Status: Age: 42 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 25, 2006
Posts: 184 Location: Riyadh
Post subject: Mutawatir Hadith can supercede Quran
In the other forum mostly dominated by Indians and Pakistanis, one of them first claimed
1) Mutawatir hadith is equivalent to Quran, now this wasnt enought
2) Mutawatir hadith can supercede the Quran.
Now, do i have comments to pass for this ignorant fool and challenging book of Allaah. Usually i tend to avoid any sectarian based thread but this was wrt the Quran.
Initially i was calm and tried to clear his misconception but this guy supported his ignorance, i will just quote hieght of his ignrance
Code:
Also hadith can supercede an ayah if the hadith in question is mutawatir
Few examples
Code:
Also according to the majority of the scholars (jumhur), a ruling of the Qur�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¬�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¢an can be nullified by the Sunnah, as whatever the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) says is from Allah (Surah al-Najm,v4).
Example for this is the Hadith which says �??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¬�???????Wasiyya (bequest) is not permissible for an heir (inheritor). This cancels out the verse of the Qur�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¬�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¢an which indicates that Wasiyyat is prescribed for parents (al-Baqara, v.180).
Now this cant be beaten
Code:
Now lets see what Imam Abu Yusuf r.h (student of Imam Abu Hanifa r.h) had to say about this. His statement can be found in great commentary of the Quran by Abu Bakkar al-Jassas called Ahkaamul-Qur'an (vol. 2, p.425):
The command of the Qur'an can be abrogated by the Sunnah (traditions of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) only if it has reached the level of Tawaatur or Istifadhah, such as the level of narration's of masah 'alal khuffain."
But i went Brother AB WAY, a little aggressive but tried my best this was my rebuttal
To all of them here, i am not talkign about the people who believe that Hadith can supercede the Quran.
Well, people laud themselves by saying i have read this and that, they should understand everyone is not a fool around here and when some comments are passed, they say i read this and i dont do like others again a key of blind following.
I am sorry i lack time as of now but try to put in few insights.
1) We know Quran can abrogate the Quran but not hadith, no where in the Quran its mentioned that mutawatir hadith can supercede the Quran because if its was given Allaah would have surely spoken about it in the Quran.
That Hakim the wisdome which the scholars usually implies for the Prophetic tradition can supercede the word of Allaah.
You see people are looking other way round prove me the verse in the Quran but not the other way round, someone who is intelligent can understand what i have stated.
2) For hadith to qualify it has to be authentic and not contradict with the Quran, again not the other way round someone who feel hadith can abrogate the Quran then his is gravely mistaken and should be lashed accordingly.
3) Now let me take you through the verses in the Holy quran which be a slam dunk to all this theory of mutawatir hadith superceding the Quran.
002.078
SHAKIR: And there are among them illiterates who know not the Book but only lies, and they do but conjecture.
002.079 SHAKIR: Woe, then, to those who write the book with their hands and then say: This is from Allah, so that they may take for it a small price; therefore woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.
To understand word illetrate here is a big issue if any one is interested let him/her pm me. The above verses where revealed for the Jews if you can read the verses above and below it. But i find striking resemblance to the people who are supporting such futile claim of hadith superceding the Quran.
If you observe the bold part it clearly says write the book and claim this is from Allaah, now check the similarity a mutawatir hadith can superseded the Quran that is the word of Allaah, please contemplate.
Now the next verse
004.082
SHAKIR: Do they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy.
No doubt about it check it out that means to say Quran naozbillaah had a discrepancy in it and hence a hadith was supposed to supercede the Quran claiming that Allaah had deficiency and even the Prophet who did not say in explicit words that Quran can abrogate the hadith.
The guy who is arguing here, hasnt brought this hadith to me till date but look at the ignorance level instead of asking he says show me a Quranic ayat claiming mutawatir hadith can supercede the Quran, you claim and kindly read my first point for your rebutall and stop copy pasting for heavens sake, dont be blind folded.
NOw this verse will slam dunk the entire theory claimed by great jurists, let Allaah have mercy on them they can commit mistakes but this is a complete slam dunk
005.003
SHAKIR:
This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, so fear them not, and fear Me. This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion; but whoever is compelled by hunger, not inclining willfully to sin, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Now what does that verse mean, the eg of Muadh ibn Jabal read it and see it. It says if not present in the quran then sunnah of the Prophet not the other way round you are just ignorant and spreading some nuisance here regarding the Quran believe me wallaahi billaahi this is a claim which should be thrown to a dust bin and you are supporting it.
Tell me are we foolish just because we dont find Praying action in the Quran we follow the sunnah otherwise, why would we be doing it if present in the Quran. We pray coz its mentioned in the Quran.
Now ponder over the verse 5:3 Islam is complete, complete to claim any mutawatir hadith claims that Islam is incomplete, why i am stating this is because a hadith can supercede the Quran so that implies the word of Allaah was incomplete stating that Allaah naozbillaah is a liar.
Well, ponder over it brothers and sisters because these claims eat up this great religion from Inside.
