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

Society Religion & Philosophy
61

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Iqbal1089: *

**To give a few examples, the Qur'an doesn't give us the names of all the many Prophets and Messengers sent to mankind; it doesn't tell us the year in which revelation first came to Prophet Muhammad (s); it doesn't tell us why a jinn, Iblis, was up there with the angels when he was commanded to bow to Adam (as); nor who Dhul-Qurnain was, and so on. So in this sense the Qur'an has not "explained everything clearly" **
[/quote]

Do we need all this information? And if we do, we should also need pictures of all the messengers(just like Christians have Jesus's picture), no? Allah named all believers with the word “Submitters/Muslims” meaning “those who have submitted to the will of God” (22:78). Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus and their followers were all described with the same word, “Submitters/Muslims” (10:72; 2:128; 10:84; 27:31; 5:111; 72:14).

Iblis is mentioned in the Quran. Please read these verses:

**015.028*
"So when I have made him complete and breathed into him of My spirit, fall down making obeisance to him."

015.030
"So the angels made obeisance, all of them together."

015.031
"But Iblis (did it not); he refused to be with those who made obeisance."

015.032
"He said: O Iblis! what excuse have you that you are not with those who make obeisance?"

015.033
"He said: I am not such that I should make obeisance to a mortal whom Thou hast created of the essence of black mud fashioned in shape."

015.034
"He said: Then get out of it, for surely you are driven away."*

The Quran was not revealed to just know about the "history" of Islam but a "Guidance" to live life of a Muslim, that's the most important part of it, the things that were really important for us to know are in Quran. Everyone whom we should know are mentioned in Quran. If ALL these kinds of information were recorded in Quran, people would get tired of reading it.

[QUOTE]
And we shouldn't expect it to do so. If you still insist that the Qur'an does indeed explain "everything" then kindly refer me to some clear verses that provide answers to the examples i've given.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, I did...

[QUOTE]
Also, more than one scripture in the Qur'an is described as being an "explanation for everything". Based on your understanding, this would necessitate that all these scriptures be the same since if two books explain "everything" they must of a necessity contain the same information. So do you accept that the Qur'an, the Torah and the Tablets are exactly the same? If not, why not? Also, are you able to categorically state that when the term "kuli shay" (everything) is used in the Qur'an that it is always used in an unrestricted, all inclusive sense?
[/QUOTE]

Quran, Torah and Injeel are not the same anymore. Jews and Christians have corrupted these two books that's why we can't say that they're same. Allah said, HE will protect the Holy Qur'an, I don't know about these other two...I'll look up for them in Qur'an...I believe there is more information about Torah and Injeel in Quran...I'll show them to you later...(sorry, I'm busy these days).

[quote]
... you've defeated your own argument."
[/QUOTE]

I'm not arguing with you to win the arguement...Please don't take me wrong and please don't argue for sake of just winning the argument!

[quote]
**

No one is suggesting that the Prophet (s) acted outside of the boundaries of Allah's Revelation**
[/quote]

That's it! you got it, Prophet Mohammad(SAW) never acted out of boundaries of Allah's revelation which is QURAN and ONLY Quran!

[quote]
or that he legislated for the Muslim community without Allah commanding him to do so. All of the Prophet's (s) religious directives were inspired by Allah and in some cases, as i have tried to show, that revelation may have been "extra-Qur'anic". It doesn't mean that just because we don't always find in the Qur'an direct support for something that the Prophet (s) said or did that he (s) must have just made it up.
[/quote]

You're confused yourself and trying to confuse others! All the Allah's revelations to Mohammad were recorded infact I think they were all sent down in text themselves and that is why Gabriel(A.S) used to recite it to Mohammed(SAW) because the Prophet(pbuh) did not know how to read. Isn't it a proof that Quran is complete and all the revelations were recorded ?

Allah protects HIS words, if these extra "Quranic" revelations were hadiths we wouldn't be confused about which hadith is authentic and which one isn't!

I believe in hadiths which follow Quran. If the hadith states something that doesn't exist in Quran then it's not authentic, in other words, "someone [who is not Mohammad(SAW) ofcourse] made it up!"

No offense but you are "assuming" everything....You haven't shown "a" fact yet! Nothing from the Qur'an! You're repeating Qibla issue over and over. I answered that question long time ago. I told you to read verse 2:144 from Qur'an that will answer your question. Read it by yourself if you don't trust us. Please do.

**
[QUOTE]

This is a very loose translation of 17:36. You might want to look at this verse again... it doesn't say what you've made it say.**
[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry for quoting the wrong translation. Please let me know what you understood from this verse if you read the better or right translation...Don't quote the verse, tell me what you understood from it. Thanks

I have to go now. I'll come back later with other stuff from Qur'an. InshAllah!

Allah Hafiz.

