Prophet Muhammed (p) Was Sent To Teach & Explain The Quran

Awesome post!

Discover The Truth

This article is a thorough refutation to Hadith-rejecters. As we will examine, the Prophet was sent by God (Allah) to explain, teach and to instruct with wisdom the Quran. This evidence alone will show that Hadith are part of the Deen of Islam. At the end of this article there will be another section, where Mufti Taqi Usmani, will prove from Quranic passages that the Prophet (p) received two kinds of revelations from Allah.

1. ALLAH SAYS TO “OBEY THE MESSENGER”

Say Obey Allah and the Messenger. But if they turn away, then Allah does not like the disbelievers. [Quran 3:32]

And whoso obey Allah and the Messenger (Muhammad) then they will be in the company of those on whom Allah has bestowed His Grace, of the Prophets, the Siddiqun (those followers of the Prophets who were first and foremost to believe in them, like Abu Bakr As-Siddiq the martyrs…

View original post 7,082 more words

Advertisements


Categories: Islam

66 replies

  1. So where in the quran does it say to obey the teachings of sahih bukhari? Or any of the other man made stories about mohammed?

    It doesn’t. The quran gives a command that is impossible to adhere to.

    Like

    • Qur’an asks to obey the Messenger. The words and actions of the Messenger were recorded in Sahih Bukhari and many other hadith collections.

      Where in the Bible does it say to obey Romans/Galatians/Philippians etc. which are man-made stories about Jesus(as) written by Paul ?

      Like

    • * I meant ‘Where in the Bible does Jesus(as)/Yahweh says to obey…..

      Like

    • Tiyaan

      “Qur’an asks to obey the Messenger. The words and actions of the Messenger were recorded in Sahih Bukhari and many other hadith collections.”

      That is circular. Where does the quran say that bukhari is authentic? And why must muslims commit shirk in order to be able to practice islam?

      Your god is reliant on the supposed actions of a flawed human being that were only recorded 200+ years after the life of mohammed by a man who never knew him, who lived hundreds of miles away from the place the events occurred, and supposedly tracked down the “traditions” of mohammed from an empire stretching from China to Spain that covered hundreds of thousands of square miles.

      LOL!! Don’t make me laugh.

      In other words, allah’s quran is meaningless without the human works of the sunnah – allah is reliant on mohammed’s actions as supposedly recorded by other flawed human beings to complete his revelation. Mohammed is, thus, as important as allah in islam.

      Like

    • Joel,

      Can you help to identify the circularity ? The flow is linear.

      Where does the quran say that bukhari is authentic?
      It doesn’t say. It does say to obey the Messenger. The consensus of Muslim scholars matter in the religion.

      And why must muslims commit shirk in order to be able to practice islam?
      There is no shirk in taking knowledge from hadith collections.

      “..Your god is reliant on the supposed actions of a flawed human being..”
      What kind of reasoning is this ? Based on a similar line, I could say – Your God was dependent on flogging Jesus(as) to death to provide salvation. Your God was dependent on wicked Jews and Romans to provide salvation.

      Atleast our oral traditions were mass transmitted and has a chain. What difference does it make if it was written 100 or 200 years later ?. the sayings of Jesus(as) were not mass transmitted and written by unknown authors and renegades like Paul who didn’t even learned from Jesus(as). Your corpus looks far less reliable compared to our hadith collections.

      Since you skipped the question, I ask again. Lolling does not help, sorry.

      Where in the Bible does Yahweh/Jesus say to obey Romans/Galatians/Philippians etc. which are man-made stories about Jesus(as) written by Paul ?

      Like

    • Tiyaan

      You are arguing that the hadith are what the quran refers to when it says to follow the example of mohammed but that is precisely what you need to be proving. It is circular and affirming the consequent fallacies.

      “And why must muslims commit shirk in order to be able to practice islam?”

      Because your god is reliant on a human being. No other prophet of yahweh was necessary component of the revelation for the message to be understood – god’s word stood on its own power. In islam, allah needs mohammed (and clerics) to explain his words – this is a blatant practice of shirk. Muslims put mohammed beside allah – without mohammed, allah’s words are incomplete.

      “Where in the Bible does Yahweh/Jesus say to obey Romans/Galatians/Philippians etc. which are man-made stories about Jesus(as) written by Paul ?”

      The NT is not man made stories – it is a record of events that are deemed largely to be true.

      Like

    • The vast number of hadith transmitted by the companions of the Prophet(saw) and their students and so on for generations, including preserving the chain of these narrations along with the text is itself the proof that the earliest Muslims and the consensus of scholars understood the importance of hadith and it’s validity.
      You are specifically demanding that the names of the hadith collections be mentioned in the Qur’an as a proof. Well, if that’s the case, I have already countered with the question that in the Bible you don’t find Yahweh/Jesus mentioning to obey Romans/Galatians/Philippians etc. So, the argument is inconsistent unless you can make a distinction for the Bible.

      “Because your god is reliant on a human being……”
      Already showed you the silliness of this argument by :
      Your God was dependent on flogging Jesus to death to provide salvation. Your God was dependent on wicked Jews and Romans to provide salvation. Ergo, your God is dependent on men, including those who killed His son. Do you see the faulty reasoning ?

      “No other prophet of yahweh was necessary component of the revelation for the message to be understood – god’s word stood on its own power. ”
      Wrong. If no prophet or his explanations and actions were necessary, then why were the revelations not sent to all people? Why specifically to prophets? Why did Jesus(as) had to argue with the Jews regarding observance of Sabbath and other things ? The Jews had God’s word and that was sufficient, wasn’t it?

      “In islam, allah needs mohammed (and clerics) to explain his words – this is a blatant practice of shirk. Muslims put mohammed beside allah – without mohammed, allah’s words are incomplete. ”

      A very vague and incoherent claim. You are playing with semantics and think you have a point. Just replace the word “needs” to “chose” and you’ll get it right. ie. Allah(swt) CHOSE Muhammed(as) to explain His words to the people. Jews had an oral tradition, Mishnah & Gemara, Talmud, including commentaries by rabbis that formed the basis of Jewish Law, apart from the Torah. The Tanakh alone wasn’t complete and they were practicing shirk based on that? Better learn what shirk is.
      The NT is no different either. The Gospels are an account of the sayings and actions of Jesus(as) reported by people who supposedly heard from witnesses. They themselves don’t claim to be revelation and you still need them to understand the word of God. This is exactly like the hadith collections.

