How do we understand how to interpret the quran

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum

the issue isn't about the hadeeth being important or accepted I believe, rather its about what was the prophet simply following cultual norms of his time and place, as opposed to the divine commands in the qur'an that must be held unchngeable.

Welll that's not really an issue because:
1. There are different kind of hadeeth, the ones saying what the prophet (peace be upon him) said, the ones saying what the prophet (peace be upon him) did, and what the prophet (peace be upon him) allowed. Rules derived from these different types have different strengths going from advisory to obligatory for that very reason you pointed out.
2. The Prophet (peace be upon him) is reported to have done many things merely for the sake of hadeeth! Like an example would be that he ate something he didn't like at least once, just so people wouldn't think its forbidden.

for example the narrations of the prophet using or prescribing medicine, are they to be considered sacred and priscribed to everyone around us or were they the prophet telling people what was generlly known about medicine back then? and so on.

That depends on the strength of the hadeeth. Also remember that if the Prophet (peace be upon him) would have said something because of cultural backgrounds that wasn't optimal that Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) could have corrected him, similar to how he corrected him with the surah Abasa (surah 80).

no one considers every single act the prophet did as sacred, but the attitude prevalent among traditional muslims seems to miss this point.

I never said his very acts were sacred. I don't think his acts were sacred, but I do think he lead by example and we should attempt to follow his deeds as much as possible. Whether or not they qualify as sacred actually has little to do with the whole discussion. In fact as has been pointed out a few times here already, the Qur'an itself tells us to follow his actions!

we don't need to reinvent the religion, rather to rediscover it.

Yes, of course, but how better to do that then to go back to the source of it all! If you want to know what true Islam is like, who better to look to then the prophet peace be upon him his sunnah?

In the end we are all humans, and who knows how much of our judgment is based on primal instinct rather than so called logic and rational thought.

Yes of course that is what I told you in the previous message, and this is exactly why we shouldn't just follow our own opinion but stick to the logical "proofs" based on hadeeth and ayath.

thus anyone making assumptions as to what the prophet meant by this or that shouldn't be accepted right away. the past generations did that, and look where it got them and us.

I never said we have to "assume" that is a strawmen-argument. Most hadeeth are actually crystal clear and leave no room for interpretation or assumptions. It seems to me you have a wrong idea of what information can be actually found in the hadeeth.

BTW, have you read my first post already?

 

[chacha_jalebi]

the issue isn't about the hadeeth being important or accepted I believe, rather its about what was the prophet simply following cultual norms of his time and place, as opposed to the divine commands in the qur'an that must be held unchngeable. for example the narrations of the prophet using or prescribing medicine, are they to be considered sacred and priscribed to everyone around us or were they the prophet telling people what was generlly known about medicine back then? and so on.
no one considers every single act the prophet did as sacred, but the attitude prevalent among traditional muslims seems to miss this point. we don't need to reinvent the religion, rather to rediscover it. In the end we are all humans, and who knows how much of our judgment is based on primal instinct rather than so called logic and rational thought. thus anyone making assumptions as to what the prophet meant by this or that shouldn't be accepted right away. the past generations did that, and look where it got them and us.

the sunnah is the way RasoolAllah (saw) performed deeds, because he performed them perfectly

but im sure no one says, RasoolAllah (saw) liked a certain fruit, so it becomes obligatory for us to like that fruit, i understand your point but if its not clear what the Prophet (Saw) meant then we can leave that thin, i.e their is a hadiths tellin us to leave what we doubt, so we should act upon that, one thing we need to remember RasoolAllah (saw) was human, he did humanistic stuff aswell, so every deed of his wasnt sunnah, he had to do human stuff like eat, sleep, drink. but muslims copy even minor details of his life, out of love and respect for the Prophet (saw), no one will say, the Prophet (saw) slept at these times, so you have to, like durin asr and maghrib, or dhuhr to asr, the sun was hot so they would sleep, so no one is gona say, sleep at these times because the Prophet (Saw) did it. its jus out of love and respect deeds are copied

 

[alcurad]

sister jalebi; what do you think about the political system of his time, would that work nowadays,and would the majority happily accept it for that matter? isn't it part of the sunnah as well on the other hand. aren't the orders of :" hear and obey" the amir no matter if he "beats your back and takes your money" part of the sunnah as well. we could say that, and blindly follow, just like most people in Muslim countries, who by the way get told that hadeeth above by some of our esteemed scholars and whatnot as a justification for their rulers actions.

