IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum: Muhammad as a partner with Allah

Message

Originally posted by Ron Webb

You picked the wrong day to offer such a challenge:

Actually I didn't
I asked for two things, a person and a hadith which when this person followed resulted in him committing violence
Where's this hadith ?
Just to be clear, I'm not saying there's no violence committed in the name of Islam, that committing such illegal violence under Islam can have whatever false justifications they see fit to have a clear mind and do what they wish
Such justifications can be derived from various sources, Qur'an could be one
 but this is not what we're discussing
specifically you claimed that following hadith and teachings of Prophet Muhammad ( PBUH ) in particular can result in violence 
Where is this hadith that when I follow I would commit violence ? 

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Are you a prophet?  Unless Allah is instructing you directly, you have to decide for yourself what is suitable in a particular situation.  You are given certain general principles in the Quran, but you have to choose which principles apply and how you should apply them.

You just explained yourself below how this 'do what you think is suitable' might lead to
Without guidelines on how to apply these principles, without a role model on how to apply it in various circumstances / situations
And this is why we follow Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), not only in learning how to recite Qur'an as you suggest, but for so many other things 

كَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا فِيكُمْ رَسُولاً مِّنكُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْكُمْ آيَاتِنَا وَيُزَكِّيكُمْ وَيُعَلِّمُكُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَيُعَلِّمُكُم مَّا لَمْ تَكُونُواْ تَعْلَمُونَ {151}
[2:151] Even as We have sent among you a Messenger from among your own selves, He recites to you Our verses And He purifies you and He teaches you the Book and the wisdom and teaches you that you did not know.

Originally posted by Ron Webb

There is no purpose in debating prayer because it is a personal matter and nobody's business but your own;
 but I didn't want to just make the bald statement to "do what you think is reasonable" because that might imply support for all sorts of nonsense, e.g. Mr. Abdullah's justification of theft based on hadith.[/quote] 
We're not debating who's business prayers or other practices are, 
God instructed us to perform salah, hajj, seyam
As believer we want to follow God's orders
The debate is on 'how' to perform God's orders

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Yes, and as I said before, the Quran says that Muhammad was an excellent role model, not a perfect role model.  There's a difference.

What is your definition of a "perfect role model" ?
We do not attribute absolute perfection to creatures, absolute perfection is God's only
Maybe a more understandable phrase would be the "most perfect among creatures" 
Prophets are the preferred amongst creatures, and from them Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the preferred one 

تِلْكَ الرُّسُلُ فَضَّلْنَا بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ مِّنْهُم  

[2:253] These messengers We have shown preference to some above others among them ... 

He is the model whom God's love comes from following Him, guaranteed
قُلْ إِن كُنتُمْ تُحِبُّونَ اللّهَ فَاتَّبِعُونِي يُحْبِبْكُمُ اللّهُ وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ ذُنُوبَكُمْ وَاللّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ {3:31}
[3:31]Say(O Muhammad, to mankind): If you love God, then follow me, God will love you and forgive you your faults, and God is Forgiving, Merciful

Do you know other model that comes with such guarantee for God's love ?

Not salah only that we're disucssing, all main practices, seyam ( fasting ) , hajj ( pilgrimage )
These all were done in a specific way, you claim that all these don't have to be performed in that specific way that all muslims agreed on for the past 14 centuries ?

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Not if Allah did not command it.  Tradition is not law.

This means you claim so or not ?
Certainly God commanded us various practices, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) performed it in a particular way because God instrcuted Him to do so
Muslims follow His example in performing such practices because God instructed believers to follow Him, and instructed them that this is where guidance is
Tradition is not law, but God's orders are law to those who believe in God
Tradition would be how muslims in pakistan, morocco, saudi all dress differently or eat different food or have different buildings 
This is not what we're discussing 
We're 

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Muhammad was an earthly leader.  He may have been divinely appointed, but he is not himself divine, as the Quran makes clear.  His authority is therefore like all other earthly leaders: it ends when someone else takes his place, or when he himself ends, i.e. when he dies.

This analogy doesn't work, because earthly leaders get their authority from humans ( like your parliament gets elected ), who have the power to put them in authority or take it out from them
Prophets/Messengers get their authority from the Creator, and get their orders as well
When our Creator instructs us to follow the Messengers model, manners and teaches us that this is where guidance is, this doesn't end until another order from God instructs us to follow different orders
This is the case of jews, who'd had to follow Moses (PBUH) instructions until Jesus ( PBUH ) was sent to give them new one's, and this is the case of christians untill Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was sent with new rules

