Messages

211

General Discussions / Re: Allah does not change His laws

« on: May 15, 2013, 01:31:35 PM »

I think this is unique translation.Thanks

Salam,

It is unique because it explains how (the method) "to give life to dead", how to resurrect a nation which is dead (قَالَ أَنَّىٰ يُحْيِي هَٰذِهِ اللَّهُ بَعْدَ مَوْتِهَا  2:259).  It teaches us the importance of conquering the hearts of people (taming birds, i.e people) to make revolutionary changes in the nation.  The traditional transalation does not teach HOW, the method, to give life to dead.  If what was expected was just to see some dead birds/ human beings were given life, it would be equal to demanding a miracle from Allah (not expected from a prophet who is directly communicating with Allah).  The nature of people who demand miracles to confirm their faith in Allah is stated in the Quran itself as "even if dead speak to them they will not believe". 

Also, it is not expected from  a prophet to actually carry out the directions to see that Allah can give life to dead (if it was meant to cut birds into pieces to see they are brought to life again).  If the purpose was to show that Allah can give life to dead, Allah could have chosen someone already died there (may be a year or couple of years before) to resurrect from the grave and talk to them (because assuming the traditional translation is correct, what was expected from the question from the prophet was to see a dead human being getting resurrected).

This will be my ONE and only post under this thread since I already got involved earlier in the same discussion.

Regards,
Optimist

212

General Discussions / Re: Joseph Islam's Article "CUTTING THE HANDS OF A THIEF - NO ORDINARY THIEF"

« on: May 13, 2013, 12:38:03 AM »

Blimey!!!!!!!!!!! The hadith doesn't get any better does it!!!?

Thank you optimist for sharing these crazy narratives. It just shows what the orthodoxy defends!

Salaam ... Saba 

Actually these are just tips of an iceberg.   Here is another hadith from Imam Malik's Muwatta, Book 41, Number 41.9.28.  Anyone can verify the hadith from the following link.

http://www.islam.us/hadith/muwatta/041.mmt.html

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Safwan ibn Abdullah ibn Safwan that it was said to Safwan ibn Umayya, "Whoever does not do hijra is ruined." So Safwan ibn Umayya went to Madina and slept in the mosque with his cloak as a pillow. A thief came and took his cloak and Safwan grabbed hold of the thief and brought him to the Messenger of Allah,  may Allah bless him and grant him peace. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to him, "Did you steal this cloak?" He said, "Yes." So the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ordered that his hand be cut off. Safwan said to him, "I did not intend this. It is his as sadaqa." The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Why didn't you do it before bringing him to me?"

See...what this fabricated hadith is stating.  Even Safwan was shocked when prophet ordered cutting of the hand for such a silly theft and Safwan had to change his mind and  tell prophet that it was actually given to him as a sadaqa (to save the poor fellow from losing his hand).  Whether the poor fellow was actually saved, as per the story fabricated,  is not very clear in the hadith (we can leave that part).  If the common people read these hadith collections just one time, they will, for sure, revolt against the clergy. 

213

General Discussions / Re: Joseph Islam's Article "CUTTING THE HANDS OF A THIEF - NO ORDINARY THIEF"

« on: May 12, 2013, 06:14:37 PM »

Firstly, it should be noted that the verse makes clear whoever commits theft but repents after and makes amends, then this is acceptable to God, thus no punishment can be administered in this case. This of course would only apply to those who do this before they have to be tried and found guilty. To prove this, see the verse below in which being punished is contrasted to relenting:

There are some who await God's decree whether He will punish them or relent on them. God is All Knower, All Wise. [9:106]

And how repenting and making amends shows a true repentance, thus reinforces the notion that a true/sincere repentance is accepted:

And whoever repents and takes corrective action, certainly he turns toward God with true repentance. [25:71]

Salaam,

Nice post brother Wakas. 