Abdul Fattah; actually I just skimmed through your first post, was there something in particular you wanted read?
you make a good point, but who gets to say what was obligatory etc from the three categories you mentioned, if-and I note you haven't- you say the scholars, but which scholars are those. see the reason so many different schools of thought and sects emerged right after the prophet's death in my opinion is that we don't have a set of methods or techniques to ascertain what the prophet meant all the time. you yourself said to stick to the logical proofs, but in the end isn't that you following your opinion? and being 'open to all sides' doesn't cut the butter, since still you would be following your own opinion within your own thought frame or paradigm if you like.
you say the hadeeth is crystal clear, but is all of it like that, and if not then are we to simply ignore the ahadeeth we don't get? or perhaps listen to the scholars. but again, which scholar/s? I do believe that there is an 'optimal' to everything, but then relativity exists as well...

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum
It's brother Jalebi ^_^ I guess that was an honest mistake.

Abdul Fattah; actually I just skimmed through your first post, was there something in particular you wanted read?

Well actually the whole lot. I know it's long, but some things can't be explained in 5 sentences.

you make a good point, but who gets to say what was obligatory etc from the three categories you mentioned, you would say the scholars but which scholars are those.

Well it's not like the scholars get to decide that based on their personal preference. They have to asses that based on logical guidelines. Like how direct/clear was the hadeeth. Or how strong/weak is it.

see the reason so many different schools of thought and sects emerged right after the prophet's death in my opinion is that we don't have a set of methods ortechniques to ascertain what the prophet meant all the time.

Well most sects and devisions come from long after the death of the prophet (peace be upon him). Other then that your argument makes little sense (no offense). Your assumption goes, if there were guidelines, there wouldn't have been divisions. That completely ignores the alternative that their could be divisions despite the guidelines, due to groups of people or "scholars" simply not following the guidelines. Having guidelines is no guarantee that people follow them.

you say the hadeeth is crystal clear, but is all of it like that, and if not then are we to simply ignore the ahadeeth we don't get? or perhaps listen to the scholars. but again, which scholar/s? I do believe that there is an 'optimal' to everything, but then relativity exists as well...

Well actually I said "most" are crystal clear. I do acknowledge some leave room for doubt. However even then there are solid guidelines: in case of doubt take the safest route. As for which scholar to follow; remember that scholars are not allowed to have personal opinions. Well at least not in their work. Obviously every human being has personal opinions. But what I meant was that they are not allowed to make rulings based on those. They require some base of evidence for that. Even in the case of Ijtihad (ruling by opinion) there are rules and guidelines that need to be met for the ruling to be valid. Of course humans are fallible, so disagreement and wrong rulings are to be expected. When scholars agree on a rule though, there is no reason to doubt it. When scholars disagree, they should discuss with one another and consider one another's arguments until they reach an agreement. If they cannot reach an agreement (or fail to try); follow the one who you think has the strongest, most logical case in the matter.

 

[alcurad]

oh and Woodrow, don't you think that if those practices were accepted, or in other words allowed to remain, this means it's a matter of choice to follow them?
I don't think we should reject hadeeth, rather some of the ways of interpreting it.

 

[alcurad]

ohhh, extremely sorry, brother chacha but I thought you werea sister
I mean what with the name and all, really sorry...

 

[alcurad]

Abdul Fattah, how many scholars of which schools of thought have ever agreed on something except it be that Allah is all seeing or that the five daily obligatory prayers are five, bearing in mind that some have actually said the daily five prayers aren't obligatory?
also, who set the guidelines? in reality the guidelines spread along along because the people who created/invented them had backing from some ruler or other.I do agree with the need for guidelines, but we need to be more critical of the people who claim to stand in the prophet's shadow and speak form his authority, again Islam should never have priests-or worse, shamans as many a 'scholar' really is, ever heard of exorcism and all that-oh, and no offense taken...

