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

Islamic INTRAfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Islamic INTRAfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: Quran and Hadith(Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 9 Next >>
Author Message
Andalus
 
Moderator Group
Moderator Group


Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1187
bullet Posted: 28 May 2007 at 10:26pm
Originally posted by minuteman

 

Reply to Andalus: 

I cannot comment on all your points. Briefly, sis fatima has provided the material. I am looking into it. that Scholar (even though not my favored person) is a well known Hanafi scholar of Indo Pakistan. perhaps he also believed in the stoning too. I believe he did. i am not hiding anything. But it was his own quoted principle that matters of life and death cannot be left to the Hadith alone. Proof for them must come from the Quran. Yet he believed in the stoning of the adulteres.

The act of rajm is related through mass transmission. This is enough to validate the act.

 

 Anyhow, i wrote about the Qiblah. There is no order in the Quran about facing the Jeroshlem. What do you say? But there is order to face Ka'abah. Prophet s.a.w.s. must have been acting on some order or guidance before the verse for change of Qiblah had been revealed. What was that guidance? Where is that guidance.

Allah was the only guidance of Prophet Muhammad (saw). There are two forms of revelation, the Quran is the recited "wahy", there is also an unrecited wahy.

 

The order for stoning an adulterer is not in the Quran. The prophet s.a.w.s. was doing it. Why and how?? You do not see any similarity in these two commands but I do.

You are assuming that the Quran is the only form of valid wahy. The Prophet (saw) was also guided through unrecited wahy. You are almost implying that the prophet (saw) made an error?

 

I admitted that if stoning was in practice after the passing away of the prophet s.a.w.s. then it will make the matter easy to believe. I am looking into the material provided by sis Fatima. I will let you know my views in due course.

I would like to know your remarks about the killing of an apostate too. What is your opinion about that. Because that is also a serious matter involving life and death. Thanks. Keep thinking.

 

Under certain conditions, the blood of an apostate may be taken as the blood of an adulterer.

Keep in mind that it is extremely difficult to convict someone of these crimes. The condition for both is confession, and four witnesses is a second possible condition for adultery.

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
minuteman
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 25 March 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1642
bullet Posted: 29 May 2007 at 6:26am

 

 

The act of rajm is related through mass transmission. This is enough to validate the act.

Mass transmission means person toperson like other matters of Sunnah??? What do you want to teach here??

Quote:

 Anyhow, i wrote about the Qiblah. There is no order in the Quran about facing the Jeroshlem. What do you say? But there is order to face Ka'abah. Prophet s.a.w.s. must have been acting on some order or guidance before the verse for change of Qiblah had been revealed. What was that guidance? Where is that guidance.

Allah was the only guidance of Prophet Muhammad (saw). There are two forms of revelation, the Quran is the recited "wahy", there is also an unrecited wahy.

That is a lose reply. Every one knows that Allah was the guide. That is what I have been telling you that the two cases are similar. In both cases, there must be some Wahi Khafi involved. But you did not agree.

You are assuming that the Quran is the only form of valid wahy. The Prophet (saw) was also guided through unrecited wahy. You are almost implying that the prophet (saw) made an error?

 That is bad reply. Ann accusation. I had already replied to you in one of my posts that I do believe in the unrecited Wahi (Wahi Khafi). So why are you accusing me again for that. An apology may be due now.

Quote:

I admitted that if stoning was in practice after the passing away of the prophet s.a.w.s. then it will make the matter easy to believe. I am looking into the material provided by sis Fatima. I will let you know my views in due course.

I would like to know your remarks about the killing of an apostate too. What is your opinion about that. Because that is also a serious matter involving life and death. Thanks. Keep thinking.

 

Under certain conditions, the blood of an apostate may be taken as the blood of an adulterer.

Keep in mind that it is extremely difficult to convict someone of these crimes. The condition for both is confession, and four witnesses is a second possible condition for adultery.

regards 

I do not want the blood of an apostate under certain conditions. Please reply properly whether any one who changes his religion (He may be a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu), will he be killed according to the Islamic law???