Now let me quote this famous hadith of the Propohet in arabic then translate it in english. This was most often repeated by Proophet before the Jumaah prayer.
Wa khairal hadisi kitabu Allaah, wa khairal hadi hadii Muhammad salah Allaahyi wa sallam, wa sharal omoori mo da sa tuha, was kullu mohdasatin bidah, wa kullu bidatin dalala wa kullu dalalatin fin naar.
The best of discourse is the book of Allaah, and the best way is the way of Prophet Mohammed,worst matters in the religion are those new introduced, for every innovation in the religion is misguidance, and every misguidance is going astray and ever astray will lead you to hell fire.
Even the Prophet claimed the best discourse, guidance is book of Allaah and this hadith worshippers claim that book of Allaah can be superceded by a Mutawatir Hadith.
Posted:
Wed 30 May, 2007 2:09 am
Al-Quraishi Site Admin
Status: Age: 117 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 19, 2006
Posts: 70
Post subject:
It absolutely beggars belief that people believe this, all this falls down on what the basis of ones religion is, it's obvious that the basis of their religion is not the Qur'an and is in fact the erroneous hadith, just as the basis of the Christian is his erroneous 'Bible'. Even if you did prove it via the Qur'an the basis of their religion is that they value hadith more.
It's as simple as that - they value hadith more than the Qur'an - I have nothing but the most utter contempt for these so-called 'Muslims'
Posted:
Wed 30 May, 2007 7:36 am
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Salam brother SOA and all
sounds like we have a vey interesting thread in here, thanks mate, I will et back to this thread after I take my daughter to school and do a bit of calls
Status: Age: 42 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 25, 2006
Posts: 184 Location: Riyadh
Post subject:
This guys, new evidence look at the level he is going just to protect his ego,
Code:
Imam Abu Bakar al-Jassas says:
Hanafis, Shaafis and Malikis, allowed the abrogation of the Sunnah by the Qur'an and vice verse...but they could not be abrogated by khabr al-wahid.
He says:
"Naskh is the declaration of the time of the particular ruling which we thought would remain for ever, but the second ruling made it clear that the time of the ruling was for a certain period and it was now no longer valid."
The ayat "we bring better or like thereof" God meant to state that He would make a ruling superior to the first in the sense of its being easier to perform, or richer in terms of reward.
The naskh implied that the later command abrogated the earlier. Sarakhsi says: "The contradiction between the sources is impossible, since this would mean Divine fallibility; in actuality the contradiction is created by our human inability to estimate correctly the date of the texts. Once this has been done, however, the later abrogates the earlier."
Usu1 al-Jassas, fol. 152a.
Ghazzali, Mustafa (2 vols.), Bulaq, 1322/1904, vol. 2, p. 125. Also see Tabari's Tafsir on al-Qur'an, II:106.
Posted:
Wed 30 May, 2007 4:47 pm
SlaveofAllaah Site Admin
Status: Age: 42 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 25, 2006
Posts: 184 Location: Riyadh
Post subject:
Al-Quraishi wrote:
It absolutely beggars belief that people believe this, all this falls down on what the basis of ones religion is, it's obvious that the basis of their religion is not the Qur'an and is in fact the erroneous hadith, just as the basis of the Christian is his erroneous 'Bible'. Even if you did prove it via the Qur'an the basis of their religion is that they value hadith more.
It's as simple as that - they value hadith more than the Qur'an - I have nothing but the most utter contempt for these so-called 'Muslims'
Absolute right brother, and its happening now he is now supporting claims and changing ayahs of Quran. Unless we Muslims dont follow the Quran we will never regain our past glory.
Posted:
Wed 30 May, 2007 4:59 pm
SlaveofAllaah Site Admin
Status: Age: 42 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 25, 2006
Posts: 184 Location: Riyadh
Post subject: Re:
Ok regarding abrogation i might be wrong probably in the thick of things i wrote. Once such eg, which came to my mind was regarding the Alcohol.
Because Allaah through a period of time got this habit out of the Arabs who used to drink like fish. Similar to de addiction camps for drug addicts.
I thought so, as i told you i might be wrong thats why i meant that Quran will abrogate the Quran and not the hadith. Please clarify if i am wrong.
Posted:
Wed 30 May, 2007 9:34 pm
SlaveofAllaah Site Admin
Status: Age: 42 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 25, 2006
Posts: 184 Location: Riyadh
Post subject: Re:
Bro AB i am sick and tired of arguing with this guy he is beating around the bush and i get no answer and still maintains supercede, abrogate.
I do feel bad for this guy because its the scholars who have deviated them. I feel we have to rework the whole system and get back to the Quran otherwise we just keep bickering over issues and nothing can be done with this chaps.
They have forgotten the Quran, and now they follow the hadith and attack the hadith which is non sensical they take a you turn and ask have you read the tafsir of the quran.
So they come with such names or jurists, mufassirs we dont even know later blame, well for them I am a wahabi, a salafi, or ahle hadith but what can I do i am happy being a Muslim.
