Quranist rise and end of Sunni/Shia sect

Bigmo · July 19, 2009, 9:07pm

I know, Shafi was his student however Malik did not attribute evrything to the prophet but to the "elders of Medina". Plus Malik was not far away from the Abbasids and the Caliph Al Mansour. Sunnis would tell you Malik distanced himself from them, but which theologian you know ever does this? The Sufis do have a tradition of distancing themselves and still do today. But no cleric does that. There is no way to have authority without political support. Malik was the one who introduce the concept but later Shafi was the one who had to lay the case. They are the same group of people and the Abbasids simply tossed the Mu'tazilites to the curb. Especially during the reign of Mutawakkil. Its all in the same time period.

As time goes by things do seem to go backwards in Islam's history. People have noticed this and it was only after Shafi that hadith nearly always went back to the prophet. This is not just some Quranist talk, even secular historians have noticed this. Anyways for me its the contradiction with the Quran that I am interested with especially when it comes to freedom and legalism and individualism. Typical political themes and all the enemies of the ruling class.

7.120. But the sorcerers fell down prostrate in adoration.
121. Saying: "We believe in the Lord of the Worlds,-
122. "The Lord of Moses and Aaron."
123. Said Pharaoh: "Believe ye in Him before I give you permission? Surely this is a trick which ye have planned in the city to drive out its people: but soon shall ye know (the consequences). 124. "Be sure I will cut off your hands and your feet on apposite sides, and I will cause you all to die on the cross."

As far as the verses of the Quran i have dealt with it in this thread before and have explained that whatever the prophet said or ordered can not be far away from the Quran.

"Surely We have revealed the Book to you with the truth that you may judge between people by means of that which Allah has shown you; and be not an advocate on behalf of the treacherous." (4:105)

"And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the Book and a guardian over it, therefore judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has come to you;" (5:48)

"Allah is witness between you and me; and this Quran has been revealed to me that with it I may warn you and whomsoever it reaches." (6:19)

"We know best what they say, and you are not one to compel them; therefore remind him by means of the Quran who fears My Promise." (50:45)

10.15 But when Our Clear Signs are rehearsed unto them, those who rest not their hope on their meeting with Us, Say: "Bring us a reading other than this, or change this," Say: "It is not for me, of my own accord, to change it: I follow naught but what is revealed unto me: if I were to disobey my Lord, I should myself fear the penalty of a Great Day (to come)."

So it is not conceivable that the prophet will preach anything thats radical different than the Quran. There maybe everyday issues and issues that ocurred that he may have talked about and dealt with but as far as the teaching of the faith it can not be contradictory from the Quran.

Das_Reich · July 20, 2009, 1:52pm

[QUOTE]

Yes but its during their reign that many activities took place. Of course the sects will attribute their techings to the prophet and the companions since they carry religious authority. Malik was not far away from the Mansour and neither was Shafi or Bukhari unknown to the ruling calls. there is nothing in Sunni fiqh that the ruler can not do other than openly declare his disbelief, obviously.

[/QUOTE]

whenever imams of ahlulbayt revolted against ummayyads or abbassids the imams of ahle sunnah ALWAYS backed the revolts and got imprisoned for their support.
Obviously they still had to keep the community togather thats why they did not openly preach agianst the kings but same attitude was of some imams of ahlulbayt.Sufis had the luxury of leaving mainstream life and were responsible only for themselves or their order.The mainstream scholars had no such luxury and had to balance between doing the right thing and ensuring survival in a hostile enviorment.

[QUOTE]
I don't belive the prophet murdered 600 people in cold blood as Bukhari's hadith claims. During the Mutawakkil the Jews rebelled and he faced several rebelion so maybe this was a way to justify these acts.
[/QUOTE]

Prophets conduct is NOT used by traditionnalists as a precedent of dealing with muslim rebels for that there are 2 sources only Quran and Ali.So prophets conduct could not have been used by mutawakil for use against rebels.
For a complete and absorbing discussion on this get "Rebellion and violence in islamic law" khalid abou al fadl

What Prophet did was absolutely justified as it was done according to the jewish law of dealing with rebels.In other words jews were punished according to their own laws for rebellion.

Das_Reich · July 20, 2009, 2:10pm

Re: Quranist rise and end of Sunni/Shia sect

[QUOTE]
They are the same group of people and the Abbasids simply tossed the Mu'tazilites to the curb. Especially during the reign of Mutawakkil. Its all in the same time period
[/QUOTE]

not before the mutazilites enjoyed significant influence and hadith scholars like ibn hanbal had to languish in jail and undergo torture.

it was the islamic verison of inquisition

Bigmo · July 20, 2009, 6:14pm

Bigmo:

Jizya is not taxes. Its a reperation, a war reperation. It got twisted to mean taxes on jews and Christians. First the Quran never talked about any battles between the prophet and Jews or Christians. All the battles in the Quran are with the pagans. The story of the pagans and the prophet is well documented in the Quran and the Jizya is part of the battles between the prophet and pagans. Its a war reperation, at least thats how i see it in the Quran. Why would the Quran order people to pay taxes to the rulers?

I am not a Mu'tazilite, I am just showing you that the Mu'tazilites never had hadiths to begin with. They never used hadiths or a concept like the Sunnah in their school. Hadiths were unknown and only seemed to have emerged during Shafi' time. We know the muwatta was the first hadith book and we know Shafi was a student of Malik. The hadiths were simply unknown to the masses and if it did spread during the 4 caliphs time it would have been known. Notice Shafi talked about another revelation. That is he introduced a new revelation along with the Quran.