Also I would like to know from you about the confession business from the Quran. I know that in a Hadith there a case of some one stoned due to his own confession, in the time of the Holy prophet s.a.w.s. But you want to make it a permanent law. Wedo not know what were the circumstances of thattime. Was it done before the revelation of Surah Noor? etc. I am not satisfied with your approach.

I am going to scrutinise the cases presented by Sis Fatima and then I will reply again. Until then you hold your horses please. If you like then try to check up about the important advice of the scholar who said that matters affecting life and death cannot be left to the Hadith only. Proof for them should come from Quran.

Wassalam....

If any one is bad some one must suffer
IP IP Logged
Andalus
 
Moderator Group
Moderator Group


Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1187
bullet Posted: 29 May 2007 at 7:55am
Originally posted by minuteman

 

 

The act of rajm is related through mass transmission. This is enough to validate the act.

Mass transmission means person toperson like other matters of Sunnah??? What do you want to teach here??

No, something mass transmitted meaning "mutawatir", which means so many people narrated an event that it becomes impossible for the event to be fabricated. Not all hadith are mutawatir. That is simply basic science of hadith.

 

 

 

Quote:

 Anyhow, i wrote about the Qiblah. There is no order in the Quran about facing the Jeroshlem. What do you say? But there is order to face Ka'abah. Prophet s.a.w.s. must have been acting on some order or guidance before the verse for change of Qiblah had been revealed. What was that guidance? Where is that guidance.

Allah was the only guidance of Prophet Muhammad (saw). There are two forms of revelation, the Quran is the recited "wahy", there is also an unrecited wahy.

That is a lose reply. Every one knows that Allah was the guide. That is what I have been telling you that the two cases are similar. In both cases, there must be some Wahi Khafi involved. But you did not agree.

I did not agree that the kibla event was relevant to the conext of the thread pertaining to rajm.

There is nothing that indicates that Surah An-noor dealt with a married individual.

 

You are assuming that the Quran is the only form of valid wahy. The Prophet (saw) was also guided through unrecited wahy. You are almost implying that the prophet (saw) made an error?

 That is bad reply. Ann accusation. I had already replied to you in one of my posts that I do believe in the unrecited Wahi (Wahi Khafi). So why are you accusing me again for that. An apology may be due now.

Perhaps, but you need to clarify some of your statements. So if it is an apology you want, then you have it, I am sorry, but I ask you to be more clear and fully explain your statements.

So it is not a bad reply, the problem was that your intention was not clear, nor was your point.

 

 

Quote:

I admitted that if stoning was in practice after the passing away of the prophet s.a.w.s. then it will make the matter easy to believe. I am looking into the material provided by sis Fatima. I will let you know my views in due course.

I would like to know your remarks about the killing of an apostate too. What is your opinion about that. Because that is also a serious matter involving life and death. Thanks. Keep thinking.

 

Under certain conditions, the blood of an apostate may be taken as the blood of an adulterer.

Keep in mind that it is extremely difficult to convict someone of these crimes. The condition for both is confession, and four witnesses is a second possible condition for adultery.

regards 

I do not want the blood of an apostate under certain conditions. Please reply properly whether any one who changes his religion (He may be a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu), will he be killed according to the Islamic law???

You are asking a "complex question". Such a question has an unproven or unargued assumption that is buried in the premise of the the question. Your question was be like: Does the hand of the thief become chopped off or not, I do not want certain conditions, I want a proper answer. The apostate can be executed under certain conditions. I believe this, it is a part of the sacred law, and there are "conditions" that must be met.

 

Also I would like to know from you about the confession business from the Quran. I know that in a Hadith there a case of some one stoned due to his own confession, in the time of the Holy prophet s.a.w.s. But you want to make it a permanent law. Wedo not know what were the circumstances of thattime. Was it done before the revelation of Surah Noor? etc. I am not satisfied with your approach.

You keep coming back to "was it before surah An-noor".

1) Surah An-Noor does not indicate, with any explicit statement, that married people are covered.