Unfortunately, most traditional scholars interpret verse 5:39 to mean that if the thief repents after his hand is cut off, and then he reforms himself, then Allah turns to him in forgiveness!! The element of forgiveness and mercy is very strong in Islam. Yet, today in the formulation and enforcement of Islamic Laws the tendency is to be as harsh as possible

In this regard, here is a similar verse in the Quran;

“Those who launch a charge against chaste women and do not bring four witnesses should be punished with eighty lashes, and their testimony should not be accepted afterwards: except for those who repent thereafter and mend (their conduct). For Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful”. - (24:4)

It is clear that if there is true repentance coupled with a change in conduct there will be no punishment.  Again in verse 5:33-34, even in very serious cases like waging war against Allah and the prophet and spreading mischief in the land, it is mentioned in the same verse that there shall be no punishment "for those who repent before they fall into your power; in that case know that Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful".

Regards,
Optimist

214

General Discussions / QUESTION TO BASSAM: Why new born Babies cry?

« on: May 12, 2013, 03:03:22 PM »

Dear Bassam, Assalamu alaikum

I am creating a new thread based on your request to start a new thread.   I quoted the following hadith from Bukahri in another thread  to expose the fallacy of your argument that hadith is divine revelation (this spurious hadith was just the previous hadith of an another hadith you yourself quoted).   If the moderators here find it proper to do, kindly delete my last post made in another thread mentioning the same questions I am going to post hereunder.  Here is the hadith (falsely attributed to the prophet as authentic by Bukhari)

Narrated Said bin Al-Musaiyab: Abu Huraira said, "I heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'There is none born among the off-spring of Adam, but Satan touches it. A child therefore, cries loudly at the time of birth because of the touch of Satan, except Mary and her child." Then Abu Huraira recited: "And I seek refuge with You for her and for her offspring from the outcast Satan" (3.36)  

You posted a comment providing me the following link stating that the issue has been already addressed by you in this link.   http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_s_article__jesus__superiority_revisited_

Kindly note that, I have already checked your above link, unfortunately, my main concerns for the hadith is not addressed in the above link, and your comments were mainly focused on countering Shamoun’s claim of superiority of Jesus over prophet Muhamed.   Therefore, I have the following questions. 

1. Do you think there is no medical reason for why the new borns cry?   According to medical science a new born baby has to cry otherwise brain will not get oxygen immediately and this can bring serious complications later.   When the baby is in the womb it doesn’t breath through the nose but by umbilical cord, so when it comes out there is no oxygen going in through the nose since the baby doesn’t know how to breath so the nurse will hit their tiny buttocks and they will respond to the pain will a yell which automatically opens the nose and the lungs start pumping oxygen.  In some cases, babies born at home, into a quiet, warm environment (especially during water birth) sometimes do not cry and no complications may happen in those circumstances.  Babies need to be monitored only under such circumstances.   Therefore, there is pure science involved for babies crying.  It is not Satan’s touch that makes them cry.  Kindly let me know your view whether there is any medical reason for the new born babies cry and also your experience on this point.

2. There are some babies that do not cry at the time of birth.   Will they come under the category of Mary and Jesus? i.e, They do not cry, is it because of Satan not touching them?

3. Why Mary and Jesus alone were exempted from Satan’s touching and (most probably did not cry)?   This question is important, because, as per the hadith, even prophet Ibrahim was not excluded from Satan's touching.  And why Mary and Jesus alone?  Don't you think this hadith makes discrimination among different prophets?

4. Don’t you think this hadith contradicts another ahaadith reported by both Bukhari and Muslim wherein the prophet said that each and every child is born in a state of Fitrah?

5. You quoted a hadith from Volume 1, Book 4, Number 143: Narrated Ibn 'Abbas, in which prophet said “If anyone of you on having sexual relations with his wife said 'In the name of Allah. O Allah! Protect us from Satan and also protect what you bestow upon us (i.e. the coming offspring) from Satan, and if it is destined that they should have a child then, Satan will never be able to harm that offspring." My question is this:  Are you saying that babies born in the above circumstances won’t cry??

I expect from you some brief comments for my points at your convenience.

