Show me what this verse means by "Muta-Taahir" only from Quran ?
Surah Waqiyaah (56:79)- "La yamas-suhu illal Mutaha-roon" Verily it is touched only by those who are "mutah-har"
Again you cannot refer tafseer - as tafseer relies on Hadeeth.
Muta-Taahir
Its a combination of 7 words
Mim Tuaa HAAI HAAI raay wow Noon
agar app ko arabi lughaat ka pata hoo tu is main meanning daikhnay ke liye is ke Maday (basic words means buniyaad) daikhnay parhtay na ke whole words
Is kay maday hai
Tuaa HAI RAY
AT THAAIRATU is me buniyaadi mean hai kisi chiz se nijasaat ka door hoo jana
is maday se bhut LAFAZ bantay hai app ko is ayaat ka matlab samjha daita hoo
Is ayaat ka matlaab yea hai quran ke sadaqaatoon se woh log hi miss rakh saktay hai wohi in se Bakhabaar hoo saktay hai jin ka zahir aur batin paak hoo pakizah hoo jo Qalaab aur Nigah ke pakizgi ke sath is ke taraf ayee jo mutavazaa dil o dimagah ke ke malik hoo jo apnay zahan ko tamam tasoobaat se pak kar ke is se roojo karain jati roojahnaat aur mailaat ko choor kar is ko samjhay agar zahan pahlay se ghair qurani tasoovaraat ke amaajghaa hoo ga tu woh is se faida nahi uthay ga agar aisa nahi kare ga tu quraaan ke haqaiq nahi samjh sakay ga is ke Liye Mutaqeen hoonay ke sharaat hai quran se wohi log Faizyaab hoon gaye Tahraat ka noomana hoo yani ka qalaab Paak hoo
^ what tells you that "AT THAAIRATU is me buniyaadi mean hai kisi chiz se nijasaat ka door hoo jana " means who?
"Removing najasa" is an islamic sharee term...not just an arabic term... so how do you arrive at removing najasa? **
**how does one remove najasa in sharee terms? who is in najasa? who is not in najasa and is tahir like you are saying ?
tell me specifically from this verse who is Mutahir *practically *- the Quran does not explain that to you - if you claim that you get that from Quran then IMRANjaff it is a falsehood.
Quran explain each and everything u hvnt read all my post.Quran ka balagh hi yea hi hai ke is se woh log hi faida hoota saktay hai jo apnay under khud tabdili paida karain.App sirf 5 time wazaooo kar ke hi janaat main nahi jayeen gaye.balke app ko app ke amaal lay kar jayeen gaye Aisa nahi ke app 5 times daily Namaz parhay aur Sab boray kaam karin.Mutahir wohi hoo ga jis ka har kaam Quran ke mutabiq hoo aisa na hoo ke Andhay aur Bahray ke Tanha hoo jaye ke Quran ko pasay parda daal kar shaksiyaat Pasandi ke taraf mail Hoo jayee.App ka master sirf Quran hai App ka Alim e din quran hai jo is per Amaal kar ke Apni zindagayee is ke Mutabiq karta hai WOh Alim Kahlata hai.Alaam is Jahaan yani ke universe ko KAhtay hai.Jo ke Amlaan Apnay Kaam ko Bakhoobi anjaam day rahi hai is nature main Koi tabdili nahi.Aur is baat ko samjh lay wohi fitaraat ke rah pakar Inqalaab barpa karta hai Mohammad (PBUH)per yea kitaab is haqeeqat ko wazay karty hai Ke App Mohsin e insaniyaat hai.Aur app ko yea Hidayaat Nama is liye hi mila hai ke app Mutahiraat ke jamaat ke Rahnaoomi karnay walay hai.Is hi inqalaab nay app ke basiraat ko itna wazay kia ke app Moshin e insaniyaat Kahlay App quran per basiraaati andaz se tahqeeq karoo app ke samjh main khud ajaye ga.Kunoon e fitaraat kia hai.Makafaat e Amaal kia hai
tell me specifically from this verse who is Mutahir *practically *- the Quran does not explain that to you - if you claim that you get that from Quran then IMRANjaff it is a falsehood.
