Minister beaten after clashing with Muslims on his TV show

Actually, no. The Islamic legal system is based on consensus and precedence. By virtue of this, the dominant strand which has been in practice since the classical formative period is the 'correct interpretation.'

The Wahabbi manifestation is a perversion and distinct break from hundreds of years of established legal canon.

 

DaDa, I can't read that link from my computer. Could you point me to the chapter and verse number?

If it is something Muhammad said, then it's no biggie. But please show me the chapter/verse number as I don't think this exists.

If the Prophet wasn't told how many bones are in the human body, then he probably just knew. Additionally, I know that the website you are using is filled with inaccuracies, and intentionally at that.

If it is in the Qura'an tell me. If not, then I think you are finding it difficult to differentiate between Jesus PBUH's role in Christianity and Muhammad PBUH in Islam.

Prophet's personal words = Hadith. This is not Fardh (which means duty).

Qura'an = Allah's words. Every order in this book is Fardh (duty). Unchangeable. Applicable to every generation of Muslims, regardless of time.

However, here are a couple of quotes from a wiki page:

End of paragraph:

Here is the link, two quotes are in the first paragraph.

Conclusion is the following:

1) I believe you're talking about Hadith, which are not Allah's words and are not our duty to obey.

2) It can be right anyway, if the counting methods are different, and an infant has around 300-350. Not BETWEEN 300-350, but AROUND 300-350.

 

Double post.

 

Just click the link when you get to a computer that works, or are you in a place that forbids links that question dogmatic thinking?

DD

 

Regarding Qura'anic texts, the Prophet left no room for error.

Recall that he this stuff came verse by verse (sometimes verses). It was memorized verse by verse. It was then written down LATER IN THE DAY as a verse.

This was done each time in each of the Sahaba's presence (which means disciples).

They were INSTRUCTED to write the verses. Therefore, if there was any doubt, they would knock on the Prophet's door. They were neighbours, friends and brothers in Islam. There was never ANY dispute historically.

Again, there has historically never been ANY dispute.

Anyways, when the Prophet completed the last verse, he then recited the entire thing (remember, he couldn't read) in the ten differet Arabic accents/dialects of the time to ensure that no one was confused. No other language was used at the time.

He recited the Qura'an in its entirety so that they could check against one another's writings, and against their old writings. He recited it 10 times. It was written 10 times in its complete form rather than just seperate verses (regardless of accent, it's always written the same way).

They then checked all the versions against each other. Then they had decided that, since they had memorized it already, they would make the people memorize it.

The compilation of the Qura'an, which DaDa is reffering to, was done by Othman the Caliphe at the time. He did this because the copies made during the Prophet's time were being taken further and further away for teaching people. He said that the copies could be taken further as long as one central copy was available to make copies from. IMO, he was a bit jealous that he was the Caliphe and didn't have an original copy, but this is my PERSONAL VIEW. Regardless, he brought all the original copies back together, and had them write one book which would be known as the central book and which no one could doubt because it would be written IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL ORIGINAL COPIES.

The was no council, such as that of Nicaea. There was no majority vote. It was unanimous and I must add there was NO DISPUTE by anyone. It was just an order to create a central copy from the current copies with no additions or subtractions and in the presence of the original copies. He was worried that the original copies would dissapear and that people would eventually tamper with them, so he created a central copy which was used to make everyone else a copy.

The copy which was created in the presence of all original copies (which would, thank God, never be taken from the hands of those who wrote them) is available today in Turkey I believe. Maybe Kazakhastan or Uzbekistan. Somewhere in that area, that same copy is sitting.

We know from Islam that only one copy/version has ever existed. But if it's facts you're interested in, then know that there is no difference whatsoever between the Quraan which was copied down in the presence of the originals (the one in Turkey) and the one sitting in my room today. Not even one word, not even one verse, nothing. if I showed my Qura'an to those who wrote it down first, they would immediately recognize it as authentic. This was done intentionally with knowledge that there had been several disputes in the past regarding historical text.

Sorry DaDa. If this text can be disputed, then any text we know today can be disputed. It's simply reaching way too hard. Everything you worry about was thought of in advance. Sub7an Allah.

 

It is blocked by me service provider. I can argue with them, but as I've seen it, I wouldn't want it to be re-opened to the public. This is a different discussion though.