      Like

    • Tiyaan, of course the Qur’an tells us to obey the messenger. And what does the messenger do above all? He delivers the message. That is why he is called the messenger. We need to follow the Prophet’s own personal interpretation also as he is most guided among us. But most guided does not mean necessarily mean infallible and even less does it mean a revelation from the Creator of all existence. Moreover, the Prophet was making interpretations for his community in his context and we do not even know the full context. Above all, his words are not said to be protected by God. God says in the Qur’an that the Qur’an is protected, not anything else. The Qur’an is a clear book. Let us also benefit from the hadith but let’s not do what is above bounds…which is putting the alleged interpretations of the Prophet (pbuh) in his specific context ***may God protect us*** at the level of the message from the Creator of all existence.

      Like

    • tiyaan

      “The vast number of hadith transmitted by the companions of the Prophet(saw) and their students and so on for generations, including preserving the chain of these narrations along with the text is itself the proof that the earliest Muslims and the consensus of scholars understood the importance of hadith and it’s validity.”

      It’s irrelevant want humans scholars believe – do you submit to allah or to scholars? The question that you can’t answer is the most important one – does allah endorse the use of traditions that were only complied centuries after mohammed died and that lack historical credibility? The answer is no.

      “You are specifically demanding that the names of the hadith collections be mentioned in the Qur’an as a proof. Well, if that’s the case, I have already countered with the question that in the Bible you don’t find Yahweh/Jesus mentioning to obey Romans/Galatians/Philippians etc. So, the argument is inconsistent unless you can make a distinction for the Bible.”

      The quran is supposed to be the word of god, yet, it gives vague commands to muslims to follow the examples of a man that it doesn’t provide examples for. If following mohammed’s examples is so important, why doesn’t allah provide some? At least provide minor evidence that allah was referring to the hadith in his commands.

      I suspect that future research on the quran will reveal that these passages commanding muslims to follow the imperfect mohammed are mere interpolations added to pre-existing religious materials from other belief systems solely to cement the totalitarian power of the faith.

      The books of the bible that you mention are accounts of events that support the gospel stories – they are self-evident. The quran commands something that you can’t possibly do since you have no absolute proof that what you are doing is what allah actually intended.

      “Your God was dependent on flogging Jesus to death to provide salvation. Your God was dependent on wicked Jews and Romans to provide salvation. Ergo, your God is dependent on men, including those who killed His son. Do you see the faulty reasoning ?”

      God was fulfilling his promise of salvation through the incarnation and death of jesus – no dependency here! The faulty reasoning is yours.

      “Wrong. If no prophet or his explanations and actions were necessary, then why were the revelations not sent to all people? Why specifically to prophets? Why did Jesus(as) had to argue with the Jews regarding observance of Sabbath and other things ? The Jews had God’s word and that was sufficient, wasn’t it?”

      This is just silly. god has his own reasons for choosing his prophets and never has he DEPENDED on them to explain his words. And where did you get the idea that jesus argued with the jewish religious authorities about god’s word? The jewish religious authorities weren’t incapable of understanding god’s words, they were accused by jesus of abandoning it in favour of human speculative traditions that claimed to “explain” the plain words of god – similar to islam in fact.

      Islam claims to be about submission to allah, but in fact, it is more like a cult of personality in which a human being is elevated to demi-god status in lieu of a coherent message from your god.

      “A very vague and incoherent claim. You are playing with semantics and think you have a point. Just replace the word “needs” to “chose” and you’ll get it right. ie. Allah(swt) CHOSE Muhammed(as) to explain His words to the people. “

      This is nonsense. You have basically admitted that allah needs a human being to explain his words – it doesn’t matter WHO he chose, he still needed a human being to explain his incoherent and context lacking words.

      “ews had an oral tradition, Mishnah & Gemara, Talmud, including commentaries by rabbis that formed the basis of Jewish Law, apart from the Torah. The Tanakh alone wasn’t complete and they were practicing shirk based on that? Better learn what shirk is.”

      This is exactly what jesus opposed – the jewish traditions that speculated on god’s words whilst ignoring the spirit of it.

      It really is quite simple – you just refuse to think deeply about it. If your god needs a human being to explain his words, then that human being is as important as allah. It is not hard. worse still, your allah must be imperfect since his words need human explanation.

      Like

    • Joel,

      “It’s irrelevant want humans scholars believe – do you submit to allah or to scholars? ”

      Submitting to Allah(saw) means obeying the Messenger as well. Our Messenger said “My nation will not unanimously agree on misguidance.” So, the “consensus of scholars” is a valid authority in Islam. You speak as though Christianity doens’t need scholars. Your theology itself has been developed and refined by Councils. There is no way one would come to the firm conclusion of the Trinity reading just the Bible. If you believe in the Trinity, then you have already submitted to your scholars.

      “The question that you can’t answer is the most important one – does allah endorse the use of traditions that were only complied centuries after mohammed died and that lack historical credibility? The answer is no.”
      The guidelines are there in the Qur’an, so the answer is YES, although it doesn’t meet your specific unrealistic demand that the names of the books be mentioned, which even your Bible has failed to do so.

      “The books of the bible that you mention are accounts of events that support the gospel stories – they are self-evident. The quran commands something that you can’t possibly do since you have no absolute proof that what you are doing is what allah actually intended. ”

      The hadith are nothing but what were the actions and words of Muhammad(saw), so that’s self evident too, if that counts as proof as you stated. Prophet Muhammad(saw) taught and practiced for 23 years what the Qur’an commanded. He had huge following of companions too who put them into practice and passed on to the next generations. To say we have no proof is pure speculation on your part and nothing more.

      “God was fulfilling his promise of salvation through the incarnation and death of jesus – no dependency here! The faulty reasoning is yours.”
      But God didn’t do self flagellation. It was plotted by the Jews and executed by the Romans. Your reasoning is fully exposed here as your God needed the help of wicked people on Earth to provide you salvation. Epic fail !

      “This is just silly. god has his own reasons for choosing his prophets and never has he DEPENDED on them to explain his words.”
      You cannot claim it as silly and then go on and say you don’t know the reason. Ok, give it a try though. What could be the reason then ? Why didn’t God explain his reason for choosing Moses(as) and not anyother person?. If God did not depend on them, then why not reveal it to all of humanity ?

      “The jewish religious authorities weren’t incapable of understanding god’s words, they were accused by jesus of abandoning it in favour of human speculative traditions that claimed to “explain” the plain words of god”
      Exactly why I said you need a prophet like Jesus(as) to explain where they went wrong with their understanding of God’s words. For example, some Pharisees wrongly accused Jesus(as) of breaking the Sabbath.