Best Regards

Author	Message
Meditations Senior Member Joined: 16 November 2002 Online Status: Offline Posts: 227	Posted: 04 November 2009 at 3:47am
	*Originally posted by Ron Webb* You picked the wrong day to offer such a challenge: Actually I didn't I asked for two things, a person and a hadith which when this person followed resulted in him committing violence Where's this hadith ? Just to be clear, I'm not saying there's no violence committed in the name of Islam, that committing such illegal violence under Islam can have whatever false justifications they see fit to have a clear mind and do what they wish Such justifications can be derived from various sources, Qur'an could be one but this is not what we're discussing specifically you claimed that following hadith and teachings of Prophet Muhammad ( PBUH ) in particular can result in violence Where is this hadith that when I follow I would commit violence ? *Originally posted by Ron Webb* Are you a prophet? Unless Allah is instructing you directly, you have to decide for yourself what is suitable in a particular situation. You are given certain general principles in the Quran, but you have to choose which principles apply and how you should apply them. You just explained yourself below how this 'do what you think is suitable' might lead to Without guidelines on how to apply these principles, without a role model on how to apply it in various circumstances / situations And this is why we follow Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), not only in learning how to recite Qur'an as you suggest, but for so many other things كَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا فِيكُمْ رَسُولاً مِّنكُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْكُمْ آيَاتِنَا وَيُزَكِّيكُمْ وَيُعَلِّمُكُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَيُعَلِّمُكُم مَّا لَمْ تَكُونُواْ تَعْلَمُونَ {151} [2:151] Even as We have sent among you a Messenger from among your own selves, He recites to you Our verses And He purifies you and He teaches you the Book and the wisdom and teaches you that you did not know. *Originally posted by Ron Webb* There is no purpose in debating prayer because it is a personal matter and nobody's business but your own; but I didn't want to just make the bald statement to "do what you think is reasonable" because that might imply support for all sorts of nonsense, e.g. Mr. Abdullah's justification of theft based on hadith.[/quote] We're not debating who's business prayers or other practices are, God instructed us to perform salah, hajj, seyam As believer we want to follow God's orders The debate is on 'how' to perform God's orders *Originally posted by Ron Webb* Yes, and as I said before, the Quran says that Muhammad was an excellent role model, not a perfect role model. There's a difference. What is your definition of a "perfect role model" ? We do not attribute absolute perfection to creatures, absolute perfection is God's only Maybe a more understandable phrase would be the "most perfect among creatures" Prophets are the preferred amongst creatures, and from them Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the preferred one تِلْكَ الرُّسُلُ فَضَّلْنَا بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ مِّنْهُم [2:253] These messengers We have shown preference to some above others among them ... He is the model whom God's love comes from following Him, guaranteed قُلْ إِن كُنتُمْ تُحِبُّونَ اللّهَ فَاتَّبِعُونِي يُحْبِبْكُمُ اللّهُ وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ ذُنُوبَكُمْ وَاللّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ {3:31} [3:31]Say(O Muhammad, to mankind): If you love God, then follow me, God will love you and forgive you your faults, and God is Forgiving, Merciful Do you know other model that comes with such guarantee for God's love ? Not salah only that we're disucssing, all main practices, seyam ( fasting ) , hajj ( pilgrimage ) These all were done in a specific way, you claim that all these don't have to be performed in that specific way that all muslims agreed on for the past 14 centuries ? *Originally posted by Ron Webb* Not if Allah did not command it. Tradition is not law. This means you claim so or not ? Certainly God commanded us various practices, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) performed it in a particular way because God instrcuted Him to do so Muslims follow His example in performing such practices because God instructed believers to follow Him, and instructed them that this is where guidance is Tradition is not law, but God's orders are law to those who believe in God Tradition would be how muslims in pakistan, morocco, saudi all dress differently or eat different food or have different buildings This is not what we're discussing We're *Originally posted by Ron Webb* Muhammad was an earthly leader. He may have been divinely appointed, but he is not himself divine, as the Quran makes clear. His authority is therefore like all other earthly leaders: it ends when someone else takes his place, or when he himself ends, i.e. when he dies. This analogy doesn't work, because earthly leaders get their authority from humans ( like your parliament gets elected ), who have the power to put them in authority or take it out from them Prophets/Messengers get their authority from the Creator, and get their orders as well When our Creator instructs us to follow the Messengers model, manners and teaches us that this is where guidance is, this doesn't end until another order from God instructs us to follow different orders This is the case of jews, who'd had to follow Moses (PBUH) instructions until Jesus ( PBUH ) was sent to give them new one's, and this is the case of christians untill Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was sent with new rules Best Regards
	He said : My Lord, Open for me my heart, And make easy my mission , And release the knot of my tongue, So they understand my words . Surat AtTur ( 20 ) : 25-28
	IP Logged

