Challenging the basis of Shari'a law

[Captain_Vietnam]

Oh my gosh if you could post porn here I would give you dozens of videos of Vietnamese people taking it in the rear and enjoying it.

racism now? your funny

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

"This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion." (Quran 5:3)

 

"And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing." (Quran 6:115)

 

I'm bored, let's have fun \o/

 

 

Is the Quran not complete then? Yes or no?

 

Yes.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Ibrahim

[Ayayay]

Yes.

Would something that is complete hold everything one needs to know about a subject? Yes or no?

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Would something that is complete hold everything one needs to know about a subject? Yes or no?

 

The Quran says you need the Hadith: "Say, [O Muhammad], "If you should love Allah , then follow me, [so] Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." (Quran 3:31)

 

How are you going to follow the Prophet (saw) if you reject Sahih Hadith?

 

"But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission." (Quran 4:64) 

 

Allah also says, "There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often." (Al-Qur'an 33:21)

 

I can continue quoting verses but really it's very clear.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Ibrahim

[Ayayay]

Not necessarily. Where has this ever been the case?

At what % of info would you reasonably say something is complete? ex. There's 100 coding languages and you buy a book that says it is the complete guide to writing a hello world program. How many coding languages would you reasonably expect it to have? 

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

At what % of info would you reasonably say something is complete? ex. There's 100 coding languages and you buy a book that says it is the complete guide to writing a hello world program. How many coding languages would you reasonably expect it to have? 

 

You can read the Quran cover to cover and you will not find much about the prophet Muhammad (saw) because it's the words of Allah (swt) but yet the Quran itself is instructing you to obey the Messenger and to refer back to him in times of dispute. All this is pointing to the Hadith and following the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw); it's a clear cut matter that is not open to dispute.

[Ayayay]

There's 100 coding languages and you buy a book that says it is the complete guide to writing a hello world program. Would it be complete if it had some of the languages but you had to refer to another book? Yes or no

[Rozalia]

Being a Muslim is about emulating and following the example of Muhammad.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quranism

 

Aren't you supposed to be tolerant or something? That is on the same level as someone saying if you don't follow the Catholic Church then you're no Christian, poppycock.

 

The point I'm making is that many of the Hadiths are not as certainly the word of the prophet as Muslims would wish.

 

I am disputing the accuracy, veracity and historicity of the Hadiths as documented. I don't think, and neither do most medieval scholars, that all the Hadiths are accurate representations of Muhammad

 

Yes we get you're doing your Islamic white knight routine. The problem is you say that like we should discount all the vile Hadiths as clearly they could not be the word of Muhammad, however why should we if they are still part of the religion? Why don't Muslim's here stand up and say X, Y, Z they feel is corrupted and they will not accept as a Hadith? You know what thats called? Reform. What do you find unacceptable whenever I mention it? Reform. Unless you can support reform, your words here on the matter are both hypocritical and deceitful. 

[Spite]

There's 100 coding languages and you buy a book that says it is the complete guide to writing a hello world program. Would it be complete if it had some of the languages but you had to refer to another book? Yes or no

To continue this analogy, if you bought a book on say, American history 1962-1979, this might be a complete study of that period. However it may say "to understand the material in this book better, study the following texts" which contain background to the subject that give you a better contextual understanding.

 

The Quran is the key to Islam, but you will get the message more clearly if you have a better contextual understanding. For example if you know something about the history of the area, you speak Arabic (or at least read it). The Quran clearly references other guides which expand upon issues mentioned inside of it. This is kind of like how a book on American history might presuppose some knowledge of what America is and how it was formed.

 

Also, the Quran can be divided into two parts. The first is the spiritual, which is simple and straightforward. The second is the Shari'a, which is much more complex. The Quran acknowledges the complexity of the Shari'a, and says about a hundred times that you should Obey the judgements of "Allah and his messenger" on matters where you don't understand what the Quran is trying to say. Out of all humans, Muhammad was understood to have the best understanding of the Quran. Not accepting the Hadiths would therefore be tantamount to saying you had better judgement than the prophet.