      “Islam claims to be about submission to allah, but in fact, it is more like a cult of personality in which a human being is elevated to demi-god status in lieu of a coherent message from your god. ”
      We give status of a prophet or messenger to Muhammad(saw), and that is the highest rank given to any human being. So, it’s definitely a very elevated position. We give the same rank to the prophets in the Bible too, although being the prophet of the time, Muhammad(saw) gets a special place for us. You have elevated a human being named Jesus(as) not just to a demi-god but as God. Worry about that first.

      “it doesn’t matter WHO he chose, he still needed a human being to explain his incoherent and context lacking words.”
      This is precisely why you are in the WRONG faith. It MATTERS whom God chooses and He has chosen prophets all the time to explain His words. Get that idea clear, before belittling God.

      “This is exactly what jesus opposed – the jewish traditions that speculated on god’s words whilst ignoring the spirit of it.”
      My point is that the Jewish orthodoxy did rely on oral traditions, and commentaries to understand the word of God and form the Jewish Law. Jesus(as) did not said ALL Jewish traditions were wrong. He did correct some of their misunderstandings though.

      “It really is quite simple – you just refuse to think deeply about it. If your god needs a human being to explain his words, then that human being is as important as allah. It is not hard. worse still, your allah must be imperfect since his words need human explanation.”

      Really ? I think you are confused and lack knowledge in theology. You make these claims that are not even consistent with the ways of God Himself in the previous revelations. You say Allah is imperfect for choosing human beings to explain His words and yet acknowledge you don’t know the reason why God chooses prophets. Get a grip.

      Like

  2. And [mention, O Muhammad], when Allah took a covenant from those who were given the Scripture, [saying], “You must make it clear to the people and not conceal it.” But they threw it away behind their backs and exchanged it for a small price. And wretched is that which they purchased.

    The Arabic word used for the People of the Book to make clear/explain is latubayinunnaho…the exact same word used in 16:44 unless I am mistaken.

    So if the reasoning of the article with respect to 16:44, my question is were the Children of Israel also sent to explain the Torah?

    I would appreciate any thoughtful response.

    Like

  3. “the Prophet was sent by God (Allah) to explain, teach and to instruct with wisdom the Quran.”

    You mean like this?

    Abu Hurairah narrated that :

    the Prophet said: “I was about to order my boys to collect bundles of firewood, then order Salat to be held, then burn (the homes) of the people who did not attend the Salat.”

    Jami` at-Tirmidhi Book 2 Hadith 217

    Like

    • don’t take it literally dude. If you do then recall that Jesus allegedly told his disciples to cut out their eyes if they caused them to sin, likewise their hands. See Matthew 5:

      ‘If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away’

      Like

    • Bilal,

      What reason would there be not to take that particular Hadith literally?

      Like

    • its hyperbole. What reason is there not to take Jesus’ teaching on gouging out your sinful eyes literally?

      Like

    • Bilal,

      We know Christ is using hyperbole because we have the context of Matthew 5. He was demonstrating the seriousness of sins of lust and evil desire. The point clearly being it would be better to lose a body part than to bear the consequences of ending up in hell.

      Now what message was Muhammad and his ‘hyperbole’ conveying when threatening to burn down the houses of those who for whatever reason fail to attend the call to salat?

      Like

    • Haha excellent point Samaritan. Paul was hoping it wasn’t sahib and then when shown it is calls is hyperbole. 😂 you couldn’t make this up.

      Clearly Bilal has no idea what his religion really teaches.

      Like

    • Samaritan: What reason would there be not to take that particular Hadith literally?

      Because the scholars of Islamic law didn’t?

      Like

    • LOL, the hadith expert bad samaritan is at it again.

      The hadith says that the Prophet “thought” about giving that order. He didn’t actually do it. Moreover, other ahadith tell us that using fire to punish people is not allowed, because only Allah (swt) can punish people that way:

      ” Narrated Abu Huraira:

      Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) sent us in a mission (i.e., an army-unit) and said, “If you find so-and-so and so-and-so, burn both of them with fire.” When we intended to depart, Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “I have ordered you to burn so-and-so and so-and-so, and it is none but Allah Who punishes with fire, so, if you find them, kill them (i.e., don’t burn them).””

      https://sunnah.com/bukhari/56/225

      Now, let’s see if we can turn the tables on the Christian clowns. Paul said that all scripture is useful for teaching. So, did he mean the following is still useful for teaching?

      “If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.” – Lev. 21:9

      So how will the man-worshipers explain this one?

      Like

    • Haha now Porky comes to Bilals rescue and contradicts him! Haha, is it hyperbole or was it just a thought? Jesushuakbar!!

      And what a surprise that Porky commits shirk again by comparing muhammad to God. Jesushuakbar!!

      You guys are a hoot, all be it, a very dangerous hoot

      Like

    • Christian trolls are suck!
      Paulus, why wouldn’t you find another job instead of being a loser?
      I’m not gonna post a link for this hadith to read it as whole, nor am I gonna post a video about this hadith because it’s abvious you have nothing to do with these kind of subjects. You and Samari are just trolls.

      “what his religion really teaches”
      Do you? If someone wanted to burn your house, what would you do according to the religion of “love”? Just love that person and let him do it, and let him burn another house of yours! This how to love your enemy!

      Like

    • “Haha now Porky comes to Bilals rescue and contradicts him! Haha, is it hyperbole or was it just a thought? Jesushuakbar!!

      And what a surprise that Porky commits shirk again by comparing muhammad to God. Jesushuakbar!!

      You guys are a hoot, all be it, a very dangerous hoot”

      LOL Cerbie, ready for your latest neutering?

      Why can’t it be both idiot? A thought can be hyperbolic, stupid. The hadith is showing the severity of the sin. But it was not carried out.

      And what a surprise that Cerbie tries to excuse the savagery of his Bible. So it seems to me that if someone says that God commanded something, no matter how brutal, in your mind it is excusable because no one can judge God, right? So all that needs to be shown is that Muhammad (pbuh) believed that God commanded him to kill his enemies? OK, so here it is:

      “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”

      Does that suffice as a command from God, and does it show that Muhammad (pbuh) was fulfilling what he believed to be God’s order?

      And that brings us to another important point. Why don’t we compare your Canaanite god with the One True God, Allah (swt)?