[/quote]
Yea batain karna choor do ke quran yea nahi bata woh nahi bata.Pahlay is ko apna Alim bana kar daikhoo phir pata chalay ga ke qura kia kia bata hai.Agar app nay is ke ellawa kisi shakas ko sanad maan lia yea kisi aur ke kitaab ko tu samjh loo app nay tafarqa paida kar lia.Aur app ko paata tafarqa aur firqa bandi quran ke rooh se shirk hai.Barhaal main app ko itna bata doo jin ke app follower banaye hoye hai woh tu quran ko ek jama Kitaab nahi mantay on ke nasdiq quran pataoo aur hadioon aur Khaloo per likha hooa tha.Is se pahlay books ko quran kitaab kah raha hai.jo pahlay Nabioon per nazil hoyee thi.Tu bataoo in sahaaboo ka kiya jayee.App ko tu Elam se nawazah bata diye ke quran in ka nasdik kis Halaat main tha Muhammad (pbuh)kia woh khud nahi likha karty thai.in ke nasdik sahaba nay jama kia .aur is ke tadveen ke zara App Sah sita per nazar dooray aur daikhain jis kitaab ke hifazaat ke zamaydari Allah nay liye is ke mutaliq kia Shoobahaat paida kar rahi hai.agar app yea kahian ke main Munkir e hadees hoon kafir hooo main is ko Tah dil se qabool karoon ga.main app ke aisay mazhab ka hisa nahi bana chahta jahaan har dosra shakaas kafir hai.Main appnay Din Islaam ko hi follow karoon ga aur os hi kitaab se basiraat loon Ga jo Rahtay duniya taak ke liye Rahnoomi hai
^ Alhamdolillah ...you proved my basic point.... nice cut and paste stuff...
Rhetoric you have heard somewhere....
Not a single answer ...just mumbo jumbo.....
I mean even if the root of the word "tahir" in arabic means cleaned....how do we understand the ayah's application? Who is clean? who is not clean? practically...Islam is not a philosophical religion like you are putting it to be...it is practical and based on practical application that is why it is a complete way of life...not something you just believe in ...the belief comes from practical application... so the Quran will not distinguish as to whom is truly "Tahir" when you are touching it... The translation of the verse is "None touch it other than those who are clean (pure)"
so who is clean to touch ...if they are not clean "najas" how do they clean themselves....? can a menstruating woman touch the Quran? how can you answer these question unless you refer to the explanation in reference to Hadeeth..?
The value of Hadith should not be disputed, but it irks me that people are foolish enough to think that those hadith we have compiled were necessary to explain Islamic rituals or even the Quran itself.
It's folly to think this knowledge would not have been accumulated and passed down even if there was no attempt by great scholars like Imam Bukhari to record them in a particular way. There's no doubt that their methodology was required...what these great scholars have given us is as much consistency as humanly possible.
But people come dangerously close to suggesting that the Hadith we have are complete, or all we need. On the contrary, it's all we have. They may well be incomplete, or even inaccurate. The same can't be said of the Quran.
^
Yes Allah SWT wanted the knowledge to be transfered. And the great collectors of hadeeth did what was humanly possible. And some of what they collected might not be an actual saying of the Prophet SAW. And the Quran InshAllah is complete. But since the "knwoledge" is now present in the form of hadeeth, we just need to use the verified / authentic / hadeeths to completely understand the meaning of the Quranic verses. But we "those who have less knowledge or are students of knowledge" should not blatanly discard a hadeeth just because it did not click in our minds. There are rules under which ahadeeth are verified. We can learn them. We can seek knowledge. Then we might try to verify hadeeth.
Tell me 1 thing how can we muslim will unite on 1 paltform read this
First of all it is absolutely incorrect to say, 'what if we do not believe in Hadith...' Noone is denying the deeds or words of the Messenger. Hadith books are available from every where. Actually the question ought to be rephrased that, "If we do not believe in the verity of Hadith, then how are we supposed to pray?"
We all know that Shia's way of praying is different from that of a Sunni. And both claim to be following in the foot-steps of the Messenger. When we look at Sunnis, their 'Ahl e Hadith' sect's way of praying is different from the 'Hannafi' sect. And everyone knows that. Again both of these sects claim to be in the foot-steps of the Messenger. The question is, whose way of praying ought we to consider as a true and a genuine version of the Messenger, when various different hadiths stand witness to every sect's way of praying. Our important question to you all is, are there any means existing today, by means of which we may know the exact manner, how the Messenger offered his prayers?
The answer to this question that these people give is, besides the Shiites, the differences in various factions of Sunni Muslims are flimsy and of no significance. Otherwise the procedures and manner of praying in all are the same. First of all it is all bunkum to say that these are flimsy differences and have no significance. The followers of one sect, leave alone the fact that they do not pray together, if by any chance a soft tone Quran reciter enters into the mosque of a high volume reciter, if they will not refurbish the floor of that mosque, it will at least be washed ten times and blessed ten times more.
