| Author | Topic |
usmani790
PAKISTAN
|
 Posted - Friday, March 9, 2007 - 6:09 AM 
Dear Salman
Yes he can and since we have the tafaseer of schelors like Marafull Quran by Maulana Shafi Usmani a very detailed explanation of Qurantic verses we found in this tafseer and the second one is Tafheem-ul-Quran by Maudoodi sahib is also I found very good to understand to Quran.
If any one will read these tafaseer they are very helpfull to undersatnd the Quran.
The benefit of studying the Quran through a teacher have no comparasion with just reading these tafaseer by our own.Because the teacher would answers yours questions and counter questions on the spot but this opprtunity does not there in self studying.If we do the both this would be the best. |
|
waseem
UNITED KINGDOM
|
Posted - Friday, March 9, 2007 - 7:07 AM
Salam brothers
In my very limited knowledge and humble opinion, we need to look at the following issues.
1. No scholar of Islam can claim to know and understand everything .
2. The door for nabowat and risalat is closed.
3. Why is it necessary for us to follow one school of thought or imam or fiqh.
4. Why cannot we accept what with our knowledge and understanding seems acceptable to us from any of the scholars. For example I may agree with imam Malik on one issue and Imam Humbal on the other. The basic corpus of Islam is intact. for example the essentials of namaz are intact, whether the hands are above or below the belly button does not affect the essentials of namaz.
5. What is important is that the person accepts something which is not against the essential corpus of Qur'an and Sunnah, is accepted on merit and reason , according to that individual and is not based just on social pressure and personal preferance. |
|
usmani790
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Friday, March 9, 2007 - 7:37 AM
Understanding the Four Madhabs
© Abdal-Hakim Murad, first published in Q News, the Muslim magazine (then known as Muslim Wise)
Here are just few sentences from the article.
Another metaphor might be added to this, this time borrowed from astronomy. We might compare the Quranic verses and the hadiths to the stars. With the naked eye, we are unable to see many of them clearly; so we need a telescope. If we are foolish, or proud, we may try to build one ourselves. If we are sensible and modest, however, we will be happy to use one built for us by Imam al-Shafi'i or Ibn Hanbal, and refined, polished and improved by generations of great astronomers. A madhhab is, after all, nothing more than a piece of precision equipment enabling us to see Islam with the maximum clarity possible. If we use our own devices, our amateurish attempts will inevitably distort our vision.
A third image might also be deployed. An ancient building, for instance the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, might seem imperfect to some who worship in it. Young enthusiasts, burning with a desire to make the building still more exquisite and well-made (and no doubt more in conformity with their own time-bound preferences), might gain access to the crypts and basements which lie under the structure, and, on the basis of their own understanding of the principles of architecture, try to adjust the foundations and pillars which support the great edifice above them. They will not, of course, bother to consult professional architects, except perhaps one or two whose rhetoric pleases them nor will they be guided by the books and memoirs of those who have maintained the structure over the centuries. Their zeal and pride leaves them with no time for that. Groping through the basements, they bring out their picks and drills, and set to work with their usual enthusiasm.
There is a real danger that Sunni Islam is being treated in a similar fashion. The edifice has stood for centuries, withstanding the most bitter blows of its enemies. Only from within can it be weakened. No doubt, Islam has its intelligent foes among whom this fact is well-known. The spectacle of the disunity and fitnas which divided the early Muslims despite their superior piety, and the solidity and cohesiveness of Sunnism after the final codification of the Shariah in the four Schools of the great Imams, must have put ideas into many a malevolent head. This is not to suggest in any way that those who attack the great madhhabs are the conscious tools of Islams enemies. But it may go some way to explaining why they will continue to be well-publicised and well-funded, while the orthodox alternative is starved of resources. With every Muslim now a proud mujtahid, and with taqlid dismissed as a sin rather than a humble and necessary virtue, the divergent views which caused such pain in our early history will surely break surface again. Instead of four madhhabs in harmony, we will have a billion madhhabs in bitter and self-righteous conflict. No more brilliant scheme for the destruction of Islam could ever have been devised. |
|
salmant
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Friday, March 9, 2007 - 7:57 AM
Quote: The benefit of studying the Quran through a teacher have no comparasion with just reading these tafaseer by our own.Because the teacher would answers yours questions and counter questions on the spot but this opprtunity does not there in self studying.If we do the both this would be the best.
Reply: Thank you for agreeing that it is possible to access Quran through self study. And, I totally agree with what you have in your statement quoted above.
Edited by: salmant on Friday, March 09, 2007 7:58 AM |
|
aboosait
INDIA
|
Posted - Friday, March 9, 2007 - 10:11 AM
quote:
Another metaphor might be added to this, this time borrowed from astronomy.