62

Please also check out this website:

http://www.free-minds.org/murtaza.htm#Chapter%205

63

I think we're all running around in circles created by what we think the argument is. anyhow before we go on to further establish anything else.. lets just focus on whether or not there is a need for anything other than the Quran.

a fine example, from my point of view, is this thread and hundreds before this debating a single verse which can be interpreted a hundred ways. which only confirms my belief that the understanding the Prophet(SAWW) and his companions had of a single verse should be the only one held 'right', and all other interpretations should be discarded.

Please read the following verse, and tell me what you people (filhaal, ca, pcg) think:

Allâh has surely blessed the believers with His favor when He raised in their midst a Messenger from among themselves, who recites to them His verses and makes them pure and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom, while they were, earlier in open error. (3:164)

It does clearly state that the messenger did a lot more than just deliver a book and leave it for all to understand. If there weren't supposed to be anythign extra-quranic and everyone were left to interpret quran on their own, i doubt a singular system/society could be created, since everyone would have different interpretations.

whether the extra quranic literature is authentic or not, is a separate issue, and will only be dealt with after its need has been estabilished.

ps. the complete book tells us to follow the Prophet(saww), so if we follow the Prophet(saww)'s commands, in no way are we negating that the quran isn't complete :) i.e. the quran doesn't tell us how to do a lot of everyday thigns but it does point us to the fact that we should follow the Prophet(saww).

64

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
**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.*
[/quote]

A consideration of the hadith cited by filhaal shows that it was specifically about revelation that some people believed was secretly given to Ali (r) and the rest of Ahlul-Bayt to the exclusion of the public at large. Ali (r) categorically denied that. So there's no evidence here whatsoever that this hadith negates extra-Qur'anic revelation. However, it is still worth noting that the piece of paper that Ali (r) produced contained extra-Qur'anic guidance from the Prophet (s) as i explained in my previous reply.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
**If this is true, then obviously these revelations were recorded somewhere.*
[/quote]

Extra-Qur'anic revelation was recorded but we'll come to that later. First we need to exhaust the discussion on whether extra-Qur'anic revelation existed in the first place.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
**Seriously, if you got a revelation from God, would you not write it down right away?*
[/quote]

There's no requirement that it has to be written down "right away" or, indeed, that it has to be written down at all. The first revelation to the Prophet (s), Surah al-Alaq (96:1-5), was that written down right away?

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
**to Iqbal - dont worry, I'll wait for you to give me answers to my questions.*
[/quote]

Jazakullahu khair.

Iqbal

65

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by 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*
[/quote]

I have already addressed these points when you raised them earlier. Here's what i said at that time:

"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."

Whatever religious directives, commandments and authority the Prophet (s) expressed was based on revelation from Allah. Some of that revelation is Qur'anic (i.e. contained in the Qur'an) whilst the rest is extra-Qur'anic, communicated to the Prophet (s) outside of the Qur'an. All of it is revelation from Allah.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by filhaal: *
**you started your discussion about EXTRA_QURANIC REVELATION, so for the time being we will stick to that.*
[/quote]

I've always tried to stick to that, despite accusations of being confused.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by 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!!)*
[/quote]

This is all very well, but as i've shown, there were occasions when the believers were content to act based solely on extra-Qur'anic guidance from the Prophet (s). They didn't ask for a Surah when the first Qiblah was established, for example. So your argument here is not absolute.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by 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...........**
[/quote]

Yes, but you aren't a Prophet or Messenger of Allah - are you? It is a completely different scenario when a Prophet or Messenger of Allah says that Allah has informed him of something or where Allah Himself says that He has informed His Prophet.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by filhaal: *
**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]

Brilliant! So when the Prophet (s) said: "The All-Knower, the All-Aware has told me (naba'ni)" he didn't really mean that, he meant something else entirely. When Allah says in the same verse that He is the one who made it known - "Allah made it known" - we shouldn't take these words at face value either! If you think about it, your interpretation is not only reckless it is down right dangerous. What your words imply, whether you realise it or not, is that when the Prophet (s) says that Allah has told him something it doesn't necessarily mean that at all; it could be that someone else in fact told him. Anyone who thinks like this needs to ready himself for a big let down.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by filhaal: *
**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!!*
[/quote]

There is no contradiction nor any evidence for you in the hadith you cited for the simple reason that the hadith doesn't at all mean what you thought it meant as i've already explained in full.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by filhaal: *
**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.....!!)*
[/quote]

Firstly, you say that the piece of paper "contained some information said by the prophet". Now tell me, where did the Prophet (s) get that information from, did he just make it up? On what authority did the Prophet (s) give these extra-Qur'anic religious directives to Ali (r)?

