Originally Posted by khalid zaheer
I cannot find any trace of ‘elitist attacks’ displayed in this discussion. To say that one is forcing his view would imply that he is receiving no opposition which is incorrect. Furthermore, people who force their views on others disregard the views of others and repeat the same predicable posts in spite of the fact that it has nothing to do with the replies of the opponent. I have not observed such behaviour in this topic or else I would have closed the thread.
As for you repeating your points, then address the replies adequately. Remember that failing to respond to my points results into you re-iterating your primary points.
Quran is an absolute knowledge, so there is no need to examine it. Even then Quran said (for “Ahl-a-Aimaan”)
And those who, when they are reminded by the “Aayaat” of their Lord, do not fall down at them deaf and blind.(73/25)
And it’s my “Aaimaan” that Sunnah is, certainly, to convert the verbal orders in practical. So I can easily get the knowledge about Sunnah through Quran, and it would be authentic. So I did not mean to examine Quranic verses, because these verses are standard to examine every matter, but the other sources through misc. ways as well as through Quran.
This is interesting, since you have introduced a whole new definition of the Sunnah. According to your statement, the sunnah is simply the commandments of the Glorious Qur’aan with any elucidation.
Allaah (Exalted is He) said in the Glorious Qur’aan, perform As-Salaat without explaining how to perform or observe. How would you convert from that single ayah into practise?
Even though your definition of sunnah concides with the quran-alone sect, let me state what Sunnah is according the various branches.
According to the ulema of ahadeeth, sunnah means all that is narrated from the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), his sayings, his acts, whatever he has tacitly approved, and all the narrations which describe his physical attributes and character.
According to the ulema of Jurisprudence( Fiqh), the sunnah refers to the category of mandub or nafilah. It is used synonymously with mandub (recommended acts)
According to the ulema of usool al-fiqh, it refers to another source of the Shariah in addition with the Glortious Qur’aan.
And what do you mean by layman? I think every person is layman until he become able to call a knowledge full person. Bhukhari or Muslim was not layman? They did efforts and got up from the list of laymen, then called knowledge full person. Or you think now here is no one able to get up from the list of laymen? They were laymen too; there were not any inspiration for them. They got knowledge same as we get, they examined it and presented what they could understand. It does not mean whatever they presented is 100% perfect and we should go on the way with blind eyes.
I did not grasp what you just stated. What do you mean with ‘until he became able to call a knowledge full person’?
If you mean that every individual is a layman unless he acquires knowledge and expertise in his chosen field. That is exactly the whole concept of being a layperson.
It seems that argument is solely based on the claim that one has to start somewhere in order to gain knowledge. This is extraneous to what I have stated and that is whether one could interpret and deduce rulings from the Glorious Qur’aan without knowledge (i.e. a layperson).
As for blind-following the Imaams of Hadeeth, how can one blind-follow them if they have left the isnad, the criteria of how they evaluated the narrations for the benefit of later generations so that they can verify it.
Let’s see what the scholars have said regarding Imaam Bukharee (May Allaah have mercy on him)
Nu’aym ibn Hammaad said,
“Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel is the Faqeeh of the Ummah.”
Ishaaq ibn Raahawaih said,
“Write narrations from this young man (meaning al-Bukhaaree), because if he had lived in the time of al-Hasan the people would have had need of him due to his knowledge of hadeeth and its understanding.”
Aboo Bakr ibn Abee Shaybah and Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullaah ibn
Numayr both said,
“We have not seen anyone like Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel.”
Ahmad ibn Hanbal said,
“Khuraasaan has not brought out the like of Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel.”
Aboo ‘Ammaar al-Husayn ibn Huraith praised al-Bukhaaree and
“I am not aware that I have seen anyone the like of him, it is as if he had been created solely for the hadeeth.”
Muhammad ibn Bashshaar said,
“The great memorizers of the world are four: Aboo Zur’ahi in Rayy, ad-Daarirnee in Samarqand, Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel in Bukhaaraa and Muslim in Neesaaboor.”
Ibn Khuzaymah said,
“I have not seen under the sky anyone having more knowledge of and better memorization of the hadeeth of Allaah’s Messenger (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) than Muhammad ibn Isrnaa’eel.”