What is the chapter and verse number if you don't mind? It would be something like 10:5 or 6:2 or 18:100 in case your'e having difficulty finding it. Two numbers seperated by a colon.

Honestly, at this point, I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist because I looked through the Koran for you. But I'm leaving the door open for you to show me, in case I missed it or something.

 

Of course any text can be disputed, if one man is the sole source of something with a wild claim that he is being guided by God, it most certainly should be disputed, argued, dissected, and let each person choose to believe or not by themselves.....

You know...FREE WILL !!

Who is your service provider? What do you mean, re-opened to the public, it is already opened to the public.

Can you not click the link, are you in a country that does not allow the free flow of information and the willingness to listen to other views?

If so, how sad that is........

I mean being unable to get opposing views and think them through and decide for yourself.....that is simply sad, and calls into question all your discussions.

DD

 

Who gets to say which is the correct interpretation? Doesn't the fact that the Wahabbi sect exists dispute your claim of a consensus-based legal system?

Also, wouldn't the Islamic legal system ultimately be based the will of God as communicated by his prophets? Such a foundation cannot support an objectively correct and unified interpretation, as there is no evidence that what you are interpreting (i.e. the Koran) is actually the word of some deity.

 

DaDa,

Free will is circumventing the proxy server when and if I feel it is necessary.

I would like you to admit that the number is not quoted in the Qura'an anywhere. I know this because I have the Qura'an. You know this because you checked.

If you can't just say "Oh snap, they tried to fool me, you're right it's not there." then I think your credibility is shot.

Let's not shift the discussion to my internet service provider though. Let's keep focus on whether or not the claim exists in the Qura'an (about the bones).

Believe me Dada, whether you decide to admit it or not is immaterial to me. What's material to me is that there are other people reading and they deserve to know the truth. That's what really concerns me. That you don't create a bunch of people who go out into the world and create hatred due to misinformation resulting from your unfounded arguments. We need to break down the walls.

Are you willing to admit that it's not in there? Because it would be best coming from you. If not, then just say you won't so that I can prove it to everyone else who cares about whether it's true or not.

 

Wahhabi is an interesting thing. The huge majority of Muslims, including those in Saudi Arabia, don't agree with it.

No Muslims differ on the Qura'an or Hadith. The differences are from everything else.

So for example, the Qura'an says that you should cover up certain parts of yoru body.

The Prophet sets 5 rules about covering up.

After the Qura'an and Prophet, that's where sects come in and do their interpretations. However, you are not required to follow them. The only duty is the Qura'an. Everything else is interpretation of the Prophet's advice and not a duty of a Muslim. It is, however, advised. But one has to be cognisant of the limitations of the Prophet PBUH's advice.

Most important of which: the Qura'an applies to all times, past, present, and future. I haven't heard anywhere that this is the case for the Hadith. I think Wahabbism tends to believe that it DOES apply to Hadith.

In all fairness, I don't know much about Wahabbiism. But I can tell you that it's as popular (among Muslims) as ice cream in the north pole.

 

I didn't read everything in the link, but there is no reference to the koran, whoever this osama abdulla guy is, he claims there is a hadith about it (the 360 joint thingy). But as far as I've researched, its not an authenticated hadith. Therefore I wouldn't judge the religion on this evidence alone. I'm not the first to tell you, but you really have a knack for finding bs material. I've seen your insulting posts about Islam before, so I really question your objective for trying to find out the truth. You rather appear to be more interested in finding material that'll claim the religion as bogus, not the best way to learn about something new. Especially Islam, since there are sites dedicated to making it look bad........

 

It doesn't matter how popular it is. It exists. It is as much a subset of Islam as any other sect. To Wahabbi practitioners, it is the other sects that are perverting their religion, and their view is equally valid as the reverse.

 

This is just wrong. We have original manuscripts and complete revision histories for countless modern texts. The earliest Islamic texts weren't written until over a hundred years after Mohammed's death, and the oldest extant manuscripts were written over a century after that. There really is no comparison.

 

Why so frustrated?

I didn't say it's not. I'm merely pointing out how unpopular it is. Jeez.

 

This is just wrong actually. Had you read my post you could see that the earliest QURAAN is "over 100 years" after Muhammad PBUH's death. Although you don't care, this Quraan was written in the presence of the originals.