2) I gave you a strong hadith that tells us that the Prophet (saw) knew about the 100 lashes for an unmarried person, along side the punishment for a married beliver.

3) I can think of at least three incidents from the top of my head where a confession was used. Here is one that II happen to have before me:

Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani:
A Bedouin came to Allah's messenger and said, "O Allah's Messenger! I ask you by Allah to judge my case according to Allah's Laws". His opponent, who was more learned than he, said, "Yes, judge between us according to Allah's Laws, and allow me to speak." Allah's Messenger said, "Speak." He said, "My son was working as a labourer for this man and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife. The people told me that it was obligatory that my son should be stoned to death, so in lieu of that I ransomed my son by paying one hundred sheep and a slave-girl. Then I asked the religious scholars about it. They informed me that my son must be lashed one hundred times, and be exiled for one year, and the wife of this (man) must be stoned to death." Allah's Messenger said, "By Him in whose hands my soul is, I shall judge between you according to Allah's Laws. The slave-girl and the sheep are to be returned to you, your son is to receive a hundred lashes and be exiled for one year. You, Unais go to the wife of this man and if she confesses her guilt, stone her to death." Unais went to the woman next morning and she confessed. Allah's Messenger ordered that she be stoned to death. (Bukhari)

 

 

Surah An-noor is irrelevant to the notion of confession.

 

I am going to scrutinise the cases presented by Sis Fatima and then I will reply again. Until then you hold your horses please. If you like then try to check up about the important advice of the scholar who said that matters affecting life and death cannot be left to the Hadith only. Proof for them should come from Quran.

Wassalam....

If this principle was of such great value that it is a standard axion used in fiqh, then I find it strange that he still believes in rajm. Perhapas you have misunderstood his position? I have yet to come across this axiom use by scholars such that they throw out the punishment of rajm. The punishment of rajm is agreed upon by a scholarly "consensus". This means it is unanimous. You say you are going to scrutinize the hadith, by what tools (methodology) will you reach a conclusion? 

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
minuteman
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 25 March 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1642
bullet Posted: 29 May 2007 at 12:02pm

 

  Thanks for your post. I may use my sense as much as I have. You have experienced some of it. I cannot believe that verse of Surah Noor is about unmarried fornicator. It says "Zani" and "Zaniah". You tell me the meaning of the two words.

 To me it means those who had intercourse without being husband and wife, without being married with each other. That is surely the meaning of Zani. And I believe that there is no secret meaning in the verse because Allah has said that these are the very clear well explained (Bayyan) orders. You say that they are not Bayyan. They have secret meanings. I don't believe that.

The next thing of trouble to you is that there no word in the Quran about stoning an adulterer to death. But you are insisting that the adulterer must be stoned to death.

Next, about the apostate, you have not replied fully. I know there are conditions for killing the apostate if the war is going on. Or if the the person who recanted, he may have killed some one after recanting...

I cannot see any other condition for the killing of an apostate. But surely you may be knowing a few more. So let us have them. Thanks.

My belief aboutWahi Khafi is definite, no doubt. You cannot deny it at all. If I don't believe that the adulterer should be stoned, that is another matter. It is not necessary to make use of Wahi Khafi for that matter. There are many other points which prove the Wahi Khafi. I do not want to use it for the stoning.



Edited by minuteman
If any one is bad some one must suffer
IP IP Logged
Andalus
 
Moderator Group
Moderator Group


Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1187
bullet Posted: 29 May 2007 at 9:44pm
Originally posted by minuteman

 

  Thanks for your post. I may use my sense as much as I have. You have experienced some of it. I cannot believe that verse of Surah Noor is about unmarried fornicator. It says "Zani" and "Zaniah". You tell me the meaning of the two words.

Someone who commits an illiegal sexual act. Not necessarily a married person, and an unmarried person, but a married or unmarried person, which means it (the word) is ambiguous and not "particularized". So my statement is correct. It can be an unmarried believer, and the hadith by prophet Muhammad (saw) backs my claim. I do not use my personal feelings and whims to make personal ijtihad in matters of faith or exegesis.