The game of words, where this game has brought us every one easily examine by glimpses. And what blame upon whom “whoever Allah doesn’t intend to show goodness to”, what they should do when the “Fiqh” of religion is not given to them by Almighty? This is the justice of Allah that He does not show them the right path but ready to punish for what they do? What your “salaafs” interpretation says about?
Akhee, I am having trouble understanding your post. What are you trying to say? Should I take a stab in the dark and guess what you’re trying to say?
Let me first explain what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) meant with that statement. Understanding the religion is the sign of the believer and having eemaan. It’s also one of the causes for the increase of eemaan. Having knowledge of the faith and knowing what increases and decreases eemaan is obligatory upon every Muslim. The saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is also confirmed in the Glorious Qur’aan:
Allaah (Exalted is He) said in Sooraat Al-Baqarah:
He grants wisdom to whom He pleases; and he to whom wisdom is granted indeed receives a benefit overflowing. But none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.
The Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) also said:
To seek knowledge is obligatory upon every Muslim
Those who are lacking common knowledge of the Deen are hypocrites and this is because Allaah (Exalted is He) said:
"But the hypocrites do not understand."
When you bring such kinds of statements in front of me it make my thinking firm about you that you are not a scholar but a typical “Moolvi”. But brother its not the good way to see your Deen.
Haha, akhee, no one is here claiming to be a scholar. I always assumed that a Maulvi is an urdu word for scholar. Leave the petty words akhee and concentrate on the argument.
How you imagine everyone except you and your “Salaafs” is layman, and not able to understand the book? How you know there is no one except you and your Salaafs that grasped the objectives and goals of Shariah? I think you don’t know how many time the verse “this Quran is so easy for those that want to understand it” is repeated in Quran. There is only one condition, presented by Quran, to understand it
“this book (Quran) is beyond any doubt, but it is guidance for those only that close their eyes from everywhere except what is revealed by Almighty in the book”. (2/2)
Firstly, if what you have stated implies and attributes ignorance to the Salaf, then I urge you to edit it out.
We know that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was the best interpreter of the Glorious Qur’aan. Similiary the Sahabas were the best mufassireen after the Prophet since they inherited his knowledge and conveyed it to the Ummah. This is why the Prophet praised his generation (sahabas), those who followed the sahabas (tabi'ien) and those who followed the students of the sahabas (tab tabi'een). Since Islaam was completed in the time of the Prophet, the correct understanding remained untill the end of the third generation. Hence why the scholars, past and present, had no disagreement that the first generations should be followed and stop where they stopped.
Imaam Al-Awzaee (may Allaah have mercy on him) said,
Hold yourself with patience upon Sunnah, stop where they stopped(Salaf), say what they said, and take the way of your pious salaf. Verily, it is sufficient for you what was sufficient for them.
It we understood this ayah in the same way that you understood, there would be no sects and hizbs and Allaah (Exalted is He) would be pleased with us.
The only ayah where Allaah (Exalted is He) said that the Qur’aan is easy is in the ayah where Allaah (Exalted is He) said:
And surely We have made the Qur’aan easy for Dhikr (getting a lesson) so is there anyone to get a lesson?
Obviosuly this ayah refers getting lesson from the Glorious Qur’aan and its being easy for this purpose only. There is no extension of this ayah to to indicate that everybody irrespective of the volume of their learning can derive rules and interpretation of the legal laws. Then Allaah (exalted is He) wouldn’t have sent the prophet as a teacher and explainer of the Glorious Qur’aan.
Allaah (Exalted is He) said:
And these similitudes We mention before the people. And nobody understands them except the learned
Ibn Katheer comments in his tafseer regarding the ayah:
(And these are the examples We give for mankind; but none will understand them except those who have knowledge.) meaning, no one understands them or ponders them except those who are possessed of deep knowledge. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that `Amr bin Murrah said, "I never came across an Ayah of the Book of Allah that I did not know, but it grieved me, because I heard that Allaah says:
(And these are the examples We give for mankind; but none will understand them except those who have knowledge. )''
I think the concept of “Naskh” has much importance in your life, because at many places I have read these words from you but I did not touch it because it’s a very useless matter that was created by “Khitaabi” and his co-religionist to change the orders of Quranic verses. But I think you could enlighten the matter, I am putting some question plz reply for me
The concept of Naskh is confirmed in the Glorious Qur’aan and to simply brush it as an illegal concept forged by a Muslim reveals that you do not much of the subject.