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum

Abdul Fattah, how many scholars of which schools of thought have ever agreed on something except it be that Allah is all seeing or that the five daily obligatory prayers are five, bearing in mind that some have actually said the daily five prayers aren't obligatory?

Yeah I understand what you mean, but you have to be reasonable. any self proclaimed scholar could break consensus. But does he have reasonable arguments. For example, I've seen Sufi scholars base themself on hadeeth that are most likely fabricated since they don't even have a chain of narration. When confronted with this they simply go to another subject or start bringing false metaphors and moot issues to their defense. Like I said, you shouldn't see things in terms of: "Scholar1 says this and Scholar2 says that. I wonder which one is right?"
Instead think of it in terms of: "Scholar1 bases his ruling on this evidence and Scholar2 bases himself on that. I wonder which base is most certain?"

also, who set the guidelines? in reality the guidelines spread along along because the people who created/invented them had backing from some ruler or other.

There's three sources.
1. Guidelines from the Qur'an. I.e. the verse telling us to follow the prophet peace be upon him his example.
2. Guidelines dictated by the Prophet peace be upon him. Although I grant that if you question those hadeeth to begin with, that the validity of these guidelines themselves are in question, and insisting on them would be circular.
3. Guidelines by logic. These are guidelines suggested by scholars, but they are self-evident and obvious. An example of these would be the study of validity of hadeeth. If you look at the criteria that hadeeth collectors had for accepting/rejecting hadeeth; you'll see that they did not use their personal opinion or preference at all. Instead they relied on simple logical deductions and criteria to asses different grades of probability of falseness or validity.

I do agree with the need for guidelines, but we need to be more critical of the people who claim to stand in the prophet's shadow and speak form his authority,

Why? Could you give a concrete example of where we currently lack criticalness? If you ask me the science of hadeeth is very critical already. Of course I have to admit I'm not an expert in the field. But either way, can you provide a concrete example to back this statement up, or are you just saying this without actually knowing what level of criticalness that scholars apply to science of hadeeth?

again Islam should never have priests-or worse, shamans as many a 'scholar' really is, ever heard of exorcism and all that-oh, and no offense taken...

Well I think I stressed numerous times that we should never accept a scholar's opinion, but instead only rely on him to point us to the right proofs. One of the major causes of different divisions are:
1. Scholars providing rulings without saying proofs.
2. People accepting rulings without asking proofs.
As for exorcisms and the like, many of it might be fake indeed, but others might be genuine. But I suggest you leave that for a separate topic if you wish to discus that further, because if we'll head into that here also it'll just add to the confusion. ^_^

 

[alcurad]

saying the scholars didn't use their own preferences and personal opinions is not exactly a counter argument.
just look at how many ahadeeth that circulate in the Muslim community like 'the passing of a black dog,donkey and a woman invalidates the prayer' and so on that would defy any reasonable guidelines any scholar sets and are generally accepted. and by the way, the a fore mentioned 'hadeeth' has a strong chain of narration and people do take it seriously. there are many like it, simply open one of the 'saheeh's' and look around and you'll find something of that caliber. another example would be the splitting of the moon, why wasn't it ever recorded by other nations, in all recorded history the hadeeth that speaks of it is as far as I know the only one that speaks of the event.
just how critical is it to accept such things as part of the religion?

another point I'd like to discuss is the validity of the chains of narration themselves. I'm not denying the need for the hadeeth in understanding Islam, but just how logical is it to accept even a strong chain of narration if the only thing making it strong is that everyone in it is saying that the ones he heard it from are truthful! just how much could be changed or projected to mean something else bearing in mind that it is allowed to narrate a hadeeth by it's meaning. as far as I know all the different sects have 'strong' ahadeeth to back their positions.

I take it you think exorcism could be genuine, but where in the ahadeeth-weak or strong- is there mention of it and it's methods?