What we read and listen now and then, to the riots in the mosques and between various sect members...... what does that mean? Or when we come to know that a certain Imam (headpriest) has been murdered, members getting at each others throats, the interference of police and the government locking up and sealing the mosques...... are these all due to trivial differences? And when these fanatics say that these differences are of no significance, it is sheer escapism from actual facts and an excuse to avoid the real meanings of a prayer.
It must be observed when a command or law is promulgated by the God (or His messenger), then the principle and its corollaries both are given their due importance; no way are these supposed to differ, by any means. For example, let us take the principle of Wadhu (ablutions) which is stated in the Quran that, we must wash our face and our hands upto the elbows. Now, if a person washes his hands upto the wrists and another upto the elbows, would you say that both of them are correct in doing so? As it is a trivial difference, is not the principle the same? It would certainly be incorrect to say that! Only he/she will be correct whose deed is according to the Quran. So to say that if anyone lifted his hands upto the ears or not, folded his arms on his chest or below the belly button, the space between his/her feet while standing for prayers, was too little or too much? Whether he recited to himself the sura 'fatiha' from the Quran after the Imam or not, and what phrases were uttered in a prayer? During the Ramadan, did he recite the 'Tarawi' eight or twenty times? How many was the number of 'Takbeers' in Eid prayers, so on and so forth, you are insinuating, are all matters of no significance? It is nothing else except escapism. If these people really believe that these trivialities are of no consequence, then just ask a staunch member of Ahl e Hadith sect to offer his prayers like the Hannafi sect does... He will not do so!
Can we who believe in Hadith, in all honesty say that our way of prayers is the genuine and true method of the Messenger MuhammadPBUH? Yet, each and every one of these sects claim that their way was the only way of the Messenger. And it does not make sense that all sects are correct. Are you prepared to believe that? Are you sure that during the times of the Messenger, some disciples offered their prayers like the Sunnis while other disciples offered their prayers like the Shiites do? Or that some prayed like 'Ahl e Hadith,' while others prayed like 'Hannafis'? Or that the Messenger himself offered his prayers like the Sunnis at one time, while at another time he offered like the Shiites? Or sometimes like 'Ahl e Hadith' and sometimes like 'Hannafis'? Obviously, we all know that it could not have been possible or behooving of the Messenger to adopt different manners at various times. There must have been one and only one way of praying by the Messenger and all his disciples must be offering prayers in one manner also. In Quran's language difference between sects means the wrath of God and bifurcation in the DEEN of Islam.
If that was the state of affairs in those times of the Messenger, is it possible that we in anyway, again can unite the Muslim brotherhood and see them praying in unison? Unfortunately, we think this shall not be possible, as long as you all will believe in the hadiths to be the true and authentic words of the Messenger. Until then it is not possible to achieve this unanimity. As every sect in Islam has his own hadiths and every one of them claims to be in the foot-steps of the Messenger. Leaving aside the question of uniting these Muslims, in the present scenario, we are faced with an even bigger dilemma, of which there is no panacea at all.
Abb yea bataoo in main koun shih hai Koun ghalaat Agar Quran ko samjhoo tu app sab samjh jaoo gayee
*** NEO-MUSLIM'S PLIGHT***
Let us assume, that a Neo-Muslim embraces Islam today. And the Maulana who takes the oath and baptizes him/her, happens to belong to a Dayobundi sect. After embracing Islam he is told that the first and foremost requirement of Islam - that distinguishes a believer from a disbeliever - is a prayer. So he learns the wordings and manner of praying from that Maulana. Later on, a person from 'Ahl e Hadith' sect sees this individual praying and tells him that his prayers are not done. Now if his prayers are not accepted by the God, how can he remain a Muslim. As he was taught that a prayer divides a Muslim from a non-Muslim. Our question remains, can anyone of you give us a solution to resolve this innocent man's plight, who has embraced Islam? Please do not escape this issue and kindly give your serious consideration. The Hadith will not be able to resolve this matter as initially, this issue was created by the Hadith.
You have no right whatsoever to say that. Allah (swt) has said this of the Quran...and that's it. What we can say is that everything we have had the good fortune to preserve, it was because He willed it. But that is just stating the obvious, and can be said of anything.
[quote]
Otherwise, there is no such concept of Divine preservation of Hadith.
But since the "knwoledge" is now present in the form of hadeeth, we just need to use the verified / authentic / hadeeths to completely understand the meaning of the Quranic verses.
