Things in Islam I am curious about...

[Ramadhan]

The Bible is not a book. The bible is a library. So, it depends on which book in that library you are speaking of whether we would say that it is the directly dictated words of God, the interpreted reflections of a prophet, or the narration of events in the life of one God's servants. Something like the books commonly known as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the narration of events in the life of one of God's servants for the purpse of telling the world the Good News of God's design for redeeming the world through the events of that life. The record of events, not the precise words spoken, is the most important part of that message.

Interestingly, the whole library suddenly went into errors and contradictions when it comes to the narration of the most important event in christianity - RESURRECTION.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Salaam/Peace





Firstly : The most important matter in Islam is God is one without partner . Exactly on what date Muhammed pbuh became Prophet , it's not as important as the oneness of God or resurrection of Jesus pbuh.

If Jeus pbuh is God , If Jesus pbuh ordered his followers to worship him , if Jesus pbuh died and rose from death - these are very important - one's eternal life is depending on these things . So , again , how come any Christian can compare these matters with the date of the prophethood of Muhammed pbuh ? Muslims eternal lives are not depending on that date .

And God Almighty knows Best.

And eternal lives are not depending on whether Mary Magdalene alone or in the company of other women discovered Jesus' tomb empty. All that is important is that it was empty because he was risen. There were multiple witnesses to that, but as with all super exciting events, the memories of those who witnessed recall different (and sometimes apparently conflicting) details as to who arrived first and when. And yet, they still agree on the big issue that Jesus died, was buried and then was raised again and appeared to his disciples.


But my question remains, why don't Muslims care about the internal inconsistencies of what they use for guidance?

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/Peace

But my question remains, why don't Muslims care about the internal inconsistencies of what they use for guidance?

as already explained , there is no contradiction in holy Quran and minor differences find in Hadith wont' through any Muslim into the eternal fire. So , why bother ?

But Christians should bother about the main point for salvation that is also found in their holy book that God is greater than Jesus pbuh and all.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Salaam/Peace




as already explained , there is no contradiction in holy Quran and minor differences find in Hadith wont' through any Muslim into the eternal fire. So , why bother ?

But Christians should bother about the main point for salvation that is also found in their holy book that God is greater than Jesus pbuh and all.

With respect, what I hear you saying when you say this is that you hold other people's faith and sacred scriptures to a higher standard than you do your own. Also, I find you projecting on to my faith what you think should be important to me, rather than letting me determine what the essentials and the secondary issues of my faith are for myself.

 

[YusufNoor]

But I am presently reading a book on the prophet that received awards within Islam, and as it recounts the events of his life it frequently refers to the ahadith. I find that there are many hadith that are direct contradictions of other hadith. I find this entirely confusing. If they are to be accepted on par with the Qur'an in terms of communicating the true Sunnah of the prophet, wouldn't there only be one true story to tell, not many different ones?

a "book" on the Prophet, Peace be upon him, usually referred to as Seerah, does not always meet the strict standards of Qur'an and Hadeeth. some books on Seerah by reverts contain lies! even "award winning books!" some contain weak Ahadeeth. books by Shiia would contain falsehoods also.

without "finishing" the Seerah, one wouldn't be sure if there actually were contradictions. however, with regards to the beginning of the Seerah, you are welcome to put forth the specific nature of any alleged contradictions and we could then determine the "impact" of said contradictions.

it also might help for you to simply state which book on the Seerah that you are reading, although my guess would be Martin Lings or Karen Armstrong.

the books commonly known as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the narration of events in the life of one of God's servants for the purpse of telling the world the Good News of God's design for redeeming the world through the events of that life. The record of events, not the precise words spoken, is the most important part of that message.

what you imply here is "what God said" ISN'T important! ask the Jews if the words that God spoke to Moses weren't important! the "record of events" which have NO authentic "chains of narration" NOR are there ANY contemporaneous eyewitness accounts of, are actually MORE IMPORTANT! so something that DOESN'T exist is of greater import than something that DID exist, but wasn't preserved! :heated:

they still agree on the big issue that Jesus died, was buried and then was raised again and appeared to his disciples.

in the Gospels, there is no credible eyewitness to those events, only "tradition." there is no historic "proof" that Jesus died. one would say that IS pretty important! if you didn't die, you CAN'T be "raised again," can you?

however, i digress. with regards to the Seerah, there is a brother in Memphis, Dr Bashar Shala. he has done considerable research on the Seerah in regards to "authentic" narrations and traditions. he gave a series of lectures, found here:

http://www.pleasantviewschool.com/media/default.asp?q=f&f=/Seerah of the Prophet (pbuh)

and because of the age of those recordings, he has started the series again:

http://www.pleasantviewschool.com/media/default.asp?q=f&f=/Seerah_an_Nabawi (saw)

Dr Shala is a cardiologist and neurologist, but is a brilliant speaker. he does not claim to be a scholar, yet his work is outstanding. you may use his work to reference any time period of the Seerah.

to conclude, we are willing to discuss ANY version of the Seerah. just tell us what book and who wrote it.

