Messages

181

Discussions / Re: Should we reject hadith ?

« on: September 18, 2015, 04:35:51 AM »

Salaam Sstikstof,

You said: " So many days I'm confused with wether I reject hadith completely or not."


I can relate. I know how hard it is to let go of/reject something you've been propegated to believe sense (perhaps) childhood.

Now I know brother Joseph can speak for himself but, if I may, I would like to say something on his behalf which is that: Brother Joseph is only suggesting that we reject (or rather question) the hadiths on 'thelogical grounds'. In other words, the Quran is the only source/authority for religious guidance and, using it as the sole axiom, all matters in Islam requiring guidance can be deduced directly from it. And, in the words of brother Joseph:

"The Quran claims to be a fully detailed explanation (Arabic: fussilat 41:3; 11:1), the perfect guidance (Arabic: hudan 2:2), a clear convincing proof (Arabic: burhan (4:174), the ultimate scale (Arabic: mizan 42.17; 57:25), the discernment between truth and falsehood (Arabic: Furqan 25:1, 2:53), an evidence absolutely clear (Arabic: bayyina 20:133) and a clear explanation of all matters (Arabic: tibiana lekulli shayin 16:89)."

Therefore, a scripture cannot make those above claims (as made by the Quran) and yet on the other-hand not provide necessary details for human guidance as part of God ordained 'religion', or claimed to be (by some) incomplete, lacking details, and dependent on other/secondary sources.

That said, judging from brother Josephs many articles and Facebook-posts, he is not advocating for an outright rejection of the Hadiths. In fact, as he proclaimed in one of his Facebook post:

"One can make use of extraneous sources for general guidance, best practice, ‘alleged’ sayings of the earliest Muslims, sage sayings, wisdom, to ascertain how the intellectual ancients of the 8th, 9th,10th (etc) centuries CE understood their religion underpinned by the Quran, how these thoughts translated into to practices etc; but are they 'God ordained' in the 'name of religion'? Absolutely not.

And in fact I, myself, have in my personal archives a collection of hadiths which I believe have much wisdom and knowledge to offer, which I try to adhere to as best I can.

Hassan.

182

Discussions / Re: Is it possible to make a concordance

« on: August 14, 2015, 04:02:55 PM »

Salaam Munir Rana,

I too share your sentiment.

183

General Discussions / Re: What's the meaning of the arabic term 'lamasa'?

« on: August 14, 2015, 04:00:00 PM »

Sorry brother/sister Sardar Miyan but my previous post was intended for brother/sister IjazAhmad.

184

General Discussions / Re: What's the meaning of the arabic term 'lamasa'?

« on: August 12, 2015, 12:09:49 PM »

Salaam  Sardar Miyan,

Brother Joseph Islam has already touched on this issue:

http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=437.0

http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=862.0

Hope that helps.
Peace be to you.

185

General Discussions / Re: Regarding 16:101

« on: August 01, 2015, 06:08:11 AM »

Salaam Munir rana,

As usual, I give you Muhammad Asad's explanation of the verse in question, as I am not well-versed in the Quran. Forgive me, in advance, if my continuatious quoting of Muhammad Asad is not to your pleasing and falls short of anwering your inquiries. But before I cite you his explanation of the verse in question, I feel it is appropriate to first cite you verse 2:106 and his explanation of it. That said, below is his translations and explanation of 2:106:

2:106
Any message which, We annul or consign to oblivion We replace with a better or a similar ones. Dost thou not know that God has the power to will anything?

The principle laid down in this passage - relating to the supersession of the Biblical
dispensation by that of the Qur'an - has given rise to an erroneous interpretation by many
Muslim theologians. The word ayah ("message") occurring in this, context is also used to
denote a "verse;" of the Qur'an (because every one of these verses contains a message).
Taking this restricted meaning of the term ayah, some scholars conclude from the above passage
that certain verses of the Qur'an have been "abrogated" by God's command before the
revelation of the Qur'an was completed. Apart from the fancifulness of this assertion -
which calls to mind the image of a human author correcting, on second thought, the proofs
of his manuscript - deleting one passage and replacing it with another - there does not
exist a single reliable Tradition to the effect that the Prophet ever, declared a verse of
the Qur'an to have been "abrogated". At the root of the so-called "doctrine of abrogation"
may lie the inability of some of the early commentators to reconcile one Qur'anic passage
with another: a difficulty which was overcome by declaring that one of the verses in
question had been "abrogated". This arbitrary procedure explains also why there is no
unanimity whatsoever among the upholders of the "doctrine of abrogation" as to which, and
how many, Qur'an verses have been affected by it; and, furthermore, as to whether this
alleged abrogation implies a total elimination of the verse in question from the context
of the Qur'an, or only a cancellation of the specific ordinance or statement contained in it.
In short, the "doctrine of abrogation" has no basis whatever in historical fact, and must
be rejected. On the other hand, the apparent difficulty in interpreting the above Qur'anic
passage disappears immediately if the term ayah is understoood, correctly, as "message",
and if we read this verse in conjunction with the preceding one, which states that the Jews
and the Christians refuse to accept any revelation which might supersede that of the Bible:
for, if read in this way, the abrogation relates to the earlier divine messages and not to
any part of the Qur'an itself.


