Quran and Hadith

Andalus wrote: minuteman wrote: 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.

                                                                                                                         

Incorrect, you are attempting to bury your opinion into an exegesis of the passage. The verse does not say adulterer AND adulteress. It simply says a �fornicator�, which is �ambiguous� and does not specify if the fornicator is married or not. You have also made another false assertion. Please show me which ahadith, and at what point in the hadith, a conflict occurs? It seems you enjoy finding novelty, because I have yet to see a single hadith which conflicts with Surah An-noor. The hadith �particularizes� fornicator and to what class of fornicators receive lashes. Your conclusion is simply dubious and unproven, and without merit. 

Also, please try to use a better method of formatting these discussions. It is becoming more difficult for me to format for you and for me. The color coding scheme you are trying to use only works for a few initial posts.

minuteman wrote: andalus wrote: minuteman wrote: 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.

I now suspect you of rhetorical sophistry friend. We should try and remain true to this discussion and seek the truth, not try to obfuscate the truth to uphold our opinions.

1) Your statement, �It may be according to Ulema but not according to Quran.�, is fallacious as you are implying that

a) the Ulema do not use the Quran

b) that the science of and principles of fiqh are bound only to the Quran

c) That there is no other legislative sources for the shariah except the quran

I ask you to please prove your assertions before trying to bury them in your rhetoric.

2) Your statement, �You know what the great Ulema are doing today. They had till recently been fighting and calling each other Kaafirs.�, is also problematic as it moves into the realm of irrelevancy. My argument for rajm does not require that every member of the ulema get along and have been the best of brothers, nor does the argument for rajm by the great ulema depend on how courteous the members are to one another. You have just presented me with a logical fallacy called a strawman.

3) You followed up with something else fallacious, �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.�, this simply adds to the strawman you have just introduced. The dispute between the Brelvi and deobandi is irrelevant, and you are trying to generalize from a particular that has no outcome on my argument. In logic it is called a non-sequitur, meaning �does not follow�. The argument between these two groups started from a theological dispute in kalam, not about rajm. So their dispute does not invalidate the ulemas agreement on rajm, or the sound argument behind using rajm. Even if (entertaining a thought) it were, this is one small group that would count as a small minority, and those who diverge from using rajm have simply followed their own whims given the amount of evidence and soundness of the argument for its use.

minuteman wrote: andalus wrote:   minuteman wrote: 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.

What I see brother is your use of the typical excuses used by so called �modern� Muslims to feel comfortable when they follow their own whims and decide to give self ijtihad without having any credible background to do so, and disagree with the uleman based upon nothing more than mere opinion.

1)    There is abrogation in the Quran. That is a sound argument, though this is another strawman and irrelevant to my argument.

2)    The issue of proselytizing in a Muslim country is also irrelevant and has no outcome on this topic or my argument, although I agree and would not allow a missionary from any religion to enter my home to access my family with propaganda, and any good Caliph would treat his country as I treat my own home.

If you do not want to make taqlid on scholars, then do what you like, but do not try and use slanderous statements about the ulema to justify your views. I find it incredible that no one would think about not making taqlid in matters of medicine, but in matters of the hear after, of eternity, people will place their own whims over sound advice from experts in their fields. I know no one who would take advice about a problem with their brain from someone who simply had a collection of books about neuroscience, but everyone is a scholar of the deen.

minuteman wrote: 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.

Brother, I am very familiar with this approach you are trying to use to justify making your own ijtihad. It is an irrational and baseless reason to follow your own whims, though I suppose it makes you feel comfortable. It is the common howler by so called �modern� Muslims who have become convinced by the past colonial powers that their deen has problems. Under the guidance of the ulema that you are now trying to trash with fallacious arguments, great civilizations were formed.

minuteman wrote: andalus wrote: minuteman wrote: 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?

Nothing, they are nothing but an irrelevant distraction to the topic at hand. If you wish to discuss abrogation and allowing missionaries full access to your society, then start separate threads on them. If you do not trust the sunnah, then discuss the topic �the scope of the sunnah�. For now, we are talking about rajm.

minuteman wrote: andalus wrote: minuteman wrote: andalus wrote: 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.

If you follow the hadith in other matters, but not in matters of hadd, then you must produce a sound argument as to why. You trust the hadith with one thing, but throw it out for another. Your opinion goes against what Umar (ra) himself taught and practiced.

minuteman wrote: 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.

You have just produced the fallacy of a non sequitur again. The use of a mutawatir hadith as being equal to the quran in trustworthiness and soundness is from deduction, and does not need a hadith that says that a mutawatir hadith is as good as the Quran. Your demand that I produce this hadith is simply �obfuscation�. Could you show me a hadith that tells us that a mutawatir ahadith cannot be used for matters of life and death? Of course not and it would be dubious of me to demand it from you.

1)    A mutawatir ahadith means, by its very nature, that it can not have been forged.

2)    It came from the Prophet (saw), and the Sahaba, who were instructed by the Prophet (saw), and the Quran orders us to follow the Prophet (saw).

3)    It is as equal to the Quran in its soundess, not in its nature as recitation (nor did I ever claim that it was the same as in nature), and following it is the same as following the sahaba and the Prophet (saw).

minuteman wrote: andalus wrote: minuteman wrote: 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.

No, it is devised by the Prophet (saw), who particularized some punishments. It is what the Prophet (saw) of Islam devised, not scholars. And you have yet to provide a single, solid argument to reject this. Your principle is simply an assertion, which is baseless until you can provide an argument to qualify it to count in this discussion. So far, you are only �disagreeing� with me, and providing strawman arguments which have no outcome on my claims.

minuteman wrote: 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???

Brother, you are appealing to rhetorical sophistry once more. Making broad sweeping generalizations trying to connect the problems with the Muslim world with the Ulema is not only a logical fallacy, but is irrelevant to my argument. I ask you to please stay on topic. This is a non sequitur, and has no outcome on my thesis, or yours.

minuteman wrote: andalus wrote: minuteman wrote: 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.

My question to this is: So what? This is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with this thread. No one is arguing that the Quran is not clear, what is being argued is that the scope of the Prophet (saw) included particularizing generals in the Quran, including punishments. So far, I have not seen anything from you that rationally places any doubt on this.

minuteman wrote: andalus wrote: minuteman wrote:  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 <ST1:COUNTRY-REGIoN w:st="on">Pakistan</ST1:COUNTRY-REGIoN>, 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.

No, what I see is that you have gone �scholar hunting� to find a �minority� opinion that is considered �weak� as a way to try and show disagreement. What we have to look at is the �dalil�, the proof of these opinions. The �stronger� opinion, the opinion in the majority is such that its �dalil� uses an argument that is �sound�. Those minority �scholars� who have thrown out the hadd ordered by the Prophet (saw) himself are in violation of a prophetic command without any solid bases, and these so called scholars are considered to have followed their �whims�. Your conclusion is a fallacy from �special pleading�.

minuteman wrote: andalus wrote: minuteman wrote: 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.

My point is that your principle seems to be at a loss for 1200 years of scholarship. Why is that?

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.

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.

  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.