Nevertheless, I will answer your queries.
how many verses are agreed “Naskh”?
Al-Suyuti in his book al-Itqaan said that:
'twenty-one verses in the Qur'an were abrogated; some were agreed upon, while others are not. These abrogated verses are in the following Surahs: Al-Baqarah, Al-'Imran, An-Nisa', Al-Ma'idah, Al-Anfal, At-Taubah, An-Nur, Al-Ahzab, Al-Mujadilah, Al-Mumtahinah and Al-Muzzammil.
2_Please present at least five verses that are agreed cancelled?
Naskh may be either sarih (explit) or dimni (implicit). I will list some explicit and implicit ones:
First cancelled ayah is the change of Qiblah:
“Verily, We have seen the turning of your (Muhammad’s) face towards the heaven. Surely, We shall turn you to a Qiblah (prayer direction) that shall please you, so turn your face in the direction of Al-Masjid Al-Haraam (at Makkah)”[al-Baqarah 2:144]
Second cancelled ayah is the ayah in Sooraat al-Anfal:
'If there be of you twenty steadfast persons, they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be one hundred of you, they shall overcome one thousand
Allaah subsequently revealed:
Now Allah has lightened your burden [...] if there be of you one hundred steadfast persons, they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you one thousand, they shall overcome two thousand.'
Third cancelled ayah which is an implicit abrogation is the waiting period of widows:
Those of you who are about to die and leave widows should bequeath for their widows a year's maintenance and residence; but if they leave the residence, you are not responsible for what they do of themselves (al-Baqarah, 2:240).
Those of you who die and leave widows, the latter must observe a waiting period of four months and ten days; when they have fulfilled their term, you are not responsible for what they do of themselves (al-Baqarah, 2:234)
These should serve as an example since I do not have the time to list all the abrogated ayaat.
3_We need to act upon the verses that have been cancelled or not?
Ayaat that are in the Qur’aan and have been cancelled should not be acted upon but should be recited in salaat. That is naskh al-hukm such as the abrogated ayaat that I have cited above.
If “khawarji” said the same what the Quran is saying then they are “deviate”, we need not to pay attention because they are Khawarji? You mean whatever the Khawarji said is wrong may that is according to Quran, but if someone is insisting over the things that are against Quran even then one is like a Messenger because he is not khawarji but one of your salaafs, bohat khooob. They themselves announced that we are khawarij or you make them Khawarji? They were khawarij because they said “we don’t accept the things out of Quran”, and we are “Moomin” because we are ready to accept every thing out of Quran might it be against the book. They present a thing that is according to Quran how you decline it? You reject it because a label (khawarij) has been pasted upon by some persons, then this label has been pasted upon Muhammad (saw) too. He (saw) was not khawarji for whole Arab when He (saw) presented a new Deen? Think if you able to think
Not only are you not making sense but you applied the label khawarij to connote to presenting a new Deen.
Khawaraaji were the first sect who abandoned the Sunnah and rejected most of the ahadeeth and declared those who commit major sins as kaafirs. Seriously, I do not understand you reasoning to apply such label to the Prophet whilst not knowing who they were.
I don’t need to know what your “Mazzhabs” say about; I need to know what my DEEN has said. May the Imams of these Mazzhabs have the place like Allah’s Messengers in front of you and you see their books like divine books but in my opinion if they are presenting something which is against Quran then, according to Quran, they are certainly “Zaalim”. Who permit them to make Ijma over a thing one or two "lives" depend upon, furthermore against the divine book? They are not agreeing upon most of the matters but over the thing that is against Quran they are agreed, surprising.
Surprisingly, I was right. I really held the assumption that you at least knew the foundations of the Shariah sciences. Apparantly, I was mistaken and this dialogue proved to be unfruitful if the opposite hasn’t got the slightest clue of the Islaamic foundations and ridicules the Imaams.
The only source that you seem to be accepting is the Qur’aan only and thus neglecting the Sunnah. This places you in the same category as the Quran-alone sect.