 

  

 To me it means those who had intercourse without being husband and wife, without being married with each other. That is surely the meaning of Zani. And I believe that there is no secret meaning in the verse because Allah has said that these are the very clear well explained (Bayyan) orders. You say that they are not Bayyan. They have secret meanings. I don't believe that.

I have never declared a secret meaning, I simply used logical deduction, and evidence from the prophet (saw) himself. It has nothing to do with secrecy, but it has everything to do with reasoning and the ijtihad of mujtahids.

 

The next thing of trouble to you is that there no word in the Quran about stoning an adulterer to death. But you are insisting that the adulterer must be stoned to death.

It is not I who insists, it is the prophet Muhammad (saw), and the first three generations. I am sorry that you will not accept this.

 

Next, about the apostate, you have not replied fully. I know there are conditions for killing the apostate if the war is going on. Or if the the person who recanted, he may have killed some one after recanting...

I cannot see any other condition for the killing of an apostate. But surely you may be knowing a few more. So let us have them. Thanks.

That is irrelevant to the thread and off topic. If you wish to discuss apostacy, then please, by all means I invite you to start a thread on it. If you start a thread, state your purpose and intention, not just a line that asks me to post what I know. My time is precious and I could potentially spend a great deal of time just trying to satisfy such an open ended request.

 

My belief aboutWahi Khafi is definite, no doubt. You cannot deny it at all. If I don't believe that the adulterer should be stoned, that is another matter. It is not necessary to make use of Wahi Khafi for that matter. There are many other points which prove the Wahi Khafi. I do not want to use it for the stoning.

If you do not believe an adulterer should be stoned, then either the prophet was wrong, the first three generation was wrong? If you believe in unrecited revelation, then either there is a mistake with the prophet (saw), or the first three generations, or both, or you are simply following your personal whims about which unrecited revelation to follow.

Rajm is not in the quran, but it is a part of the sunnah, mass transmitted, from the prophet (saw) of God himself, on orders from God Himself. If you select wahy based upon nothing more than mere feelings, then you have no solid, raitonal bases for your choice, but I do respect you for your opinion.  

regards



Edited by Andalus
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
minuteman
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 25 March 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1642
bullet Posted: 30 May 2007 at 7:06pm

 

 

Dear Andalus: My remarks are in blue.

If you do not believe an adulterer should be stoned, then either the prophet was wrong, the first three generation was wrong? If you believe in unrecited revelation, then either there is a mistake with the prophet (saw), or the first three generations, or both, or you are simply following your personal whims about which unrecited revelation to follow.

I am sorry. I do not believe that the prophet s.a.w.s. was wrong. Or his Khalifas were wrong. I believe in the unrecited revelation. But I do not want to use the unrecited revealtion to prove something extra-ordinary against the words of the Quran, against the recited Wahi. That is my final reply to you now.

If I follow your way then you may use the unrecited Wahi to create havoc. There will be no limit. There is some kind of Mulla Islam that I do not believe at all. That is Abrogation of verses of the Quran, and forbidding the even peaceful propagation of the religion to non Muslims in the Muslim countries and so many other things. I do not believe that.

After all those things are also being supported by some kinds of Hadith. Are they not?? So where will I end up??

Rajm is not in the quran, but it is a part of the sunnah, mass transmitted, from the prophet (saw) of God himself, on orders from God Himself. If you select wahy based upon nothing more than mere feelings, then you have no solid, raitonal bases for your choice, but I do respect you for your opinion.

 Thanks. You have admitted that Rajm is not in the Quran. Yet you want to do it. That is not understood. Killing some one is not an ordinary matter. That mass transmission is not like Salat etc. And salat is prescribed in the Quran itself. I told you that if you use the unrecited Wahi then you will be killing the apostates. I do not support that too.

The proof of unrecited Wahi is in the Quran and Hadith. But I request that you do not use that to kill any one please. I had told you a principle before, perhaps I did not state it completely. Now I remember it much better. I request that you present that to some learned person without any attachments and ask if ot was true or not. That would be better.

