The Prophet's "extra-Qur'anic" authority

Society Religion & Philosophy
41

Ibrahim, you ask for CLEAR Quranic verses. I think Corrupt Angel has provided many clear Quranic verses that indicate that there was no other Revelation other than the Quran, and no secret Revelation was given to the Rasul and hidden from the rest of mankind.

So why do you think we "croonies" haven't provided a logical argument against the existence of an extra-Quranic authority?

Furthermore, if the argument FOR an extra-Quranic authority were legitimate, you'd see this as a wide-spread belief among muslim scholars. You DONT see that. So are you telling me that the majority of muslim scholars do not have a valid argument when they argue against the issue?

I'm not going to say one side is completely right, because in the end, we humans know nothing. But I can say that both sides have legitimate claims, and that the key is in interpretation. Thus, for you, Ibrahim, to label anyone's claim in this specific thread as a "lie" is just plain wrong.

42

Ibrahim says : salaams to all

Read! And contemplate what the Qur’an conveys :

66: 1 O Prophet! why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts. But Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.

2 Allah has already ordained for you (O men) the dissolution of your oaths (in some cases): and Allah is your Protector and He is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom.

3 When the Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his consorts and she then divulged it (to another) ** and Allah made it known to him he confirmed part thereof and repudiated a part. ** Then when he told her thereof she said "Who told thee this?" He said "He told me who knows and is well-acquainted (with all things)."

Maududi Sura Introductions Surah 66. At-Tahrim

What we learn from this Surah is that the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace)** did not receive from Allah only that knowledge which is included and recorded in the Qur'an, but he was given information about other things also by revelation, which has not been recorded in the Quran.** Its clear proof is verse 3 of this Surah. In it we are told that the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) confided a secret to one of his wives, and she told it to another.** Allah informed the Holy Prophet of this secret. Then, when the Holy Prophet warned his particular wife on the mistake of disclosure and she said: "Who has informed you of this mistake of mine?" he replied: "I have been informed of it by Him Who knows everything and is All Aware."** Now, the question is where in the Quran is the verse in which Allah has said "O Prophet, the secret that you had confided to one of your wives, has been disclosed by her to another person, or to so and so?" If there is no such verse in the Quran, and obviously there is none, ** this is an express proof of the fact that revelation descended on the Holy Prophet besides the Quran as well. ** This refutes the claim of the deniers of Hadith, who allege that nothing was sent down to the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) apart from the Quran.

Ibrahim says : The desire for the Hadith rejecters to reject what they do not like is understandable, since it exposes what they wish not to accept. but Islam is based upon the Qur’an and what was conveyed by the Prophet (pbuh), hence the notion that EVERYTHING is found in the Qur’an is nothing less than folly , hence where is what that has not been recorded in the Qur’an is found?

That should lead an honest sincere seeker of the TRUTH to the Authentic hadiths.

Was salaam
Ibrahim

** Politicians try to chose sides on a round planet ! How silly **

43

salaam to all,

PCG, Nescio and others thanx for the support!!

anyway, i am getting used to the way Ibrihim talks to others even if they are twice as young as he is.............

ibrahim, just read Bible, The First BOOK of KINGS, Chapter 8...........

44

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by filhaal: *
ibrahim, just read Bible, The First BOOK of KINGS, Chapter 8...........
[/QUOTE]

Ibrahim says : salaams to all

Filhaal, your CLAIM was, let me repeat your claim:-

[quote]
BTW as far as there was ** an actual command from GOD to take Jerusalem as a QIBLA, it was already given** in the PREVIOUS SCRIPTURES!!
[/quote]

Ibrahim says : Filhaal do you want me to quote the entire passage ( 1 Kings chapter 8: verse 1 to 65) as well as other verses in the Bible to proof your above statement FALSE and the evidence you provide does not say such a thing????

The choice is yours, so I again ask you where Allah (swt) revealed a message to Jews or any Prohet before Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) appointing Jerusalem as the qibla and all people must face that qibla only ( as conveyed in the Qur’an) in the previous scriptures???

Please don’t tell us about Prophet Solomon (as)( or anyone else) desiring and praying to have his people face a certain qibla ( Jerusalem) after he had built the temple for Allah (swt) therein, when his own father Prophet David (as) faced EAST (most likely in the direction of Makkah) when he worshipped Allah (swt)

And Christ himself declared the Qibla will be changed again from Jerusalem to those ( some) who had faced it (to Makkah) in the Gospel

My point being Allah (swt) did not declare a change of Qibla in the Bible as it has been done in the Qur’an , so If you have evidence for your above statement ** quote the EXACT verse ( not the entire chapter) **

thanks

and don’t waste the time of the people on this board with your own concoctions/misconceptions when you know you have erred.