Secondly, you seem to insist that what was contained on the paper was not extra-Qur'anic revelation. At the start of the hadith Ali (r) was asked whether he was aware of any divine revelation other than Allah's Book. Ali (r) replied by saying that he wasn't but he made a clear exception for what was written on the piece of paper. In other words, the piece of paper itself contained revelation.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by filhaal: *
**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?"*
[/quote]

Yes, but he made an exception for what was written on the piece of paper. This is despite the fact that you have misunderstood the import of this entire hadith as i clarified in my first earlier response.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by filhaal: *
**Or are you suggesting that ANYTHING from the prophet (saw) is REVELATION??*
[/quote]

All religious directives from the Prophet (s) are based on revelation, irrespective of whether that directive is found in the Qur'an or elsewhere.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by filhaal: *
**and oh BTW who is part of the Ahlul-Bayt??*
[/quote]

I don't see the relevance of this to the present discussion.

Wassalam
Iqbal

66

Okay, suppose there is extra-Quranic revelation that you say is in Hadiths…THEN tell me how do you confirm which hadith is authentic and which one isn’t authentic? How do you prove the authentic or unauthentic?:confused:

You’re telling us that Quran is COMPLETE and on the other hand, you’re saying that there is a part of Allah’s revelation which wasn’t recorded in the Quran…HOW CONFUSING!!..Please make up your mind first! Tell us whether you think Quran is complete or not…Somewhere in this thread, you also said that Prophet(SAW) didn’t record the whole Quran. What do you mean by that?:confused:

67

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ammarr: *
I think we're all running around in circles created by what we think the argument is. anyhow before we go on to further establish anything else.. lets just focus on whether or not there is a need for anything other than the Quran.
[/quote]

Yes, some of us really do need extra-"explanation" of Quran but extra-Quranic does not exist.

[quote]
a fine example, from my point of view, is this thread and hundreds before this debating a single verse which can be interpreted a hundred ways. which only confirms my belief that the understanding the Prophet(SAWW) and his companions had of a single verse should be the only one held 'right', and all other interpretations should be discarded.
[/quote]

A single action or saying of Mohammed(SAW) CAN also be interpreted a hundred ways since our Prophet(pbuh) also didn't speak language other than Arabic.:)

But there's a difference between understanding a verse and understanding a saying of Mohammed(SAW), that is, HIS sayings have been edited and subtracted by people. Quran is the same as it was thousands of years ago. The translations of Quran are not confusing for most of us. The only problem we have is most people don't try to understand Quran, they look for other sources besides Quran.

[quote]
Please read the following verse, and tell me what you people (filhaal, ca, pcg) think:

Allâh has surely blessed the believers with His favor when He raised in their midst a Messenger from among themselves, who recites to them His verses and makes them pure and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom, while they were, earlier in open error. (3:164)
[/quote]

The prophet(pbuh) is an exmaple of Quran. Everything he did was according to Quran. He isn't among us anymore but He left us the Book which is from where He used to recite to and teach the believers. Mohammed(SAW)'s job was only to deliver the message of Allah. Please read the verses I posted on the first page of this thread and tell me what you think about them!

[quote]
It does clearly state that the messenger did a lot more than just deliver a book and leave it for all to understand. If there weren't supposed to be anythign extra-quranic and everyone were left to interpret quran on their own, i doubt a singular system/society could be created, since everyone would have different interpretations.
[/quote]

We're not translating the Quran ourselves or are we?

[quote]
whether the extra quranic literature is authentic or not, is a separate issue, and will only be dealt with after its need has been estabilished.

ps. the complete book tells us to follow the Prophet(saww), so if we follow the Prophet(saww)'s commands, in no way are we negating that the quran isn't complete :) i.e. the quran doesn't tell us how to do a lot of everyday thigns but it does point us to the fact that we should follow the Prophet(saww).
[/QUOTE]

If we were given rules on how to do certain things(Described in details) in everyday life then Islam would be the hardest religion, don't you think?

By the way, if you don't think there's any difference between following the Messenger and following the hadiths then it will be useless to argue with you about this issue.

68

Watch this space!

Here’s what i’ve previously said in one of my earlier posts: “The ‘completeness’ of the Qur’an includes the fact that it refers to specific sources outside of itself from which man can obtain information and understanding, such as the Prophet’s (s) example/Sunnah.” So as you can see, my mind has been made up all along.

Please don’t misquote me. If you actually think i said this, then cite my exact words.