With respect, what I hear you saying when you say this is that you hold other people's faith and sacred scriptures to a higher standard than you do your own

BALDERDASH!

Also, I find you projecting on to my faith what you think should be important to me, rather than letting me determine what the essentials and the secondary issues of my faith are for myself.

what can we say, we believe "authenticity" to be important and we also believe "lying" about Allah to be a criminal act. we only seek that you repent from that and come to the truth! for your own good and for the sake of Allah.

peace

 

[IAmZamzam]

And this is why I keep bringing up the ahadith. I had not read much in them until recently, was satisfied just hearing people recount their stories on this board. But I am presently reading a book on the prophet that received awards within Islam, and as it recounts the events of his life it frequently refers to the ahadith. I find that there are many hadith that are direct contradictions of other hadith. I find this entirely confusing. If they are to be accepted on par with the Qur'an in terms of communicating the true Sunnah of the prophet, wouldn't there only be one true story to tell, not many different ones? If the Gospels can be rejected because of inconsistencies, shouldn't these ahadith be rejected because of inconsistencies? And yes, I know that there are different levels of acceptance of the ahadith, but I am talking about those that have supposedly been authenticated.

These questions aren't asked as attacks, but the difference in the way Muslims approach the ahadith and the gospels has me straining to understand. How can one be found to be credible and the other not, when they share similar problems?

Yes, it is true that Muslims regard ahadith in the same way that non-inerrantist Christians regard the Gospels. And it is I guess a little clever for you to notice. However, there are still gravely critically disparate key differences which completely sink your argument:

1. There are many Muslims who do not even believe in the Sunnah collections at all. I’m not saying that I agree with them, but I’m certainly not going to play the tired old “then they’re not really Muslims!” card like Muslims often do, or Christians always do with non-Trinitarians or other such “liberal” folks. (Amazing how singularly useful a word to demonize others “liberal” is, ain’t it?) It is up to God in the end to decide who was “genuinely” a member of a religion and who wasn’t, taking into account the individual’s own psyche and circumstances as well as what the texts may have said. Bottom line: while there are Muslims who can (or who think they can) get by without any ahadith, I’ve yet to hear of any Christians who reject the entire Gospel collection. I fail to see how they can. At least we still have the Koran to fall back on.

2. “I am talking about those that have supposedly been authenticated” is misleading. It’s always possible that a hadith can be “authenticated” without it really be authentic. Historians and hadith scientists can make mistakes like anyone else.

3. My point, which you have fairly deftly skirted, was that the issue is not the existence of any contradictions in the Gospels or even the amount of contradictions but the disproportionate and ever mounting amount that appears just around the time when the crucifixion saga is beginning and culminates in utter confusion over every single detail at the resurrection. As far as I know there is no set of several accounts of Muhammad (P) being called to prophethood where the closer to the actual details of the call you get, the less and less the authors agree with each other on anything. Kindly focus next time and stop evading with stock, possibly copy-and-pasted answers you call on whenever you see a particular combination of words in a Muslim post and don't bother to read or consider the post itself.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Please bring forth on this forum the sanad, meaning the transmitters and chain of transmission of your current gospels (maybe NIV?) all the way back to jesus (as)?

and then we can compare about hadith and the gospels.

I think I have asked you this before.

And now that he's asked you again, you're still ducking and dodging the challenge.

 

[Grace Seeker]

a "book" on the Prophet, Peace be upon him, usually referred to as Seerah, does not always meet the strict standards of Qur'an and Hadeeth. some books on Seerah by reverts contain lies! even "award winning books!" some contain weak Ahadeeth. books by Shiia would contain falsehoods also.

without "finishing" the Seerah, one wouldn't be sure if there actually were contradictions. however, with regards to the beginning of the Seerah, you are welcome to put forth the specific nature of any alleged contradictions and we could then determine the "impact" of said contradictions.

it also might help for you to simply state which book on the Seerah that you are reading, although my guess would be Martin Lings or Karen Armstrong.

The book is The Sealed Nectar (Al-Raheequl-Makhtum) Biography of the Noble Prophet by Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Yes, it is true that Muslims regard ahadith in the same way that non-inerrantist Christians regard the Gospels.

Thank-you. That is helpful. I had the apparently mistaken notion that Muslims viewed the authenticated ahadith in the same way they viewed the Qur'an or like a inerrantist Christian might view the Christian scriptures. I appreciate the clarification.