 

What I made this thread about was that yes the Hadiths have been divided into "strong", "weak" and "false". But the criteria for this wasn't always as strong as it could be and some of the Hadiths clearly come at opportune times for the various political factions in court at the time. Some Hadiths were clearly put forward to support the design of senior politicians and clerics and if they were spoken by Muhammad, then they "remembered" this at a very convenient time. Some of these have been recognised as false, but after they were put in writing in the six books (by 900 or so) people (in the sunni world anyway) just stopped questioning them.

 

In the early days of fiqh the jurists (faqih) used ijtihad (reason) much more than they do today. Today we have four main branches of Islamic jurisprudence which represent different interpretations of the Hadiths and Quran, with the leeway provided for individual judgement.

 

I think that these have now been bogged down so much in previous fatwa (decisions) that there's almost no original thought, and jurists are basically experts in quoting precedent. I think that a fresh look at this, from the Hadith upwards, would be helpful for the faith.

[Ayayay]

What I made this thread about was that yes the Hadiths have been divided into "strong", "weak" and "false". But the criteria for this wasn't always as strong as it could be and some of the Hadiths clearly come at opportune times for the various political factions in court at the time. Some Hadiths were clearly put forward to support the design of senior politicians and clerics and if they were spoken by Muhammad, then they "remembered" this at a very convenient time.

You ruined my fun with Khalifah. Now I'm annoyed.

 

First off, the Quarnists can get away with abandoning all hadiths and still be Muslims because they have not abandoned the tenets of Islam that make you a Muslim

 

Belief in Allah

Belief in the Angels

Belief in Divine Books

Belief in the Prophets

Belief in the Day of Judgement

Belief in Allah's predestination

 

And, of course, they believe in the five pillars of Islam

Shahada

Salat(prayer)

ZakÄt

Sawm(fasting)

Hajj

 

 

Islam is that you bear witness that there is none to be worshipped except Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and that you should keep up prayer, and pay the Zakaat, and fast in Ramadaan, and perform the pilgrimage to the House of God if you are able to do it. (Muslim, Abu Daud, Tirmizi, Nasai)

 

Furthermore

The declaration of takfir may be made if the alleged Muslim declares himself a kafir, but more typically applies to a judgement that an action or statement by the alleged Muslim indicates his knowing abandonment of Islam.

The Qurani do not call themselves non-Muslims, nor have they abandoned Islam. They believe in the prophet which is enough to be Muslim. They might be bad Muslims by not following the hadiths but that doesn't make them non-Muslims.

 

Second of all

O you who have believed, when you go forth [to fight] in the cause of Allah , investigate; and do not say to one who gives you [a greeting of] peace "You are not a believer," aspiring for the goods of worldly life; for with Allah are many acquisitions. You [yourselves] were like that before; then Allah conferred His favor upon you, so investigate. Indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted.

Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is [in] one who believes in Allah , the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets and gives wealth, in spite of love for it, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveler, those who ask [for help], and for freeing slaves; [and who] establishes prayer and gives zakah; [those who] fulfill their promise when they promise; and [those who] are patient in poverty and hardship and during battle. Those are the ones who have been true, and it is those who are the righteous.

 

Is Quran not enough though? Let's use Hadith as well because I'm not a Qurani \o/

The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent us in a raiding party. We raided Huraqat of Juhaina in the morning. I caught hold of a man and he said: There is no god but Allah, I attacked him with a spear. It once occurred to me and I talked about it to the Apostle (may peace be upon him). The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Did he profess" There is no god but Allah," and even then you killed him? I said: Messenger of Allah, he made a profession of it out of the fear of the weapon. He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Did you tear his heart in order to find out whether it had professed or not? And he went on repeating it to me till I wished I had embraced Islam that day. Sa'd said: By Allah, I would never kill any Muslim so long as a person with a heavy belly, i. e., Usama, would not kill. Upon this a person remarked: Did Allah not say this: And fight them until there is no more mischief and religion is wholly for Allah? Sa'd said: We fought so that there should be no mischief, but you and your companions wish to fight so that there should be mischief. (Sahih Muslim 1:176)

If a person says to his brother, O KAFIR (disbeliever) ! Then surely one of them is such. (i.e; Kafir) (Sahih Bukhari Volume 8 Book 73 Number 125)

Any person who calls his brother: O Unbeliever! (then the truth of this label) would return to one of them. If it is true, (then it is) as he asserted, (but if it is not true), then it returns to him (and thus the person who made the accusation is an Unbeliever). [sahih Muslim Book 001, Number 0117:]

 

 

Final question, Khalifah. Did the prophet ever declare takfir?