I state that principle again:

The serious matters such as of life and death and Halaal and Haraam cannot be decided on the basis of Hadith only. Proof for them should come from the Quran.

You may please checkit up from some one. I am satisfied that I have explained things in all honesty. Wassalam.

If any one is bad some one must suffer
IP IP Logged
Andalus
 
Moderator Group
Moderator Group


Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1187
bullet Posted: 30 May 2007 at 11:35pm
Originally posted by minuteman

 

 

Dear Andalus: My remarks are in blue.

If you do not believe an adulterer should be stoned, then either the prophet was wrong, the first three generation was wrong? If you believe in unrecited revelation, then either there is a mistake with the prophet (saw), or the first three generations, or both, or you are simply following your personal whims about which unrecited revelation to follow.

I am sorry. I do not believe that the prophet s.a.w.s. was wrong. Or his Khalifas were wrong. I believe in the unrecited revelation. But I do not want to use the unrecited revealtion to prove something extra-ordinary against the words of the Quran, against the recited Wahi. That is my final reply to you now.

Assalam Aleikum

But you have failed to show me where in the Quran the issue of rajm conflicts? You are asserting that in this case, unrecited wahy is in conflict with the recited wahy? You have not shown where this conflict is in the recited wahy?

 

If I follow your way then you may use the unrecited Wahi to create havoc. There will be no limit.

And yet my way is that of the ulema, for 1200 years, and yet I find no "havoc". How do you explain that my way is simply that of the ulema, and after 1200 years, no "havoc" has been created.

 

 There is some kind of Mulla Islam that I do not believe at all. That is Abrogation of verses of the Quran, and forbidding the even peaceful propagation of the religion to non Muslims in the Muslim countries and so many other things. I do not believe that.

I am not sure I follow you?

 

After all those things are also being supported by some kinds of Hadith. Are they not?? So where will I end up??

You will have to clearify your point? I do not follow.

Rajm is not in the quran, but it is a part of the sunnah, mass transmitted, from the prophet (saw) of God himself, on orders from God Himself. If you select wahy based upon nothing more than mere feelings, then you have no solid, raitonal bases for your choice, but I do respect you for your opinion.

 Thanks. You have admitted that Rajm is not in the Quran.

non sequitur. I never stated that it was, and not being their does not change my point or argument or the argument of the greatest ulema who have ever lived.

Yet you want to do it. That is not understood. Killing some one is not an ordinary matter. That mass transmission is not like Salat etc. And salat is prescribed in the Quran itself. I told you that if you use the unrecited Wahi then you will be killing the apostates. I do not support that too.

Not only do I want to do it, but my view is in agreement with the sahaba, the tabi'in, their followers, and the greatest minds that have ever lived. It seems my friend, that my view has a lot more weight.

I am not sure where you have learned about the science of fiqh, but a mutawatir ahadith can, indeed, be soley used to derive a hadd offense punishment. That is established by the majority of jurists. If you disagree, then you have used your own ijtihad to go against 1200 years of the greatest scholarship.  

The proof of unrecited Wahi is in the Quran and Hadith. But I request that you do not use that to kill any one please. I had told you a principle before, perhaps I did not state it completely.

You have stated it, the problem is that no such axion exists as far as a strong opinion amongst the ulema concerning a mutawatir ahadith establishing a hadd punishment. You can state someminor opinion untill judgement day, but it still does not mean that the principle exists such that a mutawatir ahadith cannot establish a hadd. I am talking about the four schools of fiqh, a majority of mujtahids that do not follow your personal axiom. I am sorry, I am going with the specialists of fiqh. 

 Now I remember it much better. I request that you present that to some learned person without any attachments and ask if ot was true or not. That would be better.

Funny, I just happen to have a book of tafsir in front of me by a well known Hanafi scholar of Pakistan, and he states that a hadd can be established by a mutawatir ahadith, as do the other schools of fiqh. According to you, the unanimous ruling by the four schools of fiqh is wrong and so are the scholars who do not follow your axiom to the extant that you have?