 

[chacha_jalebi]

lol talkin bout sounds your name sounds like a wild mexican animal sooo and chacha thats masculiner then masculine psssh

anywhoo

your confusin hadiths and sunnah, sunnah is stuff like prayer, fastin, and things done by the Prophet (Saw) hadiths are narrations, some of which tell us about the sunnah of the Prophet (saw)

also talking about your narrations process, the scholars have done large large amounts of work on verifyin hadiths, like we have sahih hadiths, mutawatir hadiths, and loads of other levels, also scholars reached this level of classin hadiths, by lookin at different sources which all were the same,lik you see in bukhari, muslim they will often have the same narrations with different wordin and many other hadiths books have similiar hadiths

also one thing you need to understand the hadiths were also a command of Allah (swt) like it says in surah najm v 4

Nor does he speak of (his own) desire. It is only a Revelation that is revealed.''

there is loads loads of ayahs that explicity confirm the hadiths

for example ... surah nisa v 59

"(And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger (PBUH)".

refer back to Allah (Swt) via the Quraan, and to the messenger (saw) through his hadiths

and one of my favouritesss, surah nur v63

"And let those who oppose the Messenger's (Muhammad (PBUH)) commandment (i.e., his Sunnah -- legal ways, orders, acts of worship, statements) (among the sects), beware, lest some Fitnah (disbelief, trials, afflictions, earthquakes, killing, overpowered by a tyrant) should befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them.''

take out the brackets and it reads the same thin!

also surah al hashr v 7

"And whatsoever the Messenger (Muhammad (PBUH)) gives you, take it; and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it)".

and what has the messenger given us, the hadiths, and as he said follow the Quraan and my way,

so if you still want to doubt the hadiths thats your personal choice

 

[YusufNoor]

For instance ... who decided that the hadith was a good way to interpret the quran?

we don't necessarily use the Hadeeth to "interpret" the Qur'an, we simply seek further clarification or try to understand how the Prophet[pbuh] and the Companions[ra] explained or understood certain passages. because we believe in La Illahah Ilah Allah Muhammadur Rasululah we must seek wherever possible the Prophet's guidance on issues of faith; if we DON'T then we are rejecting the 2nd part of our Shahadah!


In my philosophy if the Quran is meant to be a timeless, universal book ... it should be self containing -- i.e it should be the only necessary component to read and fully understand islam.

I the individual should be able to pick it up read it and know what I need to do.

unless you know Quraish Arabic and are intimately rehearsed in the Seerah, you have no way to understand the Qur'an. Quraish Arabic is THE language of the Qur'an and the Seerah is important in order to know what order the Surahs and Ayahs were revealed. if you are using a "translation" of the Qur'an, then indeed it is not the Qur'an AT ALL, but merely a form of explanation or Tafseer. if the translator is NOT versed in Qur'an, Sunnah, Tafseer and Seerah then all you have is a rather "poor" translation" of the Qur'an!


It seems pretty dumb to me that you would need 100s of scholars analyzing hadith for "clues" when it is all written right there ... WHO said that we need to analyze what the prophet did to understand the Quran?

in short, the Prophet was the "Living Qur'an" and as the Messenger of Allah,it was indeed his task to explain revelation to us!


The prophet was great 1500 years later and copy it. It says in the Quran that this is the only book necessary ... so lets just read it and interpret it! Maybe it was MEANT to be reinterpreted in many different ways .. maybe there IS NO UNIVERSAL definition of Islam but rather it is a religion meant to be interpreted differently by people from different backgrounds and cultures.

we have Hadeeth to confrim that this would be misguidance!

Why does this never come up?

it does, by those who are NOT on the straight path!

Why does everyone assume there is exactly one "fiqh" one jurisprudence, one correct way of living an islamic life?????

in Fiqh, there CAN be differences of opinions to some degree AND those opinions CAN change!

Why is everyone so conformist stating that "this is wrong ... that is wrong" then their only evidence is some hadith.

a nice starting place to increase your understanding would be watch the Foundations of Islam by Bilal Philips:

http://www.bilalphilips.com/bilal_pages.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=288

it's the 21 part lecture series located at the bottom of the page. it's about 18 hours long by VERY INTERESTING and it should, In Sha'a Allah, answer most of your questions.