We might compare the Quranic verses and the hadiths to the stars.
Hello, brother! Where are you taking us?
If you have anything that Alah has said or what Rasoolullah
Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam has said on the subject of understanding the teachings of the Qur'an please produce it and please stop borrowing metaphors from astronomy. |
|
salmant
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Friday, March 9, 2007 - 10:32 AM
Quote: A madhhab is, after all, nothing more than a piece of precision equipment enabling us to see Islam with the maximum clarity possible.
Reply: The metaphor of telescope needs to be questioned. Telescope is an optical instrument, following laws of physics it will show whatever is in front of it as it is. A scholar however is a human, and despite his best intentions, (assuming he is well-intended) he can & might err. Secondly no two telescopes would have a 'difference of opinion' on showing their object. Their strengths might differ, but the image they show wouldnt. Two scholars can have a difference of opinion, as religion is not an exact science. The rules of interpretation, the objective of analysis, the premises and the differing background can result in differing conclusions. So taking help from scholarship might clarify certian things, but following ONE scholar necessarily will unnecessarily make my view biased. A differing opinion will get rejected just because it was 'different' without seeing whether it is closer to Quran and Sunnah or not.
Quote: A third image might also be deployed. An ancient building, for instance the Blue Mosque in Istanbul,
Reply: Well what if people having studied modern sciences come up with a research that the pillars of this mosque have become dangerous for the people praying in it? because of its age and the incapacity of its material to face the corrusive air arround it, they might fall very soon. Will we still give our lives to save those pillars? For what? for saving our tradition? Ofcourse one would pay attention to the new research, look at its credentials and authenticity and take a decision accordingly.
Quote: The spectacle of the disunity and fitnas which divided the early Muslims despite their superior piety, and the solidity and cohesiveness of Sunnism after the final codification of the Shariah in the four Schools of the great Imams, must have put ideas into many a malevolent head. This is not to suggest in any way that those who attack the great madhhabs are the conscious tools of Islams enemies. But it may go some way to explaining why they will continue to be well-publicised and well-funded, while the orthodox alternative is starved of resources. With every Muslim now a proud mujtahid, and with taqlid dismissed as a sin rather than a humble and necessary virtue, the divergent views which caused such pain in our early history will surely break surface again. Instead of four madhhabs in harmony, we will have a billion madhhabs in bitter and self-righteous conflict. No more brilliant scheme for the destruction of Islam could ever have been devised.
Reply: I cannot help saying this that this itself is a self-righteous statement, if the tradtional alternative is 'starved of resources' (although that is not the case in our country atleast- majority of local funds go towards the traditional alternative, so the writer does not seem to be well informed, over 20,000 madaris with over 1.65 million students, including the chains of Ashrafia, Darul Uloom and Iqra etc. are being financed by us, still the complain!), it can mean 1)Yes, that the fund-providers have different political agendas, and also more importantly 2) that the traditional alternative has stopped contributing positively towards the society or atleast that they havent in the recent past, hence this perception.
Considering every differing viewpoint, as a "scheme for the destruction of Islam" reflects academic weakness on the part of our traditionalist scholars. If they feel there is a problem with other viewpoints, they need to publish material to refute that argument with arguments - not with statments such as this.
I am surprised that Taqlid is still considered as a necessary and humble virtue, while Quran is calling for constant "pondering", and the Prophet (sws) is asking not to make your scholars your Lords (rubb).
Regards,
Salman
Edited by: salmant on Friday, March 09, 2007 10:42 AM |
|
waseem
UNITED KINGDOM
|
Posted - Friday, March 9, 2007 - 2:53 PM
When comparing shariah of the Qur'an and Hadith we must acknowledge two issues.
1. Hadith pertains to a specific incident.It has a specific reference to the context. We cannot use one hadith a khabar i wahid to then decipher sunnah and shariah from it to fit every scenario.
2. I was reading a quote in the news. We live in the age of technology.we have all sorts of electrical gadgets. Government of Pakistan announced some new regulations. They were quoted in advance by the media. Different newspapers had varying editing of the same incident attended by their reporters. It was stated that Dawn did the reporting nearest to the actual regulation but they also missed some minor points. The enxt day when the regulation was released by the Pakistan Government it showed that the substance of newspaper reporting was not entirely correct. This is happening today when we have tape recorders, short hand and video cameras. We are willing to decipher shariah from Hadith written years after the prophet pbuh had left this world and on the saying of one person. khabr i wahid. |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Friday, March 9, 2007 - 3:35 PM
| I do not understand what you mean by 'shariah of the hadith'. Hadith is man made, how can it be shariah? |
|
perv1
UNITED KINGDOM
|
Posted - Friday, March 9, 2007 - 4:02 PM
Salaam all
quote:
quote:
Text
The argument basically is that religion is a specialized discipline and for any specialized discipline, you need specialists to look for guidance e.g. doctors in case of medicine etc.