Meditations Senior Member Joined: 16 November 2002 Online Status: Offline Posts: 227	Posted: 04 November 2009 at 11:28pm
	*Originally posted by Ron Webb* Both Christianity and Islam have their roots in Judaism. As I said, I am talking about western culture, not just christianity I find it notable how among christians, eastern christians seem to have more respect to God and even Jesus (PBUH) than western one's *Originally posted by Ron Webb* Why would the Christian concept of God be "weaker" than in Islam? I view the concept of God in current christianity to be very weak a God that gets beaten, tortured, threatened ..etc. sounds quite limited to me this is another topic, anyways. *Originally posted by Ron Webb* First of all, Satan is clearly an adversary, not a partner to God; God does not share His power and authority with Satan. But more importantly, it is God (via the Quran, I assume), not you, who makes these claims about Satan. Frankly, Satan does seem to be a partner of sorts, a "sparring partner" in the struggle of good versus evil. This is a quite interesting paragraph, where you started it with "clearly satan is not a partner" and ended it with "satan does seem to be a partner of sorts" this is a self-contradictory statement, beside satan's struggle is not with God, it's with humans if you can have the possibility of thinking of satan as a partner to God of any sorts then it's no wonder you would consider messengers to be so as well which make me wonder what's your definition of a "partner" since it seems to me you have your own definition of it nevertheless, you are missing the point you said "Obviously it is not possible for us to attribute to mortal beings such characteristics as immortality, creation of life, or invulnerability to fire." I gave you an example of a creature, that is immortal ( by your definition of mortality ) The clear question is Does satan being immortal (by your definition) make him a partner to God ? *Originally posted by Ron Webb* But it's God's claim, not yours, so you're off the hook. It's not from me as well, but from God that creatures can create life, or be invulnerable to fire The mistake I made was assuming that you read the Qur'an and would know this, but here're some references from Qur'an since it seems you don't know these verses وَرَسُولاً إِلَى بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ أَنِّي قَدْ جِئْتُكُم بِآيَةٍ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ أَنِّي أَخْلُقُ لَكُم مِّنَ الطِّينِ كَهَيْئَةِ الطَّيْرِ فَأَنفُخُ فِيهِ فَيَكُونُ طَيْرًا بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ وَأُبْرِئُ الأكْمَهَ والأَبْرَصَ وَأُحْيِـي الْمَوْتَى بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ وَأُنَبِّئُكُم بِمَا تَأْكُلُونَ وَمَا تَدَّخِرُونَ فِي بُيُوتِكُمْ إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لآيَةً لَّكُمْ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِينَ {49} [ 3:49] "And (appoint him) as a messenger to the Children of Israel, (to say): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I indeed form for you from the mud a bird like figure. Then I blow into it, and so it becomes a bird by God's permission. I heal the born-blind, and the lepers, and I give life to the dead, by God's permission. And I tell you what you eat, and what ye store in your houses. Indeed, in this is sure sign for you if if indeed you are believers. قُلْنَا يَا نَارُ كُونِي بَرْدًا وَسَلَامًا عَلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ {69} [21:69] We said, "O Fire! Be cool, and safe for Abraham. As it's clear from the Qur'an, such events that breaks the ordinary rules of life as we know it is possible and does happen So since you agreed to accept Qur'an as a reference, you should accept these events happening to creatures, without thinking of them as God-like as you claim *Originally posted by Ron Webb* Again, many of the things in your list would be just silly when applied to an ordinary man It is silly indeed to not believe in your Creator or to think of a partner, but that doesn't prevent it from happening *Originally posted by Ron Webb* (I'll use that phrase since "mortal" seems to be problematic). This word doesn't fully describe the criteria we're discussing as well, we're not discussing only humans, but all creatures, be it a human, genie, a star, sun, satan The term we use is a creature *Originally posted by Ron Webb* God could not have been cautioning us not to believe that an ordinary man is the Creator of the universe, or "overpowering" (all-powerful), I recommend you read what the Qur'an tells us about some of those who thought so, read for instance the stories of namroud ( the king that challenged Abraham (PBUH), pharaoh who challenged Moses (PBUH) Both thought they were gods, thought they have such strength, namroud thought he could give life and death أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِي حَآجَّ إِبْرَاهِيمَ فِي رِبِّهِ أَنْ آتَاهُ اللّهُ الْمُلْكَ إِذْ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ رَبِّيَ الَّذِي يُحْيِـي وَيُمِيتُ قَالَ أَنَا أُحْيِـي وَأُمِيتُ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ يَأْتِي بِالشَّمْسِ مِنَ الْمَشْرِقِ فَأْتِ بِهَا مِنَ الْمَغْرِبِ فَبُهِتَ الَّذِي كَفَرَ وَاللّهُ لاَ يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ {258} [2:258] Have you not considered the one who argued with Abraham about his Lord, because God had given him the kingship? When Ibrahim said: My Lord is He who gives life and gives death, he said: I give life and give death. Abraham said: Then indeed, it is God who brings the sun the east, do you bright it from the west; Thus he who disbelieved was confounded; and God does not guide aright the wrongdoing people. Pharaoh thought and forced his people to believe he is a god.! فَحَشَرَ فَنَادَى {23} فَقَالَ أَنَا رَبُّكُمُ الْأَعْلَى {24} [79:23] Then he assembled (his people), Thus he called out [79:24] whereupon he said: "I am your Lord, the most High!". and it's not only in ancient times that people thought so , even today, in modern days We see some doctors / surgeons who think they have the power to save or take away life you find those in power who think they are all mighty you find those who believe in the 'life giving sun' This is all we were warned against thinking of , or acting accordingly *Originally posted by Ron Webb* because anyone making such a claim would be easily disproven. That's usually the case with falsehood, easily dis-proven, but that has nothing to do with whether it happens and people follow it or not *Originally