Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Quran & Sunnah
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Quran & Sunnah
Message Icon Topic: Need for Hadith Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 6 Next >>
Author Message
Alwardah
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 March 2005
Location: South Africa
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 980
Quote Alwardah Replybullet Posted: 06 October 2006 at 5:14pm

As Salamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu BH

 

I felt I was a bit unfair in my response to you but I had to make you realize that when we start casting doubt, there is no end. Insha Allah one day you will understand that.

 

You have still not failed to show me how you perform salah. Remember Iqamat-as-Salah- establish the prayer. You keep repeating yourself. Anyway I will let you off as I know that you cannot really answer my queries. But I would add this for your reference, something to think about Insha Allah maybe it will make you realize that you are on the wrong track.

 

The Glorious Qur'an was not sent down as a book from Allah Subhanahu wa Taala. It was during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr (Radhi Allahu Anhu) that the Ayah were collected and compiled in a book form. So that brings us to the Companions who were responsible in the first instant to preserve both the Glorious Qur'an and the Sunnah the then early scholars. Differences arose in the Sunnah because some Companions witness a situation differently from another but these differences are not present where our religious duties, like Salah, are concerned.

 

You know a Muslim what ever his/her nationality can pray Salah in any Masjid anywhere in the world and will not have problem being part of the congregation. Why?

 

Every Imam of every Masjid prays the same, be it in Turkey, Indonesia, America or South Africa. The prayer is in Arabic, the Fard of Salatul-Fajr is 2 Rakat and since it is a prayer that is recitation is aloud, he will recite aloud, the movements are the same and follow the same sequence. The same applies to the other four daily prayers as well. The salah has being performed this way from the time the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam) thought it to his Companions. Insha Allah it will remain so till the end of time. This is Islam. This is Islamic Unity. This is what Allah Subhanahu wa Taala means when He says ONE NATION

 

Yes I agree, today there are a few (a handful) of Masajid that do things differently that is because they have deviated from the true path not because they have a better understanding of the Deen.

 

But without the Sunnah we are DEAD.

 

I pray Allah Subhanahu wa Taala gives all Muslims a better understanding of HIS Religion and keeps us on the Path that leads to Paradise. Ameen!

 

wa Alaikum Salam

 

“Verily your Lord is quick in punishment; yet He is indeed Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful (Surah Al-An’am 6:165)
"Indeed, we belong to Allah and to Him is our return" (Surah Baqarah 2: 155)
IP IP Logged
Andalus
 
Moderator Group
Moderator Group


Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1187
Quote Andalus Replybullet Posted: 07 October 2006 at 3:23pm
Originally posted by B.H.

Br. Andalus wrote:

 

Greetings.

Before I continue, I was hoping for more clarity.

So you agree that someone told the Muslims to do something, which was related to having sex on the evenings of Ramadan.

You believe that the Muslims followed some other source.

You believe that this act was the sin (not having sex with their wives during the evenings at Ramadan), and Allah forgave them for this act (not having sex with their wives on Ramadan).

Does this sum up yuor belief?

 

Yes, the Muslims were being deceived into believing something was Allah's will that was not in fact the case.  The Prophet refuted the false doctrine by telling the people they could have relations with their wives at night during the fast.

 

In essence, it seems we have some interpretational agreement, but we greatly differ with the details of who said what and what the actual sin was. You have offered an interpretation of the details that is contrary to what I have given. In such a situation, the best thing to do is to compare the two based upon the best evidence and keeping in mind that entities should not have to be multiplied beyond necessity (Occam’s Razor), or in simple terms, given two valid explanations about the same "event", one should embrace the one that is least complicated (the easiest explanation is the best one).

Let’s start with your interpretation:

1)                             “Someone” told the Muslims to do something, which was about having sex on the evenings of Ramadan.

2)                             Muslims followed some other source

3)                             this act was the sin (not having sex with their wives during the evenings at Ramadan)

4)                             Allah forgave them for this act (not having sex with their wives on Ramadan).

This gives us two pivotal points that separate our two interpretations by 180 degrees: Who was the “someone”, and what was the sin?

