raushan on Monday, June 08, 2009 11:37 AM |
|
avi2009
INDIA
|
Posted - Tuesday, June 9, 2009 - 9:01 AM
quote:
quote:
Brother, I don’t need any hadis to understand the simple meanings of 17:110.
Avi
dear avi,
I think we should clear some essentials of this discussions first.
What do you mean by Qura'n?I mean the one ,complete arabic text written by scribes of prophet, or the English/urdu translation which we have now and frequently quoting from that or else do you have your own personal translation.
wassalam
Edited by: raushan on Monday, June 08, 2009 11:37 AM
|
|
avi2009
INDIA
|
Posted - Tuesday, June 9, 2009 - 9:01 AM
What do you mean by Qura'n?
----------------------------
* I think and believe that Qur'an is the complete Guidance of mankind. It is a COMPLETE,perfect & FuLLY DETAILED BOOK & Nothing can abrogate IT and Quran Itself claims these(6:114-115)
-------------------------------- |
|
avi2009
INDIA
|
Posted - Tuesday, June 9, 2009 - 9:20 AM
Why would anybody object on the fact that his teachings are sometimes used to explain Quran? When they are not even contradicting Quran?
-------------------------------------
* I think that Messenger explained Quran with the Quran. I think Messenger recited his regular Salat Prayer obeying the commandments of Allah given in 17:110. Do you have any other opinion regarding this? if yes, what is this?
avi2009 |
|
raushan
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
|
Posted - Tuesday, June 9, 2009 - 9:23 AM
exactly,
and this is the Quran revealed to the last prophet who dictated its text to his scribes .
isnt it? |
|
avi2009
INDIA
|
Posted - Tuesday, June 9, 2009 - 12:34 PM
That means Messenger used to maintain moderate/audible tone in his regular obligatory salat prayer in accordance with 17:110. Is'nt that?
avi |
|
lofty
UNITED KINGDOM
|
Posted - Tuesday, June 9, 2009 - 2:52 PM
@ avi2009
This verse was revealed in Makkah when unbelievers often made noises and even hurled abuse at Prophet or his companions when they offered prayers. As a result believers were counselled neither to recite in such a loud voice that would attract the attention of unbelievers who might interrupt their prayers, nor to recite in a voice inaudible even to people close by. During the Madinan period when the situation altogether changed, there was no need to follow this injunction. However, whenever Muslims are faced with the kind of circumstances which they encountered during Makkan period of Prophet's life, they should follow the directives laid down in verse you have quoted.
You have to understand the context in which verses were revealed. In surah Tubah God has ordered Muslims to kill unbelievers under specific context. In Surah Ahzab women are told to cover themselves up under specific circumstances. Similarly, this verse (17:110) has a context which you have missed!
Edited by: lofty on Tuesday, June 09, 2009 2:56 PM |
|
avi2009
INDIA
|
Posted - Wednesday, June 10, 2009 - 8:10 AM
Dear lofty………
Quran was revealed more than 1400-yrs. ego. So could you please tell me now in the world at this particular point of time, the injunctions of how many verses of the Quran require to abrogate or rulings of how many verses, we need not require to follow now?????
2ndly, (according to your opinion) If prophet(pbuh) could recite his salat prayer maintaining middle course tone(moderate tone) in spite of remaining adverse object(Pagans) at that time, then Why you people can’t do that now???
You opined that “During the Madinan period when the situation altogether changed, there was no need to follow this injunction”.
Could you be able to provide me the concerned verse of the Quran, wherein it says as you opined????
In one of your previous posts you claimed that “Hadiths are only a historical record of Prophet's times, written by FALLIBLE HUMANS, it can never take precedence over Quran”.
Dear…..you say one thing, but when you come to the rulings of 17:110 then you forget your saying and do another thing i.e. you say one thing but your deeds are completely different from that.
You said:
In surah Tubah God has ordered Muslims to kill unbelievers under specific context.
What is the specific context, I think the above verse in concerned itself says this
You also told:
Similarly, this verse (17:110) has a context which you have missed!
Could you please show me where this verse mentions that specific context, which I missed to see???