posted by Ron Webb* As for the rest, if those are the things that we could think or do that would constitute "setting up partners", then it seems to me that Muslims are guilty of quite a few of them: It seems you didn't understand me, so here again Answering your 'setting up partners' I gave you this list : We were warned against directing an act of worship to a creature believing that a creature has any knowledge, might or power by himself believing that a creature can effectively challenge the will of God, separate from the will of God believing that a creature can sustain itself without the need of God you're trying to say it's silly to think we were warned not to do so ? Above are examples of those who did, and still do similar things Next I gave you verses from Qur'an talking about some of God's attributes It's common knowledge that the same word has different meanings according to whom it's attributed to a chair has legs and a human has legs, each have different meanings God has knowledge, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) have knowledge, I have knowledge This doesn't imply all three are the same or similar it's bizarre that you thought of it this way, but answering you *Originally posted by Ron Webb* Do Muslims not believe that Muhammad is "Knower of the unseen and seen"? (You implied earlier that Muhammad might know how a computer works.) Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) certainly knew of unseen things, in both aspects of unseen, which is through time or through space One of the basics of a Prophet is to have a prophecies, which is knowing the unseen This doesn't make Him knower of 'ALL' the unseen Added to that, even if he knew all of the unseen, through time and space, there're two things that negates being similar to God 1- that this knowledge is not self inherited, it is revealed from God 2- This knowledge by no means comes close to God's knowledge , which is much greater than that All that happened, happens and will happen is but a drop in the sea of God's knowledge. *Originally posted by Ron Webb* Do Muslims not believe that Muhammad is "all merciful"? (When did Muhammad ever fail to show mercy when it was appropriate? I could think of a few times, but I'd be surprised if a Muslim would agree with me.) As pointed about a month ago in this discussion ( on page 2 of this thread ) God's attributes are into 3 categories Attributes of Majesty : such as King above all, Overpowering , Sublime / Supreme , Irresistible Which we are required to NOT act with it, though we can if we want ( by being arrogant, overpowering people for instance ..etc.) Attributes of Perfectionism : such as All knowing, Creator, All Living, Self sustaining Which we can not act with it even if we tried ( unless someone wants to claim they are self sustaining, or creator out of scratch ) Attributes of Beauty : such as Merciful, Generous ..etc. Which we are required to act with it. We're all required to be merciful, each have different level of mercy. Prophet Muhammad was sent as mercy for all وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلَّا رَحْمَةً لِّلْعَالَمِينَ {107} [21:107 For We have sent you, as none other than a mercy to all the world But His mercy can not be compared with God's mercy, which is the source of every mercy in the universe. For God is the Most Merciful, not Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) , no muslim thinks otherwise. *Originally posted by Ron Webb* Do Muslims not believe that Muhammad is "all holy"? (What is there about Muhammad that is unholy?) you need to define what you mean by holy first, this word has different meanings according to whom it's attributed to , For instance it can be attributed to places, such as the valley of tu'wa. إِذْ نَادَاهُ رَبُّهُ بِالْوَادِ الْمُقَدَّسِ طُوًى {16} [79:16] Behold, His Lord called him in the Holy valley of Tuwa This wouldn't imply us thinking of it as a part of God, or worshiping it *Originally posted by Ron Webb* Do Muslims not believe that Muhammad is faithful? Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is faithful, today over one billion muslims are faithful as well, following the sense you're implying would mean we think of over a billion partner to God, which is obviously not the case so what does that mean? That we're obey God's orders and trying to behave according to such attribute we're ordered to. *Originally posted by Ron Webb* Do Muslims not believe that Muhammad is "all wise"? Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), was sent with wisdom, He spoke words of wisdom, He was sent to teach us ( among other things wisdom ) كَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا فِيكُمْ رَسُولاً مِّنكُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْكُمْ آيَاتِنَا وَيُزَكِّيكُمْ وَيُعَلِّمُكُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَيُعَلِّمُكُم مَّا لَمْ تَكُونُواْ تَعْلَمُونَ {151} [2:151] Even as We have sent among you a Messenger from among your own selves, He recites to you Our verses And He purifies you and He teaches you the Book and the wisdom and teaches you that you did not know. Again as a human can be wise, a Prophet is wise, this is a gift from the wisdom of God, which no one compares it to human wisdom, which is gifted, not self engraved An example that might make it easier to understand For us living on earth, the sun emits light and so does the moon moonlight is not coming from the moon, it's just a reflection of the light of sun upon it. The sun is the source of this light. Any gift given to a creature, whether it's wisdom, manner, strength, power ....etc. remains a gift, the creature is always in need of God to keep supplying this gift. As long as you believe it is a 'gift from God' , not something solely attributed to the creature, then you should be safe from thinking of it as partner God. *Originally posted by Ron Webb* (If not, then why treat every word he spoke as wisdom It is God who told us that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was sent to teach us wisdom If you know of any words He spoke of that is not wisdom, then feel free to open a new topic about this. Best Regards مَا قَدَرُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَقَوِيٌّ عَزِيزٌ {74} 22:75 Thus, they have not esteemed God with His rightful esteem. Indeed God is most surely all-powerful, overpowering
	He said : My Lord, Open for me my heart, And make easy my mission , And release the knot of my tongue, So they understand my words . Surat AtTur ( 20 ) : 25-28
	IP Logged