      1. Your god commanded the burning to death of people for certain sins. The daughter of a priest could be burned at the stake for dishonoring her father. Yep, that’s an honor killing.

      In contrast, Allah (swt) prohibited punishing people by burning them, because only He has that authority.

      2, Your god commanded the merciless slaughter of the elderly (Ezekiel 9).

      In contrast, Allah (swt) forbid the killing of the elderly, although some exceptions were made with regard to specific enemies of Muhammad (pbuh) and his followers.

      3. Your god commanded the merciless slaughter of non-combatant men and women.

      In contrast, Allah (swt) forbid the killing of non-combatants, especially women.

      4. Your god commanded the merciless slaughter of even children and babies.

      In contrast, Allah (swt) forbid the killing children and babies.

      5. Your god commanded the cutting of a woman’s hand if she grabbed another man’s genitals while helping her husband in a fight.

      In contrast, Allah (swt) only commanded the cutting of the hand of a thief as a criminal punishment.

      6. Your god was obviously a little bipolar. He spent a few thousand years as a war god, allegedly commanding the blood of thousands to be spilled by his genocidal minions, and then suddenly decides to come to earth as a man and preach a message of “love”, only to revert to the war god persona near the end of times.

      In contrast, Allah (swt) sent a consistent message, allowing war in self defense with strict rules of engagement.

      So what do you think, Cerbie? How’s that comparison? 😉

      Like

    • “LOL, the hadith expert bad samaritan is at it again.”

      Dude, it’s simple observation. The Hadith speaks for itself. No need to be an expert.

      Your prophet was a bit of a psycho. Threatening to burn down the homes of people who don’t attend salat? I mean c’mon, bit harsh don’t you think, Mo?

      QB, if after this your pea-sized brain still can’t workout the falsity that is Islam then there’s simply no hope for you.

      Like

    • It can’t be both because hyperbole is a rhetorical device you silly little pig. A figure of speech 😂😂 a verbal function. Talk about a neutering. Old pork chop just had his little house all blown down.

      Oh, and if all it takes is to “believe” one is doing the will of God, as per your argument to defend your shirk, then you’ve just self justified every piece of terrorism committed by your fellow masjidians.

      Fact is, the only way you can defend muhammad is to compare him to God. You are a man worshipper jesushuakbar

      Like

    • Hahahaha, Cerbie the dog completely avoided his Bible’s expose! What a shock!

      The hadith clearly states that no burning was actually done, moron! You are stuck between a rock and a hard place and have no where to go, so you resort to semantics. So, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was only expressing the severity of the sin by saying that he hated it so much that he thought about burning those people’s houses down. That’s hyperbole.

      As for your Bible’s barbaric commands, you’re the one who always excuses it by appealing to your god. You think we shouldn’t compare the actions of Muhammad (pbuh) to your god because that would be “shirk”. So I showed you a comparison of old-man god from Canaan and the True God Allah. And boy, there ain’t no comparison!

      And can anyone ask for a example of irony? Cerbie the neutered dog accuses me of being a…wait for it…wait for it…MAN WORSHIPER! Oh what sweet and delightful irony! The man-worshiping pagan who literally worships a man as a god, and whose god is DESCRIBED as an OLD MAN, accuses me of being a man worshiper! ROFTL!!! You can’t make this stuff up!

      Like

    • Meant to write “can anyone ask for a better example of irony”.

      Like

    • Paulus,

      It truly is an exercise in futility trying to reason with these people. The brainwash simply runs soo deep with this lot that you could show them a sahih Hadith of Muhammad stating “Islam is false, I made it all up, fools!” and it wouldn’t surprise me if they still attempt to explain it away with some illogical spin and reinterpretation to justify to themselves that their cult is worth sticking by.

      Maybe the lure of the 72 houris is just too strong? What do you think?

      Like

    • Your own religion claims that it’s god is the same as Moses’. Therefore, if you defend Muhammad by comparison to the God of Moses, you defend Muhammad by comparison to Allah. That’s shirk, ergo.

      You keep trying to play hide and seek with this reality and throw up more red herrings than Muhammad had wives. It’s funny really. You are so desperate to vindicate a man, you have to raise him to the level of God. So, yes, you are a man worshipper. You are a clear example of a Muhammadan.

      You see, Christians have the doctrine of the incarnation. You have nothing. You worship a man. Not even a god. jesushuakbar

      Like

    • “Your own religion claims that it’s god is the same as Moses’. Therefore, if you defend Muhammad by comparison to the God of Moses, you defend Muhammad by comparison to Allah. That’s shirk, ergo.”

      LOL, Cerbie now tries the old “your religion claims that’s it’s god is the same as Moses'”, after getting neutered so many times on the barbarity of his Bible.

      First of all, idiot, my religion believes that the true God Allah is the God of Moses, not your pagan old-man Canaanite deity.

      Second, I compared your god to Allah, and found that the former was bloodthirsty and bipolar. You have been desperately dancing around this comparison, so your only recourse is to make idiotic statements about “shirk”. Ergo, you are a moron.

      “You keep trying to play hide and seek with this reality and throw up more red herrings than Muhammad had wives. It’s funny really. You are so desperate to vindicate a man, you have to raise him to the level of God. So, yes, you are a man worshipper. You are a clear example of a Muhammadan.”

      LOL, I showed that Muhammad (pbuh) was following the commands of God, stupid. Your excuse for the Bible’s savagery is that it is God’s commands. Of course, when the savagery of the Biblical figures is also exposed, you pull out the “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” nonsense. But since your god clearly commanded barbaric and evil acts, why would he consider their individual actions to be “sinful”? So when David went around killing and pillaging or when Gideon tortured some people with thorns or when the Israelites chopped off a guys thumbs, they were all acting on the orders of your god. You have had your tail between your legs this whole time. The embarrassment is too much for you it seems. Aww, poor little pooch.

      “You see, Christians have the doctrine of the incarnation. You have nothing. You worship a man. Not even a god. jesushuakbar”

      ROTFL!! You still worship a man, Cerbie! You are a man worshiper! And to make things worse, your god is LITERALLY an old man!

      You know who else has the “doctrine of the incarnation”? Yeah, you guessed it! PAGANS! The ancient Greeks and the Romans, and of course the Hindus, all believe in incarnation of their gods. You worship a man, who came out of a woman, just like the pagans worshiped their mangods. Allahu Akbar!

      Like

    • “So, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was only expressing the severity of the sin by saying that he hated it so much that he thought about burning those people’s houses down.”

