Need for Hadith

B.H. wrote: Br. Andalus wrote:   Greetings. Before I continue, I was hoping for more clarity. So you agree that someone told the Muslims to do something, which was related to having sex on the evenings of Ramadan. You believe that the Muslims followed some other source. You believe that this act was the sin (not having sex with their wives during the evenings at Ramadan), and Allah forgave them for this act (not having sex with their wives on Ramadan). Does this sum up yuor belief?   Yes, the Muslims were being deceived into believing something was Allah's will that was not in fact the case.  The Prophet refuted the false doctrine by telling the people they could have relations with their wives at night during the fast.

In essence, it seems we have some interpretational agreement, but we greatly differ with the details of who said what and what the actual sin was. You have offered an interpretation of the details that is contrary to what I have given. In such a situation, the best thing to do is to compare the two based upon the best evidence and keeping in mind that entities should not have to be multiplied beyond necessity (Occam�s Razor), or in simple terms, given two valid explanations about the same "event", one should embrace the one that is least complicated (the easiest explanation is the best one).

Let�s start with your interpretation:

1)                             �Someone� told the Muslims to do something, which was about having sex on the evenings of Ramadan.

2)                             Muslims followed some other source

3)                             this act was the sin (not having sex with their wives during the evenings at Ramadan)

4)                             Allah forgave them for this act (not having sex with their wives on Ramadan).

This gives us two pivotal points that separate our two interpretations by 180 degrees: Who was the �someone�, and what was the sin?

Now a fresh look at the verse in question: 2:187

It is made lawful for you (������� �����, passive perfect, 3^rd person male singular and could be translated as �it has been made lawful�)

to have sexual relations with your wives on the night of As-Saum (the fasts). They are L�bas [i.e. body cover, or screen, or Sakan, (i.e. you enjoy the pleasure of living with her - as in Verse 7:189) Tafsir At-Tabar�], for you and you are the same for them. All�h knows that you used to deceive yourselves, so He turned to you (accepted your repentance) and forgave you. So now have sexual relations with them and seek that which All�h has ordained for you (offspring)�

1)      Allah makes the act of having sex with your wives on the nights of Ramadan to be lawful / permissible.

2)      The Muslims had been deceiving themselves.

3)      Allah turned to them and forgave them

4)      Allah reiterated that it is now lawful for Muslim men to have sexual relations with their wives (on the nights of Ramadan)

5)      The verse furthers the granting of privileges by stating that it is permissible to freely eat and drink without stipulation.

You first contention, that the sin committed by the early Muslims was not having sex with their wives, is implausible given that the command to Muslims to have sex on the nights of Ramadan is given in this verse. In other words, it was made lawful in this verse, meaning that refraining from sexual relations out of religious belief on the evenings of Ramadan was not a sin before this command mentioned twice in 2:187 (It is made lawful for you��� So now have sexual relations with them�). Since your interpretation is bound to finding things explicitly stated, then you cannot conclude that it was sinful to believe that it was a sin to refrain from sexual relations with your spouses prior to this verse, given that the command had not been given until 2:187.

You assert that the believers followed another authority that misguided them. This would imply that the Prophet (saw) had some kind of an authority rival, and was, somehow, too indebt and weak in authority to make a difference such that some other authority rivaled him, and it took Allah to reveal this verse to convince the believers that they were wrong. (Which is a bit irrelevant as a point given that Allah made having relations lawful on the nights of Ramdan at this point, so that the sin could not have been refraining)

Allah further states in the verse in question that He turned to the believers and forgave them. Forgave them of what? You assert that their sin was abstaining from their wives during Ramadan. So your interpretation lets us suppose that there was a successful movement of Muslims who gave up having relations with their spouses on the nights of Ramadan for no good reason but just because someone said it is a good idea. Keep in mind that the verse uses the term �deceive yourselves�. Deceit requires the sinner or the wrong doer to have knowledge and intention of their act, knowing it is wrong, and to conceal it from someone. So if the �sinners� were deceiving themselves, then this would mean, according to your interpretation, that they did know it was wrong to abstain from having relations with their spouses and they knew they could have relations, but they did it anyway because the sin was somehow overwhelmingly �tempting� (mass abstinence when they knew abstinence was wrong does not make any sense on a number of levels). The sin of abstinence does not sound tempting. Is that tempting to you? To any normal healthy human?

Finally, with your interpretation it becomes odd that Allah would forgive them of a sin, which really was not a sin up to until that point, and even at this time, abstinence for short periods is not necessarily a sin. The verse states they were sinning, and then states that �now it has become lawful (sexual relations)�. Doesn�t it make more sense that they were doing an act which was a sin and then He showed leniency and allowed the act, along with eating and drinking without stipulation, or does it make more sense to you, that they were practicing abstinence and it was becoming popular and so Allah intervened and forgave this, and then had to make sexual relations between spouses lawful in order to motivate them? They needed urging from Allah to procreate on the evenings of Ramadan? I find your interpretation to be a bit comical (the scenario it implies, and not derogatory to your position).

I find that your group has an endearing feature that deserves mention. It is a �tautological� like positioning built into its core which craftily will preserve its ideology without effort. It goes like this:

1) The Quran is the only authority

2) We follow only what is in the Quran

3) The Prophet has no relevance or authority on our religion in terms of law or religious positions unless they are found in the Quran (which goes back to 1, and makes the Prophet irrelevant) and we do not recognize a �Sunnah�, because of 1.