Mansoor_ali Male Islam Senior Member Joined: 25 September 2008 Location: Pakistan Online Status: Offline Posts: 324	Posted: 05 November 2009 at 7:12am
	*Originally posted by Ron Webb* Here is Yusuf Ali's footnote to the verse: "While the Quran sums up the highest philosophy of the inner life, its simple directions for conduct are plain and easy to understand and act upon. Is this not in itself a part of the Grace of God? And what excuse is there for anyone to fail in receiving admonition?" The problem with this interpretation is that the "dreadful torments" are not admonitions but punishments. The only way the comparison would make sense if it had said "We have made the Quran easy to bear". I can't read the Arabic myself of course, but I have never seen it translated that way. I am asking this question which was also asked by brother Bassam Zawadi If the Quran is so easy to understand on our own, then why did Allah have some Muslims staying behind in Madinah in order to become very well versed in religion, while the others go out to the battlefield so that they can then come back to be taught (Surah 9:122)?
	IP Logged

Mansoor_ali Male Islam Senior Member Joined: 25 September 2008 Location: Pakistan Online Status: Offline Posts: 324	Posted: 06 November 2009 at 10:46am
	*Originally posted by Ron Webb* Here is Yusuf Ali's footnote to the verse: "While the Quran sums up the highest philosophy of the inner life, its simple directions for conduct are plain and easy to understand and act upon. Is this not in itself a part of the Grace of God? And what excuse is there for anyone to fail in receiving admonition?" The problem with this interpretation is that the "dreadful torments" are not admonitions but punishments. The only way the comparison would make sense if it had said "We have made the Quran easy to bear". I can't read the Arabic myself of course, but I have never seen it translated that way. Taqi Usmani says... Does the Holy Qur'ân Need Explanation? Before concluding this discussion, it is pertinent to answer a question often raised with reference to the explanation of the Holy Qur'ân. The question is whether the Holy Qur'ân needs anyone to explain its contents? The Holy Qur'ân in certain places seems to claim that its verses are self-explanatory, easy to understand and clear in their meanings. So, any external explanation should be uncalled for. Why, then, is the prophetic explanation so much stressed upon? The answer to this question is found in the Holy Qur'ân itself. A combined study of the relevant verses reveals that the Holy Qur'ân deals with two different types of subjects. One is concerned with the general statements about the simple realities, and it includes the historic events relating to the former prophets and their nations, the statement of Allâh's bounties on mankind, the creation of the heavens and the earth, the cosmological signs of the divine power and wisdom, the pleasures of the Paradise and the torture of the Hell, and subjects of similar nature. The other type of subjects consists of the imperatives of Sharî'ah, the provisions of Islâmic law, the details of doctrinal issues, the wisdom of certain injunctions and other academic subjects. The first type of subject, which is termed in the Holy Qur'ân as Zikr (the lesson, the sermon, the advice) is, no doubt, so easy to understand that even an illiterate rustic can benefit from it without having recourse to anyone else. It is in this type of subjects that the Holy Qur'ân says: And surely We have made the Qur'ân easy for Zikr (getting a lesson) so is there anyone to get a lesson? (54:22) The words "for Zikr" (getting a lesson) signify that the easiness of the Holy Qur'ân relates to the subjects of the first nature. The basic thrust of the verse is on getting lesson from the Qur'ân and its being easy for this purpose only. But by no means the proposition can be extended to the inference of legal rules and the interpretation of the legal and doctrinal provisions contained in the Book. Had the interpretation of even this type of subjects been open to everybody irrespective of the volume of his learning, the Holy Qur'ân would have not entrusted the Holy Prophet with the functions of "teaching" and "explaining" the Book. The verses quoted earlier, which introduce the Holy Prophet as the one who "teaches" and "explains" the Holy Qur'ân, are explicit on the point that the Book needs some messenger to teach and interpret it. Regarding the type of verses which require explanation, the Holy Qur'ân itself says, And these similitudes We mention before the people. And nobody understands them except the learned. (29:43) Thus, the "easiness" of the subjects of the first type does not exclude the necessity of a prophet who can explain all the legal and practical implications of the imperatives contained in the Holy Qur'ân. *(Taqi Usmani, The Authority of Sunnah, Chapter 2: The Scope of the Prophetic Authority, Source)* *Originally posted by Mansoor_ali* I am asking this question which was also asked by brother Bassam Zawadi If the Quran is so easy to understand on our own, then why did Allah have some Muslims staying behind in Madinah in order to become very well versed in religion, while the others go out to the battlefield so that they can then come back to be taught (Surah 9:122)? I quote brother Bassam Zawadi: Indeed, if we can all just simply read the Qur'an and be equal in knowledge and understanding then what is the point of having people specialize in it in order to teach us? Why would this require so much time? Some Quranites might argue back that people could specialize in Qur'an more than others, yet this does not justify that there are other sources besides the Qur'an to refer to. They would also argue that if one reads the Qur'an on his own then that would be enough because it is easy to understand and that those who specialize in it are only gaining extra knowledge that is not significant. However, this is not the impression given by the verse: Surah 9:122 It is not possible for the believers to go forth all together. Why, then, does not a party from every section of them go forth that they may become well-versed in religion, and that they may warn their people when they return to them, so that they may guard against evil. Here we see that one purpose that the party of Muslims that stayed behind in order to master the religion was to make sure that they warn their people and help them guard against evil. This would not be necessary if anyone could just read the Qur'an on their own. No, there must be more details (e.g. detailed issues of prayer, zakah, fasting etc.) that must be communicated to the Muslims in order to ensure that they practice their religion properly and this is not to be found in the Qur'an. For if it was, then anyone can have the time to refer to it and this would not require specialization, for any lay man would then be able to accomplish this task.
	IP Logged