Edited January 5, 2016 by Metro

[Stujenske]

$5 bucks people in this thread don't give a shit about sharia and just hate Muslims for some reason.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Final question, Khalifah. Did the prophet ever declare takfir?

 

Yes, many times, and so did the companions of the Prophet (saw) who were with him. Once a Muslim joked about other Muslims fighting Jihad for the sake of Allah and the Prophet (saw) said to him:"Was it at Allah, and His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and His Messenger that you were mocking? Make no excuse; you disbelieved after you had believedâ€.

[Ayayay]

Yes, many times, and so did the companions of the Prophet (saw) who were with him. Once a Muslim joked about other Muslims fighting Jihad for the sake of Allah and the Prophet (saw) said to him:"Was it at Allah, and His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and His Messenger that you were mocking? Make no excuse; you disbelieved after you had believedâ€.

They hypocrites are apprehensive lest a surah be revealed about them, informing them of what is in their hearts. Say, "Mock [as you wish]; indeed, Allah will expose that which you fear."

And if you ask them, they will surely say, "We were only conversing and playing." Say, "Is it Allah and His verses and His Messenger that you were mocking?"

Make no excuse; you have disbelieved after your belief. If We pardon one faction of you - We will punish another faction because they were criminals.

First: That's Quran

Second: That's clearly out of context

Third: That wasn't invoking Takfir

Fourth: They were mocking the Prophet and Allah

Fifth: You didn't even source it

 

Now let's try again, shall we? Did the Prophet ever declare Takfir?

Edited January 6, 2016 by Metro

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

First: That's Quran

Second: That's clearly out of context

Third: That wasn't invoking Takfir

Fourth: They were mocking the Prophet and Allah

Fifth: You didn't even source it

 

Now let's try again, shall we? Did the Prophet ever declare Takfir?

 

I was talking about the Hadith regarding the revelation of that verse.

1. The man was mocking the Mujahideen fighting Jihad for the sake of Allah (and hence was mocking Allah and his Messenger).
2. Another Muslim man who heard him immediately made takfir against him by calling him a "hypocrite" (a disbeliever pretending to be Muslim).
3. The Prophet (saw) told the one who was mocking/joking to not make any excuses for himself and also made takfir against him.

This was narrated by Ibn Jareer in his Tafseer (10/172) with a jayyid isnaad via Hishaam ibn Sa’d from Zayd ibn Aslam from ‘Abd-Allah ibn ‘Umar, who said: “During the campaign of Tabook, a man said in a gathering, ‘We have never seen any people who love their stomachs more or tell more lies or are more cowardly in battle than these Quran-readers.’ Another man who was present said, ‘You are lying, and you are a hypocrite. I will most certainly tell the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) about this'. He conveyed that to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and Quran was revealed.’†Then ‘Abd-Allah ibn ‘Umar said: “I saw him hanging on to the saddle-bag of the camel of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), stumbling on the rocks and saying, ‘O Messenger of Allah, we were only talking idly and joking!’ and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was saying, ‘Was it at Allah, and His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and His Messenger that you were mocking? Make no excuse; you disbelieved after you had believed!’†[source]

Edited January 6, 2016 by Ibrahim

[Ayayay]

This is the full verse that I posted earlier

 

Make no excuse; you have disbelieved after your belief. If We pardon one faction of you - We will punish another faction because they were criminals.

 

Do you think that random lines were thrown together to make the Quran? If that Hadith is as you said it should include the entire verse, no? Especially if, as you say, that's when the verse was brought down.

 

Also, more importantly, there's kinda a difference between saying someone disbelieved vs calling them a disbeliever, removing them from the ummah, and demanding their death. At least find out what Takfir is before you go off claiming shit about it.

[Platon the Great]

Don't drag each other down to this.

Any religion is made up by primitive humans.God would never give us laws through an angel to some unknown bearded dirty Arab,Pbuh.