Dear lofty, You have to understand the context of verse(s) of the Nobel Quran and have to be practical.
avi |
|
lofty
UNITED KINGDOM
|
Posted - Wednesday, June 10, 2009 - 2:44 PM
@ avi2009
I gave you historical context in which verse was revealed, I never said the verse under discussion has been abrogated. Here is what I had said:
"whenever Muslims are faced with the kind of circumstances which they encountered during Makkan period of Prophet's life, they should follow the directives laid down in verse you have quoted".
As far as abrogation of verses is concerned you need to consult an Islamic scholar or do some study yourself in order to find out which verses of Quran have become void in present times. I told you excatly why Prophet and his companions recited their prayer in middle tone but you are asking me same question again above.
Your next question however is pertinent where you asked "Could you be able to provide me the concerned verse of the Quran, wherein it says as you opined????"
It would require me to write down a lengthy answer in order for you to understand me and quite frankly I neither have the energy nor time to do that. I know you have been influenced by the followers of Rashad Khalifa or some other group who rejects Hadith or Sunnah or both (as is case with submitters). You need to understand the difference between Hadith and Sunnah first, here is good link to do that: I am sure you will find answers to your questions in link below.
http://www.understanding-islam.com/
Also (if you can read Urdu) there is an excellent book written by Maulana Maududi in defence of Hadith and Sunnah wherein he literlly battered the arguments of Hadith and Sunnah rejectors. The book is based upon a debate that took place between Maulana and a scholar who rejected Hadith. Get hold of that book, I am sure your outlook towards your religion would change altogether. |
|
avi2009
INDIA
|
Posted - Thursday, June 11, 2009 - 12:23 PM
Dear lofty……….
You told that “This verse was revealed in Makkah when unbelievers often made noises and even hurled abuse at Prophet or his companions when they offered prayers. As a result believers were counselled neither to recite in such a loud voice that would attract the attention of unbelievers who might interrupt their prayers, nor to recite in a voice inaudible even to people close by. During the Madinan period when the situation altogether changed, there was no need to follow this injunction. However, whenever Muslims are faced with the kind of circumstances which they encountered during Makkan period of Prophet's life, they should follow the directives laid down in verse you have quoted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In replytof the above opinion I told as “So could you please tell me now in the world at this particular point of time, the injunctions of how many verses of the Quran require to abrogate OR rulings of how many verses, we need not require to follow now?????
You saw the first portion of my question but neglected the 2nd portion i.e. “Rulings of how many verse we need not require to follow now?
So dear lofty…….. please try to answer my question clearly, which I posed through my previous post, if you know. Don’t provide me any weblink.
2ndly, no quarinic verse is abrogated ever and to learn this I need not to go any scholars or need to go through any weblink.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your quotation “I told you excatly why Prophet and his companions recited their prayer in middle tone but you are asking me same question again above”.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But …….. nowhere quran says that ‘Only for this reason, as you specified, Prophet and his companions prayed his regular salat in middle tone.
2ndly, you told ‘now it is not require to follow this injunction’
Where it is mentioned in the quran??? The rulings of 17:110 is in general.
You told in your early post that ““Hadiths are only a historical record of Prophet's times, written by FALLIBLE HUMANS, it can never take precedence over Quran”.
In reply to your above claim I asked you:
“Then it can be expected that you offer your daily Salat maintaining Audible/Moderate tone as per rulings of 17:110 as you accepted that hadis can never take precedence over Quran. May I right??”
But you could not give any reply to my above question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Quotation:- Your next question however is pertinent where you asked "Could you be able to provide me the concerned verse of the Quran, wherein it says as you opined????"
It would require me to write down a lengthy answer in order for you to understand me and quite frankly I neither have the energy nor time to do that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not want any researched article dear one from you. I simply asked you to provide me a single verse from the Quran. But you could not able to provide this and I am sure you can never be able to do that, rather you avoided this skillfully by saying the above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your quote:- I know you have been influenced by the followers of Rashad Khalifa or some other group who rejects Hadith or Sunnah or both (as is case with submitters).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear one, I shall be very grateful to you if you refrain from such rubbish talk, rather you answer my question from the Quran.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your quote:- You need to understand the difference between Hadith and Sunnah first, here is good link to do that: I am sure you will find answers to your questions in link below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For your information I say and believe that the only sunnah of prophet is the Quran and nothing else. Prophet practiced only quran.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your quote:- Also (if you can read Urdu) there is an excellent book written by Maulana Maududi in defence of Hadith and Sunnah wherein he literlly battered the arguments of Hadith and Sunnah rejectors. The book is based upon a debate that took place between Maulana and a scholar who rejected Hadith. Get hold of that book, I am sure your outlook towards your religion would change altogether.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You better ask Mr Maulana Maududi, if he lives, wherein quaran says about ‘prophet’s sunnah’?