Texts from the Prophet's time are available today but they are irrelevant as they do not doffer from the Qura'an in even language. You must differentiate between Christianity and Islam. This book was meant to be this book, and there's nothing gone missing. The whole plan of Muhammad PBUH and Gabriel all along was to create a book, while I don't think it was the intention of Jesus PBUH to make a book. There is nothing which could have been included where they said "well, there's not enough proof" and, on the other side, there's nothing that is included which anyone has ever disputed. EVER. None of the hundreds of thousands of sects. None of the earliest scholars. No one. Nada.

You don't think there would be a dispute somewhere in the last couple of thousand years if there was any grounds for it?

 

I see that the apologists for Islamist terror and violence are out in full force again. Most people don't even bother anymore to argue with these lunatics.

 

After meeting and knowing Muslims from all over the place: Pakistan, India, Iran, Iraq, China(muslims are a minority here)... it really pains me to read threads like these. Since I know most of the people in the US would never know Muslims outside of the media. And would continue to harbor such generalizations which Bush's regime easily took advantage of.

I cannot emphasize enough how much these people are just like Americans, or any people or any other country. Most people are just normal citizens who care about normal things like career, family, economy, etc. Not how to beat up Americans(or I'd probably be beaten to a pulp by now).

 

Where do you get that from? Link with proof please !

According to this BBC article that is not the case at all


Origin
The Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad by God in Arabic.

Some Qur'anic fragments have been dated as far back as the eighth, and possibly even the seventh, century. The oldest existing copy of the full text is from the ninth century.

Although early variants of the Qur'an are known to have existed, Muslims believe that the text we have today was established shortly after the death of the Prophet by the Caliph Uthman.

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

And what is the difference in Hadith and the Quran, weren't they both allegedly given to Mohammed by God?

How do you actually reconcile the fact that this is one guy who said God was speaking to him......how is that any different than me saying..."God is telling me to type this BBS message"........

What leads you to actually believe that a political caravan driver was actually talking to God or his angels, instead of just making up stuff so that he himself would be worshiped?

It is Hadith number 395 listed for you in Arabic, and it is a Mutawatir (genuine....among the very well known ones). You can read it in Arabic on that link, if you are so inclined.


DD

 

Such irony in this statement coming from a person that is not allowed to research contrasting views and come to his own conclusion because his country does not allow the free flow of information, or allow it's citizens to question the validity of Islam.

Sorry sir, I am certainly not as versed in the Quran as you, but at least I have the ability to view all sides of the discussion and come to my own conclusions.....without pressure to follow one type of belief only.

Mathloom do you work for your countries government or do you work for a mosque?

To me the truth is that there is no proof that Mohammed was talking to God, so therefore I must assume that he was just a political man, whose version of God's will was stolen or rather borrowed from numerous other failed religions, and has just caught on in popularity.

But is no more "From God" than the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Summarians, the Romans, the Greeks, the Jews, the Christians, the Buddhists, any of them....

To me, every religion is just guessing and based upon years and years of mythos...and story telling, and used to control a populace with their own version of voodoo and magic....

DD

 

Dating back to the classical formative period, the 4 major schools of jurisprudence have been dominant. Adhering to this legacy has been the mainstream. Within these schools there are minor differences as there were within the theological schools, but there was/is still recognition amongst them within this framework.

The Wahabbi strand is a complete break from this legal backdrop. It characterizes that classical formative process as unnecessary 'baggage' and advocates a complete return to the era of Muhammad as based on the primary texts. Among other reasons why this is so problematic is that one of the critical components of the jurisprudential process was recognition of the normative 'customs' (in arabic, 'urf) the setting.

Most importantly, it is ideologically affable to the Hanbali school of jurisprudence, which was heavily reliant upon the 'traditions', taking a literalist approach. So you see a blatant disregard for circumstance in combination with a arbitrary determination to cherrypick edicts/verses/traditions conducive to the respective agenda.

At a literal sense, nobody gets to "say" which is the correct interpretation because there is an inherent authority vacuum within Sunni Islam. But the point is that this perversive interpretation is a distinct break from hundreds of years of established precedent. It is completely anathema to the very system itself.

I'm not sure I understand your question because obviously, if we are assessing this development from an objectivist stance, we're not assuming it is the word of a deity, but the classical jurists were operating under that assumption...