Posted:
Wed 30 May, 2007 9:40 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject: Re:
SlaveofAllaah wrote:
Ok regarding abrogation i might be wrong probably in the thick of things i wrote.
Salam mate
I didnt mean that you are wrong wrong, I actually doubted that I'm the one who is wrong
SlaveofAllaah wrote:
Once such eg, which came to my mind was regarding the Alcohol.
Because Allaah through a period of time got this habit out of the Arabs who used to drink like fish. Similar to de addiction camps for drug addicts.
I think we have been brain washed to think as such, alcohol was forbidden because in it there is Ithm Kabir (Huge Sin) and all Ithm is forbidden as per The Quran, therefore Alcohol must be forbidden at once the moment the all Ithm was forbidden , however being forbidden does not mean that some believers will never touch it, it is not like they are saints, I'm sure many believers will commit that sin, now if that sin is committed then we can not perform Salat until our mind is clear again so we recognise what we say, it is the sunni corruption who tell us after we finish salat the Isha (the last salat in the day) then we can drink, what a load of non sense man
It is illoigical that Allah put verses in the Quran that contradicts each other, it may look contradictory at a glance but deep down it can't be, that is why I donlt believe that a verse in the Quran abrogates another, it will cause a lot of confusion to the believers if that is the case and I will show later on inshallaah that the the sunni understainding regarding the verse in the quran talking about aborgating itself is nothing but a clear cut mistake by them, please remind me if I forget
SlaveofAllaah wrote:
I thought so, as i told you i might be wrong thats why i meant that Quran will abrogate the Quran and not the hadith. Please clarify if i am wrong.
I will inshallah bro, I;m fully aware of the verses the sunni use for their aborgation allegation, it is a must comment by me and inshalllah I will finish it in the near future
Status: Age: 42 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 25, 2006
Posts: 184 Location: Riyadh
Post subject:
I always wanted to discuss this issue but now since this thread is the base of what I am mentioning now it gets a little easier to me.
I was running through websites and this is what i found.
Code:
Although these hadith seem at the moment, unrelated to the issue at hand, they provide the foundation for the upcoming conclusions.
The evidence for the permissibility of reciting al-Fatihah behind the imam in salats that are silent AND [b]aloud comes from the mutawatir hadith related by Imam al-Bukhari in which the Prophet(SAWS) said, "There is no salat for the one who does not recite the Fatihah." Even more relevant is the hadith on the authority of 'Ibaadah ibn as-Saamit(RA) in which he said that the Prophet(SAWS) prayed Salat al-FAJR (aloud salat) with him and some others. [/b]After the prayer, the Prophet(SAWS) asked, "Did I see you reciting behind the imam?" They replied, "Yes." The Prophet(SAWS) responded, "Do not recite anything except for the Mother of the Book, for there is no salat for the one who does not recite it." This hadith has been narrarated by Bukhari, Ahmad, at-Tahaawi, Abu Dawud, at-Tirmidhi, al-Bayhaqi and others.
Here we have a hadith about the morning prayer, in which the recitation is aloud, and the Prophet(SAWS) telling the people behind the imam to ONLY recite the Mother of the Book, which is Surah al-Fatihah!
I always wanted to discuss this.
1) Amongst teh hanafis the ruling is dont recite anything during the salah when read aloud or silent, but just keep quiet
2) Amongst shaffis its a must to recite fatiha otherwise salah is not considered at all.
Now problem is i feel atleast when read silently we can recite the verses according to me and its sought of logical
1) We tend to read, and recite the words of Allaah thats most important
2) If we remain silent, even when silent prayer is being performed satan the most experienced being on the face of earth would try whisper(waswasa) and its better we recite.
Now thats my point.
But with the bold part above its says its a mutawatir hadith to recite Surah Al Fatiha, even when Imam is reciting the surah but Allaah u akbar dont you think that we are going against the verse of Allaah
007.204
YUSUFALI: When the Qur'an is read, listen to it with attention, and hold your peace: that ye may receive Mercy.
PICKTHAL: And when the Qur'an is recited, give ear to it and pay heed, that ye may obtain mercy.
SHAKIR: And when the Quran is recited, then listen to it and remain silent, that mercy may be shown to you.
Now my point is Allaah mentions remains silent, when Quran is being recited so can this mutawatir hadith can supercede the Quranic Ayah its not possible and Insha Allaah will never happen.
But i prefer as above mentioned when in silent prayers do recite Surah Al fatiha, but dont recite together with the imam when prayers are aloud.
The second best option would be let imam recite Surah Al Fatiha and the one's behind the imam remain silent until Imam recites Surah Al Fatiha, once completed let imam pause for certain time until the ones praying behind imam recite Surah Al Fatiha and then continue praying.
Initially i used to recite the surah along with imam, but then I got to know the above Quranic verse 7:204, but i still recited surah al fatiha after imam finished reciting it, but by then he would continue with the next surah. But Al Hamdullillaah after contemplationg verse 7:204, i just keep mum now unless imam pauses for certain time.