Now a fresh look at the verse in question: 2:187

It is made lawful for you (ĂőÍöářó áóßőă, passive perfect, 3rd person male singular and could be translated as “it has been made lawful”)

to have sexual relations with your wives on the night of As-Saum (the fasts). They are Lîbas [i.e. body cover, or screen, or Sakan, (i.e. you enjoy the pleasure of living with her - as in Verse 7:189) Tafsir At-Tabarî], for you and you are the same for them. Allâh knows that you used to deceive yourselves, so He turned to you (accepted your repentance) and forgave you. So now have sexual relations with them and seek that which Allâh has ordained for you (offspring)…

1)      Allah makes the act of having sex with your wives on the nights of Ramadan to be lawful / permissible.

2)      The Muslims had been deceiving themselves.

3)      Allah turned to them and forgave them

4)      Allah reiterated that it is now lawful for Muslim men to have sexual relations with their wives (on the nights of Ramadan)

5)      The verse furthers the granting of privileges by stating that it is permissible to freely eat and drink without stipulation.

You first contention, that the sin committed by the early Muslims was not having sex with their wives, is implausible given that the command to Muslims to have sex on the nights of Ramadan is given in this verse. In other words, it was made lawful in this verse, meaning that refraining from sexual relations out of religious belief on the evenings of Ramadan was not a sin before this command mentioned twice in 2:187 (It is made lawful for you……… So now have sexual relations with them…). Since your interpretation is bound to finding things explicitly stated, then you cannot conclude that it was sinful to believe that it was a sin to refrain from sexual relations with your spouses prior to this verse, given that the command had not been given until 2:187.

You assert that the believers followed another authority that misguided them. This would imply that the Prophet (saw) had some kind of an authority rival, and was, somehow, too indebt and weak in authority to make a difference such that some other authority rivaled him, and it took Allah to reveal this verse to convince the believers that they were wrong. (Which is a bit irrelevant as a point given that Allah made having relations lawful on the nights of Ramdan at this point, so that the sin could not have been refraining)

Allah further states in the verse in question that He turned to the believers and forgave them. Forgave them of what? You assert that their sin was abstaining from their wives during Ramadan. So your interpretation lets us suppose that there was a successful movement of Muslims who gave up having relations with their spouses on the nights of Ramadan for no good reason but just because someone said it is a good idea. Keep in mind that the verse uses the term “deceive yourselves”. Deceit requires the sinner or the wrong doer to have knowledge and intention of their act, knowing it is wrong, and to conceal it from someone. So if the “sinners” were deceiving themselves, then this would mean, according to your interpretation, that they did know it was wrong to abstain from having relations with their spouses and they knew they could have relations, but they did it anyway because the sin was somehow overwhelmingly “tempting” (mass abstinence when they knew abstinence was wrong does not make any sense on a number of levels). The sin of abstinence does not sound tempting. Is that tempting to you? To any normal healthy human?

Finally, with your interpretation it becomes odd that Allah would forgive them of a sin, which really was not a sin up to until that point, and even at this time, abstinence for short periods is not necessarily a sin. The verse states they were sinning, and then states that “now it has become lawful (sexual relations)”. Doesn’t it make more sense that they were doing an act which was a sin and then He showed leniency and allowed the act, along with eating and drinking without stipulation, or does it make more sense to you, that they were practicing abstinence and it was becoming popular and so Allah intervened and forgave this, and then had to make sexual relations between spouses lawful in order to motivate them? They needed urging from Allah to procreate on the evenings of Ramadan? I find your interpretation to be a bit comical (the scenario it implies, and not derogatory to your position).

I find that your group has an endearing feature that deserves mention. It is a “tautological” like positioning built into its core which craftily will preserve its ideology without effort. It goes like this:

1) The Quran is the only authority

2) We follow only what is in the Quran

3) The Prophet has no relevance or authority on our religion in terms of law or religious positions unless they are found in the Quran (which goes back to 1, and makes the Prophet irrelevant) and we do not recognize a “Sunnah”, because of 1.

So for proof that the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) had authority, one would have to show an example where his authority was considered law by Allah. But any example of his authority that is in conjunction to the Quran, would not be in the Quran. Therefore, we do not recognize it.