Iqbal

69

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by CurruptAngel: *
**Do we need all this information? And if we do, we should also need pictures of all the messengers(just like Christians have Jesus's picture), no?*
[/quote]

The point is that since we aren't able to answer these questions from the Qur'an itself then the Qur'an is not an explanation of "everything", therefore, the word "everything" has to be understood in a restricted sense. See below for more elaboration on this.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by CurruptAngel: *
**Iblis is mentioned in the Quran. Please read these verses...*
[/quote]

Yes, i'm aware that he is mentioned in the Qur'an. But that's not the question i asked. Here's my actual question: "It doesn't tell us WHY a jinn, Iblis, was up there with the angels when he was commanded to bow to Adam (as)" (emphasis added). The verses you cited don't answer this.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by CurruptAngel: *
**The Quran was not revealed to just know about the "history" of Islam but a "Guidance" to live life of a Muslim, that's the most important part of it, the things that were really important for us to know are in Quran. Everyone whom we should know are mentioned in Quran. If ALL these kinds of information were recorded in Quran, people would get tired of reading it.*
[/quote]

This is all well and good but like filhaal before you you have already begun to restrict the meaning of "the Qur'an explains everything" argument. After citing verse after verse in bold and capitalised text to support your view that the Qur'an explains "everything" (and let me remind you that "everything" means just that, absolutely everything) you have now changed your tune completely and are now arguing for the fact that actually the Qur'an doesn't explaining everything as you would first have us believe, it doesn't, for example, give us certain details of how to live our every day lives. That, my friend, is not the same as saying the Qur'an explains "everything".

So you've proven my point, there are certain details not included in the Qur'an itself. And like i said before to filhaal, once you begin to accept restrictions to the meaning of "everything" then you need to ready yourself to accept other restrictions as well. Your view is that those details are unnecessary. My view is that in many cases we need those details not only to understand the Qur'an better but to also carry out some of the religious directives that the Qur'an asks of us. And i'm not saying that Allah somehow forgot to include those necessary details, rather He in the Qur'an itself directed us to the life and example of the Prophet (s) for that detail.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by CurruptAngel: *
**Quran, Torah and Injeel are not the same anymore. Jews and Christians have corrupted these two books that's why we can't say that they're same. *
[/quote]

I think you've missed the point here. I'm not talking about whether these Books (incidentally, i didn't mention the Injeel at all) are the same after some of them have been changed, of course they wouldn't be the same. The Qur'an describes the Torah and the Tablets given to Prophet Musa (as) as "explaining all things". So you haven't yet addressed this point, but what you have done instead is to move the goal posts and have now come back and indicated that "everything" doesn't actually mean "everything".

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by CurruptAngel: *
**That's it! you got it, Prophet Mohammad(SAW) never acted out of boundaries of Allah's revelation which is QURAN and ONLY Quran! *
[/quote]

Because the Qur'an points to the example/Sunnah of the Prophet (s) and sanctioned him to legislate even if there was no Qur'anic verse that directly supported his legislation, such as the appointment of the first Qibla which the Muslim community was happy to accept based solely on a directive from the Prophet (s) without a Qur'anic verse backing him up. All of the Prophet's (s) religious directives were inspired by Allah and in some cases, as i have tried to show, that revelation may have been extra-Qur'anic.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by CurruptAngel: *
**All the Allah's revelations to Mohammad were recorded infact I think they were all sent down in text themselves and that is why Gabriel(A.S) used to recite it to Mohammed(SAW) because the Prophet(pbuh) did not know how to read.*
[/quote]

They were "all sent down in text themselves"? Please explain.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by CurruptAngel: *
**Allah protects HIS words, if these extra "Quranic" revelations were hadiths we wouldn't be confused about which hadith is authentic and which one isn't!*
[/quote]

There's no real confusion. There's a very precise science that deals with Prophetic hadith. Also, the preservation of the Prophet's (s) sayings and actions (Sunnah) is necessary for the true preservation of the Qur'an itself since it was the Prophet's (s) role to explain the Qur'an. If we don't have his explanation of the Qur'an, then the Qur'an has not been preserved, since the preservation of the Qur'an without its explanation is meaningless.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by CurruptAngel: *
**I believe in hadiths which follow Quran. If the hadith states something that doesn't exist in Quran then it's not authentic, in other words, "someone [who is not Mohammad(SAW) ofcourse] made it up!"*
[/quote]

Since all of the Prophet's (s) religious directives were based on revelation from Allah, there can be no contradiction between an "authentic" hadith and the Qur'an. The contradiction is merely in our understanding.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by CurruptAngel: *
**No offense but you are "assuming" everything....You haven't shown "a" fact yet! Nothing from the Qur'an!*
[/quote]

No offence taken. Here are some facts:

FACT: Allah says that He had appointed the first Qibla (see 2:1143)
FACT: No verse is found in the Qur'an appointing the first Qiblah
FACT: Allah's appointment of the Qibla must have been communicated to the Prophet (s) outside of the Qur'an

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by CurruptAngel: *
**You're repeating Qibla issue over and over. I answered that question long time ago. I told you to read verse 2:144 from Qur'an that will answer your question. Read it by yourself if you don't trust us. Please do.*
[/quote]

All you did was post verse 2:144, highlight some of the text and then assume everyone knew what you meant. There's no answer there at all. If there is, perhaps you'd care to elaborate.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by CurruptAngel: *
**I'm sorry for quoting the wrong translation. Please let me know what you understood from this verse if you read the better or right translation...Don't quote the verse, tell me what you understood from it.*
[/quote]

The verse refers to not following things about which we have no knowledge. And that our hearing, sight and heart will be questioned by Allah.