Posted:
Thu 31 May, 2007 6:39 am
Anonymous Guest
Status:
Faith:
Post subject: in reply to brohter Ahmed
Quote:
I think we have been brain washed to think as such, alcohol was forbidden because in it there is Ithm Kabir (Huge Sin) and all Ithm is forbidden as per The Quran, therefore Alcohol must be forbidden at once the moment the all Ithm was forbidden,
All Ithm Kabir is forbidden as per quran? Can it be said that Alcohol is not forbiden directly but technically yes. 1000 of arugments I have read, it is halal, it is haram. Isnt there any simple defination? Being sunni I was learnet that alcohol is haram. Thereafter I read some articles wtih qoutes from quran and article concluded it is no haram. I believed the articles must be right since it has direct quotes from quran. Now Im thinking maybe maybe those articles were not right. Very confusing!
Quote:
however being forbidden does not mean that some believers will never touch it, it is not like they are saints, I'm sure many believers will commit that sin, now if that sin is committed then we can not perform Salat until our mind is clear again so we recognise what we say, it is the sunni corruption who tell us after we finish salat the Isha (the last salat in the day) then we can drink, what a load of non sense man
Maybe sunni from your place think "after we finish salat the Isha (the last salat in the day) then we can drink"
but most sunni I know who even drink thinks its haram. Why blame sunni and not shia or the others. I do feel sad about this commet from senior man like you.
What is it, halal or haram alcohol ?
And Ithm Kabir (Huge Sin) can you please elaborate more, and are there (little sin) too ? I also learned that anyone commiting kabir-sin by drinking aclohol and hvng an affiar will live in hell forever erver.
salam. wsalam.
Posted:
Fri 01 Jun, 2007 6:35 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject: Re: in reply to brohter Ahmed
Quote:
I think we have been brain washed to think as such, alcohol was forbidden because in it there is Ithm Kabir (Huge Sin) and all Ithm is forbidden as per The Quran, therefore Alcohol must be forbidden at once the moment the all Ithm was forbidden,
Insan wrote:
All Ithm Kabir is forbidden as per quran?
Hello
All ithim is forbidden, being Kabir (big) or saghir (small)
The Ithim in alcohol is Kabir (big) as the Quran told us
Insan wrote:
Can it be said that Alcohol is not forbiden directly but technically yes.
Yes,
however that is the case with Zina (Adultry) as well, it was never said about it that it is haram (as far as I remember), however it was described as being "Fahisha", "Indeceney" and the Quran prohibited all Fawahish, i.e. Zina is Haram
Insan wrote:
1000 of arugments I have read, it is halal, it is haram. Isnt there any simple defination?
There is, there is Ithim Kabir in the Khamr and all Ithim is prohibited
Insan wrote:
Being sunni I was learnet that alcohol is haram.
I agree with the sunni in here
Insan wrote:
Thereafter I read some articles wtih qoutes from quran and article concluded it is no haram.[
If A is haram and if B is part of A then B is haram
1 + 1 = 2
Insan wrote:
I believed the articles must be right since it has direct quotes from quran.
It does not mean for anyone tpo post verses form the Quran that they truely understand it, i have seen many on the aloners web site
Insan wrote:
Now Im thinking maybe maybe those articles were not right. Very confusing!
Actually I was thinking like you when I read those articles a while back, then a decent Muslim sister made me aware of the ithim al kabir in it, therefore it has to be haram against my wish btw
Quote:
however being forbidden does not mean that some believers will never touch it, it is not like they are saints, I'm sure many believers will commit that sin, now if that sin is committed then we can not perform Salat until our mind is clear again so we recognise what we say, it is the sunni corruption who tell us after we finish salat the Isha (the last salat in the day) then we can drink, what a load of non sense man
Insan wrote:
Maybe sunni from your place think "after we finish salat the Isha (the last salat in the day) then we can drink"
Yep, many of them do as such using a verse in the Quran, however I replied to that already
Insan wrote:
but most sunni I know who even drink thinks its haram.
and of they drink it afer Salat Isha then they are hypocrites
Insan wrote:
Why blame sunni and not shia or the others. I do feel sad about this commet from senior man like you.
I agree with you that directing my comment at the sunni alone was unwarranted, sorry, however I have to explain myself, I only use the word sunni to refer to all hadith advocates sects who consider the hadith is as holy as the Quran, I donlt really mean the sunni sect specifically, however I will refrain myself from now on to specifically flag the sunni
Insan wrote:
What is it, halal or haram alcohol ?
In alcohol there is Ithim Kabir, all Ithim is haram, i.e. Alocohol is haram
Insan wrote:
And Ithm Kabir (Huge Sin) can you please elaborate more, and are there (little sin) too ?
of course sins can vary in magnitude, for example the sin of lying is less than the sin of killing, the biggest of all sins is Kufr, and due to the fact it is the biggest of all sins, kufr is unforgiven.
Insan wrote:
I also learned that anyone commiting kabir-sin by drinking aclohol and hvng an affiar will live in hell forever erver.
salam. wsalam.