 

 

I state that principle again:

The serious matters such as of life and death and Halaal and Haraam cannot be decided on the basis of Hadith only. Proof for them should come from the Quran.

You must inform the great ulema of their dubious error!

 

 

You may please checkit up from some one. I am satisfied that I have explained things in all honesty. Wassalam.

 

Umar (ra) stated, "A people will come who will argue with you based on the ambiguous verses of the Quran. Restrict them by the sunnah for people of the sunnah are the most knowledgeable of the Book of Allah." Narrated with a sound chain.

 

A mutawatir ahadith, whether it is in word or meaning, can be accepted as equally reliable as the Quran (without conditions of whther or not we are speaking of a hadd or ibadah).

An example from a mainstream, Hanafi scholar,

"... (mutawatir ahadith) are as authentic as the Holy Quran, and there is no difference between the two in as far as the reliablity of their source of narration is concerned." Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani from "The Authority of the Sunnah", p. 81.

Mualana Mufti Muhammad Shafi states, "The Holy Quran and Mutawatir ahadith "on their own" (parantheses added by me) have fixed the punishments of four crimes." (stealing, leveling false accusation against chaste women, drinking liquor, adultery)

Ma'ariful Quran page 344.

From a classical text on fiqh, which is still studied and used today, we find rajm being established by hadith. It seems I am not the only one you need to repeat your concept to, it appears that the great mujtahids are in need of your wisdom, as they appear not have known about it.

"Forinicators, for whom punishments vary according to their categories, are of four kinds: muhsan (married) or thuyyab (non-virgins); abkar (virgins); free or slave; and male or female. The Islamic hudud are of three kinds: rajm (stoning to death); jald (whipping); taghrib (exhile). The Muslim jurists agreed about free thayyib muhsans that the hadd for them is rajb, except that a group of those who follow their own whims held that the punishment for every forinicator is a hundred lashes. The majority inclined toward rajm because of the authentic traditions supporting it. They restricted the (general meaning in the Book) Book with the sunnah, that is, the words of the Exalted, "The adulteress and adulterer, scourge ye each one of them a hundredstripes. (hadith continues but it has been posted so I will stop copying here)"

-Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa Nihayat al-Muqtasid by Ibn Rushd translated by Professor Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee p. 523-524    

I can quote other sources on fiqh, principles of Islamic jurisprudence, etc, etc.

I doubt that any of this will convince you. I have, so far, met your requests, and it is now out of my hands. You have made your own decisions, and that is between you and Allah, and I respect you and only Allah can judge and only Allah truly Knows. I can do no more Brother. I think this thread has moved beyond being of any valid use.

Allahu 'alim

Assalam Aleikum

 

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
minuteman
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 25 March 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1642
bullet Posted: 31 May 2007 at 6:25am
Originally posted by Andalus

Originally posted by minuteman

Dear Andalus: My remarks are in blue.

If you do not believe an adulterer should be stoned, then either the prophet was wrong, the first three generation was wrong? If you believe in unrecited revelation, then either there is a mistake with the prophet (saw), or the first three generations, or both, or you are simply following your personal whims about which unrecited revelation to follow.

I am sorry. I do not believe that the prophet s.a.w.s. was wrong. Or his Khalifas were wrong. I believe in the unrecited revelation. But I do not want to use the unrecited revealtion to prove something extra-ordinary against the words of the Quran, against the recited Wahi. That is my final reply to you now.

Assalam Aleikum

But you have failed to show me where in the Quran the issue of rajm conflicts? You are asserting that in this case, unrecited wahy is in conflict with the recited wahy? You have not shown where this conflict is in the recited wahy?

Yes, The recited Wahi says that the adulterer and the adultress be both punished with 100 lashes. But the unrecited Wahi is changing this to stoning of the married adultreres.

If I follow your way then you may use the unrecited Wahi to create havoc. There will be no limit.

And yet my way is that of the ulema, for 1200 years, and yet I find no "havoc". How do you explain that my way is simply that of the ulema, and after 1200 years, no "havoc" has been created.