So for proof that the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) had authority, one would have to show an example where his authority was considered law by Allah. But any example of his authority that is in conjunction to the Quran, would not be in the Quran. Therefore, we do not recognize it.

Another proof of authority would be to show where a command was given in the Quran, but not actually found in the Quran. But, unless the Quran explicitly stated that the Prophet (saw) stated it, then it could be interpreted to be someone else, and if the Prophet (saw) is explicitly shown to give a command, then the command is a part of the Quran, and our belief is correct (either way!).

So your system has a built in assertion that puts forth a tautological type feature where whatever is put forth, your belief is right. Tautologies are always right, which in the real world, does not allow anyone to make a full inquiry.

Now let�s look at my interpretation.

The believers were supposed to abstain from relations from their spouses on the nights of Ramadan. Some were having trouble with this, and so that had relations anyway, ���All�h knows that you used to deceive yourselves�� Knowing they were wrong and in error, they turned to Allah to seek His forgiveness, ��so He turned to you (accepted your repentance) and forgave you�. As a mercy to these people, Allah then allowed believers to partake in relations and drink and eat freely without stipulation at night, �So now have sexual relations with them and seek that which All�h has ordained for you (offspring), and eat and drink until the white thread (light) of dawn appears to you distinct from the black thread (darkness of night), then complete your Saum (fast) till the nightfall��.

Since the Quran does not contain any details about this event, and there is no mention of any restrictions on the nights of Ramadan, one must ask the question: Who gave the order? The answer is, Allah gave the order, and the Prophet (saw) spoke it, and because it was not a part of the recited revelation, does not take away from its place in religious law. If not this scenario, then who, Abu Jahl, or Abu sufyan? Or maybe Zaid? Who? Who else would the Muslims have listened to? And is it the case that the believers had trouble being tempted with abstinence? And then had a hard time with intimacy and required Allah to step in and tell them that this was an act they should be doing?

I believe you will find any reason to object, even if it requires funny interpretations, simply to save that one guiding principle your group follows blindly: Only in the Quran. That principle gives a great deal of freedom to interpret the Quran in a very loose way, and that is part of the secret of that �tautological like� feature.  

Kindest Regards

In essence, it seems we have some interpretational agreement, but we greatly differ with the details of who said what and what the actual sin was. You have offered an interpretation of the details that is contrary to what I have given. In such a situation, the best thing to do is to compare the two based upon the best evidence and keeping in mind that entities should not have to be multiplied beyond necessity (Occam�s Razor), or in simple terms, given two valid explanations about the same "event", one should embrace the one that is least complicated (the easiest explanation is the best one).

Let�s start with your interpretation:

1)                             �Someone� told the Muslims to do something, which was about having sex on the evenings of Ramadan.

2)                             Muslims followed some other source

3)                             this act was the sin (not having sex with their wives during the evenings at Ramadan)

4)                             Allah forgave them for this act (not having sex with their wives on Ramadan).

This gives us two pivotal points that separate our two interpretations by 180 degrees: Who was the �someone�, and what was the sin?

We agree on the above for the most part.

You first contention, that the sin committed by the early Muslims was not having sex with their wives, is implausible given that the command to Muslims to have sex on the nights of Ramadan is given in this verse.

I have been misunderstood.  I never said that the early Muslims sinned in not having sex with their wives.  their sin was in being deceived into thinking it was wrong to have sex with their wives where Allah had not actually said so.

In other words, it was made lawful in this verse, meaning that refraining from sexual relations out of religious belief on the evenings of Ramadan was not a sin before this command mentioned twice in 2:187 (It is made lawful for you��� So now have sexual relations with them�). Since your interpretation is bound to finding things explicitly stated, then you cannot conclude that it was sinful to believe that it was a sin to refrain from sexual relations with your spouses prior to this verse, given that the command had not been given until 2:187.

I am not sure if I understand you here.  I do not believe it was a sin to have sex with ones wife  during Ramadan either.  The problem was that some if not all of the early Muslims got the idea that it was and Allah corrected this through the prophet.

Finally, with your interpretation it becomes odd that Allah would forgive them of a sin, which really was not a sin up to until that point, and even at this time, abstinence for short periods is not necessarily a sin. The verse states they were sinning, and then states that �now it has become lawful (sexual relations)�. Doesn�t it make more sense that they were doing an act which was a sin and then He showed leniency and allowed the act, along with eating and drinking without stipulation, or does it make more sense to you, that they were practicing abstinence and it was becoming popular and so Allah intervened and forgave this, and then had to make sexual relations between spouses lawful in order to motivate them? They needed urging from Allah to procreate on the evenings of Ramadan? I find your interpretation to be a bit comical (the scenario it implies, and not derogatory to your position

I am having a problem following you here.  Allah was concerned that the people were cheating themselves by not having realtions with each other.  I infer that somehow they got the idea that husbands and wives could not have relations at night during Ramadan and it was a wrong idea.  If it was commanded by Allah why would he say they were cheating themselves?  No, Allah saw that they were following an idea that was not good and had the prophet tell them it was okay to have sex with your wives at night during Ramadan.