No one knows who will live in hell or heaven for ever but Allah
Assalam alaikum.
Is lier more bad then drinker or drinker more bad then lier? Is drinking more harram from lieing? Pls give reasan answer Inshallah. Jazakallah.
Posted:
Sun 03 Jun, 2007 5:10 am
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
iqbalismail wrote:
Assalam alaikum.
Is lier more bad then drinker or drinker more bad then lier? Is drinking more harram from lieing? Pls give reasan answer Inshallah. Jazakallah.
Salam mate and welcome to Free-Islam
Lying is a sin of course, we were ordered in the Quran to say the truth even if it will hurt us, we also told that if we lie about Allah it will be a great sin and we will be following what Satan wants us to do exactly, we were also told many times to be with Al Sadiqeen, i.e. the truthful, which means those who don't lie, so I say it is not a small sin, as well I'm not really sure if its ithim magintude is described as the case of Alcohol, i have to do more researches inshallah and get back to you, however assuming that the ithim in lying is described as te ithim in alcohol was described, i.e. in it there is ithim kabir, that still does not make them equal in magnitude, we will never know how Allah judge the two compared to each other but we now well that one was described as in it is ithim kabir and the other was repeatedly warned against and the contrary of it which be truthful is the main theme of the Quran
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Hey bro SOA
How are you man?, here is a debate I just had with a couple of clear cut sunnis and hadith advicates from www.islammessage.com, look how they have been slam dunked bro, no agression at all, so they should have no reason to rant:
Salam all
Glad to see islammessage back online again, I was trying to reply for the last few days with no joy, let me reply to a couple of comments :
wel_mel_2 wrote:
Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.
Salam brother Wael
wel_mel_2 wrote:
Do you mean to say that Prophet Muhammad pbuh was making up his own rules concerning adultery and that he goes against the Qur'an ?
Well, I didn't mean to say that, but it seems that other people make up their own ruling regarding Zina, while the ruling on Zina is very clear in the Quran, what is also clear in the Quran, is this:
26: Say: Allah knows best how long they remained; to Him are (known) the unseen things of the heavens and the earth; how clear His sight and how clear His hearing! There is none to be a guardian for them besides Him, and He does not make any one His associate in His Judgment.
27: And recite what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord, there is none who can alter His words; and you shall not find any refuge besides Him. [The Quran ; 18:26-27]
قُلِ اللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا لَبِثُوا لَهُ غَيْبُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ أَبْصِرْ بِهِ وَأَسْمِعْ مَا لَهُم مِّن دُونِهِ مِن وَلِيٍّ وَلَا يُشْرِكُ فِي حُكْمِهِ أَحَدًا (26)
وَاتْلُ مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيْكَ مِن كِتَابِ رَبِّكَ لَا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِهِ وَلَن تَجِدَ مِن دُونِهِ مُلْتَحَدًا (27)
-> See, وَلَا يُشْرِكُ فِي حُكْمِهِ أَحَدًا, Wa La Yushrik Fi Hukmihi Ahda, i.e. and He does not make any one His associate in His Judgment., now Allah judged in the Quran that both the Zani and Zania should be lashed 100 lashes in public, but you guys are not happy with that so you want another associate to add to the judgment of Allah regarding Zina, i.e. you guys had made an associate to Allah regarding the judgment of Zina and simply are following both rules, I.E you have committed SHIRK. The next verse makes it even clearer:
-> See what Allah is telling Mohammad, And recite what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord, now let me ask you, was Mohammad ordered to recite his hadith instead of the Book of His Lord?, of course Mohammad can't change the words of Allah nor anyone for that matter, look what the verse is telling us : there is none who can alter His words however you guys are changing the words of our Lords, you are trying to convince us with the inconvincible which is the words Zani and Zania, mean those unmarried who commit adultery, while the matter of the fact is clear, Zani and Zania are those (single or married) who commit adultery, do you agree with that?
If you agree that Zani and Zania mean those (single or married) who commit adultery, then let me ask you why you are changing the words of Allah out of its intended meaning?
Now, how do you want me to accept another ruling from another human which involves killing a soul while Allah told us above He does not take any associate regarding His rulings)?