I have put the questions above but here asking again “if this verse is forgotten by Almighty then why are you insisting to remember it? You should also forget it”. You did not put the next words of this Aayat; the verse is
Whatever verse We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it, or the like of it; dost thou not know that God is powerful over everything? (106/2)
If the ayah of stoning has been abrogated verbally, then how can one remember it. I never cited the exact of stoning, rather I cited the injunction. It seems that you’re confused on this issue.
If the verse of stoning is “caused to be forgotten” then which one is replaced? And if verse of stoning is replacement then which one is forgotten? Could you please explain for me?
Since naskh has various principles, the form of abrogation regarding stoning is refered to as naskh al-tilawah. There are naskh without any replacement and the basis for them is in the ahadeeth. But this will prove to be troublesome for you since you do not recognize the sunnah and thus only rely on the Glorious Qur’aan. Since all these reports were narrated from the Sahabas, do you accept or reject the ijma of the Sahabas?
The word “interpretation” is your favorite word so using for you “is this your interpretation that the revealed laws means Quran and Sunnah”, and both are a different things.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:
“I have been given the Qur’an and something similar to it besides it. Yet a time will come when a man leaning on his couch will say ‘follow the Qur’an only; what you find in it permissible, take as permissible, and what you find as forbidden, take as forbidden’. But verily what the Messenger of Allaah has forbidden is like what Allaah has forbidden”
This is reported by Ahmad and Abu Dawood and classified as saheeh.
It seems that you have not replied on the ayat which speak of the Sunnah. The al-dhikr that includes both the Glorious Qur’aan.
How you know brother the word inspiration means “un-recited revelation”? It means you have the authority to interpretation of Quran as you like but other could not be. Every person that has a little touch with Quran knows this verse is the reply of what the “Kuffar” said “why you yourself not announce the orders in the matter of Deen” and “these are the stories Muhammad (saw) has listened from someone and repeating in front of us day and night”. But you changed its meanings to un-recited revelation.
Why do you insist on claiming that I interpret this ayaat based on my thinking. I am simply relaying the understanding of the sahabas in regard to that ayah.
Ibn katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said regarding:
(It is only a revelation revealed.), means, he only conveys to the people what he was commanded to convey, in its entirety without additions or deletions. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Umamah said that he heard the Messenger of Allaah say,
(Verily, numbers similar to the two tribes, or one of them, Rabi`ah and Mudar, will enter Paradise on account of the intercession of one man, who is not a Prophet.)
A man asked, "O Allaah's Messenger! Is not Rabi`ah a subtribe of Mudar.'' The Prophet said,
(I said what I said.)
Imam Ahmad recorded that `Abdullah bin `Amr said,
"I used to record everything I heard from the Messenger of Allaah so it would be preserved. The Quraysh discouraged me from this, saying, `You record everything you hear from the Messenger of Allaah , even though he is human and sometimes speaks when he is angry' I stopped recording the Hadiths for a while, but later mentioned what they said to the Messenger of Allaah , who said,
(Write! By He in Whose Hand is my soul, every word that comes out of me is the Truth.)''
Abu Dawud also collected this Hadith.
Does your opinion on the ayah overrule the understanding of the Sahabas?
Your words “may” and “left to the Sunnah” are interesting. If Sunnah was able to define laws and Muhammad (saw) had the authority to announce the things lawful or unlawful then what is the need of Quran? The above two verses were enough. Allah reveals these verses and Muhammad (saw) announced these things are good and lawful and those are not.
The question should be, why did Allaah (Exalted is He) repeatedly say in the Glorious Qur’aan that He sent the Prophet as legislator.
Allaah (Exalted is He) said:
Fight those who do not believe in Allaah and the Hereafter and do not hold unlawful what Allaah and His Messenger have made unlawful
Here, the Prophet, by the will of Allaah, exercises the authority to make something unlawful.
Allaah (Exalted is He) also says
No believer, neither man nor woman, has a right, when Allaah and His Messenger decide a matter, to have a choice in their matter in issue. And whoever disobeys Allaah and His Messenger has gone astray into manifest error.
He also says:
Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids you, refrain from it.
Or what about
But no, by your Lord, they shall not be (deemed to be) believers unless they accept you as judge in their disputes, then find in their hearts no adverse feeling against what you decided, but surrender to it in complete submission.