And Allah knows best.

Wassalam
Iqbal

70

I notice that as far as hadith is concerned, this link refers to the findings of the likes of Ignaz Goldziher and Joseph Schacht. Their arguments are decidedly weak and have met with suitable refutations.

Iqbal

71

It's interesting to see that in order to prove the supposed authenticity or even the need for hadith literature people have to go to such lengths.

If 'extra Qur'anic communications' were indeed a reality, some wouldn't have had to rely on convluted theories on just one verse in the Qur'an to prove it.. Allah could have outrightly said many places with repeated reminders that there will be other communications from time to time told to the messenger, compiled outside the Qur'an which we should follow.

Iqbal's assumption that the Qiblah was 'changed' the first time (he conveniently assumes it as Jerusalem, when in fact Masjid-e-Aqsa was constructed after the Qur'an was revealed and even borrows it's name from the Qur'an). relies on extra Qur'anic information to interpret/understand the verse.

Secondly, the verse is read in the context of a direction of prayer; interesting as NOWHERE in these verses is salat, or prayer mentioned!! We have come to associate Qibla with a direction to pray through extra Qur'anic information, not through the verses.

Thirdly, "We have made" or "ja'lna" has been used various places in the Qur'an and doesn't necessary imply a direct commandment or communication, but just becasue Allah is all powerful and all encompassing that everything and act falls under his ownership.

Fourth, the compilation of the Qur'an is such that various verses come one after the other and yet discuss differnt timeframes.... hence unless joined specifically it doesn't necessarily mean that the actual sequence of events within the timeline being discussed follows from the sequence or placement of the verse in the Qur'an.

72

salaam to all,

[QUOTE]

A consideration of the hadith cited by filhaal shows that it was specifically about revelation that some
people believed was secretly given to Ali (r) and the rest of Ahlul-Bayt to the exclusion of the public at
large. Ali (r) categorically denied that. So there's no evidence here whatsoever that this hadith negates
extra-Qur'anic revelation. However, it is still worth noting that the piece of paper that Ali (r) produced
contained **extra-Qur'anic guidance **from the Prophet (s) as i explained in my previous reply.
[/QUOTE]

great Iqbal........you have added another term extra-quranic guidance (remember:1. extra-Qur'anic command 2. extra-Qur'anic authority 3. extra-Qur'anic sources 4. extra-quranic revelation)

of course the prophet was guiding the people with his words, deeds etc. (no one is denying that in this tread), but that does not mean that that piece of paper or any of his other words or deeds were extra-quranic REVELATION..........The prophet (saw) GUIDED people, not from a extra-Quranic source, he guided the people within the borders and limits and commands given and set by GOD in the QURAN.............The prophet did not have his own aganda besides that of GOD......

[QUOTE]

Brilliant! So when the Prophet (s) said: "The All-Knower, the All-Aware has told me (naba'ni)" he didn't
really mean that, he meant something else entirely. When Allah says in the same verse that He is the
one who made it known - "Allah made it known" - we shouldn't take these words at face value either! If
you think about it, your interpretation is not only reckless it is down right dangerous. What your words
imply, whether you realise it or not, is that when the Prophet (s) says that Allah has told him something
it doesn't necessarily mean that at all; it could be that someone else in fact told him. Anyone who
thinks like this needs to ready himself for a big let down.
[/QUOTE]

filhaal:
if GOD tells something to his prophet, it does not necesserily mean that GOD has to use his mouth, lungs and larynx to talk to his folks or prophets........this shows your limited understanding of the OMNIPOTENCE of GOD.........

i think you are the one making a dangerous interpretation............you want to show that there was extra-quranic revelation.........then you will claim that it is contained in the hadith......you just want to justify that which (hadith)in itself is a very weak sources in the first place..........

Have you noted that you are using the same argument that was and is used by the JEWS. they also could not understand or explain what was in the written Torah, so they also INVENTED this notion of extra-scripture revelation which was contained in their Talmud (, oral tradition; their hadith)......to justify many (man-made) laws and innovation for which there was otherwise no justification in the original scripture(s).......
so, you are helping the muslims a great deal in making the same mistakes as the JEWS made

[QUOTE]

Firstly, you say that the piece of paper "contained some information said by the prophet". Now tell me,
where did the Prophet (s) get that information from, did he just make it up? On what authority did the
Prophet (s) give these extra-Qur'anic religious directives to Ali (r)?
[/QUOTE]

filhaal:
when the prophet gave the directives he was handling within the limits and orders given by GOD in the quran...........it does not mean that every bit of info. was revelation........