My apologize to the readers of this thread for this slight deviation from the original subject. But it is necessary to establish that some of the posters simply convey their misconception/personal opinions as TRUE and as being apart of revelation when it is not. Which cannot be entertained without evidence since scripture is being mentioned.

Was salaam
Ibrahim

** Do not say everything you think and point the finger at scripture **

45

:rolleyes: and your point is???

of course one should talk about matters if there is scriptural evidence for them, but as far as I know Hadith isn’t a scripture or let’s say a God-sent scripture…and you put more emphasis on hadith. furthermore, when you do consider scriptures in your argument, you take the wrong conclusion, or conclusion for which the logic is really very-far fetched.

if this place is called a ‘discussion forum’, i expect that there wil be discussions going on here :rolleyes:
furthermore, how do you know that WE are ignorant, maybe you are the ignorant one…not only maybe, but for sure actually!
as they say: talk sense to a fool, and he (=ibrahim) calles you foolish

how do you know that YOU aren’t the one going away frmo the right path???

thnx Santa Claus!

furthermore, i say again, apart from who’s right or who’s wrong, there should be respect for another’s opinion! and as far as know, i never have been spreading hatred towards hadith-accepters, instead you repeatedly said things insulting me personally :rolleyes:

46

[QUOTE]

ibrahim:
and don’t waste the time of the people on this board with your own concoctions/misconceptions when
you know you have erred.
[/QUOTE]

filhaal:
if you cannot alter your way of talking then there is no point in discussing with you.....

47

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by filhaal: *
**BTW as far as there was an actual command from GOD to take Jerusalem as a QIBLA, it was already given in the PREVIOUS SCRIPTURES!!*
[/quote]

For the sake of argument let's assume that the Jerusalem Qibla was established in scriptures prior to the Qur'an (although it would be nice if you could present a relevant verse), yet even with this it doesn't negate the fact that the Prophet (s) still received a specific "extra-Qur'anic" command from Allah to maintain the same Qibla. If you consider verse 2:143 as a whole you will see that the reason for Allah appointing the first Qibla for the Muslim community was to "test those who followed the Messenger". Yes, you can isolate the part of the verse that says "We appointed the Qibla" and say that this must have taken place in previous scriptures, but what about the part that says that the appointment was to "test those who followed the Messenger"? How do you explain this? This would only make sense if the appointment indicated in 2:143 was made direct to our Prophet (s) since the reason for it was specific to him and his community of followers. I hope that's clear.

If we concede that the first Qibla had already been appointed in previous scripture and that this is the meaning of Qur'an 2:143 (although reading the whole verse causes problems for this understanding as i've shown) then we still need to look at how our Prophet Muhammad (s) came to follow this Qibla. For example, did he:

(1) Face the Jerusalem Qibla because Allah had specifically asked him to. If so, this is the extra-Qur'anic command that my first post sought to establish.

(2) Perhaps Allah gave the Prophet (s) a choice, he could face the Jerusalem Qibla or any other Qibla he wanted. If so, it means that the Prophet (s) had extra-Qur'anic authority and my point still stands; or

(3) Finally, if you use the "previous scripture" argument then it confirms that the Prophet (s) and his followers are permitted to follow extra-Qur'anic sources.

This last point (#3) is important. By asking us to accept that the Prophet (s) took the Jerusalem Qibla simply because it was already in previous scripture in fact defeats your argument as i see it. This is because any such scripture would by default be extra-Qur'anic. So are you suggesting that it was acceptable for the Prophet (s) to legislate based on such extra-Qur'anic scripture? Not only that, the Muslim community were content on accepting this directive from the Prophet (s) without any Qur'anic instruction to face that Qibla, they didn't argue in the way that a small minority of people do today that if it isn't in the Qur'an then we aren't accepting it.

Finally, the fact that you yourself need to support your argument by reference to extra-Qur'anic sources is also an admission that the Qur'an does not explain everything. If you can establish your argument through extra-Qur'anic sources then you should have no objections when others do the same.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by filhaal: *
**completeness means that the BOOK of GOD IS complete for OUR SALVATION!!it does not mean that it contains every detail how one should spend his/her life*
[/quote]

Now we are getting somewhere. You have already begun to restrict the meaning of "the Qur'an explains everything" argument by saying that it refers only to that which we need for our salvation and doesn't include "every detail [of] how one should spend his/her life". I wonder if others will agree on such a restriction. Once you begin to accept restrictions to the meaning of "everything" then you need to ready yourself to accept other restrictions as well. I have already twice asked PakistaniAbroad whether he is able to categorically state that when the term 'kuli shay' (everything) is used in the Qur'an (e.g. 16:89) that it is always used in an unrestricted, all inclusive sense? He's yet to reply.

And Allah knows best.