Brother Kadafi I hope now you have understood that Abu Shumha was a married person. I can criticize the most of the points of this Rivaayat in many ways but it’s a waste of time only. The above description is enough to prove my point; I declared in my last post, that even then this Rivaayat was created the final punishment for Zina was 100 lashes. Otherwise, certainly, the creator of this Rivaayat suggested stoning for Abu shumha (being a married person).
There are two conflicting points regarding Abu Shahma. The first statement you cited stated that he impregnated a female by force whilst in the state of being drunk. The second reported stated by Ibn hajar is that one day he, he drank wine and became unconscious. He confessed his guilt and wanted to be punished. Amr bin Al Aas said that they were feeling repentant and that was enough, and no further punishment was called for. However, Abu Shahma insisted that he should be punished according to Law. So he was punished (80 lashes). Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) found out that Amr bin Al Aas flogged Abu Shahma in his house instead of public so he ordered that Abu Shahma should be send to Madinah and be flogged in public. Compare that to your statement that he Umar showed undue favour to his son by awarding only lashes.
The penalty for drinking whine is 80 lashes. This is reported in the Muwatta of Malik:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Thawr ibn Zayd ad-Dili that Umar ibn al-Khattab asked advice about a man drinking wine. Ali ibn Abi Talib said to him, "We think that you flog him for it with eighty lashes. Because when he drinks, he becomes intoxicated, and when he becomes intoxicated, he talks confusedly, and when he talks confusedly, he lies." (80 lashes is the same amount as for slandering) Umar gave eighty lashes for drinking wine.
Despite the fact that these are conflicting reports, the first report (the one you cited) does not contradict the ruling on stoning. Umar flogged him first but he died in the processes of being flogged, since the punishment is lashing for unmarried Muslims and lashing AND stoning
for married Muslims.
Nice shot, but I am surprised you did not put any Hadith in favour of such “unique” statements, or sayings of Ibn-a-Qayyam are also “Sunnah”?
At one moment, you do not accept the hadeeth but the other moment you demand the hadeeth for a ruling.
The reason why they are not classified as thieves is ‘cause they do not fit the category. Sariqa (theft) accordin’ to the Shariah Law means taking away the property of another in a secret manner, at time when such property is in custody.
Compare that to a robber takes properties by force or the opportunist who takes away the property when the owner is being neglectful. It is fully explained in the statement by Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him).
You did not prescribe if someone stole a little less than “Nisab” then what is one’s punishment. Could you please tell me when this Nisab was stated? And how many times someone could steal less than Nisab?
If one still less than a Nisab, then his action would be deemed as haraam but the hadd would not be applied. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said and is reported by Ahmad.
“There is no cutting (of hands) for stealing that is less than ten Dirhams.” (Musnad Ahmad)
A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) narrates that: “The hand of a thief was not cut off during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allaah (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) except for stealing something equal to a shield in value.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, 6792, & Sahih Muslim, 1685)
If I goes to somewhere in my car and park it in the parkingl, where from car is stolen by someone, you mean it is not the stealing, because it’s my negligence, I should put the car in my pocket, am I right? And the person who stole my car could not be called thief because he is opportunist and he pick this car from parking. So we could not cut his hand. But if he steals my car from my house then he is thief. Now we could cut his hand. Excellent laws
You did not grasp the concept and hastily resorted in unnecessary analogies. If you have secured your car with utmost protection, and the thief manages to steal it, then he will be classified as a thief.
The elements that constitute sariqa are:
1. The thief must be an adult of sound understanding
2. The property must be in careful protection on the man.
3 The property must be taken out of the custody of another person (owner) in a secret manner.
4. The thief must have obtained full possession of the stolen property.
5. The property must be movable.
6. The property must be of some value, which must not be less than the prescribed “Nisaab/Nisab” (limit).
7. Dishonest intention to take property.
I know only one thing brother if an Islamic govt. (Khilaafat ullah) is established in full form then may someone steal a needle or a ship one would be called thief and have the same punishment describe in Quran
So according to you, one who steals a needle must still be punished. What about children, or the insane?
It is apparent that you cannot answer such questions since your only source is restricted to the Glorious Qur’aan despite the fact that Allaah (Exalted is He) repeatedly mentioned to obey Him and His Messenger.
It is odd that one can profess such view to be correct and that the Ummah of the last 1400 years including the Sahabas and the Prophet erred in applying the Law of stoning.
La hawla wa la quwwata illa billaah