Re: Rejection of Ahadith
Companion,
I did not say all the 'zikrs' mentioned in the Qur'an is used to refer only to the Qur'an.
Wrong, you did not refer just to this verse:
First let us establish that the 'zikr' (reminder) refers exclusively to the Qur'an [...]
The reminder (zikr) refers to the Qur'an, as we also see from other verses [...]
So the 'zikr' is none other then the Qur'an. Now let us look at the next bit.
[
*]
I'm glad that you have realized your initial position is false, but you should admit that clearly rather than playing a game of I said, you said.
I was saying how the word (zikr) used in the verse that was under discussion [16:44], was used to refer solely ("exclusively") to the Qur'an (and not to hadith or anything else). I then quoted verses from elsewhere in the Qur'an where 'zikr' has been used to refer to the Qur'an to prove that 'zikr' has indeed been used elsewhere to refer to the Qur'an.
What a joke!! If you are trying to prove that Dhikr
in ayat 16:44 refers exclusively to the Qur'an, then why would you quote other ayât?! Please explain your warped logic to me - how does the use of Dhikr to refer to the Qur'an in other places prove that it refers
exclusively to the Qur'an here?!?!
Both Ansar-al-Adl and Ahmed clearly misintepreted my post.
But you have only attempted a response to 1 line out of the
dozens of points mentioned in our lengthy posts - shall we take it as a concession to our arguments on your part?
Ameen,
This thread is debating the authority of Hadith as a source of Divine Law in Islam. You are yet to prove, USING THE HOLY QUR'AN, that Allah has given the Hadith such Divine authority.
First of all, why are you selectively responding to my post?? I said A LOT MORE in response to that claim of yours and you only quoted ONE of my points and omitted ALL the others! WHY? You can't respond to my points on Usûl? Here they are AGAIN:
This is why I continually urge you to educate yourself on the basics of Usûl al-Fiqh, brother. The specificity of the sabab does not enable takhsîs on the generality of the statement. In fact, even common sense is enough to expose the absurdity of the notion you are advancing! Is it logical to suggest that if the Prophet saws gives us directives regarding war booty we are religiously obligated to obey, yet when he provides us with any other instructions we can disobey the Messenger of Allah?!
Stop ignoring this point. Do not respond to my arguments selectively quoting 1 piece here and there so you can respond easier.
Secondly, I expected this objection on your part to my citation of the narration. The problem with your position is, when we go on quoting what has been reported of the sahâba's understanding of this verse, and then those after them and then those after them - you claim that they didn't understand the verse this way. So at which point did the entire Muslim ummah suddenly change and start reinterpreting the verse?? Even hadith-rejectors are not rash enough to claim that their views are the traditional views. They KNOW that the acceptance of the hadith and the interpretation of these verses in this manner is the way of the millions of Muslim scholars for almost 1 and a half millenia! Hadith-rejectors know this, they just claim that this traditional view is wrong, as you yourself have said only three posts ago.
This verse, which you think proves the authority of Hadith, says that the Prophet is the 'judge in disputes between the people.'
So like Companion, when you realize your previous claims have all been crushed, you move on to making new claims about a new verse!
This verse states that the Prophet saws was the judge in all the dispute of the people, every dispute they had was to be referred back to him. It is impossible for someone to claim that this referred only to the Qur'an since the verdicts about all the disputes of the people are not included in the Qur'an. This verse commands people to defer such affairs to the Prophet as the Qâdî, in whatever disputes they have including social and societal affairs. This verse cannot possibly be restricted to the Qur'an since it tells the Prophet saws "and find in themselves no resistance against
your decisions" and yet the Qur'an is not a compendium of decisions on societal affairs! The language of this verse clearly establishes the Prophet saws as one in whom divine authority has been vested to issue rulings and one who must be obeyed as we also saw with the verse from surah Hashr which I cleared of your feeble response. For the compelte linguistic analysis of this verse refer to
Al-Bahr Al-Muhît.
Here is proof of the Prophet's saws independent capacity of religious directives:
48:18 Indeed, Allah was pleased with the believers when they gave their Bai'a (pledge) to you (O Muhammad SAW) under the tree, He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down As-Sakinah (calmness and tranquillity) upon them, and He rewarded them with a near victory,
Here the pledge that the Muslims gave the Prophet saws at hudaybiyyah is being praised in the Qur'an, yet not directive exists in the Qur'an to take such a pledge on this occasion. When the Prophet saws recieved news that 'Uthman rd may have been killed by the Quraysh he decided to take this pledge from the muslims, and yet he made this decision and the surah about Hudaybiyyah (Fath) was revealed after.
There are other verses which refer to the Qur'an as the response to the intellectual disputes of the various religious groups of the time, but they do not make reference to the Prophet's decisions. ALL of the Prophet's decrees are to be accepted as Allah swt negates the faith of anyone who rejects the decrees of the Prophet saws. The Prophet's teachings are the judge for us in all matters in our life, we are to accept his sunnah fully and completely.
Also,
Companion and Ameen, stop ignoring the challenges that Ahmed and I have been repeating to you. You keep trying to give your imaginative 'tafseer' on different verses while skirting our arguments and challenges.