[QUOTE]

There's no real confusion. There's a very precise science that deals with Prophetic hadith. Also, the
preservation of the Prophet's (s) sayings and actions (Sunnah) is necessary for the true preservation of
the Qur'an itself since it was the Prophet's (s) role to explain the Qur'an. If we don't have his
explanation of the Qur'an, then the Qur'an has not been preserved, since the preservation of the Qur'an
without its explanation is meaningless.
[/QUOTE]

filhaal:
precise science?? the hadith?? sounds like a contradiction in terms..........
GOD only promises the preservation of the QURAN, not any other appendix with comments collected 100-200 years after the prophet (saw) left........

73

Good to have you back PA, i thought you'd jumped ship. Nice timing though, putting fifty posts between this and the previous questions addressed to you. Never mind.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
**It's interesting to see that in order to prove the supposed authenticity or even the need for hadith literature people have to go to such lengths.*
[/quote]

Typified i dare say by your lengthy attempt at trying to prove the actions of the prayer in a 58 post thread. Does the term "pot calling the kettle black" mean anything?

Incidentally, in those posts you said: "Jinns had failed to establish peace on earth and control was wrenched away from them."

How do you know that?

You also said in the same series of threads: "Sectarians claim they offer Salat the same way the Prophet offered. Now imagine the Prophet sending blessings on himself!!!!!!!"

I usually find that the number of exclamation marks is directly proportional to the weakness of the argument. Do you have similar objections to Prophet 'Isa (as) sending salaams and confirming Allah's blessings on himself (Qur'an 19:31 & 33)? When the Prophet Muhammad (s) sent blessings on himself he was: (1) Teaching his community by example, and (2) Asking for Allah's blessings, not that he was blessing himself.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
**If 'extra Qur'anic communications' were indeed a reality, some wouldn't have had to rely on convluted theories on just one verse in the Qur'an to prove it.*
[/quote]

Exactly! It takes just one verse to substantiate the extra-Qur'anic argument (there are others, but 2:143 suffices). We've seen the hoops people are having to jump through to discredit it.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
**Allah could have outrightly said many places with repeated reminders that there will be other communications from time to time told to the messenger, compiled outside the Qur'an which we should follow.*
[/quote]

In more than one place in the Qur'an Allah points to the extra-Qur'anic revelation. Tell me, if we are obliged to obey the Prophet (s), how do we do that if we don't know what he said or did?

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
**Iqbal's assumption that the Qiblah was 'changed' the first time*
[/quote]

Not "changed", rather "appointed".

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
*(he conveniently assumes it as Jerusalem, when in fact Masjid-e-Aqsa was constructed after the Qur'an was revealed and even borrows it's name from the Qur'an). relies on extra Qur'anic information to interpret/understand the verse.**
[/quote]

There are historians and there are revisionists. You, my friend, are a revisionist, wanting to rewrite history. This smacks of Mormonistic attempts at redefining the whole of Christianity. Oh, and by the way, whether the first Qibla was in Jerusalem or on the dark side of moon is irrelevant, the point is that Allah "appointed" it outside of the Qur'an as i've tried to show.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
**Secondly, the verse is read in the context of a direction of prayer; interesting as NOWHERE in these verses is salat, or prayer mentioned!! We have come to associate Qibla with a direction to pray through extra Qur'anic information, not through the verses.*
[/quote]

Again, this is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion. The first Qibla could have been appointed as the direction in which to fly kites, the point is that whatever it was intended for, the "appointment" was made outside of the Qur'an and the community of Muslims were satisfied with that despite there being no verse to support it.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
**Thirdly, "We have made" or "ja'lna" has been used various places in the Qur'an and doesn't necessary imply a direct commandment or communication, but just becasue Allah is all powerful and all encompassing that everything and act falls under his ownership.*
[/quote]

This argument has been addressed earlier, so there's no need to repeat it all here.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
**Fourth, the compilation of the Qur'an is such that various verses come one after the other and yet discuss differnt timeframes.... hence unless joined specifically it doesn't necessarily mean that the actual sequence of events within the timeline being discussed follows from the sequence or placement of the verse in the Qur'an.*
[/quote]

We are not dealing with more than one verse, just 2:143. The extra-Qur'anic appointment of the first Qibla is substantiated through that verse alone.

Iqbal

74

Ok, right now I'm at my dorm, and I dont have a translation with me of the Quran (I'm hesitant to find on online). But can someone show me the verses that came before and after this one. Try cutting and pasting an entire section, or a link to one:

*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)." *

I'll tell ya why right now. I was discussing the matter with a friend who is more knowledgable than me on the topic. She remembered this verse and told me of the accepted story behind it.