Another proof of authority would be to show where a command was given in the Quran, but not actually found in the Quran. But, unless the Quran explicitly stated that the Prophet (saw) stated it, then it could be interpreted to be someone else, and if the Prophet (saw) is explicitly shown to give a command, then the command is a part of the Quran, and our belief is correct (either way!).

So your system has a built in assertion that puts forth a tautological type feature where whatever is put forth, your belief is right. Tautologies are always right, which in the real world, does not allow anyone to make a full inquiry.

Now let’s look at my interpretation.

The believers were supposed to abstain from relations from their spouses on the nights of Ramadan. Some were having trouble with this, and so that had relations anyway, “……Allâh knows that you used to deceive yourselves…” Knowing they were wrong and in error, they turned to Allah to seek His forgiveness, “…so He turned to you (accepted your repentance) and forgave you”. As a mercy to these people, Allah then allowed believers to partake in relations and drink and eat freely without stipulation at night, “So now have sexual relations with them and seek that which Allâh has ordained for you (offspring), and eat and drink until the white thread (light) of dawn appears to you distinct from the black thread (darkness of night), then complete your Saum (fast) till the nightfall…”.

Since the Quran does not contain any details about this event, and there is no mention of any restrictions on the nights of Ramadan, one must ask the question: Who gave the order? The answer is, Allah gave the order, and the Prophet (saw) spoke it, and because it was not a part of the recited revelation, does not take away from its place in religious law. If not this scenario, then who, Abu Jahl, or Abu sufyan? Or maybe Zaid? Who? Who else would the Muslims have listened to? And is it the case that the believers had trouble being tempted with abstinence? And then had a hard time with intimacy and required Allah to step in and tell them that this was an act they should be doing?

I believe you will find any reason to object, even if it requires funny interpretations, simply to save that one guiding principle your group follows blindly: Only in the Quran. That principle gives a great deal of freedom to interpret the Quran in a very loose way, and that is part of the secret of that “tautological like” feature.  

Kindest Regards

 

A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/
IP IP Logged
B.H.
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 11 June 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 116
Quote B.H. Replybullet Posted: 07 October 2006 at 8:15pm
Let me study up on your post Andulus and I will get back with you.
IP IP Logged
B.H.
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 11 June 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 116
Quote B.H. Replybullet Posted: 10 October 2006 at 10:01pm

In essence, it seems we have some interpretational agreement, but we greatly differ with the details of who said what and what the actual sin was. You have offered an interpretation of the details that is contrary to what I have given. In such a situation, the best thing to do is to compare the two based upon the best evidence and keeping in mind that entities should not have to be multiplied beyond necessity (Occam’s Razor), or in simple terms, given two valid explanations about the same "event", one should embrace the one that is least complicated (the easiest explanation is the best one).

Let’s start with your interpretation:

1)                             “Someone” told the Muslims to do something, which was about having sex on the evenings of Ramadan.

2)                             Muslims followed some other source

3)                             this act was the sin (not having sex with their wives during the evenings at Ramadan)

4)                             Allah forgave them for this act (not having sex with their wives on Ramadan).

This gives us two pivotal points that separate our two interpretations by 180 degrees: Who was the “someone”, and what was the sin?

 

We agree on the above for the most part.

IP IP Logged
B.H.
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 11 June 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 116
Quote B.H. Replybullet Posted: 10 October 2006 at 10:03pm

It is made lawful for you (ĂőÍöářó áóßőă, passive perfect, 3rd person male singular and could be translated as “it has been made lawful”)

to have sexual relations with your wives on the night of As-Saum (the fasts). They are Lîbas [i.e. body cover, or screen, or Sakan, (i.e. you enjoy the pleasure of living with her - as in Verse 7:189) Tafsir At-Tabarî], for you and you are the same for them. Allâh knows that you used to deceive yourselves, so He turned to you (accepted your repentance) and forgave you. So now have sexual relations with them and seek that which Allâh has ordained for you (offspring)…

1)      Allah makes the act of having sex with your wives on the nights of Ramadan to be lawful / permissible.

2)      The Muslims had been deceiving themselves.