Ron Webb Male Humanism Senior Member Joined: 30 January 2008 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 984	Posted: 07 November 2009 at 9:46am
	*Originally posted by Meditations* Actually I didn't I asked for two things, a person and a hadith which when this person followed resulted in him committing violence Where's this hadith ? You should probably be asking Mr. Abdullah that, but I'm guessing that he is referring to Muslim Book 1 Hadith 172: "Abu Dharr reported,: I came to the Apostle (may peace be upon him ) and he was asleep with a white mantle over him. I again came, he was still asleep, I came again and he had awakened. I sat by his side and (the Holy Prophet) observed: There is none among the bondsmen who affirmed his faith in La illaha ill-Allah there is no God but Allah) and died in this state and did not enter Paradise. I (Abu Dharr) said: Even if he committed adultery and theft? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: (Yes) even though he committed adultery and theft. I (again said): Even if he committed adultery and theft? He replied: (Yes) even though he committed adultery and theft. (Th Holy Prophet repeated it three times) and said for the fourth time: In defiance of Abu Dharr. Abu Dharr then went out and he repeated (these words): In defiance of Abu Dharr." specifically you claimed that following hadith and teachings of Prophet Muhammad ( PBUH ) in particular can result in violence Where is this hadith that when I follow I would commit violence ? No, I am claiming that Muhammad committed many acts of violence, which may have been justifiable given the violent times in which he lived, but which would not be appropriate today. Hence, he may have been an excellent role model for 7th century Arabia, but not in peaceful modern societies. You just explained yourself below how this 'do what you think is suitable' might lead to Without guidelines on how to apply these principles, without a role model on how to apply it in various circumstances / situations And this is why we follow Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), not only in learning how to recite Qur'an as you suggest, but for so many other things Following Prophet Muhammad apparently did not prevent Mr. Abdullah from committing crimes. On the contrary, it looks to me like he used Muhammad's example to justify them. I note that Mr. Abdullah received 20% of the profits from the various criminal activities which he sponsored. I don't think it's a coincidence that that is the same portion Muhammad himself received when his followers committed similar acts. What is your definition of a "perfect role model" ? "Perfect" means finished, complete, cannot be improved. "Excellent" means much better than average, but it doesn't mean that it can't be improved or that it is the best possible. As for "perfect role model", it's your phrase, not mine, and not Allah's either. We do not attribute absolute perfection to creatures, absolute perfection is God's only Maybe a more understandable phrase would be the "most perfect among creatures" Perfection does not have degrees. Something is either perfect, or it isn't. Anyway, that isn't what the Quran says. Do you think you can improve upon Allah's words? Certainly God commanded us various practices, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) performed it in a particular way because God instrcuted Him to do so Muslims follow His example in performing such practices because God instructed believers to follow Him, and instructed them that this is where guidance is Muhammad also performed Hajj in a particular way, specifically on the back of a camel. You are welcome to follow his example in this, but I think most Muslims fly to Mecca nowadays, and I doubt that Allah cares as long as they go. Muhammad was an earthly leader. He may have been divinely appointed, but he is not himself divine, as the Quran makes clear. His authority is therefore like all other earthly leaders: it ends when someone else takes his place, or when he himself ends, i.e. when he dies. This analogy doesn't work, because earthly leaders get their authority from humans ( like your parliament gets elected ), who have the power to put them in authority or take it out from them Prophets/Messengers get their authority from the Creator, and get their orders as well Aren't all things from Allah? If a politician wins an election, is it not commonly supposed that it was by God's will? I don't really see a difference there. When our Creator instructs us to follow the Messengers model, manners and teaches us that this is where guidance is, this doesn't end until another order from God instructs us to follow different order The Quran doesn't say that; but on the other hand, it doesn't say when (or if) it does end, either. We do know, however, that Muhammad was careful to keep his own teachings distinct from Allah's, so there must have been a reason. In other words, we know that Muhammad's authority was different in some important way from Allah's. We also know that Muhammad commanded that the hadith should not be written down, and anyone who had done so should erase it. That order was never rescinded, and yet Muslims argue that it was only a temporary order to preserve the integrity of the Quran. That argument may or may not be valid -- neither the Quran nor the hadith substantiate it -- but even if so, why would they then argue that his other orders are necessarily permanent and unchanging?
	Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.
	IP Logged