Of course the ruling of stoning the adulterers in Islam is man made, because it is not in the Quran, why it is not in the Quran, because when the prophet was asked to include the alleged verse of The Sheikh and Sheikha, if the commit Zina, stone them outright, he refused to include it in the Quran, let's have a look at some info from the books of the hearsay Hadith:
[Umar said:] Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the holy book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the verse of Rajam (the stoning of married persons, male and female, who commit adultery) and we did recite this verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say "By Allah's Book", we do not find the Verse of Rajam in Allah's Book, and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 8, p. 539)
`Umar said from the pulpit, '... and part of what was revealed in the Qur'an read, "the saikh and the saikha, when they fornicate, stone them outright". Some will repudiate this, and but that men would say, "`Umar has added to the Book of God," I will write it on the margin of the mushaf.' (p. 78-79, al Sarakhsi, "Mabsut", 30 vols., Cairo, 1324, vol. 9, p. 36)
[`Umar] announced from the Prophet's pulpit, God sent Muhammad with the truth and revealed to him the Book. Part of what God revealed was the stoning verse. We used to recite it and we memorised it. The Prophet stoned and we have stoned after him. I fear that with the passage of time some will say, 'We do not find stoning in the Book of God', and will therefore neglect a divine injunction which God revealed. Stoning is a just claim.... (p. 77-78, Ahmad b. al Husain al Baihaqi, "al Sunan al Kubra", 10 vols., Haiderabad, 1925-38/1344-57, vol. 8, p. 210)
ibn `Abbas reports a sermon by `Umar in the course of which he said, 'Men! stoning is a penalty laid down by God. Do not neglect it. It is in the Book of God and the Sunna of your Prophet. The Messenger of God stoned; Abu Bakr stoned, and I have stoned.' (p. 75, Sulaiman b. Da'ud al Tayalisi, "Sunan", Haiderabad, 1904/1321, p. 6)
Malik reports ibn `Abbas as declaring, 'I heard `Umar b. al Khattab say, "Stoning in the Book of God is a just claim against the non-virgin, man or woman, who fornicates, when valid proof is adduced, or pregnancy ensues, or self-condemnation is volunteered."' (p. 75, Malik b. Anas, "al Muwatta'", K. al Hudud.)
`Ali reported that the stoning verse had been revealed but those who bore it together with other verses in their memories perished in the Yemama. (p. 121, Burhan al Din al Baji, "Jawab", MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur "majami`", no. 207, f. 14) [/b]
In a variant version `Umar fears that with the passage of time some will say, 'We do not find the stoning verse in the Book of God.'
[i](p. 78)
Two men brought a case before the Prophet. One of them said, 'Messenger of God, judge between us in accordance with the Book of God.'
The other, who was more familiar with litigation, said, 'Yes, Messenger of God, judge between us in accordance with the Book of God and let me speak first. My son served as a hired hand under this man, but he fornicated with his employer's wife. The man, informing me that my son had incurred the stoning penalty, I ransomed him from that penalty with 100 sheep and a slave girl I had. Subsequently I enquired of the learned who informed me that the stoning penalty lay on the man's wife.'
The Messenger of God said, 'By Him in Whose hand is my soul! I will judge between you in accordance with the Book of God. Your cattle and slave girl are to be restored to you.'
At this point, the direct speech ends, but the hadith continues, 'He awarded the son 100 strokes and banished him for a year. He ordered Unais al Aslami to go to the employer's wife, and in the event that she confess, imposed the stoning penalty. She confessed, and Unais stoned her.' ( Anas b. Malik, "al Muwatta'", K. al Hudud)
The aunt of Abu Usama b. Sahl told him that the Prophet had instructed them in the reciting of the stoning verse. (p. 82, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)
God sent Muhammad and sent down the Scripture to him. Part of what he sent down was the passage on stoning, we read it, and we heeded it. The apostle stoned and we stoned them after him. I fear that in time to come men will say that they find no mention of stoning in God's book and thereby go astray in neglecting an ordinance which God has sent down. Verily stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and women who commit adultery. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 684)
All the above evidences look cool and dandy, however it only has one problem, IT IS NOTHING BUT CONJECTURES and surely violates the Quran in two aspects:
1) Violates that Allah promised to reserve the Quran
2) Violates that Allah does not take associates in His rulings
While all the hearsay above confirm that the stoning verse was revealed to Mohammad, we suddenly read the following:
Ubayy said, 'It used to equal the length surat al Baqara and we used to recite in Ahzab the stoning verse.' Zirr asked, 'What is the stoning verse?' Ubayy recited, 'If the saikh and the saikha fornicate, stone them outright as an exemplary punishment from God. God is might, wise.' (p. 80, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)
Ubayy asked Zirr b. Hubais, 'How many verses do you recite in surat al Ahzab?' Zirr replied, 'Seventy-three verses.' Ubayy asked if that was all. 'I have seen it,' he said, 'when it was the same length as Baqara. It contained the words "The sheikh and the sheikha, when they fornicate, stone them outright, as an exemplary punishment from God. God is might, wise."' (p. 78-79, Ahmad b. al Husain al Baihaqi, "al Sunan al Kubra", 10 vols., Haiderabad, 1925-38/1344-57, vol. 8, pp. 210-11)
I.e. the hearsay hadith above is telling us that sura 33 was the same length as sura 2\ but somehow we ended up with only 73 verses as we see them today, i.e. the Quran is not preserved contrary to what Allah is telling us in the Quran
