Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Bassam Zawadi

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
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.

Best meaning according to home?

Is differences of opinion are possible, then isn't that a tacit admission that not all of the Qur'an is clear?

General Discussions / Re: Who Determines What is Absurd?
« on: May 12, 2013, 12:46:40 AM »
Optimist you are digressing from the topic.

I already addressed that hadith here

Please start new threads for new topics. It's a kind request.



It's a shame they got to benefit from his interpretations, while we are stuck trying to guess what to do with the hand of a thief.

No, the difference is that Qur'an Onlyism claims and teaches that the Qur'ans interpretation is explicitly clear independent of a divinely sanctioned interpreter.

Seeing that interpretations of the Qur'an can differ and one can't clearly show the other to be wrong, the central theme of Quran Onlyism fails.

Traditional Muslims recognize that not all of scripture is literally 100% clear, while Qur'anists make it appear as if that is the case.

Hi Truthseeker,

I believe illicit relations are forbidden because of other verses, not 4:25. If you believe 4:25 itself makes it haram, then kindly cite the verse and show me where.


You may start another thread if you like. Want to try to keep this one focused. Thanks.

Okay, it seems like Joseph has been getting back up. I'm afraid I can't take all of you on at the same time :)

I will limit my responses only to what I perceive to be "new" and "related to the topic" points.

I made it clear from the beginning that it was not my intention to prove that the Qur'an teaches seven ahruf. My intention was to only address Joseph's point that the Qur'an clearly teaches that it has only been revealed in one mode. That was my only contention.

You didn't answer my questions. If the other transmissions are not lost and you believe that there are 7 variants, where are they?

Maybe you could google them. Here they are in Arabic

Also do you then believe that the prophet, when receiving wahi, learnt 7 different versions of the same Ayah ?

Yeah I do. If you want more elaboration then kindly start another thread so that we don't digress.

This is a forceful view and suggestion from bro Joseph as Allah could have said the Quran was revealed in Arabic and then full stop!!! Why did Allah say "surrounding towns" in 42.7? Wasn't the Quran meant for everyone that spoke Arabic? Why the restriction??

So  I do not think any further proof needs to be given as even where I am from the local areas and surrounding areas have a certain dialect but as you go out more from our city, the accent and dialect changes. I think this is a good standard position that bro Joseph takes from a Qurans view. Thank you.

Hi Duster.

It could be because that was the first stage of the Prophet's mission, before going on to warn the rest of the world (34:28).

Some have argued that "Hawlaha" simply means around. There is no comment about the extent. It could be referring to surrounding towns or the entirety of mankind, but Mecca was honored as the center.

The point is... you can't appeal to 42:7 to make a clear case that the Qur'an was revealed in one dialect. The Qur'an only talks about being revealed in Arabic. Full stop.

So a positive case can't be made from the Qur'an that it was only revealed in one mode.

If you have any other "new" points, I would be happy to address them.

And if you seriously think that I wasn't able to address Joseph's arguments then you may private message me. I don't want to reinvent the wheel on the thread. Mere re-posting of arguments that were already addressed by me won't attract a response from me.



The verse is telling you that in order to have relations with a slave girl, marriage is a prerequisite.

Which verse are you talking about? 4:25?

General Discussions / Joseph Islam's Article "SEX WITH SLAVE GIRLS"
« on: May 11, 2013, 10:26:33 PM »
I was reading brother Joseph's article over here

Some thoughts I have:

- Where does 4:25 say that we must wed slave girls in order to have sex with them? The verse only says that if one cannot afford to marry free believing women, then he may marry slave women.

- Where do 4:3 and 24:32 say that marriage is compulsory in order to have sex with slave girls? It only talks about marrying them, which is permissible and encouraged.

- 70:30 makes a clear distinction between wives (i.e. Azwaaj) and what your right hands possess. It doesn't make the distinction between "free women" and slave girls. The word "wife" is neutral in it's meaning. It doesn't mean "free woman who is your wife". It simply means "wife" or "companion". So a slave girl could be your "wife" as well. Hence, in 70:30 Allah should have used the appropriate word for "free women" if He truly wanted to make that distinction. To simply argue that there are differences between "free women" and "slave girls" doesn't justify interpreting 70:30 as distinguishing between married free women and married slave girls. Rather, it makes the general distinction between married women (not specifying whether they are free or not) and slave girls. The "(wedlock)" in 70:30 as cited by Joseph in his article is a personal interpretation, for it's not there in the text. Joseph said in his article "These differences in choices based on free and non-free parties are clearly recognized. Hence the noted difference in answerability as well.", yes but such a distinction wouldn't be important in the context of 70:30 which is mainly discussing which women are lawful for the man. The usage of the words is general in nature.

Would like to hear your thoughts.



it is clear that to physically cut off the hand or hands of the thief is not the only possible understanding and taking into account the law of equivalence would perhaps only be reserved for significant theft which led to harming others, hence harming the perpetrator.

And that's the problem with Quran Onlyism. Thanks.

General Discussions / Re: Who Determines What is Absurd?
« on: May 11, 2013, 10:21:57 PM »
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). 

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.


- You were proven wrong that the hadith clearly contradicts the Qur'an. (I didn't see your counter response).

- You cherry picked the narration of Ali that you liked. That is wrong methodology. I see your silence is admission that you were wrong in doing so.

- 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.



Who said that the other transmissions are lost?

I said Joseph can't say that the surrounding towns spoke the same dialect, since the Qur'an is silent on that and he refuses to appeal to history in order to investigate that.

General Discussions / Re: Who Determines What is Absurd?
« on: May 11, 2013, 09:08:05 PM »
Yes I know you cited Ali against me, but the point remains that you only cherry picked the narration, which you thought would help you instead of looking at all the narrations from Ali, which would have clarified the matter. This is as wrong as one citing one verse from the Qur'an without letting the others clarify the whole ordeal.

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.



General Discussions / Re: Who Determines What is Absurd?
« on: May 11, 2013, 08:31:15 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).

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.

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.

Thanks and kind regards,


General Discussions / Re: Who Determines What is Absurd?
« on: May 11, 2013, 06:05:50 PM »
but we have the ability of understanding which Allah may endow a person with, so that he may understand the Qur'an". 

That's not a good English translation. If you know Arabic you would know that this is not a good translation of the Arabic:

 أَوْ فَهْمٌ أُعْطِيَهُ رَجُلٌ مُسْلِمٌ، أَوْ مَا فِي هَذِهِ الصَّحِيفَةِ‏.‏

The suitable Arabic translation would be:

or the power of understanding which has been bestowed (by Allah) upon a Muslim or what is (written) in this sheet of paper (with me).'

Seeing that this is the answer to the question "Have you got any book?'" then it becomes clear that it is not only 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.

Ali already said the contents (i.e. diyyah, ransom for captives, etc.) and we already know their rulings from other traditions.

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.

because the Quran was the only source of religious guidance for all muslims lived at that time.

There is no historical evidence to show that.

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.

And the donkey meat?

How about this tradition from Ali:

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?

Musnad Ahmad narrates 804 narrations from Ali with many of them being authentic. I doubt you will accept if I show you ones that show that he didn't believe in Qur'an Onlyism.

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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4