      Aww how very considerate of Mo LOL. You hear that, Paulus. He cared soo much for those people that he contemplated burning their houses down. It was for their own good you see.

      Hahaha QB you are honestly one stupid little prat!

      Like

    • I know, he was much nicer than your old man’s minions. Despite the severity of the sin, he did not punish them, whereas your god’s minions went around stabbing babies to death. Barbarism was only a Biblical thing. LOL!!

      When will you morons wake up to the pagan nonsense of your little cult?

      Like

  4. “The hadith says that the Prophet “thought” about giving that order. He didn’t actually do it.”

    Aww what a nice guy. LOL

    Like

  5. Salam all,

    I forgot to quote this verse….it is Surah 3, verse 187

    And [mention, O Muhammad], when Allah took a covenant from those who were given the Scripture, [saying], “You must make it clear to the people and not conceal it.” But they threw it away behind their backs and exchanged it for a small price. And wretched is that which they purchased.

    The Arabic word used for the People of the Book to make clear/explain is latubayinunnaho…the exact same word used in 16:44 unless I am mistaken.

    So if the reasoning of the article with respect to (16:44 and also 16:64), my question is were the Children of Israel also sent to explain the Torah?

    Should we take the teachings of Children of Israel, the Jews as a second revelation from God like the Torah?

    There was no response…Allah (swt) tells us that if the Qur’an was other than from God, we would find many contradictions.

    I would appreciate any thoughtful response.

    Like

    • It was referring to the true Torah, and it says that they threw it away. Obviously, the “scripture” they have now is not the true Torah, so we would not take it as a “second revelation”.

      But when the Torah was revealed, then of course, it would have been explained to the people. That would have been the job of the prophets, like Moses, Aaron etc as well as their scholars, just like in Islam. First, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) explained the meaning of the revelation, and then the scholars explained it to the people from generation to generation.

      Like

    • qb

      Imbecile.

      No true prophet had to “explain” the revelations of the true god. The prophets were bringers of the revelation or the law. A true god can speak for himself.

      Allah, by contrast, can’t make himself clear – he is absolutely reliant on a human being to make his words clear to ordinary people. Thus, mohammed must be as important to islam as allah himself, otherwise allah could not be understood. This is shirk, and it is at the very foundation of islam.

      Of course, the real problem is that the quran is a cobbled together piece of nonsense that lacks even basic context – that is why muslims are reliant on historically dubious “traditions” to give meaning to quranic verses that make little sense on their own and also to provide the religion with its rituals.

      You worship and venerate a man because your god is a poor teacher and communicator – mohammed is superior in that regard to your god, and he was illiterate and barbaric.

      Like

    • Thanks for the reply but I don’t think you understand my central point. Just like you, me, or anyone thinks that the Children of Israel have within themselves a Divine second revelation of explanation of the Torah, likewise it is not necessarily true that the Prophet Muhammad has within his words a second revelation of God Almighty. That is simply not stated in the Qur’an. And to assume as such would require for you to put the Children of Israel also as revealers of a second revelation apart from the Torah. Thus, the assertion of Prophet Muhammad ‘s alleged scattered sayings collected over a hundred years after his passing is a second revelation from God Almighty is frought with problems. In addition to the issue raised above is that the hadith cover less than 1/3 of the Quranic verses. If the Prophet was really responsible for explaining the Qur’an, then not explaining 2/3 of it can be seen as dereliction of duty which is unbecoming of a Prophet. Thus, as a Muslim, I find the categorization of hadith as a second revelation of God to be an assertion without proof. Certainly, the Prophet was the most guided man and we must value and treasure his interpretation but to assume that efforts by fallible men in collecting scattered sayings out of hundreds of thousands of alleged sayings and then assuming that those scattered sayings are like Quranic verses may be a transgression. Sounds like more of a group mentality than a deep search for truth. Hadith should be valued but we need to be skeptical of such an entity as the hadith which has been processed through multiple fallible means. God knows best.

      Like

    • Lateef,
      I cannot see your point. The difference between the sayings of the prophet pbuh & others is the same difference between the prophet pbuh himself and those others.
      The orders & understanding of the prophets of God are revelation in the sense that God himself approves these sayings and commands so we must obey. What does it mean when God says do Hajj or Syiam? The deviation of the children of Israel from Torah was because they did not follow the prophets’ understanding. The devation of many “islamic” school of thoughts is becuase they neglect the understanding of the prophet pbuh to Islam and its message.

      Joel, go trolling in another place.

      Like

    • Abdullah1423, what is the Prophet going to say on the Day of Judgement? That his people did not follow his interpretation of the Qur’an and thus fell into deviation or that his people did not follow the Qur’an. The answer is in 25:30. The hadith should not be discarded but used and even treasured as a secondary source but the Sahih hadith has been proven by many ways to contain at least some false hadith as well. This is the hadith that for which we have independent and reliable sources of investigation. But we do not know the exact proportion of Sahih hadith which are really true since it we don’t have independent ways of investigating most of hadith. But back to the main point…let us consider and reflect on what the Prophet will say and what he will not say in 25:30.

      Like

    • Your comment here, Lateef shows that you have no idea how the scince of hadith works, which is something I expected once I read your comment.

      Like

    • No Abdullah, you don’t know how categories of hadith works….you think that alleged hadith about rituals is in the same category as hadith about politically and ideologically charged issues that were controversial such as political succession to the Prophet, issue of free will/predetermination, etc.

      You mention Hajj and Syiam? What’s syiam…I assume you mean fasting and there was spelling mistake.

      Rituals had less motivation than some other issues to be manipulated.

      Having said this, the main reason over the initial centuries and even many centuries afterwards for the propagation was not due to hadith books which for the most part did not even exist in terms of being in most mosques to forget about being in people’s houses, but it was children imitating or doing what their fathers, uncles, or teachers were teaching them.

      There is huge difference between Sunnah and Hadith. I am sure you know this but you are not appreciating the difference.

      Like

    • Salaam Lateef,
      You said: “So if the reasoning of the article with respect to 16:44, my question is were the Children of Israel also sent to explain the Torah?”

      I think that the usage of the same word “litubayyinu” in 16:44 and 3:187 does not necessarily indicate how or if the teachings of the Jews should be understood as a second revelation or not.