Iqbal

48

i think you are confusing the following four terms:
1. extra-Qur'anic command
2. extra-Qur'anic authority
3. extra-Qur'anic sources
4. extra-quranic revelation.......

49

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by filhaal: *
**i think you are confusing the following four terms:
1. extra-Qur'anic command
2. extra-Qur'anic authority
3. extra-Qur'anic sources
4. extra-quranic revelation.......*
[/QUOTE]

Nice try, but there's no confusion.

Any extra-Qur'anic command, authority or source that was established for the Prophet (s) was based on revelation from Allah to the Prophet (s), so there's no difference between these terms as they apply to the argument i've put forward. Verse 2:143 is proof that Allah communicated an "extra-Qur'anic" commandment to the Prophet (s) thereby also establishing his extra-Qur'anic authority.

Extra-Qur'anic is just that, extra-Qur'anic. Whichever way you look at it, you are also pointing us to something outside of the Qur'an to substantiate your "previous scripture" argument. You are thereby applying one rule for yourself and another rule for others.

Refer to my above reply for the other weaknesses in the "previous scripture" argument.

Iqbal

50

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Iqbal1089: *

Now we are getting somewhere. You have already begun to restrict the meaning of "the Qur'an explains everything" argument by saying that it refers only to that which we need for our salvation and doesn't include "every detail [of] how one should spend his/her life". I wonder if others will agree on such a restriction. Once you begin to accept restrictions to the meaning of "everything" then you need to ready yourself to accept other restrictions as well. I have already twice asked PakistaniAbroad whether he is able to categorically state that when the term 'kuli shay' (everything) is used in the Qur'an (e.g. 16:89) that it is always used in an unrestricted, all inclusive sense? He's yet to reply.

And Allah knows best.

Iqbal
[/QUOTE]

if the 'general' rules outlined in the Quran are enough for our salvation, why on earth would "every detail [of] how one should spend his/her life" even matter then?
if the Quran says that it contains enough information (as you would say: only general information) for our salvation, there just isn't any room to state that the little details will matter!
suppose A is enough to obtain C -------->
why on earth would A + B be 'better' to obtain C, if the first one is already (more than) enough for obtaining C as stated in the quran?

51

Of the three ayahs that Ibrahim posted, I think this is the strongest point in favor of the Extra-Quranic revelation argument. It can also be the strongest point AGAINST the Extra-Quranic revelation.

3 When the Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his consorts and she then divulged it (to another) and Allah made it known to him he confirmed part thereof and repudiated a part. Then when he told her thereof she said "Who told thee this?" He said "He told me who knows and is well-acquainted (with all things)."

I have two counter-arguments.

  1. It is POSSIBLE that the Prophet was told through ANOTHER Quranic ayah that his wife had said something to another person. We would have to find the ayah then, for this argument to be true. Thus, since we dont have anything on our hands, this argument is hanging in the air.

  2. The more likely explanation is that the Prophet was revealed THIS verse, and from THIS verse only he found out that his wife had said something to another person. It would make sense, since the ayah is not clear as to what "matter" was "divulged" to "another", and since we don't know which wife it was and who this "matter" was disclosed to. It seems like it were a personal matter (a matter in confidence) and may not have had anything to do with scripture or God's word. Maybe it was a battle plan or a tactic to get people to listen to his message, so that if the issue blew up, it may have ruined the prophet's plans. Who knows?

It seems like, due to the lack of concern with details of the "matter", that this message was a "private" message for the Rasul. The fact that many times in the Quran, like in this one, there has been a "private message" for the Rasul, which really has nothing to do with the Ummah proves that there was no extra-Quranic revelation. All communication with the Rasul, whether it was of educating and guiding the Rasul specifically or guiding the Muslim reader to salvation is all included in the Revelation.

If I'm not making sense to you, let me know. Its kind of hard for me to find the right words now since I'm in a hurry. Thanks.

the second argument is open for debate of course. HEALTHY debate!

the only part I'm not understanding is this:

he confirmed part thereof and repudiated a part. - does the "he" refer to God, or to the Prophet? Perhaps if one looked up the ayah, one could see whether an Upper case "H" was used or not.

52

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
**Of the three ayahs that Ibrahim posted, I think this is the strongest point in favor of the Extra-Quranic revelation argument. It can also be the strongest point AGAINST the Extra-Quranic revelation.*
[/quote]

This (66:3) is a very important verse that also proves that the Prophet (s) received extra-Qur'anic information from Allah. The only slight detraction is that the verse doesn't on the face of it legislate in Islam, as opposed to 2:143 which does. Nevertheless, a useful point to note from this verse is that whatever the Prophet (s) disclosed to one of his wives is called a "hadith" by Allah.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
**I have two counter-arguments.