I suggest you Please Hold the Quran Firmly and if you do that, your outlook towards islam would completely and surely be changed.
avi |
|
shah_625
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Thursday, June 11, 2009 - 1:03 PM
@avi2009
Like I said earlier quran does not teach us the way in which salat is performed, it's our beloved Prophet(PBUH) who taught us the method. So it's the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad tells us how to perform salat. Like I said earlier you have to understand the context of the verse you qouted.
The verse you're qouting is only directing the Prophet and his companions to recite quran in a moderate tone. Now some are saying it is for Tahajud prayer and some including me are saying it's because the unbelievers made noises etc etc.
There is by no means a method being taught in this verse. The method had already been taught by Prophet Muhammad(PBUH).
If I accept what your saying then that means that the sunnah is incorrect. Because We have received these Sunan through the consensus of the Companions of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon them all) and since the age of the Companions, every subsequent generation has faithfully preserved them and handed over to the next in large numbers.
The Sunan are as pure and authentic as the Qur’an itself because both, the Qur’an and Sunnah, have reached us through the same mode of transmission, i.e. the consensus of each generation of the Ummah
And secondly can you tell me why does quran tell its believers only a small part of the method of prayer, what about the rest? |
|
lofty
UNITED KINGDOM
|
Posted - Thursday, June 11, 2009 - 11:54 PM
@ avi2009
You say: 2ndly, no quarinic verse is abrogated ever and to learn this I need not to go any scholars or need to go through any weblink.
Your knowledge of Quran is extremely poor to say the least. Of course, there are verses in Quran which have been abrogated.
"And when we put a revelation in place of (another) revelation and Allah knows best what He reveals -- they say: you are just inventing it. Most of them do not know" (16:101)
Here is an example of an abrogated verse.
"O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding". (8:65)
The verse was abrogated with this commandment much later.
"For the present, Allah hath lightened your (task), for He knoweth that there is a weak spot in you: But (even so), if there are a hundred of you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred, and if a thousand, they will vanquish two thousand, with the leave of Allah: for Allah is with those who patiently persevere". (8:66)
I would recommend you do a course on this site where they teach how to interpret the Quran or listen to Javed Ahmed Ghamidi on following site.
http://www.tv-almawrid.org/
You got to read and listen to great Islamic scholar such as Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, Fethullah Gulen & Maulana Maudadi. You will find out that Edip Yuksel is dwarf in comparsion to them and thereafter you would laugh at his writings as I do. |
|
avi2009
INDIA
|
Posted - Friday, June 12, 2009 - 11:36 AM
Dear lofty,
Your quote:- Your knowledge of Quran is extremely poor to say the least. Of course, there are verses in Quran which have been abrogated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us examine whose knowledge of Quran is poor;
"A.L.R. This is a book whose verses have been perfected" 11:1
"……the words of God are unchangeable" 10:64
These Quranic state clearly that God's words have been perfected and cannot be abrogated, yet sadly these Muslim scholars have invented the greatest lie about the Quran, claiming that there are verses in the Quran that abrogate and invalidate other verses.
They base their claim on a corrupted interpretation of two verses:
FIRST VERSE 2:106
"Whichever Ayah We "nansakh" or cause to be forgotten We replace it with its equal or with that which is greater, did you not know that God is capable of all things?" 2:106
What the interpreters claim is that this verse confirms that some Quranic verses are invalidated by others. They interpret ‘Ayah’ in this verse to mean a verse in the Quran. And they interpret the word "nansakh" as to mean : to abrogate. But does this word, as used in the Quran, truly mean abrogate?