      I think that quranandbibleblog offered a good answer to you up above in which he stated the following in regard to 3:187:
      “It was referring to the true Torah, and it says that they threw it away. Obviously, the “scripture” they have now is not the true Torah, so we would not take it as a “second revelation”. But when the Torah was revealed, then of course, it would have been explained to the people. That would have been the job of the prophets, like Moses, Aaron etc as well as their scholars, just like in Islam. First, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) explained the meaning of the revelation, and then the scholars explained it to the people from generation to generation.”

      Simply because the teachings of the Jews should not now be understood as a second revelation, it does not negate the possibility that the Jewish Prophets could have once received a form of second revelation that was not subsequently preserved properly by later followers.

      In regard to your statement that the Hadeeth cover only 1/3 of Qur’an…I have never heard this before, and would have to verify such a statement. It is known that 1/3 of the Qur’an is simply hammering home the Unitarian nature of God, thus the saying that Surat al Ikhlass is equal (in meaning) to 1/3 of the Qur’an. So no hadeeth are necessarily required to understand that third as it is made abundantly clear from the Qur’an itself.

      I understand your reservations about the Hadeeth, but I think we need to be careful not to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

      Wa Allahu Alim.

      Like

  6. I meant that we do ***not*** think that the Children of Israel have within themselves a second revelation from God in addition to the revelation of the Torah.

    Like

  7. Abdullah1423,
    My point is simple. (16,44) is used to say that the Prophet was sent to explain the Qur’an. However, (3, 187) uses the exact same word with respect to the Children of Israel. All commentators will interpret (3, 187) as saying it is the responsiblity of the Children of Israel to make the Torah manifest…that is they need to proclaim it so the public would know of it. The ***exact*** same word is used for the PRophet in 16 (44). But those who are trying to score a preconceived ideological point say that the litubyinnu does not mean make manifest but to explain. Interpreting the same word arbitrarily in one way when it is convenient and in other way when it is convenient to do so is not responsible interpretation…it
    is playing with the words of Allah condemns the Children of Israel for manipulating the words of Allah. All is subject to interpretation and I am not saying you have ill conceived intention. But now that I have shown you and others that 16(44) and 3 (187) the same word is used, then it is about time to stop playing this gane,

    Like

    • There’s a ***context*** for each word.

      Like

    • Abdullah1423, that is a valid point. Can you kindly inform us how the context of 16:44 renders the word litubayyinu to mean “explain” but that the context in 3:187 renders the word to mean “make manifest or publicize” We must be mindful that the issue of making the Qur’an public to the tribal people of 7th century Arabia was not an easy task and there are many verses in the Qur’an that demonstrate the Prophet’s stress in having to proclaim what will be resisted with scorn and aggression. Thus, it is not unreasonable to interpret that God is telling the Prophet that it is duty to publicize despite the difficulty. So again, I ask you Abdullah1423 to explain why the context of 16:44 renders a different meaning than 3:187. The onus is on you to explain the distinction if it is you who are saying we need to translate the word in one way but translate the word in another way in the other verse.

      Like

    • I have in the first comment.

      Like

  8. Abdullah,

    You have not provided any point other than to say the context is simply because he is the Prophet.

    That is not enough.

    The virtue of being a Prophet does not entail that normal grammar or vocabulary no longer applies.

    It was even harder for the Prophet to propagate monotheism and Islam to pagan tribal Arabs than it was for the Children of Israel to propagate Judaism to fellow Jews.

    To go and tell 6th or 7th century Arabians that some of their cherished ancestors and family members are going to hell-fire and that all their idols are rubbish and that they need to radically change their lifestyle, etc. is not easy.

    There are not just one or two but many verses where the Messenger Mohammad is being encouraged, nudged, and ordered to spread the message and that the message was not just for him.

    Many verses say this explicitly and many more implicitly. Thus, your deliberate choice to say we must translate the word in 16:44 as explain but 3:187 as make manifest/propagate/disseminate is unfounded.

    Is there anyone else who can provide a more convincing reason to translate Allah’s word one way and to change it another way for 3:187?

    This is no small thing….this unfounded move to be inconsistent with translating the word carries massive implications.

    Like

    • Lets look at what the translators (interpreters) of the Qur’an have said in the past.

      Translator 16:44 3:187
      Sahih International Make clear Make it clear
      Muhsin Khan explain Make it known and clear
      Pickthall explain expound
      Yusuf Ali explain Make it known and clear
      Shakir Make clear Make it known
      Dr. Ghali Make clear Make it evident

      As we know it is often hard to translate the Arabic accurately into one word in English (or other languages as well). It seems that the word litubayyinu carries a variety of meanings as seen above, and the true fullness of the meaning can only by correctly and fully understood in Arabic while the translation gives some indication of the meaning(s) it carries.

      Thus we can see that either or both of the meanings that Lateef and Abdullah1423 are supporting, could be argued for or against depending on how one understands the word in question.

      Personally, I can see that the world “litubayyinu” carries all of these meanings and thus the ayats can be understood in one way or the other or even in both ways at once.

      Therefore, I don’t think it is an issue that Muslims should really divide themselves over in argument.

      Like

    • Sorry, I tried to space out the translations for ease of reading but it didn’t work, and aligned everything to the left.

      Like

    • Trying translations again:

      Translator – 16:44 / 3:187
      Sahih International – Make clear / Make it clear
      Muhsin Khan – explain / Make it known and clear
      Pickthall – explain / expound
      Yusuf Ali – explain / Make it known and clear
      Shakir – Make clear / Make it known
      Dr. Ghali – Make clear / Make it evident

      Like

    • I think that Abdullah1423’s understanding can still be applied even in 3:187 the words “expound” and “clear” in English can be understood as a part of “explaning” to “expound” upon something or to “make clear” or “clarify” requires “explanation.”

      At the same time the same word “litubayyinu” carries the dual or nuanced meaning to “make known/make manifest/publicize” etc.

      So I read 3:187 as meaning that the Prophet must endeavor to BOTH explain the Qur’an AND make it manifest/known/publicized.

      Like

    • Sorry I meant to say that in light of 3:187:
      “I read 16:44 as meaning that the Prophet must endeavor to BOTH explain the Qur’an AND make it manifest/known/publicized.

      Lateef,
      You accuse other Muslims here of “Playing fast and loose with Allah’s words” and “playing games” while implying that you are not doing the same, or that your own interpretation is correct. This not a fair portrayal of the interpretations of other Muslims. In this case I do not believe that it is correct for you to demand that the interpretation must be EITHER THIS OR THAT for either ayat in question.

      The proper interpretation should take into account the fullness of meaning in the word “litubayyinu” when the word is understood in light of the depth and nuance of the meaning that the word carries, an interpretation can be reached which is more expansive. So while you want to limit the interpretation, the word itself actually lends to a more expansive interpretation.