Apparently, the Rasul was somewhere, perhaps in a battle area, and was wrapping up to go home or somewhere else, and bibi Ayesha was with him. Ayesha, remembered she forgot something and left the troop to go back and get it. IN the confusion, the Prophet's caravan left her behind. A general or someone important was there and found her, so he escorted her to wherever the Rasul's destination was. The two of them were alone, and he was one of those type of men that wasn't related to her in any way (she could have married him, etc). So rumours started flying (just like they do now), and the Prophet was kinda uncertain whether to believe them or not, even though she insisted she was innocent, and "nothing" had happened.

So, the Prophet did an ishtikara, and thru the ishtikara he found out that she was indeed innocent. If you check out the verse, somewhere around this verse there is a statement like "she is innocent" or something to the effect.

I have yet to find out more info about the story and how scholars know that its this story that the verse is referring to.

Now, IF this is true, then is an Ishtikara something that you mean when you argue for the existance of extra-Quranic revelation??

ANYONE can do an Ishtikara, as long as they're a true believer. This is a communication with God. But its a private communication. If this story is true, then this communication with God would NOT be a revelation, because it doesn't deal with mankind's salvation if or if not Ayesha was guilty of zina. The reason why its included in the Quran is to make it known to all those people who were spreading rumours about Ayesha that they were WRONG to assume something when they had no evidence. Also, it shows that if God is saying Ayesha is innocent when travelling with a stranger, then that doesn't give much support for those who say women can only travel with their mehrams (er non-mehrams - i forget which is which). As long as they dont do anything wrong in their company with such men, then its no problem. But that's another argument all together.

While we're on the topic of communication with God...isn't NAMAZ a form of communication with God, that has been gifted to every individual? But that's not the same as a REVELATION. For we are not prophets, but just followers of a faith.

Also, the Prophet did travel to Heaven and Hell (Miraaj i think its called). Obviously, he did some talking with the inhabitants out their and the Creator. So is this also a form of Revelation? Was it hidden by the Prophet? NO, the Rasul told all after his journey.

Sorry for making this wrong...but someone please confirm the story I just narrarated...check with a local maulvi or religious scholar. That always helps.

75

To amarr:

**Please read the following verse, and tell me what you people (filhaal, ca, pcg) think:

Allâh has surely blessed the believers with His favor when He raised in their midst a Messenger from among themselves, who recites to them His verses and makes them pure and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom, while they were, earlier in open error. (3:164)**

Okay, good point. However, this doesn't mean that the Prophet will start lecturing about Music when the word Music doesn't even appear in the Quranic revelations. And if he did start lecturing about music, and it was in a revelation that is not in the Quran, then certainly, he'd share it with the followers, and SAY that I'm not writing it down, but its certainly true, or he'd say "i'm going to tell ya some things, and I'm not going to require them to be written, but they are so mandatory for your salvation, that if you do listen to music, you are inevitably damned to eternal hellfire (as described in the hadith)"

I mean, this logic fails to make sense.

And sure, maybe the first revelation wasn't written down right away, but it was recited so many times that people remembered and wrote it down anyway during the life of the prophet. I think it was Ali, right, or Zain that wrote down the revelations? I can't remember who did it, or if there were more than one scribes, but they did do it! And they did it with the Prophet's knowledge and blessing. So WHY would they not write some stuff down, if not right away, then at least not 200 years later!!!

Going back to the quote, the quote does not say that the Rasul was free to add in his two cents, but rather that he shared his Wisdom. If you know anything about Islam, then you KNOW that the Rasul's wisdom was God-gifted. But wisdom from a man is different from the wisdom of God. The quranic message is what is necessary for you to know to achieve salvation and a ticket to heaven. The other stuff that is not included in the Quran helps, and GUIDES, and helps clear confusion, but its still not equivalent to the Quranic ayah. If you REALLY think that a wisdom of a human is equal to the wisdom of God, then that is fine. Go ahead and think that, but I prefer to think that God is superior than any man or woman.

Lets rip the verse apart, shall we?

**recites to them His verses
no extra-Quranic revelation needed here.

and makes them pure

yes, he makes them pure, because when the words are coming out a pure man's mouth, they're more valued and believed and bought than if the words were coming out of the local thief's mouth. His goodness and sincerity added that appeal to the words. Just like if you make a bad speaker and a good speaker give the same speech, they'll sound drastically different to the audience, and the words will be more appreciated for their novelty if it comes out from the good speaker. The Rasul was a good speaker. Now, God's not dumb to not have thought of this when he chose Muhammed, Islamically speaking.

and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom,

Wisdom is capitalized here, and thus, I'm assuming its the holy word of the Quran. Like the Book would symbolize the letters of the Quran, but the wisdom is the meaning behind the words...its kind of poetic the way the Quran is described as the "Book and the Wisdom", and thus, open to interpretation.