  1. It is POSSIBLE that the Prophet was told through ANOTHER Quranic ayah that his wife had said something to another person. We would have to find the ayah then, for this argument to be true. Thus, since we dont have anything on our hands, this argument is hanging in the air.** [/quote]

I doubt very much that you will find such a verse. But until you do 66:3 stands as valid proof.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
**2. The more likely explanation is that the Prophet was revealed THIS verse, and from THIS verse only he found out that his wife had said something to another person.*
[/quote]

This counter-argument is flawed because the entire verse is in the past tense. In other words, the incident had already taken place prior to the verse being revealed and the Prophet (s) knew through extra-Qur'anic communication that one of his wives had disclosed something. The end of the verse makes it clear that Allah had already communicated the news to the Prophet (s) and that his wife had by then asked him where he'd got the information from.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
**It seems like it were a personal matter (a matter in confidence) and may not have had anything to do with scripture or God's word. Maybe it was a battle plan or a tactic to get people to listen to his message, so that if the issue blew up, it may have ruined the prophet's plans. Who knows?*
[/quote]

Whatever was disclosed is largely incidental. The main point here is that this is yet another verse that confirms extra-Qur'anic communication to the Prophet (s) from Allah Almighty.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
**All communication with the Rasul, whether it was of educating and guiding the Rasul specifically or guiding the Muslim reader to salvation is all included in the Revelation. *
[/quote]

If by "the Revelation" you mean the Qur'an then your assumption is not correct. The appointment of the first Qibla, as discussed earlier, was legislated through extra-Qur'anic revelation.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
**the only part I'm not understanding is this:

he confirmed part thereof and repudiated a part. - does the "he" refer to God, or to the Prophet? Perhaps if one looked up the ayah, one could see whether an Upper case "H" was used or not. **
[/QUOTE]

Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, Khan & Hilali, Shakir and N.J. Dawood in their respective translations all refer the pronoun to the Prophet (s).

And Allah knows best.

Iqbal

53

Back to 2:143...

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
**counter-argument:

Yes of course Allah himself issued the command to change the Qiblah. He was also the one to issue the command to face Jerusalem in the early years. He was ALSO the one to issue the command that you will be born on the day you were born and he ALSO issued the command that you were to be a boy, and not a girl.

God, by Islamic theology, issues commands for EVERYTHING, and nothing occurs without His approval...**
[/quote]

I know what you are trying to say here. However, the part of verse 2:143 that says "We appointed the Qibla to which thou wast used, only to test those who followed the Messenger..." disproves this understanding. This part of the verse shows that Allah had a specific purpose in mind when appointing the first Qibla, namely to test the Muslim community. Given this fact, the command to appoint the first Qibla must have come directly from Allah alone so that the purpose He had intended could be fulfilled.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
**If God wants be to build a fence around my house, and this is something he "appoints" or provides heavenly permission for to occur during Time, then he's not going to send me a letter "Dear PCG: A prowler is liable to attack your house, thus I Command you to put up a fence around your house". NO, of course not. He's going to somehow create a thought in my head.*
[/quote]

You might not have realised it but you've probably just described (in your concluding sentence) very loosely how the extra-Qur'anic appointment referred to in 2:143 took place. No one is suggesting that a silken parchment dropped out of heaven written in gold with instructions to face the first Qibla. Even the Qur'an wasn't revealed to the Prophet (s) like this, it was inspired to him or recited to him. He wasn't handed sheets of paper by the Angel Gabriel and told to pass them on to his community as Qur'anic revelation. In the same way, the extra-Qur'anic revelation was inspiration sent down to him.

On a theological point, it's worth noting that there's a huge difference between Allah allowing a particular act to be carried out and Him ascribing that act directly to Himself. Based on your logic it would be quite in order to say, when someone sins and performs evil acts, for instance, that Allah performed these actions. Rather, Allah created the ability for us to choose and perform such actions, He does not do or perform them Himself.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
**Thus, the decision to change the Qiblah may very well have been a decision made by the Rasul (which means God appointed it to happen)...*
[/quote]

If the Prophet (s) made the choice of his own volition without any direct Qur'anic instruction then this proves his extra-Qur'anic authority. If he was directly instructed by Allah to face the Jerusalem Qibla then this must have been through the extra-Qur'anic communication that i've already referred to.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
**Corrupt Angel provided a GREAT explanation up there - using Quranic ayahs by the way. These ayah directly and CLEARLY contradict any extra-Quranic source of info coming to the Rasul. If you want to argue against what the Quran says, then go for it. You have been given the right to choose. So choose.*
[/QUOTE]

I have already replied to that post.