May Allah [swt] make it easy on you and may He guide you and give Hidayah and Taqwa! Ameen!

 

[Abdul Fattah]

saying the scholars didn't use their own preferences and personal opinions is not exactly a counter argument.
just look at how many ahadeeth that circulate in the Muslim community like 'the passing of a black dog,donkey and a woman invalidates the prayer' and so on that would defy any reasonable guidelines any scholar sets and are generally accepted.

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Could you explain in depth what exactly your issue is here?

and by the way, the a fore mentioned 'hadeeth' has a strong chain of narration and people do take it seriously. there are many like it, simply open one of the 'saheeh's' and look around and you'll find something of that caliber.

Well I can't say I've read every single sahih hadeeth, but on the other hand I haven't read anything that makes me seriously question the science of hadeeth either.

another example would be the splitting of the moon, why wasn't it ever recorded by other nations, in all recorded history the hadeeth that speaks of it is as far as I know the only one that speaks of the event.
just how critical is it to accept such things as part of the religion?

I don't see any conflict with it. See, the splitting of the moon is considered a miracle. As a miracle its philosophically speaking completely possible. However, we don't know how exactly Allah subhana wa ta'ala performed this miracle. Perhaps he really split the moon in two, or maybe he made it appear as if the moon is split, by deflecting some of the light which is reflected of teh moon's surface. We simply don't know and Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best. However if it's the latter, that would explain why nobody else except the people present at that location witnessed it. Then again, perhaps a number of people did see it. If it's the former, and the moon did actually physically split for a segment of time, that still doesn't mean anything. Perhaps Allah subhaan wa ta'ala made it so that nobody else could see it (like making all other areas clouded). If you can believe Allah subhana wa ta'ala is omnipotent, and so he can physically split the moon, he obviously must be able to form some clouds to. Or maybe there actually are a number of people who witnessed this event. But then consider, how many would witness this, if the moon only remained split for several seconds? And how many would be simply ignored as being mad? If someone told you they witnessed the moon splitting yesterday, you'd probably wouldn't put it in the newspapers either would you? Or even better, how many people would have remained silent simply in fear of being viewed as a mad if they would talk about what they witnessed? Or how many people would start to question them selves: "maybe I was just imagining it, or drank to much".

another point I'd like to discuss is the validity of the chains of narration themselves. I'm not denying the need for the hadeeth in understanding Islam, but just how logical is it to accept even a strong chain of narration if the only thing making it strong is that everyone in it is saying that the ones he heard it from are truthful! just how much could be changed or projected to mean something else bearing in mind that it is allowed to narrate a hadeeth by it's meaning. as far as I know all the different sects have 'strong' ahadeeth to back their positions.

There's actually more to it then just this. The collectors of hadeeth took more then just that as criteria for their sahih.

I take it you think exorcism could be genuine, but where in the ahadeeth-weak or strong- is there mention of it and it's methods?

Yes I do think it's possible. Yes, most illnesses from djinns can be cured simply by reciting certain verses of the Qur'an. Well actually that's not correct. It's not the recitation that cures, but it is Allah subhana wa ta'ala that cures when you recite those verses.

 

[Grace Seeker]

‘This is why the Messenger of Allah said,
‘The Sunnah was a revelation from Allah just as the Qur'an, although it is not recited as the Qur'an is recited.’

So then Muslims have two pieces of sacred revelation -- the Quran, plus the Sunnah -- not one. There is the message and then there is more besides.

When unable to find the Tafsir in the Qur'an, the Sunnah or with the Companions, the scholars then look to the Tafsir of the Tabi`in, (second generation of Islam) such as Mujahid bin Jabr, who was a wonder himself in Tafsir.

But these writings are interpretations, they are not revelation. That is they come from men and express their understanding, they do not come from God. So, why do they seem to carry the same weight in the practice of Islam as the revelation Allah gave to Muhammad does? Or do you suggest that their interpretations are also inspired interpretations?

 

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

also, who set the guidelines?

The guidelines are derived from the Qur'aan and the Sunnah themselves and have been codified and can be learned in a science known as Usool al-Fiqh. If you wish, I can direct you to a series of lectures that teach this science.

why wasn't it ever recorded by other nations, in all recorded history the hadeeth that speaks of it is as far as I know the only one that speaks of the event.

{The Hour has come near, and the moon has split.}[al-Qamar; 1]

 

[Grace Seeker]

In my opinion and experience I believe so. An analogy, that you might understand as a Christian.

THIS IS AN ANALOGY, NOT A FACT NOR PRESENTED AS FACTUAL

Think in terms of the OT as being the Qur'an and the 4 Gospels as being the Ahadith.

I might go so far as to say (again I to am using analogy, not saying this is the actual case) that what Muslims call the Injil of Jesus, his message regarding the Kingdom of God, is the Qur'an and what Christians call the Gospel of Jesus, the record of the things Jesus not only said but did and the interpretation of their meaning, is the Hadith.

 

[coddles76]

So then Muslims have two pieces of sacred revelation -- the Quran, plus the Sunnah -- not one. There is the message and then there is more besides.



But these writings are interpretations, they are not revelation. That is they come from men and express their understanding, they do not come from God. So, why do they seem to carry the same weight in the practice of Islam as the revelation Allah gave to Muhammad does? Or do you suggest that their interpretations are also inspired interpretations?

Salam to All,

With the Help of ALLAH SWT I am hoping that I can Clear your misunderstanding.....

Sunnah in the Arabic language (without any religious context) means a way or method. It is derived from the word: "Sanan," which is Arabic for: a road or a path.
In a religious context the best possible path or road and Muslim can take is the path of Our Prophet Muhammed (PBUH). The Quran and the sunnah are both seperate entities though the Sunnah holds a great deal of value to the Muslim due to the words of ALLAH SWT :-

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “He who obeys the Messenger has indeed obeyed Allaah . . .” [al-Nisaa’ 4:80] Allaah described obedience to the Prophet (peace be upon him) as being a part of obedience to Him. Then He made a connection between obedience to Him and obedience to the Prophet (peace be upon him): “O you who believe! Obey Allaah and obey the Messenger . . .” [al-Nisaa’ 4:59]

The Quran and the Sunnah perfects a Muslims character and works hand in hand with perfecting one's faith. The Sunnah is not revelation but a standard or practice coming from the best man who ever walked the face of the earth and that is our beloved prophet Muhammed (May the peace and blessing of the Almighty Allah be upon him)

This was also comfirmed by written work of Michael H. Hart, "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History." He states that the most influential person in all history was Muhammad, peace be upon him, with Jesus second. Examine his actual words:

"My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level."

 

[Grace Seeker]

The Sunnah is not revelation but a standard or practice coming from the best man who ever walked the face of the earth and that is our beloved prophet Muhammed

With respect, I would still like to hear from Abdul Fattah, for in very clear terms he specifically said, "the Sunnah was a revelation from Allah." And it wasn't just any old piece of revelation, he claimed it was "a revalation from Allah just as the Qur'an."

 

[coddles76]

With respect, I would still like to hear from Abdul Fattah, for in very clear terms he specifically said, "the Sunnah was a revelation from Allah." And it wasn't just any old piece of revelation, he claimed it was "a revalation from Allah just as the Qur'an."

With Respect, My intention was to clear your misunderstanding and my reply was also for the benefit of the other individuals who visit this forum.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Granted. But I would still like to know what Abdul meant by that phrase?

 

[coddles76]

He claimed it was "a revalation from Allah just as the Qur'an."

This is my take on it and maybe Abdul can correct me if I'm wrong.
Muhammed (PBUH) was inspired by ALLAH SWT so in essence you can say that everything that our Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) acquired plus his noble character was inspired by ALLAH SWT and taught by the one and only ALLAH SWT. He is a walking example of the Quran and this was confirmed by his wife wife, Aisha (May Allah (SWT) be pleased with her) to be like "a walking Qur`an", embodying the Laws of Almighty Allah (SWT).