This often a ridiculous arguement used by those who refuse to accept what the Quran tells them (a) It is fully detailed & complete (b) Easy to understand (if someone disagrees then please explain, you can ask for the help of your expert scholar, what God means by easy to understand).
I think if person(s) are fortunate enough they would go through life without the need of a doctor...Ameen.
However is not our wish, as muslims, that no body should go through life without religion.
The two are not same....religion is for every one, doctors only for the unfortunate (generally speaking).
regards |
|
usmani790
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Monday, March 12, 2007 - 7:30 AM
Dear Salman,
Quote;-A scholar however is a human, and despite his best intentions, (assuming he is well-intended) he can & might err.
An establish Medhabs can have err but if there will be 10 errs in it so we will do 100 errs.If still you think you will do less errs,so why don’t you first try to prove these Medahbs wrong with the help of main sources. If you could prove even 10% of their work is not according to main sources, than you can think of doing yours own way to follow the religion.It is just my argument, I am not trying to bind any one here.
Quote:-but following ONE scholar necessarily will unnecessarily make my view biased. A differing opinion will get rejected just because it was 'different' without seeing whether it is closer to Quran and Sunnah or not.
By following one medhab not means that one is following just one schelor, all four Medhabs have the input of many scholars up to 4th and 5th century of hijra and they have tried to refined these Medhabs to bring them closer to Quran and Sunnah through the best of their abilities.If any answer we don't find there so the current scholars of that particular Medhab(medhab one may belong) give the answers of that through the consensus.
Quote:-Well what if people having studied modern sciences come up with a research that the pillars of this mosque have become dangerous for the people praying in it?
First prove it then you are well come.But without proving if you will start your own work, so you will put your share in the collapse this building.
Quote:- Considering every differing viewpoint, as a "scheme for the destruction of Islam" reflects academic weakness on the part of our traditionalist scholars. If they feel there is a problem with other viewpoints, they need to publish material to refute that argument with arguments - not with statments such as this.
Funds to madersas here is contributed by the the muslims.Have you ever seen that they ever give any fund to these mardersas.But today which of the world powers are opposing these mardersas is well known. |
|
salmant
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Monday, March 12, 2007 - 8:18 AM
Dear Usmani Sb,
Let me admit I am no scholar. So the best I can do is present the research work of other scholars, who have, in my view, convincingly refuted one or more of the assertions of either of the Imams, in the light of Quran & Sunnah. Even before I do that, as that would initiate a separate debate, let us conclude our current discussion by agreeing on some common terms. As it seems from your post there are following points of agreement between us two, please correct me wherever you feel like doing so:
1) An established Madhab can & might err.
2) Two scholars can have a difference of opinion, two telescopes cannot.
3) One should not follow one scholar necessarily.
4) A refinement on any of the opinions of 4 Madhabs, as long as it seems closer to Quran & Sunnah is welcome.
5) If, the stress is on the word 'if', research shows convincingly that the pillars of tradition have become dangerous for people following it then a rethinking is required.
6) A differing viewpoint is not necessarily a "scheme for destruction of Islam"
Regards,
Salman |
|
usmani790
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 8:14 AM
Dear Salman,
Please see my remarks on your six points.
1) An established Madhab can & might err.
Yes it can,any new initiative to interpret the religion will certainly have more errs than the established Madhabs have.
2) Two scholars can have a difference of opinion, two telescopes cannot.
Telescopes is mentioned here just to understand the importance of four Madhabs.You seems not trying to understand the point presented here rather trying to refute it.
3) One should not follow one scholar necessarily.
If you are taking of scholar in the sense of Madhab than I would say one must follow either of the Madahb rather than following a scholar who is not following any Madahb.
4) A refinement on any of the opinions of 4 Madhabs, as long as it seems closer to Quran & Sunnah is welcome.
If you saying this in context of a person who is following any of the Madhab if any such thing comes to his notice,he then should not decide his own rather see any scholar of that Madhab and discuss the matter with him.This question is do not arises for a person who is not following any Madhab.
5) If, the stress is on the word 'if', research shows convincingly that the pillars of tradition have become dangerous for people following it then a rethinking is required.