Here we have to examine the correct meanings of both words: "nansakh" and "ayat" as used by God in 2:106
First: The word "ayat"
The word Ayah, as used in various verses in the Quran, can have one of four different meanings:
a- It could mean a miracle from God as in:
"And We supported Moses with nine profound Ayahs (miracles)." 17:101
b- It could also mean an example for people to take heed from as in:
"And the folk of Noah, when they disbelieved the messengers, We have drowned them and set an Ayah (example) of them for all people."25:37
c- The word ‘Ayah’ can also mean a sign as in:
"He said, ‘My Lord, give me an Ayah (sign).’ He said, ‘Your Ayah is that you will not speak to people for three consecutive nights." 19:10
d- It could mean a verse in the Quran, as in:
"This is a book that We have sent down to you that is sacred, perhaps they will reflect on its Ayat (verses)." 38:29
Now if we consider verse 106 of Sura 2, it can easily be verified that the word ‘Ayah’ in this particular verse could not mean a verse in the Quran. It can mean any of the other meanings (miracle, example or sign) but not a verse in the Quran. This is because of the following reasons:
1- The words "cause to be forgotten" could not be applicable if the word ‘Ayah’ in this verse meant a verse in the Quran. How can a verse in the Quran become forgotten? For even if the verse was invalidated by another (as the interpreters falsely claim) it will still be part of the Quran and thus could never be forgotten.
2- The words "We replace it with its equal" would be meaningless if the word ‘Ayah’ in this verse meant a Quranic verse, simply because it would make no sense for God to invalidate one verse then replace it with one that is identical to it!
3- If the word ‘Ayah’ in verse 106 meant a miracle, an example or a sign, then all the words of the verse would make perfect sense. The words "cause to be forgotten"can apply to all three meanings and that is what actually happens with the passing of time. The miracles of Moses and Jesus have long been forgotten. We only believe in them because they are mentioned in the Quran.
Similarly the words "We replace with its equal or with that which is greater" is in line with the miracles of God. God indeed replaces one miracle with its equal or with one that is greater than it. Consider the following verse :
"And We have sent Moses with Our Ayah’s (miracles or signs) to Pharaoh and his elders proclaiming : ‘I am a messenger from the Lord of the universe’. When he brought them our Ayah’s they laughed at him. Every Ayah We showed them was greater than the one that preceded it." 43:46-48
Second: The word "nansakh"
The word "nansakh" which is used in 2:106 comes from the verb "nasakha". It has been claimed that this word in 2:106 means abrogate. However, on closer inspection of all the Quranic verses which use this word it can be found that this word means quite the opposite. It means to record or write down. When God wants to say "substitute" the Arabic word used is "BADDALA" an example is found in 16:101
The traditional Muslim interpreters interpret the word "nasakha" to mean abrogate, however by a simple study of the related Quranic verses we are able to confirm that this meaning is quite inconsistent with the Quranic use of the word. To arrive at the correct meaning of this word, and how it is used by God in the Quran, we must examine all the Quranic verses where this word (and its derivatives) has been used.
Altogether, there are four different verses where this word has been used and they are:
2:106, 22:52, 45:29 and 7:154.
Let us start with 45:29 as it is the most obvious of the four verses:
45:29 "This is our record; it utters the truth about you. We have been "nastansikh" everything you did."
Now let us substitute the word "nastansikh" with the word abrogate (as they claim), here 45:29 would read:
"This is our record; it utters the truth about you. We have been abrogating everything you did."
Immediately, it becomes obvious that this meaning is totally wrong. The words "this is our record" confirm that the word "nastansikh" here means "we have been writing down, or recording", and not abrogating.
7:154 "When Moses' anger subsided, he picked up the tablets, and in "nuskhatiha" is guidance and mercy for those who reverence their Lord."
Once again, if we substitute the word "nuskhatiha" with the word (its abrogation) the verse would have no meaning, for how can the abrogation of the words of the tablets have guidance? However, if we substitute the word "nuskhatiha" with the word (its record) then the verse would make perfect sense. Consequently, the correct meaning of 7:154 is:
"When Moses' anger subsided, he picked up the tablets, and in their record is guidance and mercy for those who reverence their Lord."
22:52-53 "We did not send before you any messenger, nor a prophet, without having the devil interfere in his wishes. God then "yansakh" what the devil has done. God perfects His revelations. God is Omniscient, Most Wise.
He thus sets up the devil's scheme as a test for those who harbor doubts in their hearts, and those whose hearts are hardened. The wicked must remain with the opposition."