Ron Webb Male Humanism Senior Member Joined: 30 January 2008 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 984	Posted: 07 November 2009 at 11:19am
	*Originally posted by Meditations* This is a quite interesting paragraph, where you started it with "clearly satan is not a partner" and ended it with "satan does seem to be a partner of sorts" I am aware of the contradiction. Satan is an adversary against God in the struggle for men's souls, but in some ways he is a partner as well (e.g., it is sometimes said that good cannot exist without evil). The clear question is Does satan being immortal (by your definition) make him a partner to God ? I don't know, and I don't care. I think the case can be made as I said above, but it's not my argument and I don't want to digress any more than we already are. I recommend you read what the Qur'an tells us about some of those who thought so, read for instance the stories of namroud ( the king that challenged Abraham (PBUH), pharaoh who challenged Moses (PBUH) Both thought they were gods, thought they have such strength, namroud thought he could give life and death And what was their chief motivation and criterion for being gods? It gave them power and authority, of course. and it's not only in ancient times that people thought so , even today, in modern days We see some doctors / surgeons who think they have the power to save or take away life And they do, but that doesn't make them gods. Still, you do have a point: perhaps in ancient times healers might have been seen as "partners" in sharing God's power. Answering your 'setting up partners' I gave you this list : We were warned against directing an act of worship to a creature believing that a creature has any knowledge, might or power by himself believing that a creature can effectively challenge the will of God, separate from the will of God believing that a creature can sustain itself without the need of God All of the above seem to be aspects of power and authority, don't they? Worship is an appeal to another's power. Challenge implies one's own power. Autonomy is power over one's own existence. They all have in common the assertion that God does not share His power and authority with anyone. Not even with Muhammad, presumably. One of the basics of a Prophet is to have a prophecies, which is knowing the unseen This doesn't make Him knower of 'ALL' the unseen Exactly, which is why I keep saying that only that which has been revealed by God (the Quran) should be followed. But His mercy can not be compared with God's mercy, which is the source of every mercy in the universe. For God is the Most Merciful, not Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) , no muslim thinks otherwise. Really? Can you give me an example, either historical or hypothetical, where Muhammad might have been less merciful than God? you need to define what you mean by holy first, this word has different meanings according to whom it's attributed to No, you need to define it, because it is one of the criteria you offered to explain what "setting up partners" means. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is faithful, today over one billion muslims are faithful as well, following the sense you're implying would mean we think of over a billion partner to God, which is obviously not the case No, obviously not. Hence your criterion does not make sense. (I won't bother responding to the rest of the criteria, because I think you get my drift.) P.S.: Mansoor_ali, I think my response to Meditations covers some of what you said, but I will respond to you in more detail later. Right now, Allah has dumped a bunch of leaves in my back yard that need to be raked.
	Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.
	IP Logged