So far no one ever able to show it.Majority of the people who oppose the Madhabs because the picture of religion they see through Madhabs looks them unconvincing because of their criteria to see things through their's own intellect rather than the main sources.There could be others whom might have not this problem but interpretation of main sources by the Madhabs,one may wish to follow a essay Islam and he may find things are very tough there, so on and so forth.
6) A differing viewpoint is not necessarily a "scheme for destruction of Islam"
One can not doubt on any one intentions but what ever once intention is, there no doubt in my mind that any such effort will only contribute in the destruction of Islam.
Regards,
Usmani |
|
aboosait
INDIA
|
Posted - Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 9:41 AM
quote:
Telescopes is mentioned here just to understand the importance of four Madhabs.You seems not trying to understand the point presented here rather trying to refute it.
Brother Usmani, on another page of this forum I found you quote the famous verse regarding solving mutual disptes from the Qur'an and Sunnah. Please follow the same rule here rather than comparing Madhhabs to telescopes... |
|
salmant
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 9:48 AM
Same numbering is being used to refer to the points identified in previous posts by you and me:
1) Thank you fo agreeing that it can err. As I said lets find common terms, although it remains debatable whether new initiative would "certainly" carry more errors or not.
2) I have fully understood the meaning of the metaphor. The writer basically says that Quran & Sunnah are stars and the Madhabs are precision instruments used to view them. There are two assumptions in this: a) Quran & Sunnah are as distant and unclear to us as the stars and b) The precision instrument (i.e. Telescope/Madhab or scholar) will show the object (i.e. stars/Quran&Sunnah) as it is in actuality. a) is against Quranic assertion that it is a clear book and b) is drawing a similarity between telescope and scholar, as I explained both are very different.
3) Even when Quran is calling for constant "pondering", and the Prophet (sws) is asking not to make your scholars your Lords (rubb)?
4) if he does not decide on his own, then who decides for him? what if the scholar is unconvincing? will his judgement still be followed unconditionally? |
|
salmant
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 10:08 AM
5) if not "own intellect" then whose intellect will be used?, if we cannot use our "own intellect" to understand religion, then why are we discussing matters here on internet?
6) So even a well intended effort of research is useless just because the point of view it conveys is "different"? and therefore it will "contribute in destruction of Islam"?
Questions: What about the difference of opinion (although minor) between Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Sha'afi's judgments? was that also destruction of Islam?
What about difference between Maulana Maududi and rest of traditionalist scholars - destruction of Islam too?
Our academic history is full of such differences, we celebrate them, acknowledge them and do not feel embarrassed about them.Why? Because we know that religion is not an exact science, its a qualitative discipline and such differences are natural to such disciplines. Should we stop doing that? |
|
usmani790
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 11:19 AM
Dear Salman,
1) Thank you fo agreeing that it can err. As I said lets find common terms, although it remains debatable whether new initiative would "certainly" carry more errors or not.
No one is err free after prophet(pbuh).I give you an example here.If you going to see yours friend to his house and you are not certain of the way.You reach to a junction where 10 people are standing and there are three ways proceeding through this junction.You decided to take help from them since you are not aware which way to proceed.You asked them which way should you follow after telling them the address.Eight of them tell you go to the right, one person says go straight and the last one says go to yours left.Assuming that all are sincere in telling you the address of yours friend’s house,I ask you here which way you are going to follow?
2)Telescope/Madhab or scholar) will show the object (i.e. stars/Quran&Sunnah) as it is in actuality. a) is against Quranic assertion that it is a clear book and b) is drawing a similarity between telescope and scholar, as I explained both are very different.
a)-Brother surely It is a clear book but this never means that people having different level of Intellect can understand it equally.No brother like in the wordily affairs we are bound to follow the expert opinions so do in the matters of religion we need the expert’s advises and opinions as well.b)There is a similarity with the teacher’s help to understand the thing which you need to understand and with telescope to see the things better which you can not see with naked eyes.Both are taking you to closer to reality.
3) Even when Quran is calling for constant "pondering", and the Prophet (sws) is asking not to make your scholars your Lords (rubb)?
That what you are not doing, the things I am presenting before you my brother.Yes we must not follow any one blindly even any Madhab too.
4) if he does not decide on his own, then who decides for him? what if the scholar is unconvincing? will his judgement still be followed unconditionally?
It is not the matter that on every issue there will be disagreement.Some time this can happened as well.My personnel experience is that I used to have often some disagreements on the issues with the scholars and I really some times used to debate with them.Usually very seldom it can witness.But I tell you honestly,the time has proven that I used to wrong and they used to be correct.
Regards, |
|
 Reply to Topic 
Printer Friendly |
| Jump To: |
|
|
|