[/quote]
Some, but not all. The Quran does indeed make references to historical events, but that was common knowledge at the time. The Hadith were not collected for that reason. And many, many Hadith do not relate to the Quran.
[quote]
But we "those who have less knowledge or are students of knowledge" should not blatanly discard a hadeeth just because it did not click in our minds. There are rules under which ahadeeth are verified. We can learn them. We can seek knowledge. Then we might try to verify hadeeth.
[/quote]
Isnad is not enough to achieve certainty, as we have with the Quran. It is very well within the realm of possibility that the Hadith which we consider authentic are in fact false. Or vice versa. This is not to suggest we throw away the Hadith, but we should certainly take them with great caution. People bandy about Hadith like they're on par with Quranic revelation. That's absurd.
So all this writing justifies giving up hadeeth? lol!
This is the only point. None other than this. The difference you talk about are not becuase of the validity of hadeeth, rather the interpretation of it. Such difference are present in the interpretation of the Holy Quran as well!! Multitudes of verses have varying interpretation. The scholars of Tafseer differ among themselves quite a bit.
Even the recitation of the Quran had differences. There are 10 accepted ways of reciting of the Quran.
You can't leave hadeeth because you differ in its selection and interpretation. Period.
How can a person trying to follow Quran can even pray Salah? He won't know what to do except sajdah, ruku, or qiyam. And even then he won't know in what order? does he do the sajdah first or the ruku? what should he utter when praying? does he jsut recite Quran in his prayer? can he talk to other people when praying? how many times a day should he pray? He knows Allah wants him to pray? but how? What is the time of Fajr? What is the time of Tahajjad?
So I guess following Quran there will no arguments....right I see..
Oh I know...he can just give up praying...make life easy....
and he can also give up Zakat..as the quran says to give Zakat but now how much...so there will be no argument on how much zakat to give...right...
If we have ever witnessed how much ppl argue when it comes to following manmade rules and laws... the absence of hadeeth will create a storm unlike before..rendering ppl leaving islam completely...Wallahul Musta'an..
lolz!
Yes checked and verified according to the rules of hadeeth verification not questioned **by people struggling with their intellect...and making comments like "I don't like that hadeeth, it sounds **weird to me..."
So you think the rules of hadeeth verification are infallible, and YET you admit that some hadeeth might not be accurate. You are contradicting yourself.
Great good you identified he is contradicting himself but you fail to understand what he means fine. they are so many fabricated hadith though they might be in line with the quran but are fabricated dear sister.
So thats when the word infallible comes into picture, they are so hundreds infact thousands of hadith which are weak, fabricated, false but the Scholars have done there best to get the authentic hadeeth otherwise even the Quran understanding wouldnt have reached to us without this. Coz many verses in the Quran need to be read with the context, and this is only help with the hadith.
So thats when the word infallible comes into picture, they are so hundreds infact thousands of hadith which are weak, fabricated, false but the Scholars have done there best to get the authentic hadeeth otherwise even the Quran understanding wouldnt have reached to us without this. Coz many verses in the Quran need to be read with the context, and this is only help with the hadith.
I think we're trying to say the same exact thing. No one is dismissing the value of Hadith or the attempts to collect them and put them to writing. The alternative would have been not to have collected them - then, today we'd have a radically different Islamic world (as it if its not crazy enough), because there would be so many inaccurate laws, religious theories, etc.
But just as you said, we need to accept one fundamental fact: The collectors were not infallible. The collection is not 100% accurate, NECESSARILY, although there is a possibility that it could be. And therefore, when one questions things and compares them with the Quran, etc etc - its important.
You can't stop people from questioning things, and the whole idea of "If you question hadith, then you are a hadith rejector" is just a ploy to get people to not think and accept whatever is handed to them. And then we have misconceptions like muslim men thinking they have a right to lock their wives up in their home, and not let them see their friends/family, and that its okay to be violent if someone so much as challenges your faith, and that we have the right to kill any kuffar we meet, etc etc.
please stop these stopless arguments, let me remind you all of the hadith of Prophet(SAW), it goes like this, whoever gives up on arguing with his brother so that he wouldn't hurt him or something. Allah Ta'ala will build a house in jannah for him.
in general, the believers will always continue on proving the fact that they are right and non-beleivers will bring tons of excuses and say they are on the right path. We can't change someone unless Allah Ta'ala has mercy on that person. Once Allah put the seal on a person's heart because of his/her actions then it's very hard for others to convince him to the accept the right things.
one last comment, we can't even understand Quran without the existence of hadith. so please think and submit yourself to Allah before it's too late!