Almost all translations fall for this specific use of the word "yansakh" and translate it as to abrogate, however the correct meaning cannot be obtained unless we read 22:52 and 22:53.
In 22:53 God tells us that he "yansakh" what the devil has done, then God follows that by telling us in 22:53 that He sets what the devil schemed as a test for the ones who harbour doubt in their hearts. Now let us pose a while here and contemplate on this meaning. If the word "nansakh" means (we abrogate) or nullify, then how can the devil's scheme be set up as a test? How can any human be tested by something that has already been nullified?
This, once again, confirms that God in actual fact allows the devil's scheme to stand so as to serve a test for the ones who harbour doubt in their heart. This once again confimrs the correct meaning of the word "yansakh" so as to mean "to record". Thus the correct meaning of 22:52-53 is:
22:52-53 "We did not send before you any messenger, nor a prophet, without having the devil interfere in his wishes. God then records what the devil has done. God perfects His revelations. God is Omniscient, Most Wise.
He thus sets up the devil's scheme as a test for those who harbor doubts in their hearts, and those whose hearts are hardened. The wicked must remain with the opposition."
And now, by returning to 2:106, we are able to confirm the correct meaning of the word "nansakh" in this glorious verse, the correct meaning would be:
2:106 "When We record any ayat, or cause it to be forgotten, We produce a better one, or at least an equal one. Do you not recognize the fact that God is Omnipotent?"
SECOND VERSE 16:101
"When We "baddalna" (substitute) one Ayat (revelation) in place of another, and God is fully aware of what He reveals, they say, 'You made this up'. Indeed most of them do not know"
The substitution spoken of here is concerned with one of two things:
a- The substitution of one Scripture in place of another.
This first meaning is given evidence to in the following verse:
"Then we revealed to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming previous scriptures, and superseding them." 5:48
Here, the words "superseding them."confirm that the previous scripture were substituted with the Quran.
b- The substitution of one law within one Scripture with another in a subsequent Scripture
This second meaning is also given evidence to in the Quran where various issues that were prohibited to the previous people of the book were made lawful in the Quran.
As an example, we are told in 2:187 that sexual intercourse between married couples during the nights of the fasting month was made lawful, while it was prohibited previously.
We are also told in 6:146 that God prohibited for the Jews all animals with undivided hoofs; and of the cattle and sheep the fat was prohibited. These were made lawful in the Quran.
This verse 16:101 does not speak about the substitution of one verse in the Quran with another.
The evidence to that is given within the same verse (16:101):
The key to the meaning of the verse lies in the words:
"........they say, 'You made this up"
Here we must stop and ask, who is likely to tell the messenger "You made this up" ? and why? For sure it cannot be his followers, his followers are not likely to tell him "You have made it up"................it has to be those who do not believe in him, which focuses on the followers of previous scripture who feared that their scripture was in danger of being "substituted" with the Quran. In actual fact, till this day, the Jews and Christians accuse Muhammad that he fabricated the Quran himself!
Once it is established that this verse speaks of the reaction and words of the disbelievers, then the next question would be : are they accusing Muhammad of substituting one verse in the Quran with another? The Jews and Christians do not care if one verse in the Quran is substituted for another, after all they do not believe in the whole book! They will not complain that one verse in the Quran is being substituted with another!
However, if they fear that their Scripture is being substituted by the Quran, they will immediately accuse the messenger that the Scripture he brings (Quran) is not from God but that he "made it up"himself.
These glorious words "You have made it up" indeed stand as a true indicator from God Almighty that the substitution spoken of in this verse is not related to one within the Quran, but indeed a substitution between one scripture and another.
As mentioned before, the substitution of the previous scripture with the Quran is confirmed in 5:48
As a result of the misinterpretation of 2:106 and 16:101, and the false claim that some Quranic verses invalidate other verses, the interpreters have demonstrated their failure to uphold two main characteristics of the Quran, those being that the Quran is perfect and harbours no contradictions (11:1) and also that the words of God are unchangeable (10:64).
It is well worth inquiring here into the motive behind the interpreters corruption of the meaning of 2:106 and 16:101.