Iqbal

54

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
**Furthermore, if the argument FOR an extra-Quranic authority were legitimate, you'd see this as a wide-spread belief among muslim scholars. You DONT see that. So are you telling me that the majority of muslim scholars do not have a valid argument when they argue against the issue?*
[/QUOTE]

In fact, the extra-Qur'anic view is the majority view, it has always been the case through countless centuries of Islamic history. And i can assure you that the majority of Muslim scholars certainly do not argue against the extra-Qur'anic issue. Perhaps the reason for you saying this is because you haven't actually understood what is meant by the term extra-Qur'anic? It does not mean, for example, that the Prophet (s) kept teachings secret, or that he made things up or deliberately negated or unilaterally added to whatever Allah had revealed to him or any other such absurd suggestion. Extra-Qur'anic means that the Prophet (s) received revelation from Allah Almighty outside of the pages of the Qur'an. This revelation is authoritative - obviously, since it was from Allah - and is embodied in the Prophet's (s) Sunnah through which he explained the Qur'an etc. etc.

The view I have given is the general view held for well over a thousand years by the massive majority of Muslims and, more specifically, their scholars. In contrast, groups like the "No-hadithers" that reject any notion of an extra-Qur'anic revelation are a modern invention, represented by a minority that has broken away from the main body of Muslims. It is worth pondering on whether this religion is not being undermined from within by people - although i don't doubt their sincerity - who call for Muslims to discard the Prophet's (s) role as the explainer of the Qur'an. As though modern day hadith rejecters know the Qur'an better than he did. Naturally, it's not an easy task to challenge over a thousand year's of Islamic orthodoxy.

Iqbal

55

Iqbal, I totally understand your points - they're pretty good.

However, one thing still doesn't make sense...the Prophet made sure that the Quranic ayahs were recorded down (he couldn't write, so he had someone else write them down), but then why did he not write the info from the "extra-Quranic source" down also?

After all, you have to admit, historically many hadith were fooled with and even now no Muslim is 100 percent sure that every hadith is 100 percent correct. Also, the hadith were narrarated by others, which led to some things being deliberately changed, and inevitably human bias also factors in. So why didn't the Prophet make sure that the info he got from God beyond the Quran was also written down and accurately preserved?

And why did God not promise protection of this other information? Why only the Quran? Does this mean that the Quran has precedence or more importance than the "other info", or am I digging in too deep?

56

PyariCgudia, thank you for your kind words. You have raised some very important and valid questions that deserve a full answer. In opening this thread, i had aimed to discuss and prove that extra-Qur'anic revelation was given to the Prophet (s). I resisted the temptation to discuss hadith and Sunnah at an early stage because without establishing the reality of extra-Qur'anic revelation any discussion on hadith is premature and somewhat pointless.

Once extra-Qur'anic revelation can be established, the next logical step is to look at whether any of that extra-Qur'anic revelation was actually preserved and in fact whether there was ever any guarantee from Allah Himself that He would safeguard it. This is where your last set of questions becomes relevant.

However, i have in the last day or so replied to some of the recent objections raised against the evidence i presented. Before moving the discussion on to the next stage i hope you'll allow a little more time for this part of the discussion to be exhausted (or at the least, let's continue it for another couple of days and see where we get. If there are no substantial additions, i'll reply to your queries over the weekend, if Allah wills).

Does that sound ok? Thanks in advance.

Iqbal

57

salaam to all,

i will take a different approach to show that there was no other revelation besides the QURAN to the Prophet. Here are some verses to substantiate this............

**002.023*
YUSUFALI: And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce *a Sura **like thereunto; and call your witnesses or
helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true.
PICKTHAL: And if ye are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto Our slave (Muhammad), then produce a surah of the like thereof, and call your witness
beside Allah if ye are truthful.
SHAKIR: And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you
are truthful.
KHALIFA: If you have any doubt regarding what we revealed to our servant, then produce one sura like these, and call upon your own witnesses against GOD, if
you are truthful.

filhaal:
Here we notice that as a challenge to WHAT ALLAH REVEALS to the prophet(saw), the people are told to bring or produce a SURAH.
if there were other revelation besides the surahs of the quran then this challenge by GOD would not make sense............as far as i know these so-called extra-quranic revelations are not composed of surahs......
GOD is specifically asking to produce a SURAH as a challange to what GOD has revealed........

furthermore,

**047.020*
YUSUFALI: Those who believe say, "Why is not a sura sent down (for us)?" But when a sura of basic or categorical meaning is revealed, and fighting is mentioned
therein, thou wilt see those in whose hearts is a disease looking at thee with a look of one in swoon at the approach of death. But more fitting for them-
PICKTHAL: And those who believe say: If only a surah were revealed! But when a decisive surah is revealed and war is mentioned therein, thou seest those in
whose hearts is a disease looking at thee with the look of men fainting unto death. Therefor woe unto them!
SHAKIR: And those who believe say: Why has not a chapter been revealed? But when a decisive chapter is revealed, and fighting is mentioned therein you see
those in whose hearts is a disease look to you with the look of one fainting because of death. Woe to them then!
KHALIFA: Those who believed said: "When will a new sura be revealed?" But when a straightforward sura was revealed, wherein fighting was mentioned, you
would see those who harbored doubts in their hearts looking at you, as if death had already come to them. They were thus exposed. *

filhaal:
the believers also used to wait for new revelations to the prophet.......if there were extra-quranic revelations then why would the believers specifically ask for a SURAH?? why would the believers not ask for any revelation?? (because the only revelation received by the prophet (saw) was actually the QURAN.......)

even the hypocrites used to wait for revelations.......