Thanks, regards
Optimist

215

General Discussions / Re: Joseph Islam's Article "CUTTING THE HANDS OF A THIEF - NO ORDINARY THIEF"

« on: May 12, 2013, 01:20:05 PM »

Salam Optimist,

This is a lengthy topic (how to apply those hadith during our time, since a "dirham" back then isn't the same as "dirham" in our time, also conditions for hadd punishment (e.g. no famine, it was premeditated, etc.), etc.) and there are many ahaadith more to consider and opinions to look at and compare and contrast.

It's not the place and time to discuss it.

Salam Bassam, 

Firstly, please note, I quoted the hadiths not to discuss whether we shall apply them under exceptional circumstances like famine.  You need to only tell us what is the rule under normal circumstances.   If "dirham" back then isn't the same as "dirham" in our time, what about the second hadith about cutting of hands for stealing an egg or a rope?    Also, you can not just simply ignore the hadith under the pretext of value difference, because, the hadith actually mentions about a shield worth 3 Dirhams.  And according to you this is "Divine revelation" from Allah (Allah forbid) and therefore, you have to calculate the price difference precisely and tell us what is the value you put now.   My question: Should we apply the rule mentioned in the hadith if some steals a shield worth 300 Dirhams in the present time (under normal circumstances)?  I expect also a comment for "an egg or a rope" issue.

Also, you have deliberately ignored the last hadith I quoted from Abu Dawood.  One must be under the influence of liquor to collect such a ridiculous, nonsense hadith contradicting common sense and contradicting Quran and throwing insult at the prophet.  This one hadith itself is sufficient to throw away the complete collection of Abu Dawood.  And the most funny thing is that you want to compare ridiculous hadiths like this with the things mentioned in the Quran!   Let us all get reminded from the following verse from Quran.

"Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby." (2:79)

Regards,
Optimist

216

General Discussions / Re: Joseph Islam's Article "CUTTING THE HANDS OF A THIEF - NO ORDINARY THIEF"

« on: May 12, 2013, 04:56:39 AM »

Salaam brother Bassam,

I would like to ask you whether you rely on the following hadiths to explain the Quran.

Sahih Al Bukhari (Vol.8.787/790): The Prophet ordered the cutting of the hand for the theft of a shield worth three Dirhams.

Sahih Al Bukhari (Vol.8.79): Narrated by Abu Huraira, Allah's Apostle said, "Allah curses the thief who steals an egg (or a helmet) for which his hand is to be cut off, or steals a rope, for which his hand is to be cut off."

Abu Dawood: Book 38, Number 4396: Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah: A thief was brought to the Prophet (Peace_be_upon_him). He said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his hand. So his (right) hand was cut off. He was brought a second time and he said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his foot. So his (left) foot was cut off. He was brought a third time and he said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! So he said: Cut off his hand. (So his (left) hand was cut off.) He was brought a fourth time and he said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! So he said: Cut off his foot. So his (right) foot was cut off. He was brought a fifth time and he said: Kill him. So we took him away and killed him. We then dragged him and cast him into a well and threw stones over him.*

*Kindly let me know if there is any footnote for this hadith from scholars declaring this hadith as "unauthentic" (Hadiths from Bukhari I mentioned above, I know you consider each and every hadith completely authentic).

Do you think our prophet would cut off the hands of a thief for stealing an egg or rope or a shied worth 3 Dirhams?  Do you think whether these hadiths actually explain the Quran which prescribes equitable punishment for offenses?  What will happen if any islamic society literally takes these ahaadith to interpret the Quran and decides to implement the directives in the hadiths as it is?

Appreciate your comments.
 
Regards,
Optimist

217

General Discussions / Re: Who Determines What is Absurd?

« on: May 12, 2013, 03:56:40 AM »

Dear brother Bassam,

Assalamu alaikum.

I shall ensure to make another thread if I need to make comments for any other hadiths.  Kindly bear with me for this hadith.  The discussion is already ongoing, however, if you insist for another thread I have no problem.  Please let me know.