Ahzab was identified as the sura originally containing the stoning verse, and, in addition to Ubayy and Abu Musa, `A'isa reports that Ahzab used to be recited, in the lifetime of the Prophet, as having 200 verses, but when `Uthman wrote out the mushafs, all they could find was its present length. (Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)
A variant of this hadith speaks of writing out the mushaf with, however, no mention of date or attribution. ibn al Anbari concluded from `A'isa's report that God withdrew from the sura everything in excess of its present length, and Mekki reminds us that withdrawal is one of the modes of naskh. (p. 84, Burhan al Din al Baji, "Jawab", MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur "majami`", no. 207, f. 10) Ahzab has only seventy-three verses in today's mushaf. (p. 84)
Therefore if this concept called naskh is true then Allah has withdrew the verse of the stoning, again this is nothing but conjectures, however assuming it is true then the stoning DOES NOT APPLY ANY MORE, indeed when the prophet was asked to add the stoning verse to the Quran HE DECLINED:
Zaid b. Thabit and Sa`id b. al `As were writing out the mushaf. When they came to this verse, Zaid said, 'I heard the Prophet say, "the sheikh and the sheikha."' `Umar stated, 'When it was revealed, I went to the Messenger of God and said to him, "Shall I write it?" but he seemed to disapprove.' `Umar added, 'Don't you see that the mature, if unwed, would only be flogged in the event of fornication, yet the youth, if wed, would be stoned?' (p. 80, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 119; Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 26)
Marwan b. al Hakam asked Zaid why he would not write the verse in the mushaf. Zaid replied, Don't you see that the youth if married is stoned? We raised this question with `Umar and he said, 'I'll see to it.' He went to the Prophet and asked his permission to record the verse. The Prophet said he could not permit that. (p. 81-82, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 131; Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 26-7)
Hmmmm, was the prophet and his companions moderating Allah words?, of course not, it seems the best conjecture to fit all the above hearsay that Allah has changed His words contrary to 18:27 and withdrew the stoning verse so He ordered Mohammed not to include it in the Quran, and if this is true while I still don't believe it then the stoning does not apply anymore, the verse is mansookh according to the alleged naskh concept.
It has to be an order from Allah because if Mohammad moderated Allah words without Allah permission, this is what should have happened to him:
43: (This is) a Message sent down from the Lord of the Worlds.
44: And if he had fabricated against Us some of the sayings,
45: We would certainly have seized him by the right hand,
46: Then We would certainly have cut off his aorta.
47: And not one of you could have withheld Us from him.
48: And most surely it is a reminder for those who guard (against evil). [The Quran ; 69:43-48]
تَنزِيلٌ مِّن رَّبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ (43)
وَلَوْ تَقَوَّلَ عَلَيْنَا بَعْضَ الْأَقَاوِيلِ (44)
لَأَخَذْنَا مِنْهُ بِالْيَمِينِ (45)
ثُمَّ لَقَطَعْنَا مِنْهُ الْوَتِينَ (46)
فَمَا مِنكُم مِّنْ أَحَدٍ عَنْهُ حَاجِزِينَ (47)
وَإِنَّهُ لَتَذْكِرَةٌ لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ (48)
In the verses above Allah is telling us about His Quran:
-> 43: (This is) a Message sent down from the Lord of the Worlds., now if the prophet has modified this message without Allah permission:44: And if he had fabricated against Us some of the sayings,, refusing to include the stoning verse must fall under this of course, i.e. the prophet must have been fabricating sayings against Allah (Allah forbids), it never happened of course, because if it did, then this is what should have happened to Mohammad:45: We would certainly have seized him by the right hand, and 46: Then We would certainly have cut off his aorta. and no one would have been able to save him :47: And not one of you could have withheld Us from him. then Allah is summing it beautifully to us that the Quran is the reminder for Al Muttaqeen :48: And most surely it is a reminder for those who guard (against evil). and in the Quran we read Allah ruling regarding the punishment of the Zina as follow:
2- The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment. [The Quran ; 24:2]
الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي فَاجْلِدُوا كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا مِئَةَ جَلْدَةٍ وَلَا تَأْخُذْكُم بِهِمَا رَأْفَةٌ فِي دِينِ اللَّهِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلْيَشْهَدْ عَذَابَهُمَا طَائِفَةٌ مِّنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (2)
-> 24:2 is telling us the punishment of a Zani or a Zania , The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.
However according to your logic, you are not happy with the above and only ruling by Allah regarding the Zani and Zania, so you are changing the words Zani and Zania to mean only those who are not married, while in Arabic this is nothing but false of course, because the word Zani and Zania mean anyone (married or not) who commits adultery, on the other hand assuming that the verse of the stoning was included in the Quran, yet the words SHEIKH and SHEIKHA DO NOT MEAN A MARRIED MAN and A MARRIED WOMAN, rather AN OLD MAN and AN OLD WOMAN, indeed a sheikh and a sheikha may be singles, DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
You have absolutely no point brother, unless you want to follow conjectures said by many people who look like they were confused about the subject and you want to take their hearsay as ruling from Allah under His Sharia, well, those who do that must be those the following verse is talking about:
Or have they associates who have prescribed for them in the religion that Allah does not sanction? And were it not for the word of judgment, decision would have certainly been given between them; and surely the unjust shall have a painful punishment.