It may be according to Ulema but not according to Quran. You know what the great Ulema are doing today. They had till recently been fighting and calling each other Kaafirs. There is a hell of difference in opinion among Brelvi and deobandi Ulema and also see the Wahhabi Ulema. There is much difference. Had they been guided the ummah may not have suffered so badly.

---------------------------------------------------

 There is some kind of Mulla Islam that I do not believe at all. That is Abrogation of verses of the Quran, and forbidding the even peaceful propagation of the religion to non Muslims in the Muslim countries and so many other things. I do not believe that.

I am not sure I follow you?

Please try to understand the interpretations of the uLema. Do you not see that many of them believe that some verses of the Quran are abrogated or superceded. You should be aware of that. I personally met some of them and they admitted that Jews and christians and Hindus were not allowed topreach anything in a muslim country. I don't see any Muslim country though. But the order is there that no one should preach there. I heard Zakir Naik myself telling that.

So all these things combined together makes a lot of mess in the religion business. I cannot see any suitable place to trust. Most of the Ulema are political people. That is another problem.

After all those things are also being supported by some kinds of Hadith. Are they not?? So where will I end up??

You will have to clearify your point? I do not follow.

It is same as above remarks. The abrogation of the Quranic verses and the killing of the apostates and the forbidding of the peaceful preachings of other religions, all these things must have some support from the different Ahadith. What will you do about them?

Rajm is not in the quran, but it is a part of the sunnah, mass transmitted, from the prophet (saw) of God himself, on orders from God Himself. If you select wahy based upon nothing more than mere feelings, then you have no solid, raitonal bases for your choice, but I do respect you for your opinion.

 Thanks. You have admitted that Rajm is not in the Quran.

non sequitur. I never stated that it was, and not being their does not change my point or argument or the argument of the greatest ulema who have ever lived.

You had written. Rajam is not in the Quran. You have admitted that . It is good. Thanks. I am replying to you. But I do not follow the Hadith in the matter of killings if not advised by the Quran. I will read your hadith which are mentioned in your post for a few days to understand the matter.

I hope there will be some special note proving that a hadith Mutawater is as good as a verse of the Quran. Thatis your duty to show your principle. How will you prove that. Is there a Hadith which says that a Hadith mutawater is as good as a verse of the Quran. I believe not. You should show it.

Yet you want to do it. That is not understood. Killing some one is not an ordinary matter. That mass transmission is not like Salat etc. And salat is prescribed in the Quran itself. I told you that if you use the unrecited Wahi then you will be killing the apostates. I do not support that too.

Not only do I want to do it, but my view is in agreement with the sahaba, the tabi'in, their followers, and the greatest minds that have ever lived. It seems my friend, that my view has a lot more weight.

I am not sure where you have learned about the science of fiqh, but a mutawatir ahadith can, indeed, be soley used to derive a hadd offense punishment. That is established by the majority of jurists. If you disagree, then you have used your own ijtihad to go against 1200 years of the greatest scholarship.  

So it is devised by the scholars. And not stated by the prophet? I may not take it. I would rather take the advice of that scholar who said that important matters affecting life and death and Haraam/ halaal cannot be decided by the Hadith alone. Proof for them must come from the Quran.

You have the majority of Jurists on your backing. I don't know them because I see so much havoc being caused to the Muslim world and there is no real guidance. If there was any guidance then the poor Muslims would not have suffered so much. Can you please not see so many branches and sub branches in the Ummah?? Who is responsible for that???

The proof of unrecited Wahi is in the Quran and Hadith. But I request that you do not use that to kill any one please. I had told you a principle before, perhaps I did not state it completely.

You have stated it, the problem is that no such axion exists as far as a strong opinion amongst the ulema concerning a mutawatir ahadith establishing a hadd punishment. You can state someminor opinion untill judgement day, but it still does not mean that the principle exists such that a mutawatir ahadith cannot establish a hadd. I am talking about the four schools of fiqh, a majority of mujtahids that do not follow your personal axiom. I am sorry, I am going with the specialists of fiqh. 