Well, I read your rebuttal, but the discussion is focused on countering Shamoun’s claim of superiority of Jesus over prophet Muhamed.   I am not at all focused on this point.  My questions are;

1. Do you think there is no medical reason for why the new borns cry?   According to medical science a new born baby has to cry otherwise brain will not get oxygen immediately and this can bring serious complications later.   When the baby is in the womb it doesn’t breath through the nose but by umbilical cord, so when it comes out there is no oxygen going in through the nose since the baby doesn’t know how to breath so the nurse will hit their tiny buttocks and they will respond to the pain will a yell which automatically opens the nose and the lungs start pumping oxygen.  In some cases, babies born at home, into a quiet, warm environment (especially during water birth) sometimes do not cry and no complications may happen in those circumstances.  Babies need to be monitored only under such circumstances.   There is pure science involved for babies crying.  It is not Satan’s touch that makes them cry.  Kindly let me know your views and experience on this point.

2. There are some babies that do not cry at the time of birth.   Will they come under the category of Mary and Jesus?

3. Why Mary and Jesus alone were exempted from Satan’s touching and (most probably did not cry)?   Please note, I am not concerned about whether they were saved from Satan’s influence later on - a point you made in your rebuttal.

4. Don’t you think this hadith contradicts another ahaadith reported by both Bukhari and Muslim wherein the prophet said that each and every child is born in a state of Fitrah?

5. You quoted a hadith from Volume 1, Book 4, Number 143: Narrated Ibn 'Abbas, in which prophet said “If anyone of you on having sexual relations with his wife said 'In the name of Allah. O Allah! Protect us from Satan and also protect what you bestow upon us (i.e. the coming offspring) from Satan, and if it is destined that they should have a child then, Satan will never be able to harm that offspring."  My question is this:  Are you saying that babies born in the above circumstances won’t cry??

This is all for now.  I expect from you some brief comments for my points at your convenience.

Thanks, regards
Optimist

218

General Discussions / Re: Who Determines What is Absurd?

« on: May 12, 2013, 12:16:27 AM »

The Arabic of the hadeeth says:

خَيْرُ نِسَائِهَا مَرْيَمُ ابْنَةُ عِمْرَانَ، وَخَيْرُ نِسَائِهَا خَدِيجَةُ ‏"‏‏.‏

The best of her women is Maryam son of Imran and the best of her women is Khadija.

So it's quite clear.

That's all it says, I won't dive deeper.

Salam,

Well, I checked.  It is better you don't dive deeper, because you will need another one or two hadiths to explain the hadith.  Poor translators made a mess about it and they made you to ask me a question, "how we know that Khadijah is the best amongst women in this nation in the sight of Allah without revelation in the Qur'an?".   Ha ha.  I know you don't want to pursue the question anymore.   

http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=55&translator=1&start=0&number=641

By the way,  I was checking different translations and the above hadith is No.642 in the above link.  Please advise these people to correct the translation since according to you hadith is a divine revelation.  Anyhow, I accidently noticed the previous hadith No.641 and let me quote the hadith for all the readers to see the corruption that crept into authentic hadith collection.  (don't accuse me of cherry picking). 

Narrated Said bin Al-Musaiyab: Abu Huraira said, "I heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'There is none born among the off-spring of Adam, but Satan touches it. A child therefore, cries loudly at the time of birth because of the touch of Satan, except Mary and her child." Then Abu Huraira recited: "And I seek refuge with You for her and for her offspring from the outcast Satan" (3.36) 

Do you THINK this is divine revelation from ALLAH?  You ask any medical student and they will tell you why new born cry.  It seems some ignorant idots, after the death of the prophet, made a research on this phenomenon about why new born cry and to authenticate their ‘finding’ they attributed this lie to the prophet!!  And for you this is divine revelation!   

Focusing on the subject of discussion let me tell you that it is shame for you if you want to compare these kinds of ahaadith with the things mentioned in the Quran.   I look forward to your comments including if the translators made any error in their translation.

Regards,
Optimist

PS: The hadith states "except Mary and her child".  I smell a Christian conspiracy here.

219

General Discussions / Re: Joseph Islam's Article "SEX WITH SLAVE GIRLS"

« on: May 11, 2013, 11:37:58 PM »

- Where does 4:25 say that we must wed slave girls in order to have sex with them?