009.064 **
YUSUFALI: The Hypocrites are afraid lest *a Sura should be sent down * about them, showing them what is (really passing) in their hearts. Say: "Mock ye! But verily
Allah will bring to light all that ye fear (should be revealed).
PICKTHAL: The hypocrites fear lest a surah should be revealed concerning them, proclaiming what is in their hearts. Say: Scoff (your fill)! Lo! Allah is disclosing
what ye fear.
SHAKIR: The hypocrites fear lest a chapter should be sent down to them telling them plainly of what is in their hearts. Say: Go on mocking, surely Allah will bring
forth what you fear.
KHALIFA: The hypocrites worry that a sura may be revealed exposing what is inside their hearts. Say, "Go ahead and mock. GOD will expose exactly what you
are afraid of." *

filhaal:
the hypocrites here are specifically referring to SURAH which will expose them..........again if the prophet (saw) was receiving extra-quranic revelation then they would have been afraid of any revelation and not specifically a SURAH from the QURAN..........

[QUOTE]

However, one thing still doesn't make sense...the Prophet made sure that the Quranic ayahs were
recorded down (he couldn't write, so he had someone else write them down), but then why did he not
write the info from the "extra-Quranic source" down also?
[/QUOTE]

filhaal:
this is a very good point, PCG........
BTW how did the prophet differentiate to know whether a revelation should be in the quran or not?????

[QUOTE]

                          And why did God not promise protection of this other information? Why only the Quran? Does this mean
                          that the Quran has precedence or more importance than the "other info", or am I digging in too deep

[/QUOTE]

again a very good point..........:)

[QUOTE]

In fact, *the extra-Qur'anic view is the majority view *, it has always been the case through countless
centuries of Islamic history. And i can assure you that the majority of Muslim scholars certainly do not
argue against the extra-Qur'anic issue. Perhaps the reason for you saying this is because you haven't
actually understood what is meant by the term extra-Qur'anic?
[/QUOTE]

filhaal:
dear Iqbal,
the majority argument is just a non-argument...........if i tell you that millions of christians for the last 2000 years have been following the trinity-doctrine would you also start believing this......................???

here i have a hadith for you that does not agree with the majority argument:

*Volume 4, Book 52, Number 283: 

 Narrated Abu Juhaifa: 

 I asked Ali, "Do you have the knowledge of **any Divine Inspiration besides what is in Allah's Book**?" 'Ali replied, "**No**, by Him Who splits the grain of
 corn and creates the soul. **I don't think we have such knowledge**, but we have the ability of understanding which Allah may endow a person with, so that he may understand the Qur'an, and we have what is written in this paper as well." I asked, "What is written in this paper?" He replied, "(The
 regulations of) blood-money, the freeing of captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel."

*

filhaal:
of course, you will have a lot these hadith that conform extra-quranic revelation, but this hadith from Bukhari (the most AUTHENTIC collection)
does not agree!!!!!!!!!seems like Hz ALi also does not agree with your majority of scholars.......

filhaal, itna kafi hai...............

58

If there’s one thing i’ve learnt from this thread it is that there doesn’t appear to be a consistent and coherent response to the extra-Qur’anic argument. Which is why, despite attempting to discredit it from various angles, the objections always fall short. Your reply, filhaal, is yet another “different approach” (as you put it).

The challenge would still make perfect sense. Even those who agree that the Prophet (s) received extra-Qur’anic revelation accede to the fact that in one sense that extra-Qur’anic revelation is inferior to the Qur’an and that is from the point of view of linguistic eloquence and grammatical superiority. The Qur’an represents the verbatim words of Allah, unmatched and unparalleled. Extra-Qur’anic revelation, whilst still from Allah, was expressed and enacted by the Prophet (s) using his own terms and actions to convey what Allah had intended. In this sense, the challenge being restricted to the Qur’anic verses is absolutely correct.