You please hold on to the specialists of Fiqah. I do respect the fiqah Hanfiyah. But I do not believe anything against the Quran, clear words of the Quran. I would take that as a slip up during the last 1400 years. The Ummah is torn into two major factions, Sunni and Shia. Just see their Ahadith please.

 Now I remember it much better. I request that you present that to some learned person without any attachments and ask if ot was true or not. That would be better.

Funny, I just happen to have a book of tafsir in front of me by a well known Hanafi scholar of Pakistan, and he states that a hadd can be established by a mutawatir ahadith, as do the other schools of fiqh. According to you, the unanimous ruling by the four schools of fiqh is wrong and so are the scholars who do not follow your axiom to the extant that you have?

Surprising. One scholar is saying thatHadd can be established by a mutawater hadith. The other scholar is saying that matters of great importance, life and death, Haraam and Hallal cannot be left to Hadith alone. Proof for them must come from the Quran.

See the two scholars are differing in their opinion.

 

 

I state that principle again:

The serious matters such as of life and death and Halaal and Haraam cannot be decided on the basis of Hadith only. Proof for them should come from the Quran.

You must inform the great ulema of their dubious error!

 I cannot inform him now because he has died since 30 years.  It is not my duty to inform any one as I feel that you also would not like to inform any of your Ulema too. It has been a discussion and I will try to gain something from it if possible, by reading your presentation a few times. Thanks. Until then we may take some rest. Wassalam.

 

You may please checkit up from some one. I am satisfied that I have explained things in all honesty. Wassalam.

 

Umar (ra) stated, "A people will come who will argue with you based on the ambiguous verses of the Quran. Restrict them by the sunnah for people of the sunnah are the most knowledgeable of the Book of Allah." Narrated with a sound chain.

A mutawatir ahadith, whether it is in word or meaning, can be accepted as equally reliable as the Quran (without conditions of whther or not we are speaking of a hadd or ibadah).

An example from a mainstream, Hanafi scholar,

"... (mutawatir ahadith) are as authentic as the Holy Quran, and there is no difference between the two in as far as the reliablity of their source of narration is concerned." Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani from "The Authority of the Sunnah", p. 81.

Mualana Mufti Muhammad Shafi states, "The Holy Quran and Mutawatir ahadith "on their own" (parantheses added by me) have fixed the punishments of four crimes." (stealing, leveling false accusation against chaste women, drinking liquor, adultery)

Ma'ariful Quran page 344.

From a classical text on fiqh, which is still studied and used today, we find rajm being established by hadith. It seems I am not the only one you need to repeat your concept to, it appears that the great mujtahids are in need of your wisdom, as they appear not have known about it.

"Forinicators, for whom punishments vary according to their categories, are of four kinds: muhsan (married) or thuyyab (non-virgins); abkar (virgins); free or slave; and male or female. The Islamic hudud are of three kinds: rajm (stoning to death); jald (whipping); taghrib (exhile). The Muslim jurists agreed about free thayyib muhsans that the hadd for them is rajb, except that a group of those who follow their own whims held that the punishment for every forinicator is a hundred lashes. The majority inclined toward rajm because of the authentic traditions supporting it. They restricted the (general meaning in the Book) Book with the sunnah, that is, the words of the Exalted, "The adulteress and adulterer, scourge ye each one of them a hundredstripes. (hadith continues but it has been posted so I will stop copying here)"

-Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa Nihayat al-Muqtasid by Ibn Rushd translated by Professor Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee p. 523-524    

I can quote other sources on fiqh, principles of Islamic jurisprudence, etc, etc.

I doubt that any of this will convince you. I have, so far, met your requests, and it is now out of my hands. You have made your own decisions, and that is between you and Allah, and I respect you and only Allah can judge and only Allah truly Knows. I can do no more Brother. I think this thread has moved beyond being of any valid use.

Allahu 'alim

Assalam Aleikum

 I will only reply to your last lines shown above. If there is anything useful then I will admit it and mention it. If not then excuse me.

If any one is bad some one must suffer
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 9 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