Salaam,

Without interruption, let me ask you,  wherein Quran say that you and me can have sex with slave girls?   Whatever laws The Quran contains about slaves, are intended for these slaves who were already present in society. "Ma Malakat Aimanukum" means those who are already in your possession. This is stated in the past tense, meaning something that has been done before.

At the advent of Islam, like in the rest of the world, slavery was prevalent among Arabs, too. Prisoners of war were turned into slaves by them. When they embraced Islam, they already had such slaves and concubines in their homes. If Islam had ordered them all out, then there would have been chaos in the society. Hence such laws were established, like freeing the slaves  as expiation for many types of sins, providing the slave with his freedom in exchange of ransom value, marrying them and thus making them legal husband and wife, etc.,  whereby they were given freedom gradually.

For the future, The Quran completely closed the door on slavery. This was how it was done. For prisoners of war, the order was quite clear. The Quran says that after over powering them: either be gracious to them and let them go, or else take ransom and let them free (47:4).  The door for future slavery was thus closed by the Quran forever.

Regards,
Optimist

220

General Discussions / Re: Who Determines What is Absurd?

« on: May 11, 2013, 10:35:36 PM »

- You were wrong about the "only being in brackets thing". You should have consulted the Arabic first instead of focusing wholly on the English translation.

Excuse me! 

Who posted the hadith initially, me or you?  It was you who posted the hadith putting things in brackets and misrepresenting facts and now you are blaming me!!!!  It is not fair.  I will have to check and I will come back later.  It is a shame!  I quote what you posted in post no.16.

Narrated `Ali: I heard the Prophet saying, "Mary, the daughter of `Imran, was the best among the women (of the world of her time) and Khadija is the best amongst the women. (of this nation). (Bukhari, Book 60, Hadith 103)

Regards
Optimist

221

General Discussions / Re: Who Determines What is Absurd?

« on: May 11, 2013, 09:56:24 PM »

As for Mary... the Qur'an says "All nations". That's all. It doesn't say "All nations, which came before, which exist now and which will come in the future".

The hadith clarifies the true meaning. No contradiction.

Salam,


I thought you will argue that Mary's status limitting to "the world of  her time" is something Hadith compiler kept it in bracket, which is not the original words of the messenger (a fact as per the narration). 

Anyhow, thank you for your clarification as per your understanding for the Quranic reference of Mary as "the women of all nations" to mean only "the women of her time"...!!!  It will be highly appreciated if you can further clarify to me the following points, if you know the information.

(1) When it is said in the hadith you quoted, "Khadija is the best amongst the women (of this nation)" whether this status of Khadija was confined to the period of her time only or it is something applicable to all future generarions till the end of the world.

(2) Do you think, the preferred status of Mary being "the women of all nations" was cut off by the birth of Khadija or this status was taken away immediately after Mary's death.  Since the Quran used a vague and ambiguous words (according to you) as  "women of all nations", the question is important.   It would be good if you can point out any other further clarifying hadiths?

Thanks, kind regards
Optimist

222

General Discussions / Re: Who Determines What is Absurd?

« on: May 11, 2013, 09:02:24 PM »

Seeing you reject the narration from Ali, that means that you have failed in your mission to use Ali from our sources to side with you. It appears that you have only cherry picked the narrations you like (not worthy of my time).

Salam,

Brother Bassam, I am telling you again; I quoted that hadith not to support my claim that ahaadith are not divine revelations, but to disprove your claim that ahaadith are divine revelation (from your own source and the truthfulness of the hadith you confirm).   

And that hadith doesn't contradict the Qur'anic verse, however it's not related to this thread. If you want to open a new thread, I will answer your concern.

You are totally blind if you can not find contradiction between Quranic statement regarding Mary as "the women of all nations"   and hadith statement regarding Mary as "of the world of  her time".  I do not need to open another thread to ask this silly question.   Even a child with simple common sense can understand the contradiction here.

As for the donkey meat, the narration used the word "haram" and not merely "legally forbid". Again, you failed in your attempt to appeal to Ali from our sources.