This is not absolute. There are examples, as has been shown in earlier posts, where the believers did not insist on a Surah. For example, Qur’an 2:143 - the main verse under discussion - where the believers satisfied themselves with a directive from the Prophet (s) without needing to see a Surah to back it up. Also, verse 66:3 (see above) where the Prophet (s) explained to one of his wives that Allah had given him the news of her disclosing a secret matter. There is no hint whatsoever that his wife wanted to see a Surah to confirm that it had in fact been Allah who informed the Prophet (s) of this. And even if she had asked for it, we know that the verse doesn’t exist. If a verse had been necessary to confirm the truthfulness of what the Prophet (s) had said in front of his wife and that his claim about receiving the news directly from Allah had needed Qur’anic support then Allah would have revealed it to aid His Prophet (s). The fact that Allah didn’t proves that the extra-Qur’anic communication was sufficient. So the verse you have cited doesn’t negate the fact that extra-Qur’anic revelation, not backed up by a Surah, was also accepted by the Muslims. Consequently, your example, whilst it appears to be half right, is also in fact half wrong.

The community of believers were happy to receive extra-Qur’anic revelation through the Prophet (s), so we shouldn’t worry too much if the hypocrites contradict this.

Could it be that Allah told him? Is that too far-fetched? On a similar note, how did the Prophet (s) know where each Surah and verse of the Qur’an was to be placed and in what order? There’s nothing in the Qur’an itself telling us how the Qur’an should be arranged. How did the Prophet (s) know what to do here - any answers?

I presented it as a historical fact in response to PyariCgudia’s comment that the extra-Qur’anic view was not a “wide-spread belief among muslim scholars”.

This is an interesting idea, using a hadith (an extra-Qur’anic source) to show that extra-Qur’anic sources are not valid. Not only that, but also insisting that the hadith is from “the most AUTHENTIC collection”. Why do i get the impression that you aren’t so readily prepared to accept other “authentic” hadith that refute your understanding? This is despite the fact that this very hadith actually supports extra-Qur’anic revelation to some extent since Ali (r) produced a paper that contained the very extra-Qur’anic inspiration that you believe this hadith negates.

Just as considering Qur’anic verses in isolation can be misleading, so is the case with hadith. The important point here is that Sufyan ibn Uyaynah in his reporting of this hadith (see Bukhari 9:50), mentions that what Ali (r) was actually being asked was whether he had received any revelation from the Prophet (s) to the exclusion of the rest of the people in general (Ibn Uyaynah expressly mentioned: “Apart from what the people have?”). If you look at the hadith in Arabic, you’ll see that Ali (r) is being addressed in the plural, and it is understood from this that Abu Juhaifa, the questioner, was enquiring not just about Ali (r) but also about the Ahlul-Bayt (People of the Prophet’s [s] Household) as a whole. This is because certain people were under the impression that the Prophet (s) had given aspects of the revelation exclusively to Ahlul-Bayt and kept it hidden from everyone else. Ali (r) categorically denied this, saying that if there was anything that he had which other people might not have it was just what was written on the paper that he produced.

So this hadith doesn’t at all negate the extra-Qur’anic argument. If anything, it supports it.

Similarly, in Sahih Muslim (#4877) we see Ali (r) again denying that he had been given any secret information by the Prophet (s). Abu Tufail relates: “We said to Ali ibn Abi Talib: ‘Inform us about something which Allah’s Messenger (s) told you in secret, whereupon he said: He told me nothing in secret which he hid from people, but I heard him say: Allah cursed him who sacrificed for anyone besides Allah; and cursed him who accommodated an innovator; and Allah cursed him who cursed his parents and Allah cursed him who changed the boundary lines (of the land possessed by him).’”

Bukhari’s hadith which you cited is also recorded in his Sahih at 1:111 where he mentions reports confirming that the Prophet (s) allowed his hadith to be written down.

And Allah is the One Who grants success.

Iqbal

59

Actually, it would not support it or support it. It doesn't confirm an extra-Quranic revelation, because the hadith implies that all knowledge that was revealed was known to the public and nothing was kept from the public.

If this is true, then obviously these revelations were recorded somewhere. Note, that the question is about hidden "revelations", not "hidden advice" that the Prophet made up himself. Thus, this revelation was the Quran. The hadith at this time were not written down and recorded (correct me if i'm wrong), so the hadith cannot be claimed to be "revelations", because you'd think anything deemed a "revelation" was written down right away.

Seriously, if you got a revelation from God, would you not write it down right away?

to Iqbal - dont worry, I'll wait for you to give me answers to my questions.

I have another Question: Don't ya think that the Prophet woud have told the people that if he gave out advice, that the answers he was giving was according to what God told him to say...? Also, remember, when someone would ask him for advice in the Hadith, they'd get a reply immediately. There is no reference to the Rasul saying "Come back in a day or two...I'll find out when God sends down the next shipment of revelations". He gives them immediate answers, which tells you that much of the advice he gave out was his own wisdom. And remember the Qisaa of God filling the Prophet's heart with "nur". This is also important, because theoretically the Prophet would make the "right and good" decisions and advice. So you see, there was no need for communication outside to what you see in the Quran, since God had already purified the Rasul to be the best of mankind.