With that out of the way, below is his translation and explanation of 16:101:

16:101
And now that We replace one message by another [125] - since God is fully aware of what He bestows from on high, step by step [126] - they [who deny the truth] are wont to say, "Thou but inventest it!" Nay, but most of them do not understand it!127

[125] By substituting the message of the Qur'an for the earlier dispensations - and not, as
some Muslim scholars maintain, "abrogating" one Qur'anic verse and replacing it by another.

[126] The gradualness of revelation (implied in the verbal form yunazzil) corresponds to God's
plan, according to which He has gradually unfolded His will to man, substituting one dispensation
for another in the measure of mankind's intellectual and social development, bringing it to its
culmination in the message of the Qur'an.

As always, I hope that helps and peace to you.

186

General Discussions / Re: regarding 9 : 101 and 15:17-18

« on: July 25, 2015, 09:38:09 AM »

Salaam munir rana,

I wish I was well versed enough of the Quran to be able to answer your inquiry; but am not. So instead, with regards to your inquiry, I give you Muhammad Asad's interpertaion of 15:17-18.

Note: his translation of the/those two verses is slightly different than the translation you shared. Below is how he translates the two verses:

15:17
And We have made them secure against every satanic force accursed

(15:18)
so that anyone who seeks to learn [the unknowable] by stealth is pursued by a flame clear to see.

His explanation of those two verses is as followed:

15:17 - The term shaytan ("satan") - derived from the verb shatana ("he was [or "became"] remote") - often
denotes in the Qur'an a force or influence remote from, and opposed to, all that is true and good
(Taj al-'Arus, Raghib): thus, for instance, in 2:14 it is used to describe the evil impulses
(shayatin) within the hearts of "those who are bent on denying the truth". In its widest, abstract
sense it denotes every "satanic force", i.e., every impulsion directed towards ends which are
contrary to valid ethical postulates. In the present context, the phrase "every satanic force
accursed (rajim)"- like the phrase "every rebellious (marid) satanic force" in a similar context
in 37:7 - apparently refers to endeavours, strongly condemned in Islam, to divine the future by
means of astrological speculations: hence the preceding reference to the skies and the stars. The
statement that God has made the heavens "secure" against such satanic forces obviously implies
that He has made it impossible for the latter to obtain, through astrology or what is popularly
described as "occult sciences", any real knowledge of "that which is beyond the reach of human
perception" (al-ghayb).

15:18 - Lit., "excepting [or "except that"] anyone who seeks to hear by stealth...", etc. The implication
seems to be that any attempt at fathoming the mysteries of the unknowable by such illicit means
("by stealth") is inevitably followed by "a flame clear to see", i.e., by burning, self-evident
frustration.

Hope that helps.

187

General Discussions / Re: example of dog in the verse 7:176

« on: July 15, 2015, 09:51:05 PM »

Salaam munir rana,

Muhammad Asad gives the following interpretation/explanation with regards to 7:176:

"Because his attitudes are influenced only by what his earth-bound desires represent to him as his immediate 'advantages' or 'disadvantages', the type of man alluded to in this passage is always - whatever the outward circumstances - a prey to a conflict between his reason and his base urges and, thus, to inner disquiet and imaginary fears and cannot attain to that peace of mind which a believer achieves through his faith."

Hope that helps.

188

General Discussions / Re: Can Atheists Go To Heaven In Islam? A Surprising Answer!

« on: June 19, 2015, 11:20:37 AM »

We have to pause for a moment and consider what we mean by the term ‘disbeliever’. In my opinion, there is only two state of ‘dis-belief’.

The first state I refer to ‘disbelief out of arrogance’, and therefore by choice. One enters in to this state once the truth (in this case the existence of Allah) has been CLEARLY manifested to him, and made absolutely clear with no reason left for him/her to deny/reject it (given the recipients circumstance, and faculties). However, if, after clear evidence/proof, he/she still rejects the truth, it is then that one enters into the state of Kufr.