 

[IAmZamzam]

naidamar was right, you know. The sunnah collections, even when they're wrong (or inauthentic) meticulously detail the chain of transmission. The Gospels give us no such information. The closest you can possibly come with them is the author of Luke's unsupported claim that "inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph'ilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed". There have probably been more verbal assurances of that sort of thing in history which prefaced inaccurate accounts of things than which prefaced accurate ones. There's nothing like citing sources, is there?

 

[Grace Seeker]

I quite agree that Lukes introductory comments to the book of Acts are hardly on the same level of source citing as what you have in the ahadith. But I remain unconvinced that providing the chain of narration gives one any more assurance of having the original saying than one would get with a game of telephone. The following incident happened in my life this week:

I'm on the board of directors of a nursing home. The administrator of that nursing home contacted us directors in writing upset about a rumor that was sweeping through the nursing home. She had traced the origin of it back through the chain of Johnny told me that Billy said that Ruth told him that Carol told her to something that a board member had shared with an employee of the nursing home. And supposedly the board member had heard this information directly from the administrator at our most recent board meeting. The thing is that the information that was circulating was false. And the break came in the very first bit of communication. I know because I was at the meeting and I am the actual person who had filled in the other board member in question with regard to a part of the administrator's report he had missed. But what became shared among all of the staff of the nursing home is NOT what the administrator had actually said, nor was it what I passed on to the other board member. Here we had a documented and authenticated chain of transmission, and everyone who received it and passed it along was sure that it was reliable given the source. But, an error had been made in the content and that error, rather than truth, was repeated and passed along as authenticated and reliable fact. I'm willing to be educated, but I fail to see anything in the process by which ahadith are authenticated and declared reliable that would prevent this same thing from happening with them.

In saying that, I don't mean that I doubt that the ahadith are entirely untrue, only that having a chain of transmission doesn't actually prove them to be true.

With the scriptures, one can have similar doubts as to whether or not what Luke originally wrote was true. But the abundance of texts (even with the existing variants) provides a way for us to work backwards to make some calcuated conclusions as to what it was that Luke did (or did not) originally write. Which is not to say that you should trust Luke himself, but only that we can be fairly certain (though admittedly still not 100%) that what we have today is what Luke wrote. (And I still owe Dana a post on this concept of textual criticism, which might address more of this as well.)

 

[IAmZamzam]

I never said that the chain of transmission proves the ahadith are right. What I said is that it gives us a better historical footing than you have with the Gospels, as you seem to have more or less admitted. I believe you have had the difference between the two different kinds of oral transmission (one just word of mouth spreading like any rumor or urban legend [of which such a thing is usually the case], with the only "chain" being purely incidental, the other a series of sayings that people learn growing up and, in the old days before writing were supremely careful to try as hard as they could to get right, word for word, with them having an entire lifetime in which to practice and check again with the person they learned it from) explained to you before. If the Gospel of Luke was written by Luke and if he really did get the information second-or-thirdhand instead of passed down to him then which of the two kinds of oral transmission would you find his info likelier to be?

"Calculated conclusions as to what Luke did (or did not) originally write". Sounds suspiciously like the "conclusions" behind that Q document you and I have both been knocking, does it not?

 

[Grace Seeker]

I never said that the chain of transmission proves the ahadith are right.

True.

What I said is that it gives us a better historical footing than you have with the Gospels, as you seem to have more or less admitted.

OK. I accept that this is what you were trying to say. You have misread me if you think I have admitted it to be so. I only admit that the hadith includes a citation of who they claim passed them on, and that no such citation is included in the Biblical record. While I do understand that people were once very careful with the oral transmission of that which they understood to be sacred text, I remain unconvinced that this was what happened with regard to the origin of the ahadith or that the companions of the prophet even viewed Muhammad's actions as something to be looked at in this way at the time. In fact, the more I read them the less convinced I am. Still, I thank you for sharing why you hold the view you do. I guess I'm among those doomed to die in the same state as did Abu Talib.

 

[IAmZamzam]

I guess I'm among those doomed to die in the same state as did Abu Talib.

That is up to God, not myself. I can only pray that someone eventually will get through to you better than I apparently can.

 

[Grace Seeker]

To me, Islam makes the most sense of ANY religion in its teaching about God (Allah). There is One God. No equals, no sons of God, no one can be equal, or be compared to or approach God, avoid Shirk, etc. The shahada sums it up. There is no God but God and Mohammad is his Messenger. Now that is hard to argue with is it not? :statisfie

I don't know about arguing with it, I'm not interested in arguing. But I could use some clarification. The shahada as you expressed it and as other people have expressed it, is not the same. Is there a standardized way that it is to be expressed?

For instance, I have been told that the shahada is "There is no god but God and Muhammad is the prophet of God." To me this is a different statement than what you said, and it is a different statement than "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet." which I have also been told is the Shahada.

How about if someone were to say, "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is one of his prophets," or "There is no god but God, and Muhammad was a prophet of God."?