      The only reason that I can see that you would want to limit the meaning is in order to undermine the hadeeth which you seem to have a personal problem with. If that is the case, then it is you who are playing games with the meanings of the words of Allah. If I am wrong then you have my apologies, but then please do not accuse others who are offering their genuinely held interpretive understandings of “playing games.”

      I prefer to believe that we are all true believing Muslims who are simply trying to gain a better understanding of the Qur’an and its meaning…..I pray Allah will guide us to his truth always.

      And Allah knows best.

      Like

    • Salaam Lateef,
      The Corpus.Quran helps clarify that the words in the ayats in question are slightly different variations of the same root word, and are defined slightly differently.
      This may account for the different interpretive translations of the word in the two different verses. See below:

      16:44
      litubayyina
      “that you may make clear”
      PRP – prefixed particle of purpose lām
      V – 2nd person masculine singular (form II) imperfect verb, subjunctive mood
      http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=16&verse=44

      3:187
      “Latubayyinunnahu”
      “You certainly make it clear
      EMPH – emphatic prefix lām
      V – 2nd person masculine plural (form II) imperfect verb
      EMPH – emphatic suffix nūn
      PRON – 3rd person masculine singular object pronoun
      http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=3&verse=187

      It seems that the grammatical form of the word has implication on the translational interpretation. Since the words are not exactly the same, this may bring your theory about translating the words in the exact same consistent way in to question, as the words are clearly slightly different.

      This also supports my own (I think less controversial) understanding that the root word lends itself to a more expansive interpretation that can be applied to both verses.

      Like

    • Abdullah1423,

      No, I don’t believe the Prophet was a robot or that he was just a postman.

      But believe me….

      If you are trying to divide this into a false dichotomy of either rejecting all hadith outright or accepting hadith in the way you do, then you know you are mischaracterizing the whole discussion.

      And the implications of this false dichotomy are dark and deceitful.

      You know it, God knows it…and there will be be consequences in the hereafter.

      This is the second time when you have nothing of substantive to say, when you have no response to logical and coherent ways I show you are wrong, you again just respond with platitudes of I don’t know how hadith works….blah…blah…blah.

      Believe me, those who cling to their sectarian ways to enjoy the desires of their group solidarity and to enjoy their familiar ways of thinking and compromise the supremacy of the message God sent us are only harming themselves.

      Like

    • “In this case I do not believe that it is correct for you to demand that the interpretation must be EITHER THIS OR THAT for either ayat in question”

      No Ibn Issam,

      I am not demanding anything other than that if someone, anyone quotes a word one way and then another way, then they must provide ***adequate*** justification with such a ***massive*** action.

      I am fully aware that words have multiple meanings….again one must make an adequate justification for such a massive action.

      Ibn Issam, I fail to see how the particle “la” changes the meaning from the prefix “li.”

      If you can explain, how, then I will like to learn.

      You are grasping for straws Ibn Issam and you are failing to call cherry picking of translations for what they are….cherry picking….playing fast and loose with the words of Allah to fulfill sectarian desires, group desires, ideological desires.

      God knows everyones intention and I am not saying this specifically towards anyone.

      But God is not stupid….He knows what is in the heart. But let us be forewarned and take heed.

      By the way, if no one can explain why to translate the word differently, can anyone explain why the Prophet’s alleged hadith comment on less than 30% of Quranic ayahs?

      Like

    • “I prefer to believe that we are all true believing Muslims who are simply trying to gain a better understanding of the Qur’an and its meaning”

      Ibn Issam,

      Enough of the “you are doing this because of such and such…and I hold a better opinion of Muslim brothers…blah, blah, blah.”

      No, I am not making a final judgement on anyone here. Nor, am I even saying that I know with certainty anyone’s true intention.

      But I am saying that often people playing this game do so for their sick sectarian preferences, rather than a true search for truth regardless of whether it is at first convenient or not.

      “I read 16:44 as meaning that the Prophet must endeavor to BOTH explain the Qur’an AND make it manifest/known/publicized.

      So then why can 3:187 be that the Children of Israel must endeavor to BOTH explain the Torah AND make it manifest/known/publicized?

      By the way, to those who make great efforts to point out the contradictions of our Christian brethren but then get all defensive when holes are seen in their ideological preferences regarding the hadith, then such behavior is despicable and disgusting.

      And in the long run, this undermines your dialogue with Christians.

      A friendly shout out to my Christian brethren who will use such behavior to close their mind and heart….no, you can’t do that….that is not a valid excuse in the least. If some Muslims are reluctant to see some problems in their hadith literature, it will not provide an excuse at all for you as to the problems with the current versions of the Bible.

      And to my Muslims who have this problem….even if you continue to have this problem which I assume you will, do not limit your critique of the Bible and of Christian teachings and so on….but it would be better for your eternal hereafter if you apply some of that criticism towards hadith as well.

      Again to the Muslims who don’t agree with me, then that’s too bad….but again, I don’t want to discourage in the least your excellent and much needed critique of Christian views of the Bible, of Jesus, or ethics, of God.

      The more one investigates the Qur’an, the more amazing it becomes.

      The more one investigates the hadith, the more it is clear that the sweeping attacks on almost the entire hadith by some early orientalists such as Schacht, etc. is wrong BUT nevertheless, the more one investigates the hadith, then more holes and larger holes emerge with the narrative given by many medieval Muslim scholars.

      The more one investigates the Bible and early Christian history, the more and more and more absolutely clear it is how the Church creeds and theology was contrived and historically false via the true historical Jesus, apart from it being illogical and immorality.

      Let’s all stuff our convenient ideological and family solidarity/group solidarity preferences and dump it in the toilet and flush it and instead have an earnest search for the truth, just like our Patriarch Abraham.

      God can see through the labels. God isn’t stupid.

      And let’s stop the lying by creating false dichotomies. God isn’t stupid.

      May God be praised.

      Like

    • Salaam Lateef,
      You seem to be very antagonistic towards any Muslims who hold a different belief about Hadeeth then you. Your mocking attitude does your arguments no service. You argue against sectarianism but you seem to vigorously defend your own strongly held personal beliefs, interpretations and understandings (in solidarity with others like you who believe similarly) while attacking anyone else who might disagree, even to the extent of causing fitna by questioning other Muslims honesty and truthfulness. How is that any different than the ideological sectarianism which you say you so abhor? Furthermore, what qualifies you to determine what is proper Muslim belief from what is not proper belief in the first place?