3)      Allah turned to them and forgave them

4)      Allah reiterated that it is now lawful for Muslim men to have sexual relations with their wives (on the nights of Ramadan)

5)      The verse furthers the granting of privileges by stating that it is permissible to freely eat and drink without stipulation.

 

I have no argument with this either.

IP IP Logged
B.H.
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 11 June 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 116
Quote B.H. Replybullet Posted: 10 October 2006 at 10:10pm

You first contention, that the sin committed by the early Muslims was not having sex with their wives, is implausible given that the command to Muslims to have sex on the nights of Ramadan is given in this verse.

I have been misunderstood.  I never said that the early Muslims sinned in not having sex with their wives.  their sin was in being deceived into thinking it was wrong to have sex with their wives where Allah had not actually said so.

In other words, it was made lawful in this verse, meaning that refraining from sexual relations out of religious belief on the evenings of Ramadan was not a sin before this command mentioned twice in 2:187 (It is made lawful for you……… So now have sexual relations with them…). Since your interpretation is bound to finding things explicitly stated, then you cannot conclude that it was sinful to believe that it was a sin to refrain from sexual relations with your spouses prior to this verse, given that the command had not been given until 2:187.

I am not sure if I understand you here.  I do not believe it was a sin to have sex with ones wife  during Ramadan either.  The problem was that some if not all of the early Muslims got the idea that it was and Allah corrected this through the prophet.

IP IP Logged
B.H.
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 11 June 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 116
Quote B.H. Replybullet Posted: 10 October 2006 at 10:18pm

Allah further states in the verse in question that He turned to the believers and forgave them. Forgave them of what? You assert that their sin was abstaining from their wives during Ramadan.

The sin was not in abstaining from their wives in and of itself but in being deceived into thinking they HAD to abstain when it was not commanded. 

 

So your interpretation lets us suppose that there was a successful movement of Muslims who gave up having relations with their spouses on the nights of Ramadan for no good reason but just because someone said it is a good idea.

Whatever the reason given, the Muslims that followed such instruction were in error and Allah in his mercy corrected their misunderstanding.

 

Keep in mind that the verse uses the term “deceive yourselves”. Deceit requires the sinner or the wrong doer to have knowledge and intention of their act, knowing it is wrong, and to conceal it from someone. So if the “sinners” were deceiving themselves, then this would mean, according to your interpretation, that they did know it was wrong to abstain from having relations with their spouses and they knew they could have relations, but they did it anyway because the sin was somehow overwhelmingly “tempting” (mass abstinence when they knew abstinence was wrong does not make any sense on a number of levels). The sin of abstinence does not sound tempting. Is that tempting to you? To any normal healthy human?

 

Andulus, human beings never cease to amaze me in the things they fall for.  The idea that they would fall for something like this does not shock me one bit in the least.

As for "deceive themselves" I do not see why you have a problem here.  People who are deceived and spread their error can be said to deceive others or themselves.  Whether some people knew they were speaking ill or not is irrelevant

 

IP IP Logged
B.H.
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 11 June 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 116
Quote B.H. Replybullet Posted: 10 October 2006 at 10:25pm

Finally, with your interpretation it becomes odd that Allah would forgive them of a sin, which really was not a sin up to until that point, and even at this time, abstinence for short periods is not necessarily a sin. The verse states they were sinning, and then states that “now it has become lawful (sexual relations)”. Doesn’t it make more sense that they were doing an act which was a sin and then He showed leniency and allowed the act, along with eating and drinking without stipulation, or does it make more sense to you, that they were practicing abstinence and it was becoming popular and so Allah intervened and forgave this, and then had to make sexual relations between spouses lawful in order to motivate them? They needed urging from Allah to procreate on the evenings of Ramadan? I find your interpretation to be a bit comical (the scenario it implies, and not derogatory to your position

 

I am having a problem following you here.  Allah was concerned that the people were cheating themselves by not having realtions with each other.  I infer that somehow they got the idea that husbands and wives could not have relations at night during Ramadan and it was a wrong idea.  If it was commanded by Allah why would he say they were cheating themselves?  No, Allah saw that they were following an idea that was not good and had the prophet tell them it was okay to have sex with your wives at night during Ramadan.

IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 6 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com