God and Allah

myahya wrote: I first proved the prophet by himself (i.e. without the Quran), could not be a reliable guide, if he was fallible. By the assumption of his fallibility it was concluded that Allah�s will for guiding people leads to misleading them independent of whether people are faithful and looking for guidance or not. But we know Allah is infallible and absolutely perfect. Therefore, a contradictory conclusion is achieved by the assumption of prophet fallibility.

People are themselves prone to error and will mislead themselves even if the message (e.g. the Quran) is perfect.  Therefore the fact that people are misled tells us nothing about the fallability of the message or the Messenger.

You don't seem to see much distinction between the role of Muhammad and the role of Allah.  (One might be tempted to think you see them as partners.)  To me, their roles are quite different.  Allah instructs us through the Quran and gives us the timeless principles by which we can live good lives.  Muhammad's role is firstly to convey the Quran, secondly to be a leader to his contemporaries and thirdly to be a role model for subsequent generations.

A role model is someone whom we can look to for inspiration and encouragement -- someone who has faced and overcome problems similar to our own (in degree of difficulty if not in specifics), and whose example gives us confidence that we can get through them too.  But a role model is not an instructor, and a role model doesn't have to be perfect.  His solutions to life's problems may not be our solutions, may not even be the best solutions; but the point is that he found solutions, and so can we.  That's how I see it anyway.

Ron: Tell me, myahya, if you were a soldier sworn to obey your commanding officer, would you interpret that as binding even after that officer's death?  If his last order was "charge!", would you continue to charge for the rest of your life -- even after the war is over? No. But what if the commander never dies? Allah is eternal. He has commanded us to obey Him and His messenger and has not mentioned any exceptions in Quran e.g. his death.

The commanding officer in the analogy is Muhammad, not Allah, and Muhammad was dead long before you were born.  He gave orders to his contemporaries, but he never spoke to you or even knew you, let alone gave you a command.  The only way you can "obey" him is to obey the timeless message he brought via the Quran.

Ron: if you read all of Sura 59:7, you'll see that the third quote clearly refers to the division of plunder following a battle. I have read all the verse but as you see the sentence is present tense which shows that it is a fact applicable in the example of plunder division as well.

Not "as well".  Division of plunder only.  Present tense might indicate that it is still applicable -- except that (as I mentioned) The Prophet (PBUH) is dead, so I doubt he will be dividing up plunder anymore.

Ron: note that the quote from Sura 4:59 commands us to obey Allah, and the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. Are all those charged with authority to be regarded as infallible? In my belief the answer is yes. However, whatever the answer is, the obedience of Allah and the Messenger are clearly stated, aren't they?

So you really think that President Bush, who is charged with authority in the United States, is infallible? And yes, obedience is clearly stated, but I think it should be obvious that their authority ceases when they die.  In Bush's case, I certainly hope it ceases long before that.

 Angela, as it has been explained before, there are many ways of testing the authenticity of the Hadith. The most important are the two rules, namely,          ; 1. Darayat,   2.  Rawayat.

 Darayat means technicality of the Hadith substance. It examines the substance of the hadith, what it is saying etc. The merit of the contents.

 Rawayat is the chain of narrations. Are the person narrating true and reliable persons? Did they exist in the right time frame with their ages and locality etc.?

The first test is the most important. It examines what the Hadith is saying. If the contents are malafide, i.e. against the teachings of the Quran then it is rejected. If the contents of the hadith are against any other well known authentic Hadith, even then that Hadith will be rejected i.e. because if we accept it then we have to reject the other well known authentic Hadith.... and so on.

 It is also necessary to understand the Hadith properly and not to take a wrong meaning which may collide with other Hadith and verses of the Quran. Effort is made in that direction to reconcile any disagreing type of Hadith. If successful then well and good. If there is no success then that Hadith will be rejected.

 These are the rules to examine the sayings of the holy prophet s.a.w.s. I have mentioned only a small portion of this all important subject. There are many other tests too, for example, it is considered, how many persons have related any Hadith. Is it just one person and one mans news or many persons reported a saying. If it is just one person report then that Hadith may not be of higher standard,  and so on...

 What you have written is quite right and I hope that not all Muslims agree to stoning the adulterer unless there may be a case of rape or murder after rape etc. In all other cases, such as willing illegal intercourse, the punishment should be 100 stripes as mentioned in 24:2.

 It is interesting. The present day scholars say that the adulterer mentioned in 24:2 is unmarried. That is why the punishment is 100 lashes. For the married one, it is stoning. They say that the adulterer in 24:2 is unmarried person. That they say is the secret meaning. But the verse 1 in chapter 24, from the very beginning is telling that there is nothing secret in that chapter. It is all very clear manifest orders.