 

[GreyKode]

I don't know about arguing with it, I'm not interested in arguing. But I could use some clarification. The shahada as you expressed it and as other people have expressed it, is not the same. Is there a standardized way that it is to be expressed?

For instance, I have been told that the shahada is "There is no god but God and Muhammad is the prophet of God." To me this is a different statement than what you said, and it is a different statement than "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet." which I have also been told is the Shahada.

How about if someone were to say, "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is one of his prophets," or "There is no god but God, and Muhammad was a prophet of God."?

There is also

"Ashhadu anna la ilaha illa allah wa anna muhammadun rasulullah wa isa rasulullah"

which literally means "I bear witness that there is no God but ALLAH and muhammad is his messenger and Isa is his messenger"

Is this good enough?

 

[Grace Seeker]

GreyKode, I don't know. That's what/why I'm asking? With so many different forms of the shahada it appears that there is more than one way to become a Muslim. But, at least to my way of reading, while some of these have the same meaning, some of them don't. Some of them, even I could say as a Christian without changing my beliefs (which Muslims would of course call shirk) one iota. So, it seems like there is a diconnect between the method of becoming a Muslim and Muslim beliefs unless some of these are not proper expressions of the shahada and people just aren't paying attention OR (and it's a pretty big or) it isn't really the exact words of the shahada that are important but the beliefs resident in one's heart and somehow even without a specific universal wording every true Muslim knows what that is. But, I'm not saying, I'm asking?????

 

[YusufNoor]

The book is The Sealed Nectar (Al-Raheequl-Makhtum) Biography of the Noble Prophet by Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri.

THAT surprised me. it's online here:

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/index.htm

i was actually a tad disappointed with it, but only because THERE IS SO MUCH INFO available [whether authentic or not] that something always appears to be missing from the shorter works. ex: i want to quote something about al Isra wa al Miraj [the Night Journey and the Ascension] and it's not really complete.

my 1st journey into the Seerah was 24 hours of audio recordings done in a twelve week course given by Hamza Yusuf "Muhammad: His life based on the earliest sources' by Martin Lings," here:

http://www.ilookisee.co.uk/Lectures/CD Lectures/Hamza Yusuf - The Life of The Prophet Muhammad.htm

actually listened to that before i read Lings, and even though i distance myself from Yusuf's brand of Sufi'ism, his set was well intentioned and nicely done [and as i was new to Islam at the time, i WAS puzzled by his frequent attempts to condone praying in cemetaries].

Al Awlaqi has an exhausted set [though i disagree with him on suicide bombings]:

http://www.kalamullah.com/anwar-alawlaki.html

but those by [your neighbor] Dr Bashar Shala are my still favorites as he tries to omit "tradition" and week hadeeth from the Seerah:

http://www.pleasantviewschool.com/media/default.asp?q=f&f=/Seerah_an_Nabawi (saw)

http://www.pleasantviewschool.com/media/default.asp?q=f&f=/Seerah of the Prophet (pbuh)

but your goal should NOT be to "study hadeeth" by reading Seerah as week hadeeth creep into the Story; better to study h Hadeeth for that. someone posted a link to a cool book by Dr Bilal Philips:

http://www.kalamullah.com/Books/Usool al-Hadith.pdf

available here:

http://www.islamicbookstore.com/b9904.html

and there are other Hadeeth sources here:

http://www.kalamullah.com/hadith.html

 

[Grace Seeker]

but your goal should be to "study hadeeth" by reading Seerah as week hadeeth creep into the Story; better to study h Hadeeth for that. someone posted a link to a cool book by Dr Bilal Philips:

So, this is a legitimate way to learn more of the ahadith? I wasn't really sure if encountering in them in this format, reading them as part of a biography of the Prophet (you call it a Seerah??), or simply reading the collections of ahadith that are available was considered more preferable.

This book was given me by Mustafa a few years ago, though I am just now getting around to reading it. Lots of interesting material in it and I genuinely appreciate the opportunity to read it, though I don't think it is going to have the effect in my life that I'm sure brother Mustafa was praying for. Is there another book you would recommend after I finish this one?

 

[YusufNoor]

So, this is a legitimate way to learn more of the ahadith? I wasn't really sure if encountering in them in this format, reading them as part of a biography of the Prophet (you call it a Seerah??), or simply reading the collections of ahadith that are available was considered more preferable.

This book was given me by Mustafa a few years ago, though I am just now getting around to reading it. Lots of interesting material in it and I genuinely appreciate the opportunity to read it, though I don't think it is going to have the effect in my life that I'm sure brother Mustafa was praying for. Is there another book you would recommend after I finish this one?

oops, i left out a word, i meant:

but your goal should NOT be to "study hadeeth" by reading Seerah as week hadeeth creep into the Story...

hew