Also, these recently posted ayahs, and hadith's still dont answer the question..."what was the reason for keeping this extra-Quranic revelation separate from Quranic revelation?"

60

salaam,

[QUOTE]

If there's one thing i've learnt from this thread it is that there doesn't appear to be a consistent and
coherent response to the extra-Qur'anic argument. Which is why, despite attempting to discredit it
from various angles, the objections always fall short. Your reply, filhaal, is yet another "different
approach" (as you put it).
[/QUOTE]

filhaal:
the reason why there is confusion is because as i said earlier you are confusing the four term:
1. extra-Qur'anic command
2. extra-Qur'anic authority
3. extra-Qur'anic sources
4. extra-quranic revelation.......

the only thing you want to achieve is, i think, that there was something extra-quranic (what?) and then you will start defending the hadith as THAT something extra-quranic...........
first you have to understand the difference between these terms!!

you started your discussion about EXTRA_QURANIC REVELATION, so for the time being we will stick to that......

*
047.020
YUSUFALI: Those who believe say, "Why is not a sura sent down (for us)?" But when a sura of basic
or categorical meaning is revealed, and fighting is mentioned
therein, thou wilt see those in whose hearts is a disease looking at thee with a look of one in swoon at
the approach of death. But more fitting for them-

009.064
YUSUFALI: The Hypocrites are afraid lest a Sura should be sent down about them, showing them
what is (really passing) in their hearts. Say: "Mock ye! But verily
Allah will bring to light all that ye fear (should be revealed). *

filhaal:
BOTH the believers and the hypocrites waited for revelations specifically contained in surahs.......
the ayat on the hypocrites is very essential here (you seem to brush this point aside very easily.....): if the prophet (saw) was receiving other revelations as well, then the people would have been afraid of these revelations as well which could expose them, bUT THEY ARE ONLY AFRAID OF SPECIFIC (AYAT CONTAINED IN) SURAH WHICH WILL EXPOSE THEM............note that even if they were hypocrites they felt that these surahs were something special (from GOD!!)

*
66:3 When the Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his consorts and she then divulged it (to another) and Allah made it known to him he confirmed part thereof and repudiated a part. Then when he told her thereof she said "Who told thee this?" He said "He told me who knows and is well-acquainted (with all things)." *

filhaal:
'allah made it know' does not explicitly mean that ALLAH talked to the prophet!!
If I tell you that whatever I have achieved in my life sofar is because Allah made it happen, or I have succeeded in all my exams because *Allah GAVE ME THIS KNOWLEDGE *...............see i am attributing something to Allah, BUT YOU WILL CERTAINLY AGREE THAT IT WAS NOT A DIVINE REVELATION, although i might be inspired....as everyone or everything is inspired in life by GOD...........

again, in the above mentioned ayat there doesnot need to be any indication that there was DIVINE revelation involved..........The Prophet (saw) could have spoken to the person to whom his wife had said the secret, or the prophet could have noticed something in her behaviour.........

[QUOTE]

This is an interesting idea, using a hadith (an extra-Qur'anic source) to show that extra-Qur'anic
sources are not valid. Not only that, but also insisting that the hadith is from "the most AUTHENTIC
collection". Why do i get the impression that you aren't so readily prepared to accept other "authentic"
hadith that refute your understanding? This is despite the fact that this very hadith actually supports
*extra-Qur'anic revelation *to some extent since Ali (r) produced a paper that contained the very
extra-Qur'anic inspiration that you believe this hadith negates.
[/QUOTE]

filhaal:
did i say that extra-quranic sources are not allowed?? i certainly donot remember saying that..........see you are confusing the four concepts!!!!!!!we will come to the extra-quranic SOURCES later, but first extra-quranic REVELATION!!

i showed you this hadith because you seem to believe in them as if these hadith were the extra-quranic REVELATIONS you are searching.....and they contradict your claim........hence, also a contra-diction within different hadith!!

look at the part i made bold in your statement........just because Hz Ali showed a piece of paper does NOT SHOW THAT IT WAS EXTRA_QURANIC revelation, this paper contained some information said by the prophet (saw)......but it was certainly not REVELATION!!.........come on!! again a confusion between A extra-quranic SOURCE and REVELATION (remember we were talking about revelation.....!!)
also, the question in the hadith to hz. Ali is crystal clear "Do you have the knowledge of any Divine Inspiration besides what is in
Allah's Book?"

Or are you suggesting that ANYTHING from the prophet (saw) is REVELATION??
and oh BTW who is part of the Ahlul-Bayt??