But I agree with you that this is a complicated subject. I really do not like talking about this as an internet forum is not the right place. What i am interested in is what the Quran teaches and how its different from the teachings of the sects. Jizya is one them. The Quran does not have a concept of Dhimmis and taxes and a state. It simply follows the events on the ground as they come along. It follows the prophet like a shadow and deals with matters on the ground. Other than that it talks about the other prophets and their life stories and talks about judgement day and how we should worship God and how we should seek His way.

Sorry, this is not entirely correct. There is a reference to some of the Jews or Christians(most likely Jews) who aided them:

And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew, and ye made captive some. 33.26

And it seems it was these the Quran was talking:

9.28. O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise. 9.29. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued

Once again this shows that Jizya is for war reperations.

My bad!

Das_Reich · July 20, 2009, 11:38pm

Re: Quranist rise and end of Sunni/Shia sect

^ atleast u were honest enough to admit it so i wont hold that against you

regarding jizya as war reparations , that is exactly how it was used in the original sense
during early conquests under abu bakr and umar.
Non-muslims who were in muslim lands paid that in lieu of service in army, and muslims in turn protected them from external and internal threats.Given that early muslim armies suffered a high attrition rate AND had for the most part provide for themselves animals and equipment it was not a bad deal.

Iconoclast · July 21, 2009, 6:03am

Bigmo:

I know, Shafi was his student however Malik did not attribute evrything to the prophet but to the "elders of Medina". Plus Malik was not far away from the Abbasids and the Caliph Al Mansour. Sunnis would tell you Malik distanced himself from them, but which theologian you know ever does this? The Sufis do have a tradition of distancing themselves and still do today. But no cleric does that. There is no way to have authority without political support. Malik was the one who introduce the concept but later Shafi was the one who had to lay the case. They are the same group of people and the Abbasids simply tossed the Mu'tazilites to the curb. Especially during the reign of Mutawakkil. Its all in the same time period.

As time goes by things do seem to go backwards in Islam's history. People have noticed this and it was only after Shafi that hadith nearly always went back to the prophet. This is not just some Quranist talk, even secular historians have noticed this.

Yu seem to sway in several different directions at one time. Please stick to one point at a time and write anew paragraph if you want to make a new point.

Firstly, Malik wrote the Hadith which he could trace back to Prophet Mohammad pbuh, those which he could not trace back to Prophet pbuh but was prevailing practice in Madina, he described as act of elders of Madina. However, the point which Muwatta proves exclusively is that saying of Prophet pbuh and his acts were cosidered a source of religious doctrine by Muslims at that time.

Second, Mutazila's father wasil bin ata was a comtempoary of Imam Malik, so Mutazila themselves appeared in same period as Malikis.

Thirdly, you conviniently refer to historical records where it suits you, but completey ignore them when it does. Such as ritual prayer. The 5 prayers and the way they were prayed right from Prophet has been consistently narrated by every history book and every Hadith and Fiqah scholar, yet you claim iuts not Islamic. Its like i would say, Alexander did not exist, he never came to India nor egypt. If you go into denial of historically proven practices then no one is going to take you seriously.

Bigmo · July 21, 2009, 1:12pm

Iconoclast:

Yu seem to sway in several different directions at one time. Please stick to one point at a time and write anew paragraph if you want to make a new point.

Firstly, Malik wrote the Hadith which he could trace back to Prophet Mohammad pbuh, those which he could not trace back to Prophet pbuh but was prevailing practice in Madina, he described as act of elders of Madina. However, the point which Muwatta proves exclusively is that saying of Prophet pbuh and his acts were cosidered a source of religious doctrine by Muslims at that time.

Second, Mutazila’s father wasil bin ata was a comtempoary of Imam Malik, so Mutazila themselves appeared in same period as Malikis.

Thirdly, you conviniently refer to historical records where it suits you, but completey ignore them when it does. Such as ritual prayer. The 5 prayers and the way they were prayed right from Prophet has been consistently narrated by every history book and every Hadith and Fiqah scholar, yet you claim iuts not Islamic. Its like i would say, Alexander did not exist, he never came to India nor egypt. If you go into denial of historically proven practices then no one is going to take you seriously.

I seem to scatter my views but this is because many here have “truths” embeded in their mind so they do not see the whole picture of a Quranist way. They see it in bits and pieces. Anyways no book of hadith teaches us how to pray the way the sects say. In fact Bukhari has it very different. The salat did not come to people through hadiths. There is a hadith but it appeared way later and is not considered the top 6 hadith books for Sunni Islam. But thats besides the point. If you want to pray that way then go ahead. The Persians also had 5 prayers at exact timing as Sunnis do and the Jes are also very similar. But to say its an obligation and thats the only way is not Quranic.

True Malik did trace some hadiths to the prophet or the copanions but not all, Bukhari traced nearly everything to the prophet or companions.

But the hadiths of the prophet can never be radically different from the Quran or contradict it. Yet the sects have very different Islam than the Quran. Its two different Islam. You can not say you follow the Quran AND the Sunnah. Because both are very different. So who wins? The sects believe the hadith wins.

See if hadiths teach the sects how to pray:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08OcvlXi9M0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eislamicaweb%2Ecom%2Fforums%2Freligion%2Dspirituality%2F12757%2Ddoes%2Dhadiths%2Dteach%2Dus%2Dsalat%2Dprayer%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded