here’s the link to AT-TAHRIM (ayat 66)
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/066.qmt.html#066.006
ps.
Your posts make perfect sense. I hope Iqbal does answer those questions you asked him.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by filhaal: *
**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)*
[/quote]
When discussing the Prophet Muhammad (s) these terms are synonymous because his religious guidance, authority and commands were all based on revelation. Here's what i've said before (which i'm repeating for the third time!): "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."
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by filhaal: *
**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*
[/quote]
The hadith which you yourself cited in fact shows that the piece of paper contained extra-Qur'anic revelation (as i've already explained) by virtue of the fact that Ali (r) exempted it from his earlier statement that there was no divine revelation other than Allah's Book. This is despite the fact that you've misunderstood the import of the entire hadith (as i've already explained). From whatever angle you look at, this hadith lends your argument no support whatsoever.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by filhaal: *
**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*
[/quote]
Can you give me a few examples of how he (s) "guided the people within the borders and limits and commands given and set by GOD in the QURAN".
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by 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*
[/quote]
The words "limited understanding" would be better applied to someone who uses terms like "mouth, lungs and larynx" when mentioning Allah.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by filhaal: *
**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*
[/quote]
I can assure you that there's nothing at all dangerous about extra-Qur'anic revelation when Allah Himself points to it in His Qur'an.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by filhaal: *
**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)*
[/quote]
The Qur'an itself points to the validity of the extra-Qur'anic revelation (remember 2:143?) so in that sense the comparison is hardly fair.
Also, the Talmud - by even the most conservative estimates - wasn't written down until some 1,500 years after Prophet Musa (as), so again the comparison is not justified.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by filhaal: *
**precise science?? the hadith?? sounds like a contradiction in terms*
[/quote]
Not a contradiction, rather a paradox! ;)
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by filhaal: *
**GOD only promises the preservation of the QURAN*
[/quote]
And when He promised its preservation, what was meant? Just the wording or also its explanation?
Iqbal
I disagree - revelation and commandment is one thing, but communication is another. Like i've said before, there was communication probably (I dont know the details, i wasn't there), but it was most likely private stuff. Like maybe with the Prophet's own personal life, as we saw in the Ayesha's debatable innocence example.
We communicate with God in namaaz, and so did the Rasul. But do you get revelations during namaz? Same goes for Ishtikara. Perhaps when it came to making some decisions and handing out some advice for serious matters, the Rasul did do some ishtikaras and the answer may have come to him in a dream or the birth of a conviction in his heart that a certain option is correct over another.
The possibilities are endless. Do you realize namaaz is a form of meditation?
For example, I cant do this anymore, but I could sit somewhere, gaze off not concentrating on anything and somehow I'd feel like I wasn't in my body. Almost as if I was in another world altogheter. And NO I wasn't on drugs. I'm sure that the Prophet was given some abilities to meditate during namaaz, for example. Its possible he had a mental connection with God that somehow he just KNEW what to do about things. If a good thought blossoms in your heart, I think God puts it there. Now that is not equivalent to Quranic revelation, but its something special nonetheless.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Iqbal1089: *
This is not a hypothetical scenario at all. The Qur'an describes the "factual" change of the Qibla from Jerusalem to Makkah. The appropriate verses also describe that it was Allah Himself who first issued the command to face Jerusalem. That command is no where to be found in the Qur'an yet the entire Muslim community
[/quote]
Therein lies the problem with your argument. In the verses under discussion, Allah asks the believers to "turn their faces towards the Sacred Mosque". There is nothing about Jerusalem. Also the verse doesn't say it's about the direction in which you have to face in order to pray.
[quote]
- unless you want to rewrite the history books as well - acted on it based solely on a directive from the Prophet (s) without any Qur'anic precedent. That proves the "extra-Qur'anic" authority of the Prophet (s) and the willingness of the earliest Muslims to accept that authority. So i repeat, this is not hypothetical at all.
[/quote]
Making huge leaps here again aren't we? We are not talking history. We need to understand the verse in context and not subject it to interpretations we have gotten used to over a period of time through post Qur'anic texts. Anyone can write a story to interpret a verse differently. History from these unverified hadith accounts put the story in history.
[quote]
I think you are about to get your knickers in a twist here. But firstly, do you accept that it was Allah who appointed Jerusalem as the Qiblah as per verse 2:143?
[/quote]
The verse tells us Allah appointed a qiblah to differentiate between those who'd follow the prophet from those who'd turn back on their heels. Inserting Jerusalem in there is the work of post Qur'anic scholars who created a history to try and reconcile what they read thereof.
[quote]
It is interesting that you ask for an "authentic" hadith. Do you therefore accept that there are in fact authentic hadith which accurately describe the words and deeds of Allah's Messenger (s)?
[/quote]
No, I seriously doubt there's anything 'authentic' out there in the realm of hadith, unless it's matawatir from various sources and also available in written form.. nothing to my limited knowledge exists out there. Alternately I'd require a written biography of all the narrators in the chain and there can't be even a single false hadith that has their name in the chain of narration... Ooops.. Nothing again.. because Bukhari and Co. just assumed these people to be pious.. how else could they trace geneologies back to the prophet when over 200 yeras had passed and no written evidence was available. We have trouble finding a complete manuscript of Qur'an 10 or 15 years after it was completely revealed.. how on earth are we gonna find trustworthy biographies of the companions??
[quote]
I could simply reply and say that to prove my argument a hadith in this instance is not necessary since the Qur'anic evidence i cited suffices to confirm my point of view. If there is a hadith, it doesn't necessarily add any extra weight to the fact that Allah appointed the first Qiblah through "extra-Qur'anic" revelation as i have shown. And if there isn't a hadith, the point is still proven. So your request for an authentic hadith is decidedly premature, you have to first accept that "extra-Qur'anic" revelation did take place. So, did it?
[/quote]
No sir, your assumption that extra quranic revelations did occur is only because you're motivated to prove the concept before you make that huge leap and equate it with what we have today as hadith. There was no extra Qur'anic revelation to the Prophet. All that he was supposed to give us was the Qur'an. Now if there was any extra Qur'anic means of inspiration or guidance to the Prophet to help him cope with his prophethood, we do not know and do not need to know. What is required for our salvation has been provided in the Qur'an. The prophet was told to preach and judge according to the Qur'an.. not any extra Qur'anic revelations you are trying to dig up.
[quote]
If you aren't prepared to accept this, then you need to take one step back and disprove the argument i've put forward. Asking for a hadith, if you think about it, is incidental right now since the absence of a hadith wouldn't disprove my argument about the existence of "extra-Qur'anic" revelation to the Prophet (s). All that the absence of a hadith might show is that either that hadith was not retained by subsequent generations or that the Prophet (s) withheld such "extra-Qur'anic" revelation. Therefore, in trying to show that a hadith does not exist, you have avoided the central issue that i raised and that is that "extra-Qur'anic" revelation did take place. The time for hadith will come later, first deal with this issue...
[/quote]
Absence of such a hadith would render any future claims to extra qur'anic revelations being preserved as hadith null and void because Allah promises to keep his revelations in tact. If we can't find a hadith to the effect of a change in qiblah, it must definitely then be within the Qur'an hence we have to reinterpret 2:143.
The Qur’an refers to the Prophet not hadith literature as being a model. Do not hasten to equate the two. The Prophet isn’t alive anymore, therefore future generations must fall back to the Qur’an as the Prophet himself was only following that.
[6:19] Say: What thing is the weightiest in testimony? Say: Allah is witness between you and me; and this Quran has been revealed to me that with it I may warn you and whomsoever it reaches.…
PakistaniAbroad: pay particular attention to whomsoever it reaches.. this is us and future generations.
[4:105] Surely We have revealed the Book to you with the truth that you may judge between people by means of that which Allah has taught you; and be not an advocate on behalf of the treacherous
Qur’an tells us what we need to know.. Why do you want to know the names of Prophets not mentioned in the Qur’an. If we did indeed need their names to become Muslims, did Allah forget to mention them?? How arrogant of anyone to think they can pull some odd thousand names out of their behinds and claim that they are names of the Prophets Allah sent.. We only know for sure the names in the Qur’an.. rest is all conjecture. Qur’an tells us about Iblis as much as we need to know.. i.e. to avoid him and not listen to him. Why he was up there even the Prophet had no knowledge. And who cares who Dhul Qarnain was?? Qur’an tells us he was a believer and that’s enough for us..
This is precisely what’s wrong today.. why don’t we find what the Qur’an tells us enough?? Why the need for fancy ludicrious flowery tales which are interesting to listen to but are based on folklore more than facts or history.
Iqbal let’s have a more mature discussion please. I expect better of you.. insisting Qur’an isn’t complete just because it wouldn’t give you a biography of Dhul Qarnain or names for prophets long gone? 
What Moses received was everything his nation needed. What the Muslims have in the Qur’an is everything we need.. To each nation is their book revealed and to each nation is their own laws and rites and rituals they need to follow. Why on earth do we need more than the Qur’an?? what is this insatiable desire to have flowery discourses when we have the Qur’an precise and to the point telling us everything that Allah wanted us to know for our guidance, clear proof and mercy.
[7:203] And when you bring them not a revelation they say: Why do you not forge it? Say: I only follow what is revealed to me from my Lord; these are clear proofs from your Lord and a guidance and a mercy for a people who believe
PAAbroad raised some good points at the end of the previos post. Why do we need something beyond the Quran. And I mean "need". I dont believe that in order to attain salvation, you must follow every hadith. Do you go around carrying a list of hadith with you, checking hadith off as you follow them for the day? No, obviously not.
The hadith is a source of guidance. It provides some anecdotes which can help you out in a present-day situation, but the authenticity of hadith must be seriously doubted as they WERE CHANGED AND FIDDLED WITH. Granted, we got rid of a lot of bogus hadith, but that doesn't mean we've been left with 100 percent authentic literature. Its like we're committing the same mistake the People of the Book did.
Iqbal and others on his side of the argument:
I dont know why you're putting off answering the questions i've raised until when we accept the existance of extra-Quranic revelation. We're going to go around in circles forever, so you might as well provide some perspectives now. If you want, i'll list the ?'s again.
i will just continue the argument where PA and PCG stopped for the time being.........
[QUOTE]
** And when He promised its preservation, what was meant? Just the wording or also its explanation?
Iqbal**
[/QUOTE]
filhaal:
do you really think that GOD would promise to preserve the words and not its meaning/explanation..........at this moment you will jump to the conclusion that the explanation of the quran is contained in the books of hadith............but wait lets review the QURAN briefly...........
- 17:41 YUSUFALI: **We have explained (things) in various (ways) in this Qur'an, **in order that they may receive admonition, but it only increases their flight (from the Truth)!
18:54 YUSUFALI: We have explained in detail in this Qur'an, for the benefit of mankind, every kind of similitude: but man is, in most things, contentious.
41:3 YUSUFALI: A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail;- a Qur'an in Arabic, for people who understand;-
6:114 YUSUFALI: Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We
have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt.
75:19
YUSUFALI: Nay more, *it is for Us to explain * it (and make it clear): *
filhaal: GOD Himself promises to explain HIS BOOK, surely it doesnot mean that GOD will provide Bukhari et co. with the explanation to write it down at a later stage (100-200 years A.H.)
*
16:64 YUSUFALI: And We sent down the Book to thee for the express purpose, that thou shouldst make clear to them those things in which they differ, and that it should be a guide and a mercy to those who believe. *
filhaal:
Here we notice that GOD has explicitly mentioned that the PURPOSE of the BOOK is to provide the Prophet with revelation so that he may explain the things that people differ in. This verse yet again establishes that the Prophetic clarification is to come from THE BOOK.
*
16:89 YUSUFALI: One day We shall raise from all Peoples a witness against them, from amongst themselves: and We shall bring thee as a witness against these (thy people): and We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims. *
filhaal:
This Ayaah leaves no doubt that the BOOK has explanations of ALL THINGS. Thus further destabilizing the false claim that the Messenger is giving extra explanations from outside of the Qur’an. If the Qur’an itself is clarifying ALL THINGS, then what is the prophet doing by giving “extra” explanations??
*
2:159 YUSUFALI: Those who conceal the clear (Signs) We have sent down, and the Guidance, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book,-on them shall be
Allah's curse, and the curse of those entitled to curse,- *
filhaal:
hence, GOD has provided us with the explanation within the QURAN!!
filhaal, you've cited some interesting verses which i'll come back to shortly. But you haven't addressed one of the other questions i put to you which specifically relates to the explanation of the Qur'an. Here it is again:
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by filhaal: *
**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*
[/quote]
My previous question: "Can you give me a few examples of how he (s) 'guided the people within the borders and limits and commands given and set by GOD in the QURAN'."
Are there no examples whatsoever?
Iqbal
Filahal has no replies, just as he failed to give me one shred of proof that his/her way of thinking on Islam is the same of that of the first three generations of Muslims.
Just one instance in history, just one person would make me convert to filhalism, cooldedudism and pcgism.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Alpha1: *
Filahal has no replies, just as he failed to give me one shred of proof that his/her way of thinking on Islam is the same of that of the first three generations of Muslims.
Just one instance in history, just one person would make me convert to filhalism, cooldedudism and pcgism.
[/QUOTE]
funny how you'd base your faith on the majority opinion rather than the truth.. what a lemming...
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
**funny how you'd base your faith on the majority opinion rather than the truth.. what a lemming... *
[/QUOTE]
And was it the minority "truthful" opinion that taught you to call people lemmings just because you disagree with them?
Iqbal
PCGISM? Please dont resort to such tactics. We're not here to insult Islam.
Personally, I think the debate of hadith vs. Quran, Quranic guidance versus Prophetic guidance is a HIGHLY debatable issue. And each side comes up with some good points. I dont know about you, but I'm not here to convert people into following my opinion, rather to put forth one viewpoint. If you can't understand that, then maybe this forum is above your understanding.
The debate here however, is not about hadith. Its about extra-Quranic revelation, although it will inevitably lead to a hadith vs. sunnah, sunnah vs. Quran, hadith vs. Quran, Prophet vs. God argument in the end, because this is the expressed purpose of the one who opened the thread.
yes, so what were we talking about...do continue...
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
**Therein lies the problem with your argument. In the verses under discussion, Allah asks the believers to "turn their faces towards the Sacred Mosque". There is nothing about Jerusalem. Also the verse doesn't say it's about the direction in which you have to face in order to pray.*
[/quote]
You keep missing the point entirely with this one, so i'll repeat myself again: Whether the first Qibla was in Jerusalem or on the dark side of the moon is irrelevant, the point is that Allah "appointed" it outside of the Qur'an. The first Qibla could have been appointed as the direction in which to fly kites. Whatever it was intended for, the "appointment" was extra-Qur'anic and the community of Muslims were satisfied with that despite there being no verse to support it.
So continuously going on about "Jerusalem" and the "direction in which you have to face in order to pray" completely evades the main point of my reference to 2:143 and that is that Allah confirms that He is the One Who appointed the first Qibla for the Muslim community.
I hope that's clear now.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
**The verse tells us Allah appointed a qiblah to differentiate between those who'd follow the prophet from those who'd turn back on their heels. Inserting Jerusalem in there is the work of post Qur'anic scholars who created a history to try and reconcile what they read thereof.*
[/quote]
Exactly! Allah "appointed" (to use your term) the first Qibla. But that appointment was not made in the Qur'an, therefore it had to have been legislated extra-Qur'anically.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
**No, I seriously doubt there's anything 'authentic' out there in the realm of hadith, unless it's matawatir from various sources and also available in written form..*
[/quote]
You start by doubting that there's "anything 'authentic' out there in the realm of hadith" but will accept written mutawatir hadith. Are you able to give any examples of mutawatir hadith that you've accepted?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
**Alternately I'd require a written biography of all the narrators in the chain and there can't be even a single false hadith that has their name in the chain of narration... Ooops.. Nothing again..*
[/quote]
The famous statement of ibn Sirin (d.110H) shows that not only chains of transmission but also narrator criticism arose quite early. He said: "They did not ask about the chain of transmission until the Fitnah (Civil War) arose, then they said: 'Name to us your men.' Those who belonged to the People of the Sunnah, their traditions were accepted, and those who were innovators, their traditions were rejected." (Sahih Muslim, Introduction)
This statement implies not only use of chains of transmission both before and after the Civil War but also a rudimentary form of differentiating between narrators. After the Civil War, however, asking about these things became a consistent policy. James Robson wrote: "There is therefore reason to believe that Ibn Sirin is to be credited with the words attributed to him. If that is granted, it would support Horovitz's theory that the chain of transmission entered the literature of tradition in the last third of the first century, as its use so early would be bound to be represented soon in writing." (Robson, Isnad in Muslim Tradition, pp.21-22)
There are biographical works of "every" hadith narrator that are a compilation of comments by the narrator's contemporaries and later scholars regarding his or her standing in hadith. Consequently, each narrator is graded according to ability. Where a biography does not exist, that narrator is deemed "unknown" and his or her hadith are not accepted.
Al-Bukhari (194-256H) authored one such work, Tarikh al-Kabir, published in 4 volumes (sometimes more, depending on print). He also has two smaller works, Tarikh as-Saghir and Kitab ad-Du'fa (both published). His Kitab al-Kuna deals with narrators having similar sounding names and how to differentiate between them (also published). Prior to al-Bukhari, we have Ibn Sa'd's (168-230H) monumental Tabaqat al-Kubra, another published work. Ibn Abi Hatim (240-327H) wrote Kitab Jarh wa Ta'dil, published in eight volumes (depending on print) whilst Yahya ibn Ma'in (d.233H) wrote al-Tarikh ar-Rijal wa al-Ilal which incidentally also discusses how defects in hadith can be spotted, a very specialised science. The fact that books were already being written about such specialised topics shows the very early development of this science since Muslim scholars appreciated the importance of the Prophet's (s) hadith. We also have the narrator biographies for the six famous hadith works - Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, at-Tirmidhi, ibn Majah, an-Nasa'i - in a hugely extensive but unpublished manuscript compiled by the hadith master Abdul-Ghani al-Maqdisi (d.600H). His work was later abridged by Abdul-Rahman al-Mizzi (d.742H) and is published in 32 volumes. At-Tirmidhi (d.279H) in his famous Sunan collection often gives the authenticity of the chain of transmission right after citing the hadith based on the narrators that it contains. Early Imams going back to Abu Hanifah (80-150H) and Malik (93-179H) were already accepting or rejecting hadith based on narrator criticism, so the science was already in place at such an early period. On some occasions there is just one narrator between Imam Malik, author of al-Muwatta, and the Companion who heard the hadith direct from the Prophet (s). Many of the hadith that Imam Abu Hanifah acquired are referred to, with their respective chains of transmission, by his two leading students, Abu Yusuf and Muhamamd as-Shaybani in their respective published works.
Montgomery Watt wrote: "The chains of transmitters were therefore carefully scrutinised to make sure that the persons named could in fact have met one another, that they could be trusted to repeat the story accurately, and that they did not hold any heretical views. This implied extensive biographical studies; and many biographical dictionaries have been preserved giving the basic information about a man's teachers and pupils, the views of later scholars (on his reliability as a transmitter) and the date of his death. This biography-based critique of Traditions helped considerably to form a more or less common mind among many men throughout the caliphate about what was to be accepted and what rejected." (Watt, What is Islam? Longman Group Ltd: 1979, pp. 124-125)
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
**because Bukhari and Co. just assumed these people to be pious.. how else could they trace geneologies back to the prophet when over 200 yeras had passed and no written evidence was available.*
[/quote]
Early hadith works and compilations were assimilated into later works and i hope to show examples of this later, perhaps in another thread. Many of al-Bukhari's immediate authorities themselves compiled works on various aspects of hadith. In this way it is often possible to trace a line of teachers and pupils going right back to the Companion who first heard the hadith.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
**We have trouble finding a complete manuscript of Qur'an 10 or 15 years after it was completely revealed.. how on earth are we gonna find trustworthy biographies of the companions??*
[/quote]
Doesn't the fact that you can't find such an early Qur'an tell you something? That perhaps written records are not always what they are made out to be. That if something is written down, it doesn't necessarily mean that it had to have been written down accurately, and that perhaps oral transmission is not to be undervalued. Today, we live in a world increasingly dominated by the printed word and if anything is truly important, we have to 'get it in writing'. We want tangible evidence of 'documentation', we need things to be 'signed and sealed'. Not surprisingly, we have focused all but exclusively on religious texts as nothing more than written documents. But it wasn't always like this. The idea hardly even occurs that a text could exist for long periods without being written down. All too often we fail to appreciate that in years gone by scripture was essentially something that was recited, memorised, transmitted orally, preserved in the minds of the people, taught to both the young and the old by word of mouth.
An interesting observation was made by John Burton who wrote: "The method of transmitting the Qur'an from one generation to the next by having the young memorise the oral recitation of their elders had mitigated somewhat from the beginning the worst perils of relying solely on written records . . . " (John Burton, An Introduction to the Hadith, p.27. Edinburgh University Press: 1994)
Continued below...
... continued
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
**No sir, your assumption that extra quranic revelations did occur is only because you're motivated to prove the concept before you make that huge leap and equate it with what we have today as hadith.*
[/quote]
For one who accepts that extra-Qur'anic revelation did in fact take place, a natural question to then ask is where that revelation might be recorded. That has nothing to do with leaps of faith.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
**Absence of such a hadith would render any future claims to extra qur'anic revelations being preserved as hadith null and void because Allah promises to keep his revelations in tact. If we can't find a hadith to the effect of a change in qiblah, it must definitely then be within the Qur'an hence we have to reinterpret 2:143. *
[/QUOTE]
Are you still referring to the extra-Qur'anic appointment of the first Qibla as a "change* in qiblah"*? I've corrected this before.
The corpus of hadith literature describes, among other things, the Prophet's (s) statements, actions and tacit approvals. Reports that tell us that the Prophet (s) and his Companions faced Bayt al-Maqdis whilst in Makkah and also for a short period after the migration to Madinah show quite clearly that Allah's extra-Qur'anic commandment referred to in verse 2:143 was enacted by the Prophet (s) and emulated by his followers. For example, Abdullah ibn Abbas reports that the Prophet (s) prayed facing Bayt al-Maqdis prior to the migration. This is recorded in Tabaqat ibn Sa'd (1:243) with an authentic chain of transmission according to al-Hakim (d.405H). Likewise, ibn Abbas relates that when in Madinah the Prophet (s) continued to face Bayt al-Maqdis as per "Allah's command" (ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari 9:15, citing Tafsir at-Tabari and his chain of transmission). Ibn Abbas's statement that the Prophet (s) faced Bayt al-Maqdis because of "Allah's command" refutes the notion that this was something the Prophet (s) did from his own initiative. Similarly, al-Bara ibn Azib reports that the Prophet (s) prayed towards Bayt al-Maqdis for sixteen or seventeen months after the migration until such time that the Qibla was changed (Bukhari 1:392). Some of the Madinan Ansar, having not heard about the change, continued to pray towards the first Qibla until they were told that they now had to face the Ka'bah (ibid).
And Allah knows best.
Iqbal
Lets not try to confuse things here. My level of understanding is not the issue here. We all want to learn the truth regardless of our methodology and creed.
Stated in simple terms, if you (pcg/cooldude/filhall/pa) say that other than the Qur'an there is no other authority for a Muslim to follow then you must proove that what you have uttered is Islam as understood, teached and practised by the Nabi, his companions, those that came after them, and those that came after them.
This is a challenge, I give you three generations from which to find a single person who believed as you do now.
This question does not require you to chase lemmings over a cliftop, but requires you to be substantive and provide solid evidence.
Surely there were muslims who had least least one-tenth of the mental abilities that pcg/filhall/cd/pa appear to display? Not even one?
If it so happens that you are the first one to whom true Islam has come, then you are wrong and misguided. Truth has an origin, if that origin is with you today in 2002, then that is not Islam. For it to be Islam, it has to have an origin of 1400 or so years.
Again, I await to be converted.........
say that other than the Qur'an there is no other authority for a Muslim to follow then you must proove that what you have uttered is Islam as understood, teached and practised by the Nabi, his companions, those that came after them, and those that came after them.
I will speak for myself.
This is your biggest problem. You assume things. I never said there is no other authority to follow. In fact, we've made a distinction between extra-Quranic revelation, and extra-Quranic authority and extra-Quranic commandments, which many here dont wish to accept. If you dont want to accept it then that is FINE. But you will DEFINITELY get the wrong message if you dont take these defined conditions into account.
They are words that we are defining to build our argument on. Its like in Physics. You must define your relative points and your origin and direction, right? You can just say "He travelled 10 points to the right", there has got to be a reference poiint, and these definitions and distinctions we've made are a reference point.
I did not say there is no other AUTHORITY for a muslim to follow. First off, following something means taking info into your mind and trying to conform to that info. We try to conform to the Quran, and MANY OF US do try to CONFORM to the hadith.
I am not saying, you ought to REJECT the hadith, but you keep labelling this as my stance. This is unfair, and I suggest you stop doing it, or just drop out of the conversation entirely. I am tired of repeating myself. But the fact of the matter is, people reading this are taking your side on your flawed interpretation of my argument, just cuz it sounds better to them!
My point is: there was no extra-Quranic REVELATION. ie. like a scroll dropping out of the sky, or a commanment sent thru the Angel Gibrail that was never recorded in the Quran. And keeping the possibility that there WAS extra-Quranic revelation, then it was probably personal, and something not meant for the whole of mankind to know. What the Prophet's wife told who and how did the Prophet handle the situation is none of our business, since it was a personal issue. Maybe she was telling someone she got pregnant. WHO KNOWS? And is this info going to help you get into heaven? Probably not, otherwise it would have been discussed in depth and treated as an anecdote. But it wasn't!
Also, I do leave open the possibility that there was extra-Quranic communication - as thru namaaz, and ishtikaara, but it again was a personal connection and maybe had nothing to do with governance of the People. And also, it doesn't make it as special as contact with an ANGEL, because you and I can make the contact through Namaaz and Ishtikaara.
Wether he recieved important information thru namaaz or Ishtikaara it is possible also, but most likely he did not hear the voice of God in his room telling him the schedule of the day. The prophet had a way of thinking and he had some special talents of making the proper decisions. He was a good leader, and this is one reason why he was Chosen.
I've already provided the argument that God "appointing" something doesn't tell you HOW He appointed it, just that He did. Every thing in this universe operates to his "appointment". This is even stated CLEARLY in the Quran. So how could his Prophet not do the things He wants him to do? Isn't there something called a "gut-feeling" that God could put in his heart that something is vitally important to be done. This would be a type of "appointment".
I think in the end it really depends upon how you interpret the Quran. If you take it literally, or if you leave the words open to symbolism, since it is a piece of divine poetry...
Even the pagan arabs were shocked at the poetical nature of the Quran and wanted to know what arab could write like this.
Also, pulling the argument that there WAS extra-Quranic revelation to proving all present day hadith is also flawed, and for those opinions, you can refer to the Sunnat vs. Hadith post. I dont think you can reply to that anymore though.
I hope this clears things up. Honestly, I really do. Because I dont have time here to keep repeating myself to people who take my words out of context.
By the way, it it helps people understand what PCG is about, I am a sunni Muslim. Born and raised as one. And I certainly dont reject all hadith as false, or not worthy to follow. But I do think that the word of God, which has been promised protection, is more reliable and important for salvation than hadith. Otherwise, we wouldn't have like 4 different hadith collections documenting the authenticity with which scholars think these hadith have, and there would not be differing degrees of certainty of authenticity. So, my first reference is the Quran. For me that is more than enough to follow. I barely make it there. So, if i see something in a hadith, I try to understand and appreciate the wisdom it has, but there are just some things I can't follow, like not wearing perfume in the open. I simply wont prohibit myself from something the Prophet did openly.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
PCGISM? Please dont resort to such tactics. We're not here to insult Islam.
[/QUOTE]
Since when has PCGism become Islam? Thats the whole point, PAism, Filhalism, CDism, CorruptAngelism, are all isms that reject the Hadeeth, that reject the sunnah, and so reject the Qur'an itself.
These isms have all left the fold of Islam.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
They are words that we are defining to build our argument on. Its like in Physics....
I did not say there is no other AUTHORITY for a muslim to follow...
I am not saying, you ought to REJECT the hadith...
This is unfair, and I suggest you stop doing it, or just drop out of the conversation entirely...
My point is: there was no extra-Quranic REVELATION...
And keeping the possibility that there WAS extra-Quranic revelation, then it was probably personal...
I do leave open the possibility that there was extra-Quranic communication... it ... was a personal connection and maybe had nothing to do with governance of the People....
[/QUOTE]
You methods are known to all here, no need to give me a lesson in physics. I will not go away because I do not follow your creed - but the challenge remains, I am willing to accept what you say, just read my eralier post for more details!
Lets us look at your distinction. If we consider these three catergories that you all have collectively come up with, and also reject the revelation element that you would like us to, then you are saying that the Nabi (s) gave commandments to his followers, and these commandments are present to us today in the form of Hadith, but these commandments are not from Allah, and so are just simply the personal opinions of the Nabi to be followed or rejected. You have now relegated the status of the Sunnah to being the mere opinion of the Nabi, not containing the commands of the Nabi as divinely ordered by Allah. This comes down to your collective (pa/fil/cd/pcg/ca) assertion that the Nabi (s) came to just deliver a book, and give us his own opions that can/cannot be followed (based on your own desires).
First you say that Hadith is dubious and so should therefore be discounted, and now you say that it contains no revelation from Allah? Allah and his Nabi are far removed from such slander.
You can move the goalposts all you want, but the rules will remain the same - substantiate this as the correct understanding - show us who before you believed this? Show to me that the Sunnah of Muhammed (s) was not based on divine revalation by refering to at least one person from the first three generations in Islam. It can't be that hard a challenge if what you are syaing is right can it?
Simply changing your argument and going in circles will not help you. Remember your post on Music where you asked where the Qur'an prohibited music, and you relaxed when you learned that it was a Hadith that prohibited music? That is what makes your stance so vile, running after your desires rather than the truth.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Iqbal1089: *
And was it the minority "truthful" opinion that taught you to call people lemmings just because you disagree with them?
Iqbal
[/QUOTE]
It's a figure of speech used to denote a person who blindly follows. I hope you (and Alpha) understand the appropriate use of it rather than get confused with it's more literal connotations.
[10:92]......and most surely the majority of the people are heedless to Our communications
[6:116] Wert thou to follow the common run of those on earth, they will lead thee away from the way of Allah. They follow nothing but conjecture: they do nothing but lie.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
It's a figure of speech used to denote a person who blindly follows. I hope you (and Alpha) understand the appropriate use of it rather than get confused with it's more literal connotations.
[/QUOTE]
So instead of blindly following you, I want you to proove to me that there were people from the first three generations that believed like you.
If I just accept what you say for the sake of it then surely I am a lemming. Give me just one instance, the writting of one person, even a paragraph or a sentance will do for me and I'll make that leap of faith!