If he teaches them the book, then we need to look at what the word "teaches" means. What does a teacher do? He/she takes a principle or an idea and first STATES it to the pupil. Likewise, the Rasul recited the ayah first. Then the idea or principle is explained using EXAMPLES. Now, yes, I agree these EXAMPLES were remembered by many people and MUCH later recorded down into hadith. A lot of hadith is just examples of certain laws in the Quran. Like there is a heap of hadith citing examples of how the punishment for zina was executed for different situations.

This doesn't mean that God TOLD the Prophet thru another REVELATION (not communication...the two are different...revelation is something meant for the community, and communication is personal, like the ishtikhara for Ayesha's innocence) that you must use these EXAMPLES to illustrate the point I make in this particular verse!

The knowledge to use these examples may have occurred and the incident occurred, and guided by an instinct to do good and be just, the Rasul approached each example taking into account the circumstances and the perscribed Quranic laws, and then executed an action. Sometimes there was a revelation for a particular incident, and this is all recorded in the Quran.

A modern-day teacher makes up examples on their own. The teacher's guide comes with some examples, but the teachers also use their own judgement and come up with some examples and explanations for student's questions. Likewise, in this sense , the Rasul was a teacher. If you know of any other type of teacher that you thinkt he Rasul was, then let me know. But this is how I imagine his being a "teacher" would be like.

Now, sorry, i gotta go study. Khuda Hafiz.
PCG

76

PCG
This verse is not as your friend explained. That was a different verse.

It is in Sahih Al-Bukhari - the cause of revelation. It includes prophet wives Hazrate Ayesha, Hazrate Hafshah or/and Hazrate Zaynab. I can’t remember the details..And I wish someone who knows would post it here.

Prophet told one of his wives a certain secret and then this wife told another wife this secret. I think Hazrate Ayesha Told Hazrate Hafshah this secret and then Angel Jibrael told Prophet what happened. Afterward Prophet informed Hazrate Ayesha about this secret and I think she was surprised as to how Prophet knew what happened.

Later, that verse was revealed.

This is - extra Quranic –

77

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
**I'll tell ya why right now. I was discussing the matter with a friend who is more knowledgable than me on the topic. She remembered this verse and told me of the accepted story behind it.

Apparently, the Rasul was somewhere, perhaps in a battle area, and was wrapping up to go home or somewhere else, and bibi Ayesha was with him. Ayesha, remembered she forgot something and left the troop to go back and get it. IN the confusion, the Prophet's caravan left her behind. A general or someone important was there and found her, so he escorted her to wherever the Rasul's destination was. The two of them were alone, and he was one of those type of men that wasn't related to her in any way (she could have married him, etc). So rumours started flying (just like they do now), and the Prophet was kinda uncertain whether to believe them or not, even though she insisted she was innocent, and "nothing" had happened. **
[/quote]

Google has already corrected this, thanks for that. PyariCgudia, your friend was probably thinking of the circumstances surrounding verses 11-14 of Surah al-Nur, and not 66:3.

Wassalam
Iqbal

78

oh ok, sorry about that.

So Angel Gibrael told the Prophet about the leakage of the secret? Okay...and so....? If there was extra-communication, then it was personal stuff, and it doesn't have to do with our salvation.

And if it doesn't have to do with our salvation, I doubt that it would be recorded down in some hadith. Unless if the hadith just records the incident as somethign that happened....like for record-keeping purposes.

I mean honestly, what does the leakage of the secret have to do with mankind? And God was kind enough to include it in the Quranic revelation so that we followers would be assured that we weren't being left out of something big...just the fact that this ayah is in the Quran shows that God is making sure that (given there was extra-communication in the form of ishtikhara, angel gibrael, etc) we humans dont feel that any VITALLY IMPORTANT GUIDANCE OR INFORMATION was not shared with us IN THE QURAN.

Its like God even went ahead and told us about the incident, WHILE keeping it private by referring to it as a "message", and not taking anyone's names.

Does this seem plausible to anyone?

79

Al-Quran is a book of principle. Once we understand what principle means then we would come to fully realize and appreciate the holy Book.

Book of Hadith is Islamic Literature.

These 2 things are separate. You live by the book and to understand more about the reality of prophet life and his community and sometimes-certain Quranic Ayat we refer to the book of hadith.

80

I agree Google, that is how I've always understood it.

You know, this is inevitably going to turn into "WE MUST FOLLOW HADITH", "WE DONT HAVE TO FOLLOW HADITH" argument. I'm wondering when the real fireworks will start.