-> See, -> See, أَمْ لَهُمْ شُرَكَاء شَرَعُوا لَهُم مِّنَ الدِّينِ مَا لَمْ يَأْذَن بِهِ اللَّهُ, i.e. Or have they associates who have prescribed for them in the religion that Allah does not sanction?, please tell me, how many Sheikh, Mullahs, Imams and Muftis prescribed the ruling regarding the Zani and Zania in a way that Allah never sanctioned it in His Quran?, can't get clearer than this
wel_mel_2 wrote:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: [Under Islamic laws in an Islamic state] It is not lawful to shed the blood of a Muslim except for one of three sins: a married person committing fornication, and in just retribution for premeditated murder, and [for sin of treason involving] a person renouncing Islam, and thus leaving the community [to join the enemy camp in order to wage war against the faithful]. (Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, and An-Nasa'i)
Great, now I ask you why he refused to include it in the Quran, was he moderating the unchangeable Allah words?
wel_mel_2 wrote:
Salam
Wael.
Salam Brother
Muslimah wrote:
Bismillah
Brother Ahmed I think u really need to reconsider much of what you post, not because of who reads,
Salam sister
I would have preferred that you pin point me to where exactly I got it wrong, it is all for the sake of the truth, right?, thank you
Muslimah wrote:
but because of yourself.
Of course it has to be for myself, I only care to save myself in this test to be honest, however I don't want others to be doomed while not realizing it, would that be a bad thing to do?
Muslimah wrote:
Re read the Ayahs carefully, and try to understand.
Which Ayahs please?, can you pin point me to where exactly I got it wrong?, cheers
Muslimah wrote:
And if this is who u intend to translate the meanings of Quran,
Translate, or understand? There is a big difference dear sister
On the other hand, did I understand the meaning of the words Zani and Zania wrong?, does it mean those who are not married and commit adultery? Or does it mean anyone (single or not) who commits adultery?
Do I understand the meaning or the words Sheikh and Sheikha wrong?, do they mean old married man and old married woman, or only mean an old man and an old woman?
So under the human ruling you are following:
We have the following case studies:
A) a 17 years old married man and a 15 years old married woman who commit adultery
B) a 65 years old single man and a 55 years old single woman who commit adultery
The two young and unexperienced couple will be stoned to death while the two old adults who suppose to be mature enough and have years of experience will be flogged 100 lashes?
Is that what you are telling me? well before you answer I will remind you with what Omar said:
Umar added, 'Don't you see that the mature, if unwed, would only be flogged in the event of fornication, yet the youth, if wed, would be stoned?'
Muslimah wrote:
then I sincerely advice you to hold on and try to revise your knowledge.
Thank you for the advice dear sister and I sincerely advice you and advice others to do the exact same
Salam Sister
Salam All
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Sat 20 Sep, 2008 8:39 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted:
Sun 03 Jun, 2007 9:34 am
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Salam all
I posted the a bove refute to the stoning punishment on the kuffar web site www.faithfreedom.org , this is what i got inclusing how i replied to it:
katlike wrote:
So your saying that the koran isn't very clear and is open to various, broad, interpretations?
Not at all, what I'm saying that the Quran is clear regarding the puishment of adulterers, on the other hand the hadith is the one that is not clear and clearly is full of contradictions.
katlike wrote:
What are you going to do if those muslims you are arguing with are correct and your wrong?
According to the Quran, I'm sorry, I can't be wrong, ironically according to the hadith I can't be wrong either, please read my comment thoroughly
katlike wrote:
Are we kafirs to know any different?
What do you mean by that?
katlike wrote:
Wouldn't this tiff amoung you be enough to prove the koran isn't real clear and the kafirs were right all along?
It seems you either didn't read my article nor understood it well, the kafirs were wrong all along exacly as those hadith advocates, on the other hand what i showed from both the hadith and the Quran proves that the Quran is not man made.
katlike wrote:
koran claims...it is clear and for all people of all time.
The Quran never claimed to be clear, however I agree that it should be clear to the true believers.
katlike wrote:
You and your rivals have certainly proven that is not the case.
You are wrong, firstly I dont have rivals, seconadly it is the so called rivels whom under their allegations the Quran seems wrong, however I proved them wrong using the Quran and their hadith.
katlike wrote:
I for one would agree with your arguement,
My argument is simple to comprehend and let me tell you darling, my argument is irrefutable
katlike wrote:
but I am not "learned" in the koran like your opposistion.
I like the word opposition more than rivals, well I doubt that my oppsitions are realy learnt in the Quran, i even doubt that they are learnt in their hadith.
katlike wrote:
They must know islam and god much better than a pagen like me. And since you and I agree, what does that make you?
It does not make me anything other than standing for Allah words that I see as a believer that it is the only truthful sayings I heard in this life.
katlike wrote:
Care to tell us what should happen to you now that you are in agreement with a pagen?
Sure I care to tell you, well I dont care what will happen to me, this is because i know well that whatever is going to happen to me must be allowed by Allah and I have blind trust regarding what He chose to allow and not allow
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
All times are GMT + 10 Hours Ported for PHP-Nuke by nukemods.com
a salafi, 