Perhaps the major reason is not connected to the Quran at all but to the ‘hadith’. It is well accepted among the hadith scholars that the concept of abrogation applies to the hadith since it is found that many ‘hadith’ contradict one another. The examples of these are too numerous. The following are only some examples:
P.S. (the first number is the number of the book (chapter), and second number is the number of hadith. For example Muslim 18/58 means the 58th hadith in the 18th book of Muslim. In other quotations the name of the chapter is given instead of its number.
1- "I am the most honourable messenger" (Bukhary 97/36).
This hadith contradicts the following hadith:
"Do not make any distinction among the messengers; I am not even better than Jonah" (Bukhary 65/4,5; Hanbel 1/205,242,440).
2- "The Prophet never urinated in standing position" (Hanbel 6/136,192,213). This contradicts:
"The prophet urinated in standing position" (Bukhary 4/60,62).
P.S. May we wonder, has God sent His prophet Muhammad in order to guide us into the appropriate position for urinating? !!!
3- "The prophet said, ‘The sun was eclipsed the day Ibrahim (the prophet’s son) died’…(Bukhary 7/page 118)
This contradicts:
"The prophet said, ‘the sun and moon are signs from God, they are not eclipsed for the death or life of any one"(Bukhari 2/page 24)
4- "If two Muslims fight each other with their swords, the killer and the killed will go to hell" (Bukhari 1/page 13, Muslim 18/page 10).
This hadith contradicts the hadith of the ten who were foretold that they will go to heaven by the prophet (Ahmad 1/page 187-188, also narrated by Abu Dawood and Al-Tarmazy). That is because among those ten there were two actually who fought and killed one another in battle, they were Ali, Talha and Al-Zobair. According to the first hadith they will go to hell but accoding to the second hadith they are foretold paradise!
5- In various hadith, specifically in the chapters of the ‘Hereafter’ in the books of Bukhary and Muslim we read numerous predictions by the prophet detailing what will take place there. This contradicts the hadith by Aesha, the prophet’s wife where she says "Anybody who says that Muhammad knows the future is a liar" (Bukhary 8/ page 166, Muslim 3/ page 9-10)
6- "The prophet said, ‘Take your religion from the words of Aesha (the prophet’s wife)"
This contradicts: "The prophet said, ‘Aesha is immature in mind and faith." (Bukhari and others)
These were some of the numerous contradictions in hadith, now we read in the Quran the following words:
"Why do they not study the Quran carefully? If it were from a source other than God, they would have detected within it numerous contradictions." 4:82
This verse confirms that anything that contains contradictions cannot be from God, and since the hadith contains numerous contradictions, as shown, it cannot be from God. But the hadith advocates claim that the hadith was inspired by God and that the hadith Al-Qudsy in particular is God’s own words spoken to Muhammad! If that is so, how could they explain the contradictions in hadith? How could it be from God when it is full of contradictions? According to 4:82, what is not from God must contain contradictions.
To wiggle out of this tricky situation, the hadith advocates devised the concept of the abrogation of Quranic verses.
The plan was as such: If the Quran can be shown to contain contradictory verses, yet no one will dispute that it is from God, then the hadith with its contradictions can also be described to be inspired by God !!!
avi |
|
lofty
UNITED KINGDOM
|
Posted - Friday, June 12, 2009 - 2:56 PM
@ avi2009
God .... You like to argue. Basically, submitters are claiming that Muslims have altered the Quran. Did God not promise us to preserve his last revelation.
[15:9] Absolutely, we have revealed the reminder, and, absolutely, we will preserve it.
When thousands of people had already memorised the Quran how was it possible for any one to extract or insert verses within Quran. I know submitters believe that last two verses of Surah Tubah have been inserted by Muslims, they were not revealed upon Prophet (because these two verses do not fit in with their stupid code).
I am not going to defend Hadith here because I too believe that Hadith literature has some problems with it. You can't however reject all historical evidence of Islam because some parts of it have been fabricated. Hadith scholars have not taken great pains to shift geniune Hadiths from frabicated ones and as a result our historical records have become fairly reliable.
As far as our religion is concerned, it is perfectly preserved within Quran and Sunnah as Shah pointed out above. If you are not prepared to look at other side of picture (i.e. follow web links), I am afraid we can't help you. I would end with the verse of Glorious Quran:
To you be your Way, and to me mine.(109:6) |
|
 Reply to Topic 
Printer Friendly |
| Jump To: |
|
|
|