Your question, based on the premise, " if Ali were truly a Qur'an Only Muslim like yourself. would he have said......" can only prove contradictions between different hadiths.   Again I am telling you I quoted hadith to disprove your claim of ahaadith being divine revelation from your own source.   You will find it difficult to explain the hadith among your own audience.  The hadith quoted from Ali was plain and clear.  The answer given by Ali was NO.   It is your problem to explain the contradiction.  As for me, you have miserably failed to give a clear explanation.  I hope all open minded readers here will agree with me.

Also you should note, rejection of ahaadith as a source for religious guidance DOES NOT MEAN each and every hadith collected by Bukhari and Muslim (or anyone) are fabrications.  Some partial truthful reports may have been preserved in hadith collections (I am not implying such reports should be considered as a source of religious guidance in Islam).  As far as religious guidance is concerned, it should be only the Quran.   

Regards,
Optimist

223

General Discussions / Re: Who Determines What is Absurd?

« on: May 11, 2013, 07:09:52 PM »

There was no need for that document if everything was laid out in the Qur'an. That's the point.... Ali didn't only say "Qur'an" and stay quiet

Salam,

Everything was laid out in the Quran does not mean you will find traffic rules in Quran.   The divine revelation is not meant to teach you all the caluses and sub clauses of  different laws and principles.  It is the duty of an Islamic Republic to legislate the clauses and sub-clauses of Qur'an's basic Shari'at laws or principles, according to the social, cultural and geo-political conditions of the time, by mutual consultation. It is precisely because of this, the Messenger was commanded to consult his companions and followers (Qur'an 3:159 & 42:38).   The mechanisms required for a government in the Seventh Century are very different indeed from those required today although the principles are the same. God left the detail to be filled in, and changed, by each generation as conditions may dictate provided always that the principle of 'mutual consultation' laid down by God in the Qur'an is observed.  For instance, a 2.5% zakat tax may be sufficient to meet the demand and the needs of the people during seventh century Arabia, which may not be sufficent to meet the need for an islamic govenment in the present times or in the future.  Hence percentage of Zakat is not mentioned in the Quran does not mean Quran is incomplete.  It is not required.  It is not the intention and plan of Allah to make people work like robots.  They have to use their intelligence and try to find solutions for their problems.  However they shall get all necessary and needed guidelines from Quran. 

By the way, in the company where I work one idiot destroyed a European closet saying that it is against 'Sunnah' of the prophet.  It seems this poor fellow thinks divine revelation means he should be taught even how to defecate!

Again, what's the point of your argument. You don't trust in the hadith system. So why are you trying to prove that Ali is on your side by appealing to the hadith? I don't think there is a need to proceed without first clarifying that point.

According to you since it is an authentic collection from Bukhari, the fact mentioned in it should be true. I quoted this hadith not to support my claim but to disprove your claim that ahaadith are divine revelation.     I do not need to rely on this hadith from Ali to reject the claim that ahaadith are based on any divine revelation. 

Narrated `Ali:
I heard the Prophet saying, "Mary, the daughter of `Imran, was the best among the women (of the world of her time) and Khadija is the best amongst the women. (of this nation). (Bukhari, Book 60, Hadith 103)

How would they know that Khadijah is the best amongst women in this nation in the sight of Allah without revelation in the Qur'an?

Excuse me.  Can you first remove all the comments that are put in backets first?. What is provided in brackets are either insertion by compiler himself or the translator.  Do you have a claim that these insertions are also divine revelation? 

The Quran is very clear in 3:42, "'Behold!' the Angel said, 'God has chosen you, and purified you, and chosen you above the women of all nations".   Who gave the permission to the hadith compiler to put in bracket a contradictory statement to say Mary was chosen  as  the best among the women (of the world of her time)?    I completely reject the hadith altogether and therefore I do not need to make any comment.  The hadith does not even merit an analysis and should be thrown into the dustbin.  You must feel ashamed to uphold these garbages as divine revelations.

Regards,
Optimist

224

General Discussions / Re: Who Determines What is Absurd?