Ron Webb Male Humanism Senior Member Joined: 30 January 2008 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 984	Posted: 08 November 2009 at 2:15pm
	*Originally posted by Mansoor_ali, quoting Taqi Usmani* The words "for Zikr" (getting a lesson) signify that the easiness of the Holy Qur'ân relates to the subjects of the first nature. The basic thrust of the verse is on getting lesson from the Qur'ân and its being easy for this purpose only. But by no means the proposition can be extended to the inference of legal rules and the interpretation of the legal and doctrinal provisions contained in the Book. Could it not be that the "legal and doctrinal provisions" are deliberately left open to interpretation, so that the Quran could continue to live and adapt to changing circumstances? Thus, the "easiness" of the subjects of the first type does not exclude the necessity of a prophet who can explain all the legal and practical implications of the imperatives contained in the Holy Qur'ân. Sura 54:22 (and 54:17, and others) clearly tells us that the whole Quran is easy, not just certain parts of it. Once again we have a Muslim scholar justifying his job, trying to convince us not to pay attention to God's words, which are too hard for us to understand; but to listen instead to Muhammad's words or in this case the scholars' words, pretending that their words are better than Allah's. If Taqi Usmani's words were a better explanation of 54:22 than Allah's own words, then Allah would have used Taqi Usmani's words instead of of saying what He did. *Originally posted by Mansoor_ali, quoting Bassam Zawadi* Here we see that one purpose that the party of Muslims that stayed behind in order to master the religion was to make sure that they warn their people and help them guard against evil. This would not be necessary if anyone could just read the Qur'an on their own. Nothing in 9:122 says that the Quran is difficult, but it is a big book and it does take time and contemplation to assimilate, which is difficult to manage on a battlefield. Besides, the people at that time were largely illiterate, which means that they would need others to read/recite it for them. No, there must be more details (e.g. detailed issues of prayer, zakah, fasting etc.) that must be communicated to the Muslims in order to ensure that they practice their religion properly and this is not to be found in the Qur'an. Why must there be? Indeed, Muhammad did add more details, but if they were universal, essential principles of Islam, then why weren't they in the Quran? And why were they not preserved with the same amount or care and accuracy? Why were they left for fallible human scholars to gather up whatever they could remember, a century or more after Muhammad's death? Is that any way to treat divine revelation? The only rational answer is that the "more details" were never intended to be universal or essential. They were specific to the society, the region and the time in which Muhammad lived. They were intended to fade away with time, becoming mere historical and perhaps inspirational anecdotes, but not holy scripture.
	Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.
	IP Logged

Mansoor_ali Male Islam Senior Member Joined: 25 September 2008 Location: Pakistan Online Status: Offline Posts: 324	Posted: 11 November 2009 at 3:02pm
	To Ron Webb As i observe you reject Hadiths so i decide to quote non-muslim to emphasize the importance of Hadiths. Dr. Jonathan Brown is a young and eloquent American hadith scholar at Washington University. He completed his PhD in 2006 entitled: The Canonization of al-Bukhari and Muslim: The Formation and Function of the Sunni Hadith Canon. Leiden: Brill, 2007. A while ago Dr. Brown delivered an excellent lecture on the introduction of hadith, in which he also critically examined some of the theories propounded by scholars such as Schacht, Goldziher and Juynboll. At one point in his lecture Dr. Brown says: I have never been more impressed with anybody in history in my life than with Muslim hadith scholars. I mean, when I first started studying hadith I was very skeptical, I though it was all made-up and bogus but the more you study it the more you just appreciate the intense brain power of these people. I mean they memorized thousands and thousands of books and then they were able to recall all the different versions of hadith from these books, and then they were able to analyze them and put them all together and figure-out where they all connect and make judgments about the authenticity of these hadith. I mean even nowadays with electronic databases, and computers and word processing, I have hard time following even their discussions of the hadith-let alone their original mastering that they were drawing on. Its almost unbelievable… Its almost unbelievable, and if you didn’t have the books in front of you that they wrote, I wouldn’t believe it personally… Recommended Link: A Brief History of Hadith Collection and Criticism
	IP Logged

Ron Webb Male Humanism Senior Member Joined: 30 January 2008 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 984	Posted: 12 November 2009 at 3:42pm
	*Originally posted by Mansoor_ali, quoting Jonathan Brown* I have never been more impressed with anybody in history in my life than with Muslim hadith scholars. I'm sure the hadith scholars have done amazing work. However, that does not change three things: Most of what Muhammad said and did in his lifetime was not recorded and has been lost; There is no reason to suppose that what was recorded is representative or complete; and If the hadiths that commanded us not to write down hadiths are to be regarded as merely temporary and situational, then we already know that not all hadith are eternal or universal. In short, if the Quran sets the standard for divine revelation (which it arguably does compared to other religions), then the hadith fails miserably to live up to that standard.
	Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.
	IP Logged

Mansoor_ali Male Islam Senior Member Joined: 25 September 2008 Location: Pakistan Online Status: Offline Posts: 324	Posted: 14 November 2009 at 9:03am
	*Originally posted by Ron Webb* I'm sure the hadith scholars have done amazing work. However, that does not change three things: Most of what Muhammad said and did in his lifetime was not recorded and has been lost; There is no reason to suppose that what was recorded is representative or complete; and If the hadiths that commanded us not to write down hadiths are to be regarded as merely temporary and situational, then we already know that not all hadith are eternal or universal. In short, if the Quran sets the standard for divine revelation (which it arguably does compared to other religions), then the hadith fails miserably to live up to that standard. Because you are a Hadith rejecter so i advise you to read these articles which are written in defence of Hadiths. www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/ www.call-to-monotheism.com/hadeeth_rejecters
	IP Logged

	Active Topics Memberlist Calendar Search Help
	Register Login Old Forum

Interfaith Dialogue
IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue

Topic: Muhammad as a partner with Allah
	<< Prev Page of 17 Next >>

Does the Holy Qur'ân Need Explanation?