To better understand this stage, consider the example of pharaoh. After first listening to the message of Allah, communicated through the Prophet Musa, Pharaoh asked him to bring about a miracle. Pharaoh, who trusted in the skills of his magicians, wanted Musa (AS) to confront his magicians, since he was certain of his ultimate victory. In his opinion, a successful confrontation would secure his authority. However, the magician's’ performance was mere sorcery, which the miracle performed by the Prophet Musa rendered void. Thus, Pharaoh was defeated. Yet, instead of acquiescing and accepting to be rightly guided, he became still more arrogant.
“Witnessing the miracle performed by Musa (AS), the magicians embraced faith and came to believe in the Lord of Musa (AS). Nevertheless, their choice had no impact whatsoever on the hardened heart of Pharaoh. Rather, he decided instead to use force: The magicians threw themselves down in prostration. They said, “We believe in the Lord of all the worlds, the Lord of Musa and Harun.” Pharaoh said, “Have you believed in him before I authorised you to do so? This is just some plot you have concocted in the city to drive its people from it. I will cut off your alternate hands and feet and then I will crucify every one of you.”” (Surah Al A’raf 7:120-124)


The second state I refer to as ‘the absence of belief (or disbelief out of ignorance). This state is characterized by one whom the truth (in this case the existence of Allah) has either never reached or has not been clearly manifested to him/her. Again, I don’t consider this state ‘disbelieve’ but rather the ‘absence of belief’; because in such state one either never encountered the truth or has not been clearly manifested to him, hence he/she never had the option to believe or disbelieve.

To illustrate the second stage-absence of belief, consider the following scenario:

Suppose there is a man on an isolated island, and has been on that island since birth. Now suppose that that man has never made contact with anyone or anything outside of that island. As such, said man would have no idea of the existence of a God, as the truth (in this case God’s existence) has never reached him nor been clearly manifested to him (seeing as how he’s on an isolated island); as such, the man would have an ‘absence of belief’ in the existence of a God. Now suppose this man dies on that island, without the truth (in this case the existence of a God) having ever reached him. Now tell me, would it not be unjust of/for Allah to punish him in this scenario?  Seeing as how the truth (the existence of Allah) never reached or been clearly manifested to him; hence never having the chance to believe or disbelieve.

Therefore, one whom the truth of a certain matter (in this case the existence of Allah) has either never reached him or been clearly manifested to him (in my opinion) cannot been necessarily considered a ‘disbeliever’. Rather his scenario is one of ‘absence of belief’.

189

General Discussions / Re: Drawing / depicting 'the Prophet' sallallaho 'alayhi wasalaam - Allowed?

« on: June 14, 2015, 08:16:00 AM »

I find it ironic how traditional Muslims get offended when the prophets image is/gets depicted, yet when the very sources (i.e. Hadith) which they hold dearly depict him in a despicable way (such as claiming he married a 9 year old) they neither take offense to it, nor question it; hypocrisy at its finest.

Now me, personally, I take no offense to it, even when the intent of depicting him is to insult. If someone drew the prophet in an ugly and unpleasing way, I wouldn't take offense to such because for me the question is/would be: how could said artist know the way in which the prophet looked? Surely he wasn't alive during that time, nor where cameras available during that time. Thus I (would) dismiss such depictions on the basis of 'lack of evidence'.

190

Women / Re: What a woman can reveal.

« on: April 20, 2015, 01:58:04 PM »

Peace Brother Wakas,

Thank you for the article you linked me. I enjoyed reading it.

I would also like to thank all the members who participated in this discussion and provided me with their perspective with regards to the inquiry raised in my main/first post.

Peace be with all.

191

Women / Re: What a woman can reveal.

« on: April 18, 2015, 04:54:25 PM »

walaikum assalam Brother Hamzeh

Allow me to begin by saying that the argument put forth in my post was not one made by me, but rather by an individual whom i was engaged in a debate with online; and though I happen to agree with the gist of that individuals argument which is that WOMEN DO NOT have to cover their head/face, it was the "proof" he put forth (i.e. using 5:6 as proof of what parts women can reveal) which I was skeptical of and hence motivated me to post his exact argument on this forum to seek clarification and critique of it.

That being said, I greatly thank you for your reply; by God it helped clear things up.

With regards to the links of the articles you've shared with me I must say I've read them before (as well as almost all the other articles on Brother Josepha Islam main site) and I absolutely agree with them and believe them irrefutable.

Thank you again, Brother. And peace with you.

192

Women / Re: What a woman can reveal.

« on: April 18, 2015, 01:26:16 PM »

Dear Sardar Miyan,

You said:

"Allah never asked women to cover face, hand, hair & feet"

I (and the brother whose argument I posted) absolutely agree with you that Allah never said we had to cover our face, hand/arms, head/hair and feet. But please re-read my post. The brother whose argument I posted wasn't arguing that women had to cover their head/hair,, face, hands/arms, and feet; rather he was making the opposite argument (i.e. that women DON'T have to cover their head/hair, face, feet, hands/arms) by claiming that the very parts Allah has instructed us to wash before prayer are the same parts which can be EXPOSED/NOT COVERED.

Peace to you.

193

Women / Re: What a woman can reveal.

« on: April 18, 2015, 10:56:44 AM »

Salaam HopeSeeker

You said:

"Wouldn’t it mean that showing your neck or you ears would be wrong...So to say that those parts of their bodies were not covered might be incorrect."

With all due respect, I think you might have misread the brother whose argument I posted above. Said brother wasn't necessarily saying that the neck and ears (and for that matter the arms: up to the elbow and feet: up to the ankles) have to be covered. What he’s seems to be suggesting is that the same parts which Allah instructs us to wash before prayer (and thus are the most exposed to the elements) are the same parts which women (and men for that matter) are free to expose.

Peace to you.

194

Women / Re: What a woman can reveal.

« on: April 18, 2015, 10:47:11 AM »

Salaam Sardar Miyan

You said:

"Women are supposed to cover only their bosom and not the Face"

I agree. And the brother whose argument I posted wasn't making the argument that women have to cover their faces, rather what he was saying is/was that the parts which a woman can reveal/not cover are the same parts which Allah has instructed us/them to wash (i.e. hands: up to the elbow; feet: up to the ankles; and the face: hair and ears included) as they are the parts which are most exposed to the elements.

In other words, what he's saying is if women are instructed to cover the face, hands, and feet (as some claim) and hence are never exposed (to the elements) then what is the point of Allah instructing them to wash those same parts before prayer.

Peace to you.

195

Women / What a woman can reveal.

« on: April 17, 2015, 03:56:48 PM »

Salaam everyone my name is Hassan,

Though this is my first post on this forum I am no stranger to the following site (http://quransmessage.com/articles/articles%20FM3.htm) which I have, and continue to, visit occasionally.

Firstly, I would like to briefly commend Brother Joseph Islam on the many articles he’s written on his main site (http://quransmessage.com/articles/articles%20FM3.htm). The knowledge, understanding and wisdom of the Quran he displays on all his articles is truly amazing; as is the way/style he conducts himself in his many debates with respected individuals. May Allah increase you (and all of us) in knowledge and understanding of the Quran; and may your site become accessible to my of our dear Muslim brothers/sister whom I believe could really benefit from it. I could go on and on commending the brother but I believe the readers get the point.

Now to the intent of my post:

An individual whom I was debating regarding what is meant by the term “inherently apparent” in (i.e. what a woman can publicly display) put forth the following argument which I would like the respected members on this forum (including, if possible, brother Joseph Islam) to critique it.

His argument goes as follows:

The Quran is not an ambiguous book; what is ambiguous in one verse(s) is expounded on/made clear in other verse(s). One verse in the Quran which, by itself, seems/sounds ambiguous is the following verse in which Allah instructs women (in dressing modestly) to not reveal anything “EXCEPT WHAT IS ‘INHERENTLY APPEARENT’”:

"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to guard their private parts, and not to reveal any of their ‘zinatahhunna’ (beauty spots) EXCEPT WHAT IS NORMAL/INHERENTLY APPARENT…(24;31).

In the above verse (which is a sub-verse of a much longer verse) when women are being told/commanded to reveal nothing ‘except what is normally/inherently apparent’ one is not given/told what is meant by ‘normally/inherently apparent’, thus leaving one perplexed. But, as said before, ambiguous verse(s) are expounded on/made clear in other verse(s). So, what is meant by ‘normally/inherently apparent’ in verse 24:31 (which itself leaves it unclear) is expounded on/made clear in the following verse which orders Muslims what to do before salat (prayer) and how to do it:

"O you who believe, when you rise to observe the Salat, you shall wash your faces and your arms to the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles." (Quran 5:6)

The connection between the above verse –verse 5:6 (which instructs Muslims what they should do before salat/prayer and how they should do it) and verse 24:31 (which instructs women to dress modestly and reveal nothing except what is normally/inherently apparent) is that the parts which Allah instructs us to wash before every prayer (face; arms: up to the elbow; head: hair included; feet: up to the ankles) must fall under the category of “normally/inherently apparent’. Because (his argument goes) wudu/ablution is done for physical (as well as spiritual) cleanness and the parts which are most exposed to the elements (such as the face, arms, head, and feet) are the parts which we are instructed to clean before salat/prayer. But if the head/face, arms, and feet of a woman is to be covered then what is/would be the point of instructing them to clean those parts constantly (head face, arms, and feet) if they are always (to be) covered and thus never exposed to the elements. Thus, those parts which Allah instructs us (women as well as men) to clean before prayer are the same parts which is/are referred to as ‘inherently/normally apparent’ in verse 24:31 and which women (as well as men) are free to reveal.

Again I would like the respected members of this forum to critique said brothers’ argument.

Peace to all.