« on: May 11, 2013, 05:29:25 PM »

Of course much more clarification could be given, however I don't see the point since you apriori appear to reject traditional sources.

Salam,

Wherein Ali (r) said what is written in the paper is divine revelation?   The question posed to Ali and the answer given by him is very clear. "Do you have the knowledge of any Divine Inspiration besides what is in Allah's Book?" 'Ali replied, "No, by Him who splits the grain of corn and creates the soul. I don't think we have such knowledge, but we have the ability of understanding which Allah may endow a person with, so that he may understand the Qur'an".   Even from the context, what we can conclude maximum is that there is NO question of any divine revelation outside Quran and the regulations mentioned in the in the written paper were prepared by prophet and his companions in mutual consultation to meet the needs of specific circumstances (based on Ali's own words in the same hadith, "the ability of understanding which Allah may endow a person with, so that he may understand the Qur'an").  Can you tell me where is that written paper or the contents of the written paper mentioned by Ali available in the world if it was actually a divine revelation?  Ali would be contradicting his initial comment if the contents of the paper available with him were in fact divine revelation.   And also even assuming what is written in the written paper were divine revelation,  based on the hadith it would mean that it was only what were written on the paper that were divine revelations outside Quran.  THINK.

You comment  "if Ali were truly a Qur'an Only Muslim" is silly because the Quran was the only source of religious guidance for all muslims lived at that time.   As a leader of the community, as a ruler, the prophet may have prohibited many bad practices, like Mut'a, prevailed in the soceity based on general directives contained in the Quran.  It has nothing to do a revelation outside Quran.   Simply, you do not need a wahi/ revelation regarding prophibition of Mu'ta marriage to prohibit it.  It is just like, for instance, an Islamic government in present world prohibiting smoking and drug abuse (considering social factors, health hazards and other factors) and ofcourse based on general directives in the Quran.   Can someone come up with an objection, where is in Quran (or even in hadith) any revelation stating that smoking is specifically prohibited?

Regards
Optimist

225

General Discussions / Re: Who Determines What is Absurd?

« on: May 11, 2013, 02:14:25 PM »

This is why the argument "this hadeeth is for sure not from God because it's absurd" isn't a convincing argument to the traditionalist.

Salam,

Even a single hadith from Bukhari iteself will demolish the claim that ahaadith is from GOD.

Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 283: Narrated Abu Juhaifa: I asked Ali, Do you have the knowledge of any Divine Inspiration besides what is in Allah's Book?" 'Ali replied, "No, by Him who splits the grain of corn and creates the soul. I don't think we have such knowledge, but we have the ability of understanding which Allah may endow a person with, so that he may understand the Qur'an, and we have what is written in this paper as well. I asked, what is written in this paper? He replied, (The regulations of) blood-money, the freeing of captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel.

Can you let me know if there is any footnote for the above hadith (from any scholar) saying that it is unauthentic?

And He sent against them birds in flocks, Striking them with stones of hard clay,

The phrase in the Quran is thought provoking.  I can agree with you the act of throwing here could be interpreted to mean as birds throwing (even the enemy army on the ground might have felt it in the way).  The Quran says Allah sent birds of flocks, focusing on the point the complete plan of destroying the enemy army was initiated and based on Allah's plan.  The actual throwing of stones by people on top of the mountain is not focused here, because, please note, in verse 8:17 wherein it says وَمَا رَمَيْتَ إِذْ رَمَيْتَ وَلَٰكِنَّ اللَّهَ رَمَىٰ .  Here, actually the shooting of arrows which was taking place in the battle of badr was not actually done by Allah, but Allah attributes this act as if He himself is doing.  So the point must be clear now why in 105:4-5 the focus is not on thowing of stones by the people on top of the mountain, but attributable to mean the birds thowing the stones (birds can only drops stones!).   I strongly believe that in view of verse 8:17 mentioned above the act of thowing could be be interpreted to mean actually people on top of the mountain thowing the stones but attributable to birds to establish Allah's direct and complete control of the whole incident and to confirm the point that it was ultimately Allah who destroyed the enemey.

Regards,
Optimist