      Abdullah is taking a traditional approach, while I am interpreting the two verses (16:44 & 3:187) in a more expansive way. You are saying we are both wrong and you are right and that must understand the word in question to mean either or one thing or another. While it is clear that the word(s) can be understood differently. I have provided evidence that translators themselves have understood the word to have slight difference in meaning, while at the same time there is a nuanced similarity in meanings.

      I think that quranandbibleblog offered a good answer to you up above in which he stated the following in regard to 3:187:
      “It was referring to the true Torah, and it says that they threw it away. Obviously, the “scripture” they have now is not the true Torah, so we would not take it as a “second revelation”. But when the Torah was revealed, then of course, it would have been explained to the people. That would have been the job of the prophets, like Moses, Aaron etc as well as their scholars, just like in Islam. First, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) explained the meaning of the revelation, and then the scholars explained it to the people from generation to generation.”

      The usage of the same word “litubayyinu” in 16:44 and “Latubayyinunnahu” 3:187 does not necessarily indicate how or if the teachings of the Jews should be understood as a second revelation or not (maybe it once was, or maybe not) we don’t really know assuredly. There is the possibility that the Jewish Prophets could have once received a form of second revelation that was not subsequently properly preserved by later followers. I think that this is a highly likely scenario. However, what is clear and most important is that the teachings of the Jews should not NOW be understood as a “second revelation.”

      Not all of the Prophets who received revelation received books (Quran 4:163) which means that there is a form of revelation outside of the books. This is again confirmed in Quran 66:3, which documents a secondary revelation to Prophet concerning his wife. See also Qur’an 53:3-5 “Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed. He was taught by one Mighty in Power.” So, regardless of what YOU may say or think, there is Qur’anic basis to believe in the Hadeeth, whether YOU like it or not.

      I do honestly understand some of your reservations about the Hadeeth, and I am sure that there are things we can agree upon, but I think we need to be careful not to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

      Like

    • Salaam Lateef,
      In regard to your statement that the Hadeeth cover only 1/3 of Qur’an…I have never heard this before, and would have to verify such a statement. It is known that 1/3 of the Qur’an is simply hammering home the Unitarian nature of God, thus the saying that Surat al Ikhlass is equal (in meaning) to 1/3 of the Qur’an. So no hadeeth are necessarily required to understand THAT third as it is made abundantly clear from the Qur’an itself. There are also other verses which are self-explainable and simply do not really need Hadeeth….for instance in Surat Al-Hijr, Ayat 86 we read, “Verily your lord is the All-Knowing Creator.” Do we really need a Hadeeth or an explanation in order to understand that verse? For you to arbitrarily demand that EVERY verse of the Qur’an have an accompanying Hadeeth is unnecessary. And to act as if this fact alone diminishes the hadeeth is also unreasonable.

      Like

    • Ibn Issam,

      You are trying to be polite and I respect that.

      But I don’t respect if someone lying to cover something up.

      If someone accuses someone who does not take the approach that God revealed two revelations instead of one revelation, then that does not mean that the person is disregarding all hadith or disregarding any value to hadith or is treating the Prophet like a Fed Ex delivery man.

      Abdullah is resorting to this tactic because he cannot provide a justification for his massive action of interpreting the word one way in a verse and then another way in the other verse. It only confirms that he has an agenda in interpreting it that way.

      When I point it out to him or to you, the correct approach is to thank me for noticing your error rather than attacking me.

      What quranandbibleblog said is totally irrelevant. It makes no difference if the Torah is exactly the same or not.

      Why gives one the massive authority to translate it one way in 16:44 and another way in 3:187? That is the question…let’s stay focused on the question and have the integrity to reconsider our attitude to it if we have no ***adequate*** justification.

      Like

  9. In addition to the point just mentioned above, Muslims need to understand the issue of context. Many Muslims unconsciously are interpreting the verse to follow the Messenger (Athiul Rasool) as if the verse came down today to us Muslims in UK or wherever.

    No, it came down in the context of people being told what many of them perceived as bizarre…someone claiming to tell them that he is conveying the message directly from God.

    Those pagans already believed in Allah…but He to them was supreme in a pantheon.

    So when they are told to obey Allah, they would not say that against obeying Allah.

    However, they were being told that they also need to obey Allah and Allah’s ***messenger*** (rasool). Thus, they were being told they need to follow the message from God Himself and not some tradition of what their ancestors tell them about God.

    Of course, this does not imply that they need not obey commands from the Messenger or Prophet outside of the Qur’an but wrong to assume that it refers only or primarily to the Messenger/Prophet’s statements outside of the Message itself.

    Finally, even if can refer to the Prophet/Messenger’s statements outside of the Qur’an, there is nothing in the Qur’an that suggests that such alleged statements were preserved. But there are verses in the Qur’an that indicate that teachings other than the Qur’an are not fully reliable.

    But even before the issue of context, can anyone else provide something better than brother Abdullah in terms of why we should be fast and loose with Allah’s words. I don’t mean to imply that Abdullah wants to play fast and loose but I think he is mistaken and I explain why in the response after his most recent comment.

    Like

  10. I think Abdullah1423 generally has good intentions and very good points in the vast majority of posts but that he is mistaken in this thread and he is unfortunately being in denial about it.

    Like

    • Believe me, the subject is not about me. It just happens that most who deny hadiths and their authority over muslims are ignorant in this matter. Your comments above shows this fact as some members on this blog who tried playing this same game before you.
      If you think the prophet pbuh was just a robot reciting Qur’an for us , then I’m telling you this is called (Kufr) not Islam.

      Like

    • I posted this earlier but in the wrong place.

      Abdullah1423,

      No, I don’t believe the Prophet was a robot or that he was just a postman.

      But believe me….

      If you are trying to divide this into a false dichotomy of either rejecting all hadith outright or accepting hadith in the way you do, then you know you are mischaracterizing the whole discussion.

      And the implications of this false dichotomy are dark and deceitful.

      You know it, God knows it…and there will be be consequences in the hereafter.

      This is the second time when you have nothing of substantive to say, when you have no response to logical and coherent ways I show you are wrong, you again just respond with platitudes of I don’t know how hadith works….blah…blah…blah.

      Believe me, those who cling to their sectarian ways to enjoy the desires of their group solidarity and to enjoy their familiar ways of thinking and compromise the supremacy of the message God sent us are only harming themselves.

      Like

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: