follow hadith when the Quran is supposed to be complete?

Is it possible that Mohammad was not finnished when he died?

follow hadith when the Quran is supposed to be complete?

Is it possible that Mohammad was not finnished when he died?

The Quran instructs us to do many things one major thing is to follow the advice of the prophet.

So if you follow the quran then follow what it says and that is to follow the sunnah.

rami wrote: The Quran instructs us to do many things one major thing is to follow the advice of the prophet.

Is the prophet omniscient and infallible?  The advice that he gave to his followers in Arabia 1400 years ago may have been wise and good for that time and place, but the world has changed dramatically.  How could he have known what would be wise and good for a Muslim living today?

Surely only Allah is perfect, and only His advice (i.e., the Quran) is timeless.  It seems to me that by treating the words of the prophet as equal to those of Allah Himself you risk making the prophet into another god.

Ron Webb wrote:  The advice that he gave to his followers in Arabia 1400 years ago may have been wise and good for that time and place, but the world has changed dramatically.  How could he have known what would be wise and good for a Muslim living today?

Welcome to the IC forum. ( I saw your introduction message a couple days ago).

 What dramatic changes would you say has took place in the world that the messages that the Prophet Mohammed (p.b.u.h) provides may not be of suffient guidance for the 'ways' of today?

layalee wrote: What dramatic changes would you say has took place in the world that the messages that the Prophet Mohammed (p.b.u.h) provides may not be of suffient guidance for the 'ways' of today?

What a question!  What changes have there been in 1400 years?  Organ transplants, air travel, nuclear weapons, contraception, indoor plumbing, computers, global warming, the printing press, antibiotics, cloning, ... I could go on and on.  And that's just the technology.  There have been huge changes in society, in geography (a whole new continent!), world politics, economics, etc.  The problems we face today, and the solutions available, are nothing like the ones that Mohammed faced.

Just one example: I've been reading the discussion of "Beards" with great interest and amusement.  Such a lot of fuss over something so trivial!  Who could possibly believe that Allah would care one way or another whether a man has a beard or not?  And if He did care, why would he not have said so in the Quran, which is supposedly complete and perfect?

Certainly, Mohammed urged his followers to grow their beards.  Why?  Maybe he just liked beards, I don't know.  Or maybe, as I think I read somewhere, he may have done so to distinguish his followers from a rival religion where the men were clean-shaven, so it may have made sense at the time.  But I'm willing to bet that that rival religion, whatever it was, is now long-gone; and in any case, the other major group that I think of with long beards is Orthodox Judaism!  So does it still make sense?

rami wrote: Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem Is the prophet omniscient and infallible? No but Allah is and in his Omniscient and infallible ways said follow the advice of the prophet. He also said in his infallible and perfect Quran the prophet [sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam] does not speak from his own desire but only what he has been instructed to speak.

Is praying now different from how it was back then, is fasting, hajj, divorce, inheritance, theft, murder, human nature!

I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the Prophet encouraged large families.  That may have made sense fourteen centuries ago because infant mortality was extremely high, the global population was small and resources were plentiful.  But now babies almost always live to adulthood, life expectancy has doubled or tripled, the planet has almost reached its capacity and resources are becoming scarce.  If the Prophet were alive today, do you think he would still be encouraging large families?  Why?

rami wrote: 053.003 Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) Desire. This essentially is allahs assurance that he guides man through the prophets teachings [sunnah] and that this guidance has divine qualities similar to the Quran since essentially it is from the same source. the very next verse is clear on this 053.004 It is no less than inspiration sent down to him: i.e the Quran and its teachings [Sunnah: meanings, understanding, wisdom]

If 53.4 refers to the Quran (Allah's teachings), and if (as I understand it, and I don't think you denied it) the entire Sura discusses the revelation of the Quran, why would you assume that 53.3 refers to the Prophet's teachings?

I understand that Mohammed was a great and wise man, that he was directly instructed by Allah Himself, and so on; but he is still just a man, and the Quran is still complete and perfect.  As you would know better than I, the Quran says over and over again that there is nothing omitted, that no one (not even the Prophet) can add to it or change it.  If the Prophet's teachings are different from the Quran, or omitted from it, then clearly the Quran itself tells us that we should disregard them; and if they are the same, then why do we need them at all?

The reason I care about this matter as a non-Muslim is that I can easily defend the Quran, but frankly I cannot defend the hadith.  I don't wish to offend so I won't say any more, but I think you know what I mean.

053.017 (His) sight never swerved, nor did it go wrong!, again understand this verse with 053.003 Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) Desire.

053.018 For truly did he see, of the Signs of his Lord, the Greatest!

Ronn Webb-

Do you not understand why there is a need for hadiths? Do you not understand why Muslims should follow the Sunnah? Or have you come to terms in believing they are not needed because the Quran is perfect?

rami wrote: and if (as I understand it, and I don't think you denied it) the entire Sura discusses the revelation of the Quran, why would you assume that 53.3 refers to the Prophet's teachings? The first half of the surah is not about the revelation of the Quran, actually its about the knowledge of the prophet and his superiority in character which goes hand in hand with his knowledge, knowledge that is other than the Quran.

Well, it seems pretty obvious to me that Sura 53 is about the Quran.  I have the Yusuf Ali translation, and his introductory remarks for this Sura begin: "The particular theme of this Sura is that Revelation is not an illusion...".  Unless there is some other revelation I don't know about, then that means the Quran.  But whatever.

053.010 So did (God) convey the inspiration to His Servant- (conveyed) what He (meant) to convey. this is not talking about revelation itself [i.e the quran] but actual understanding of different kinds of knowledge that was being given to him. The Quran was revealed to him over a 23 year period while he was on earth. the Quran is not like the bible which is the equivalent of Hadith [i.e inspired guidance] but the literal Words of Allah can you see the difference?

Indeed I can see the difference, and that difference is why I believe that only the Quran would be completely trustworthy.  If the Bible is the equivalent of Hadith (which I agree), why would the Hadith have any more credibility than the Bible?

As you would know better than I, the Quran says over and over again that there is nothing omitted, it doesn't say that anywhere in the Quran, you have misunderstood something i believe.

Sura 6:38 -- "There is not an animal (that lives) on the earth, nor a being that flies on its wings, but (forms part of) communities like you. Nothing have we omitted from the Book, and they (all) shall be gathered to their Lord in the end."

The reason I care about this matter as a non-Muslim is that I can easily defend the Quran, but frankly I cannot defend the hadith.  Why is that, the Quran and ahadith came to us via the exact same sources neither of which are in doubt. I cant understand how a person can say the Quran is fine, but the teachings of the man it was revealed to are not.

The source of the Quran is Allah.  The source of the hadith is Mohammed. And I can't understand how you can equate the words of a man -- any man, no matter how wise or who his teacher -- with the words of Allah.  But I suppose we will never understand each other.

I don't wish to offend so I won't say any more, but I think you know what I mean. Actually i dont, can you please research the material you wish to discuss at this point this is nothing but a debate with very ill informed arguments being presented.

At this point I see no point in discussing the content of a book whose authenticity I still doubt.  It would only create animosity, which is not my purpose here.

As for why I cannot defend the hadith, you could go to any of a hundred anti-Islamic sites to find out about that.  I won't link to them here but I'm sure Google can find them for you.

As-Salamu Alaykum.

layalee wrote: Do you not understand why there is a need for hadiths? Do you not understand why Muslims should follow the Sunnah? Or have you come to terms in believing they are not needed because the Quran is perfect?

Well, bearing in mind that I am not a Muslim, those questions are too hypothetical for me to answer directly; but if I were a Muslim, I probably would not believe that the hadith are needed.  More than that, I believe they are harmful because they keep Islam in the Dark Ages.  The Quran was meant to be timeless, while Mohammed spoke from the point of view of the 7th century.  Unlike rami, I believe that a whole lot has changed since then.

Well, it seems pretty obvious to me that Sura 53 is about the Quran.  I have the Yusuf Ali translation, and his introductory remarks for this Sura begin: "The particular theme of this Sura is that Revelation is not an illusion...".  Unless there is some other revelation I don't know about, then that means the Quran.  But whatever.

You unequivocally state that the surah in its entirety is about revelation, you dont have to go further than the second half of this chapter to see that it talks about things other than revelation i.e Lat and Uzza the two main Idols of the arabs. Yusuf Ali besides not being an authority [scholar] on Tafsir [Quranic exegesis] did not mean the entire surah is literally about revelation he said it's "theme"  meaning you can tie back the main points of the surah to revelation but that is not the only thing this chapter discusses. Yusuf Ali is talking about the deep undertones not what you can read on the surface and as i stated the literal subject matter changes from what you perceive to be revelation to something else.

""(Your companion has neither gone astray nor has erred.) This contains the subject of the oath. This part of the Ayah is the witness that the Messenger of Allah is sane and a follower of Truth. He is neither led astray, such as in the case of the ignorant who does not proceed on any path with knowledge, nor is he one who erred, such as in the case of the knowledgeable, who knows the Truth, yet deviates from it intentionally to something else. Therefore, Allah exonerated His Messenger and his Message from being similar to the misguided ways of the Christians and the erroneous paths of the Jews, such as knowing the Truth and hiding it, while abiding by falsehood. Rather, he, may Allah's peace and blessings be on him, and his glorious Message that Allah has sent him with, are on the perfect straight path, following guidance and what is correct.""

(Verily..... Rabi`ah and Mudar, will enter Paradise on account of the intercession of one man, who is not a Prophet.) A man asked, "O Allah's Messenger! Is not Rabi`ah a subtribe of Mudar.'' The Prophet said, (I said what I said.)

Imam Ahmad recorded that `Abdullah bin `Amr said, "I used to record everything I heard from the Messenger of Allah so it would be preserved. The Quraysh discouraged me from this, saying, `You record everything you hear from the Messenger of Allah , even though he is human and sometimes speaks when he is angry' I stopped recording the Hadiths for a while, but later mentioned what they said to the Messenger of Allah , who said,

(Write! By He in Whose Hand is my soul, every word that comes out of me is the Truth.)'' Abu Dawud also collected this Hadith........""Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) Desire.""

Indeed I can see the difference, and that difference is why I believe that only the Quran would be completely trustworthy.  If the Bible is the equivalent of Hadith (which I agree), why would the Hadith have any more credibility than the Bible?

I wasnt referring to authenticity, i was referring to how each was perceived by its followers, the Bible is not the Literal words of God it is understood to be inspired guidance. If you do want to discuss the authenticity of ahadith then here to you will come up against a brick wall.

Sura 6:38 -- "There is not an animal (that lives) on the earth, nor a being that flies on its wings, but (forms part of) communities like you. Nothing have we omitted from the Book, and they (all) shall be gathered to their Lord in the end."

here are three different translations of the same verse,

053.002
YUSUFALI: Your Companion is neither astray nor being misled.
053.003
YUSUFALI: Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) Desire.
053.004
YUSUFALI: It is no less than inspiration sent down to him:
053.005
YUSUFALI: He was taught by one Mighty in Power,
053.006
YUSUFALI: Endued with Wisdom: for he appeared (in stately form);
PICKTHAL: One vigorous; and he grew clear to view
SHAKIR: The Lord of Strength; so he attained completion,
053.007
YUSUFALI: While he was in the highest part of the horizon:

053.008
YUSUFALI: Then he approached and came closer,

053.009
YUSUFALI: And was at a distance of but two bow-lengths or (even) nearer;
053.010
YUSUFALI: So did (Allah) convey the inspiration to His Servant- (conveyed) what He (meant) to convey.
053.011
YUSUFALI: The (Prophet's) (mind and) heart in no way falsified that which he saw.
053.012
YUSUFALI: Will ye then dispute with him concerning what he saw?.....
053.017
YUSUFALI: (His) sight never swerved, nor did it go wrong!
053.018
YUSUFALI: For truly did he see, of the Signs of his Lord, the Greatest!

rami wrote: The source of the Quran is Allah.  The source of the hadith is Mohammed. The source of the knowledge in the hadith is Allah, how good or accurate was the prophet at explaining the Quran and conveying its wisdom.....well the very chapter you quote unequivocally answers that.

I don't disagree that he would have been accurate in explaining the Quran and conveying its wisdom within the context of the seventh century.  My questions were whether he was infallible when he went beyond the Quran, and whether his interpretation of the Quran could have taken into account the different circumstances in which we live today.  If I understand you correctly, your answers are that he was indeed infallible, and that nothing significant has changed in fourteen centuries.  I find that surprising and I don't see it in the Quran, but I guess we'll have to leave it at that.

i have seen these sites before they are very inaccurate, do you think it is reasonable to go to people with an agenda against islam and ask to learn about Islam.

Reasonable?  I think it's absolutely essential that you, or someone like you, start "defending the faith" on mainstream Internet discussion forums -- not with hostility, but with clear explanations and reasoned argument.  If I could convince you of only one thing, I wish it could be that.

I do what I can, but I'm obviously unqualified for the job.  Please reread my introductory message and consider it seriously.  Don't you think it's time for an "Internet Jihad"?

Hi Ron,

To understand the Indispensibility of a hadith, here is the link.
http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=232 - http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=232

Muhammad was sent not only as a physical guide but also as a spiritual guide. A Mercy for the whole of creation.

"The beginning of existence was an act of mercy and compassion. Without mercy the universe would be in chaos. Everything has come into existence through compassion and by compassion it continues to exist in harmony.

Muslim sages say: �The universe is the breath of the All-Compassionate One�. That is, the universe was created as a manifestation of God�s Name, the All-Compassionate. Its subsistence depends on the same Name. This Name manifests itself, first of all, as the All-Provider so as to secure the subsistence or survival of living creatures through food or nourishment. Besides, life is the foremost and most manifest blessing of God Almighty, and the true and everlasting life is the life of the Hereafter. Since man can deserve this life by acting in a way to please God, God sent Prophets and revealed Scriptures out of His compassion for mankind. For this reason, while mentioning His blessings upon mankind in the sura al-Rahman (the All-Merciful) in the Qur�an, He begins:

Al-Rahman (the All-Merciful). He taught the Qur�an. He created man. He taught him speech. (al-Rahman, 55.1-4)

All aspects of this life are a rehearsal for the afterlife and every creature is engaged in action to this end. In every effort order is evident and in every achievement compassion resides. Some �natural� events or social convulsions in the human order which seem to man disagreeable at first sight should not be regarded as incompatible with compassion. They are like dark clouds or lightning and thunder, which, although frightening for man, bring us good tidings of rain. Thus, the whole universe, from minutest particles to gigantic galaxies, sings the praises of the All-Compassionate.

The universe is, in the language of Muslim sages, God�s �created book� issued from His Attribute of Will. To write a book which no one could understand would be an exertion in vain and God is absolutely beyond such futility. So, He created Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, one who would instruct people in the meaning of the universe. Second, He taught man His Commandments through Muhammad in the Qur�an. Only by acting in accordance with these Commandments can man gain an eternal life of happiness. The Qur�an is the ultimate and most comprehensive form of Divine Revelation, Islam is the last, perfected and universal form of Divine Religions, and the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, is the embodiment of Divine Compassion, one whom God sent not save as a mercy for all the worlds.

The Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, is like a spring of pure water in the heart of a desert, or like a source of light in the darkness enveloping the universe. Whoever appeals to this spring can take as much water as to quench his thirst and is purified of all his dirt or pollution, spiritual or intellectual, and illumined with the light of belief.

Mercy was alike a magical key in the hands of God�s Messenger, upon him be peace and blessings. He opened with this key the doors of the hearts so hardened and rusty as one thought it was impossible to open them, and lighted a torch of belief in them.

http://islambyquestions.net/moreAbout/Mercy.htm - http://islambyquestions.net/moreAbout/Mercy.htm

believer wrote: follow hadith when the Quran is supposed to be complete? Is it possible that Mohammad was not finnished when he died?

Your question is a complex question (a fallacy) as it implies disparity where it does not exist. Just as the Torah was never meant to be interpreted without the oral tradition, the Quran is a part of two distinct revelations that are tied together. The Quran is a part of the "recited" revelation. This is the direct words of God, literally the speech of God. Not inspired words, or special words, but the actual speech of God.

The hadith consist of narratives, some of which particularize generalizations in the Quran, explain meanings, and clarify the application of rulings. The hadith consist of "unrecited" revelation, not a part of the quran, given that the Quran is only the "recited" revelation, or better yet, the actual literal "speech of God".

The fact that hadith were complied before his death, and that the Quran was complete before the death of the prophet (saw), the notion that one is evidence that the other was not completed is absurd and not plausible.

Ron Webb wrote: rami wrote: The Quran instructs us to do many things one major thing is to follow the advice of the prophet. Is the prophet omniscient and infallible?

Islam teaches that only God is truly omniscient. Infallible in what way?

The advice that he gave to his followers in Arabia 1400 years ago may have been wise and good for that time and place, but the world has changed dramatically.  How could he have known what would be wise and good for a Muslim living today?

What exactly is not relevant 1400 years later?

Surely only Allah is perfect, and only His advice (i.e., the Quran) is timeless.  It seems to me that by treating the words of the prophet as equal to those of Allah Himself you risk making the prophet into another god.

The Quran states in multiple passages to obey Allah and His Messenger (saw). Could you point out an example where something the Prophet (saw) ordered or explained was contrary to what God would teach?

Andalus wrote: Islam teaches that only God is truly omniscient. Infallible in what way?

Omniscient in the sense that the Prophet's rulings in the seventh century could take into account the circumstances in which we live today.  Infallible in the sense that he never made a mistake in his entire life.

What exactly is not relevant 1400 years later?

I replied to rami as follows: "I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the Prophet encouraged large families.  That may have made sense fourteen centuries ago because infant mortality was extremely high, the global population was small and resources were plentiful.  But now babies almost always live to adulthood, life expectancy has doubled or tripled, the planet has almost reached its capacity and resources are becoming scarce.  If the Prophet were alive today, do you think he would still be encouraging large families?  Why?"

rami's response was (among other things) that the planet is capable of supporting still more people and resources would not be scarce if we conserved them better.  I disagree -- I think the planet is already overpopulated -- but even if he's right, it should be obvious that at some point we will have too many people on this planet and it will be necessary to limit family size.  Policies that encourage population growth indefinitely are not sustainable.

The Quran states in multiple passages to obey Allah and His Messenger (saw).

Yes, the Quran did say to obey the Prophet, but the Prophet (peace be upon him) is dead.  To blindly continue following his orders 1400 years later is like nailing the rudder of a ship in its last position after the captain dies.  The river continues to twist and turn, the currents run this way and that, but Islam sails on blindly into ever more treacherous waters.  It was great to have the Prophet at the helm in the beginning, but now that he is gone we need to find our own way, and the Quran (which is complete and explained in detail) ought to be sufficient guide.

Could you point out an example where something the Prophet (saw) ordered or explained was contrary to what God would teach?

As I said, I don't know much about the content of the hadith, but I already know from the Quran that the Prophet is capable of error because the Quran tells us in Sura 80 that he wrongly ignored a blind man who came to him for instruction.

Ron Webb wrote: I do what I can, but I'm obviously unqualified for the job. Please reread my introductory message and consider it seriously. Don't you think it's time for an "Internet Jihad"?

Part of your introduction-

Ron Webb wrote: But it occurs to me that the critics have a point. Muslim organizations are quick to issue press releases (which are just as quickly ignored) -- but where are the moderate Muslims themselves? Why is it that I have almost never encountered individual Muslims on mainstream discussion boards, defending their own religion?

Al-Baqarah:6

2:6) Those-who have disbelieved- it being equal to them whether thou warn them or warn them not -they will not believe.

There are several types of non- muslims individuals that visit and particpate in forums-- here are just the main ones I run across( even though their are others)

a) Non-muslims that will take verses from the Quran or Islamic concepts and twist it around so that they are negative, mean, and totally contradicts the love and wisdom that Allah(swt) has for us and the wonderful message that Mohhammed(p.b.u.h) provides to others.

There actions are mainly done out of ignorance. So, to cover up their ignorance instead of just admiting 'they do not know' or admit 'I just don't understand', they will instead bash and throw out negative comments. It is more satisfying to their ego to simply hate what they can not understand. No matter how much a muslim or even a non-muslim like the one you claim to be, try to show them that Islam is for peace, that Islam is loving, that muslims do (or should) believe in the Unity of God- it will never reach them, they are too caught up in hate and having a closed heart and mind.

b) You have non-muslims that are not 'believers' but they are open to sincerely knowing more about Islam, perhaps it is a individual that grew up mostly in a society that had few muslim citizens. Their reasons for particpating in a forum is to maybe see what misconceptions of Islam are true, and which ones are not true( at least in their eyes). Some of these individuals like to 'compare' their beliefs with Islam- for various reasons. While sometimes such individuals show signs of ignorance based on comments they make, their intentions are not to be hurtful. These individuals will often apologize if they make offensive comments. I also find that these individuals have no intention of converting over to Islam. They simply come to forums to 'learn' more.

c) You have the non-muslims that simply love to debate. These individuals carry various forms of knowledge. Some are very intelligent and some have barely finished basic schooling. They will debate on any islamic concept you can think of. Some do their 'homework' before approaching a debate, then you have some that shows their ignorance in the first sentence they type. Regardless of the type though, these individuals approach forums sometimes simply for a challenge, or sometimes to satisfy the ego, by debating until they come out 'on top'.

d) You have the non-muslims that join a forum to learn more about Islam to determine if they should convert.

e) You have the non-muslim that is determine to show muslims the 'right way'. These individuals want to 'save' the muslims from 'our ways of error'. These non-muslims come to forums belonging to various forms of faiths. They 'come in peace' and their quest is to simply show us the 'true meaning of life'. In their eyes, it's not through Islam. Or they perhaps have their own method on teaching us on how we should be approaching Islam and how we should be aprroaching the Quran ( despite the fact these 'teachers' are not even muslims?!). They try to make us open our eyes, so that we will no longer live ' in the dark ages'. ( Sound familar?--I will touch base on that later.)

So...Ron..

When a muslim go on a quest of defending their religon. I think one has to first consider who they are approaching and what are the possible outcomes. There are some examples of non-muslims that I named that I will not waste my time and effort on. For example, non-muslim 'A'- The one that develop hateful messages on forums and websites. Most of these individuals are rude in their approach to others. They are 'stuck' in their beliefs, and no matter what you say to them they will remain the way they are. Individuals such as these have existed since the begining of time, and until the final hour.

I would rather use my time and energy discussing matters with muslims or engaging in conversations with non-muslims that sincerly want to know more about Islam. My main concern is not if a non-muslim converts over- that is their choice- if I know a non-muslim is sincere and come with good intentions then all I can really hope for is that they gain 'the right information' .That they have the opportunity of gaining more knowledge that can help benefit their lives.

. In this day and age their are countless amounts of info on the basics of Islam. Majority of the time individuals remain ignorant because they choose to. If muslim 'B' or 'D' can take the time and look for information for themselves, by joining forums, asking sincere questions, reading about the basics of Islam- even if it's is just wikepedia- at least I can say they are trying. They are attempting to learn more about the diverse world around them and be open-minded, shed away the stereotypes they may have believed in for so long.

non-Muslim 'C'. the ones that loves to debate. Another individual that I simply don't have the time and energy to waste on. They are not trying to learn anything. They debate for a sport, for a game. Instead of engaging in useless debate with these individuals, again I rather be discussing matters and holding friendly debates with non-muslim 'B' or 'D'.

What exactly is a internet jihad??

29:46- 'And argue not with the People of the Book except with what is best; but argue not at all with such of them as are unjust.-.....'

By no means am I against muslims teaching others the postive message and true meaning of Islam. I'm also not against muslims defending Islam in appopriate manner when ignorant, untruthful comments about Islam are made.

But, when I think of the term internet Jihad, it sounds as if it's a crusade to stop the non-believers from bashing the islamic religion- even though such a task in my opinion will be endless, because the internet is a medium that has few regulations, allows total freedom of speach . Internet Jihad sounds like a crusade of Muslims that should float around non-islamic boards attempting to give Dawah to non-believers that simply want to argue for the sake of arguing, to attempt to convince a non-believer that already has a closed mind and heart.. A muslim going on a internet jihad, is similar to a individual trying to fight internet spam-. Perhaps the intentions are good, but the individual will never reach their goal. You 'fight' one group, you only have another that will 'pop' up and the endless task simply go around in circles.

The best way to have a internet jihad is to do more then develop a defense based on words on the internet. The best way that a muslim can particpate in Jihad is by always showing their best character. To showcase to observers that despite all the stereotypes and misconceptions we remain to stand proud in upholding our beliefs.Despite any type of negativity that is broadcasted on the news, internet, newspaper, etc- a muslim with strong faith will never fall victim to such traps.Our peaceful postive character does more to contradict ignorant statements to the observers, then words will ever achieve.

So Ron, when you go on a mission of defending Islam to non-believers what is usually the outcome? Are you achieving your goals? Do you not find a big difference between a non-believer that will never change their views no matter what you say to them, versus the non-believers that sincerly have a desire to learn more beyond the stereotypes? Do you think that either group lack more infomation and resources of the true meaning of Islam, then the other?? Dd you have to have a muslim internet jihadist turn you around to show you a 'glimpse' of true Islam? What make these individuals any different then you? If their are any differences, then why is it essential that I or any other muslim should try to change them?

p.s- i'm sorry Believer ( I'm refering to the forum member) and everyone else for taking the original posting off topic...

Mrs Be Aql Khan Usta : ALLAH Said read by name of your lord who teaches by pen
And he said it to MUHAMMAD Sallel La Hu Alahi Wa Sallim the illiterate human
Now one who needs to learn he must read
Reading is divine decree all must pay heed
Now if reading is so important then why GOD choose illiterate MUHAMMAD
Was it because oh BARZAKH there was no need to read because MUHAMMAD could hear the word of the GOD

Mr Barzakh Fitrath Ullah : The Greatest MUWALLIM
MUHAMMAD Sallel La Hu Alahi Wa Sallim
His example is the like of pen
A pen writes every learning without being learned at any kindergarten
He was the pen with whom ALLAH chose to write
On the scale of creation about its wrongs and right
Therefore learn oh  BE AQL station of MUHAMMAD Sallel La Hu Alahi Wa Sallam
Words of ALLAH is his QAALAM and MUHAMMAD Sallael La Hu Alahi Wa Sallim is his QOLOM
So as AL QURAN Say's read by name of your lord it is saying it is written
And ALLAH Say's in AL QURAN the first thing he created was the pen
and for sure AL QURAN is UMM UL KITHAB
The womb of all enslaved lateral characters with its all powerful writer AL RABB

from SWEETSWORDS 9 [ Scribe ]

Yes indeed it is the original pen what proves every forged Dalil's authenticity according to the hand writing expert
The type setting the type of writing the type of ink used in the calligraphic artifact
Therefore MUHAMMAD Sallel la Hu Alahi Wa Sallim is the pen and ALLAH is the writer
And to prove manifest AL QURAN which KAFFIR will ever believe in the hidden creator
So seal of AL HADIS was left as the sonar ink for all deaf dumb and blind
Yes indeed AL QURAN is just the pages it is the AL HADIS what makes it the book with the MUHAMMADAN bind

from SWEETSWORDS 9 [ Scribe ]

layalee wrote: What exactly is a internet jihad??

It's a topic worthy of a separate discussion, and the Islamic Interfaith Dialogue section might be a more appropriate place.  Not sure I'll have time tonight though.

In logic, or the consideration of valid arguments, a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition" title="Proposition - proposition is said to have universality if it can be conceived as being true in all possible contexts without creating a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction" title="Contradiction - contradiction . Some philosophers have referred to such propositions as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalizability" title="Universalizability - universalizable . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth" title="Truth - Truth is considered to be universal if it is valid in all times and places. In this case, it is seen as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal" title="Eternal - eternal or as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute" title="Absolute - absolute . The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism" title="Relativism - relativist conception denies the existence of some or all universal truths, particularly ethical ones (through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism" title="Moral relativism - moral relativism ). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics" title="Mathematics - Mathematics is a field in which those truths discovered, in relation to the field of mathematics, are typically considerered of universal scope. Usage of the word truth has various domains of application, relativism does not necessarily apply to all of them."

Allah is now as he ever was he does not change grow, he exists without beginning and has no end. When the prophet [sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam] talks about allah, his atributes, his creation, his heaven, hell, creation it nature, moral teachings and many other things they have a Universal unchanging nature, they are truth now as they where 1400 years ago and 1400 years from now. will you now say we should only ignore the parts that we dont need?

Omniscient in the sense that the Prophet's rulings in the seventh century could take into account the circumstances in which we live today. 

You can not use such a sweeping genralisation to invalidate 23 years of prophethood, it makes sense in and of itself but doesn't hold water when you investigate it.

Infallible in the sense that he never made a mistake in his entire life.

A mistake in judgment [as in between two different courses of action] then yes and its clearly stated in the Quran, regarding what he instructed people in regards to the religion then no he was infallible as allah helped him in this and it is stated very clearly in the Quran, "this day i have perfected your religion for you", a claim of perfection that can not be maid if anything wrong in regards to religion had been said. There are plenty of other verses i can quote but i am trying to keep it short.

What exactly is not relevant 1400 years later?

rami's response was (among other things) that the planet is capable of supporting still more people and resources would not be scarce if we conserved them better.  I disagree --

I think you havnt been outside of canada. can you specify for me the islamic principles regarding eating and conservation of the environment that you just disagreed with?

I think the planet is already overpopulated -- but even if he's right, it should be obvious that at some point we will have too many people on this planet and it will be necessary to limit family size.  Policies that encourage population growth indefinitely are not sustainable.

if this where to go on indefinitely then i would agree with you but since our religion, most religions, teach that this world is temporary then i can not.

Allah has said regarding abortion that we should not kill our children in fear of being unable to sustain them as he has taken it upon himself to do so. This is of course a general statement but since allah is Omniscient i am certain he knows the exact time when this world can not sustain us even if we are doing all the right things.

Yes, the Quran did say to obey the Prophet, but the Prophet (peace be upon him) is dead.  To blindly continue following his orders 1400 years later is like nailing the rudder of a ship in its last position after the captain dies.  The river continues to twist and turn, the currents run this way and that, but Islam sails on blindly into ever more treacherous waters.  It was great to have the Prophet at the helm in the beginning, but now that he is gone we need to find our own way, and the Quran (which is complete and explained in detail) ought to be sufficient guide.

just because the analogy makes sense in and of itself does not mean it is a correct analogy regarding the sunnah. Once again i will state the obvious truth that while Christian Europe was in the dark ages Islamic civilization was the most advanced in the world and all under Islamic rule. History and experience if nothing else [as you dont seem  to be interested in understanding how or why] proves you wrong.

if you like visit http://www.muslimheritage.com/ - http://www.muslimheritage.com/ to learn more.

As I said, I don't know much about the content of the hadith, but I already know from the Quran that the Prophet is capable of error because the Quran tells us in Sura 80 that he wrongly ignored a blind man who came to him for instruction.

This was a mistake in deciding between two paths [if you know the entire story you will see] not an error in instructing his followers about religion which is a more serious mistake and not once did Allah say he did such a thing.

Put this into perspective, he decided to pay attention to the nobles of Quraish, becouse if he was to win them over entire wars would cease, than to answer the Questions of an old blind man. For this mistake allah reveals a verse in the Quran sancturing him, can you imagine if he had said anything wrong about the religion itself.

rami wrote: Reasonable?  I think it's absolutely essential that you, or someone like you, start "defending the faith" on mainstream Internet discussion forums -- not with hostility, but with clear explanations and reasoned argument.  If I could convince you of only one thing, I wish it could be that. Its not hostility that you sense in my post but maybe slight frustration, to me and other muslims who have a familiarity with the religion its all common sense, well based on other information also.

Don't get me wrong, rami.  I'm not sensing any hostility from you.  I meant that "defending the faith" should not be done with hostility, which would be counterproductive.

I asked you if prayer was different, Hajj, Fasting, Zakkat, Human nature! and you unjustifiably answered yes.

Fasting would be different for a Muslim living in the high Arctic ("the land of the midnight sun") because it would be impossible to follow the traditional rules. The experience of hajj is very different today, because of the sheer numbers of Muslims converging in a single place, as well as the greater distances involved, air travel, security, etc. Family life is significantly altered by modern contraceptive methods, in vitro fertilization, and soon cloning. Theft now includes theft of intellectual property (or does it?). Even death itself is hard to define when modern life support systems can keep a corpse "alive" almost indefinitely. And so on.

The questions haven't changed (mostly), but the answers certainly have.

I am talking about things you havnt read or learnt regarding islam, you cant deny something simply because you havnt learnt it yet as you yourself admit your knowledge is limited. Dont say "it"cant be true ask how is it true.

Okay, "how is it true" that the rules for fasting are the same in Grise Fiord (76 degrees north latitude) as they are in Mecca?

just because the analogy makes sense in and of itself does not mean it is a correct analogy regarding the sunnah. Once again i will state the obvious truth that while Christian Europe was in the dark ages Islamic civilization was the most advanced in the world and all under Islamic rule. History and experience if nothing else [as you dont seem  to be interested in understanding how or why] proves you wrong.

Oh please, rami!  History and experience proves that Islamic civilizations have been in steep decline ever since the modern era, while most of the advanced nations are predominantly Christian.  That's not to say I'm enthralled with Christianity, but at least it's kept up with the times.

As I said, I don't know much about the content of the hadith, but I already know from the Quran that the Prophet is capable of error because the Quran tells us in Sura 80 that he wrongly ignored a blind man who came to him for instruction. This was a mistake in deciding between two paths [if you know the entire story you will see] not an error in instructing his followers about religion which is a more serious mistake and not once did Allah say he did such a thing.

It was a mistake.  That is all that matters.  It shows that the Prophet is not infallible.  If he could make a mistake in deciding between two paths for himself, he could make a mistake in deciding for someone else; and if he did that and someone wrote it down (as the Prophet specifically forbade his followers to do, for exactly this reason), then that error would be incorporated into the hadith.  Only the Quran, the literal words of Allah, can be regarded as infallible.

Ron Webb wrote: Okay, "how is it true" that the rules for fasting are the same in Grise Fiord (76 degrees north latitude) as they are in Mecca?

Are you sure of that?? or are you making assumptions......

Q [IRC Addis Ababa]: Dr. Awol Idris: Ramadan uses the lunar calendar and the times for sihur and iftar are suggested to take place before sunrise and at sunset respectively. This may not be a problem around the equator where the day and the night are kind of equal in length - roughly 12 hours each. This is true of Saudi Arabia where Islam started. But, further up to the north or further down to the south, how do people break their fast or have the sihur when the sun may be still up on the horizon for as long as 18 hours or more? How do you do it in the US, in this connection?

A [Imam Arafat]: The communities begin and break the fast according to the normal timing of the closest city to them. This is particular to Muslims living in Alaska

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/October/20071005170059xjsnommis0.5716516.html - http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/October/2007 1005170059xjsnommis0.5716516.html

all information should be verified by your local imam of course...

This is a prime example of why one need to do research and gain knowledge on certain islamic concepts, rituals, etc, before they make false assumptions about Islam.

Contrary to what you make think, I do not feel as if Islam prohibits one from engaging in a modern life. Islam do however allow for muslims to live a simple life.

The keys and advice to living a good,enjoyable life free from sin as a muslim did not come with a expiration date.

Nor is Islam all about 'rules' that must be followed.

Behind every valid hadith or ayat, their is a reason, a joyous message in my opnion.

It is with faith that one begins to appreciate and understand the message.

The choice is all up to the invidual of course and the grace of Allah(swt).

Hi Ron,

The only difference in fasting in the Arctic, would be the shorter hours of daylight. Basically there is no difference.

As to population, the world can and would be able to accomodate more people, if repeat IF the humankind in this world are not greedy. It is not the fault of the Prophet that humankind are greedy, humankind are egoistic, humankind are not charitable. If they were to follow the guidelines of the Prophet, InshaAllah - God willing, there would be no poor people in this world. But then Satan will not sit still and see humankind live in harmony without him doing his evil part.

Islamic civilisation was at the peak when its followers were not only expert in knowledge of this world during the day but they were also sufis or humble servants of God during the night. In other words they were near perfect human who had knowledge of this world and knowledge of the hereafter.

However nowadays Muslims either are expert in one field that is the Islamic knowledge or their expertise is in worldly knowledge. Rarely we see a Muslim scientist who is also an expert in the Shariah or Islamic Knowledge. That is the downfall of Islam. Whatever it is, the core knowledge of modern science and Mathematics were derived from Muslims in the early days of Islam due to the piety of these people.

Will continue later. Salam.

Nur_Ilahi wrote: The only difference in fasting in the Arctic, would be the shorter hours of daylight. Basically there is no difference.

In Grise Fiord the sun never sets from May to August.  I think that would make a difference.

layalee wrote: Ron Webb wrote: Okay, "how is it true" that the rules for fasting are the same in Grise Fiord (76 degrees north latitude) as they are in Mecca? Are you sure of that?? or are you making assumptions...... Q [IRC Addis Ababa]: Dr. Awol Idris: Ramadan uses the lunar calendar and the times for sihur and iftar are suggested to take place before sunrise and at sunset respectively. This may not be a problem around the equator where the day and the night are kind of equal in length - roughly 12 hours each. This is true of Saudi Arabia where Islam started. But, further up to the north or further down to the south, how do people break their fast or have the sihur when the sun may be still up on the horizon for as long as 18 hours or more? How do you do it in the US, in this connection? A [Imam Arafat]: The communities begin and break the fast according to the normal timing of the closest city to them. This is particular to Muslims living in Alaska.

I am not making assumptions, but apparently Imam Arafat is.  In Fairbanks, Alaska (surely a city by anyone's definition), the sun is above the horizon for nearly 22 hours a day near the summer solstice.

Anyway, the Imam is simply confirming my point.  A Muslim could not reasonably be expected to follow the traditional rules for fasting in Fairbanks, much less Grise Fiord.

rami, if I have shown you that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is even 0.0001% fallible, or that the Hadith are even 0.0001% inapplicable today, then I would count that as progress.

Ron Webb wrote: Andalus wrote: Islam teaches that only God is truly omniscient. Infallible in what way? Omniscient in the sense that the Prophet's rulings in the seventh century could take into account the circumstances in which we live today.  Infallible in the sense that he never made a mistake in his entire life.

The Prophet (saw) was a messenger to mankind, with a message from God. His message was from an "omniscient" source, which does not imply that the prophet (saw) was "omniscient".

The Prophet (saw) was infallible in regards to his prophethood, and he never made a "mistake" in regards to following what God had ordered.

What exactly is not relevant 1400 years later? I replied to rami as follows: "I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the Prophet encouraged large families.  That may have made sense fourteen centuries ago because infant mortality was extremely high, the global population was small and resources were plentiful.  But now babies almost always live to adulthood, life expectancy has doubled or tripled, the planet has almost reached its capacity and resources are becoming scarce.  If the Prophet were alive today, do you think he would still be encouraging large families?  Why?" rami's response was (among other things) that the planet is capable of supporting still more people and resources would not be scarce if we conserved them better.  I disagree -- I think the planet is already overpopulated -- but even if he's right, it should be obvious that at some point we will have too many people on this planet and it will be necessary to limit family size.  Policies that encourage population growth indefinitely are not sustainable.

The prophet encouraged married couples to have children, which does not create problems. The problems the are created in the world today come about through the actions of man, not from over population. We will not have to worry about some point from conjecture about "maybe" the world will have too many people. With newly forming diseases, mutating viruses, etc, we will never reach such a point.

The Quran states in multiple passages to obey Allah and His Messenger (saw). Yes, the Quran did say to obey the Prophet, but the Prophet (peace be upon him) is dead.

His message lives on. Obeying Allah and His messenger did not have a time stipulation.

To blindly continue following his orders 1400 years later is like nailing the rudder of a ship in its last position after the captain dies. The river continues to twist and turn, the currents run this way and that, but Islam sails on blindly into ever more treacherous waters.  It was great to have the Prophet at the helm in the beginning, but now that he is gone we need to find our own way, and the Quran (which is complete and explained in detail) ought to be sufficient guide.

1) Your assertion that we "blind follow" is a red herring. Show me where we are expected to "blind follow".

2) Your analogy is somewhat convoluted. No one has nailed the rudder, and your analogy presents a false dichotomy. There is another choice other than �nailing the rudder�, and that is selecting another captain. In this case, the next in line are the scholars who are able to give us the most confident information that one is able to obtain without going directly to the Prophet (saw). Even the companions went to the Prophet (saw) for explanations and interpretation. Your analogy implies theological anarchy where everyone is the captain, one only need to open the quran to be one. The scholars are heirs to the prophets, and the choice you are declaring is simply convoluted.  

Could you point out an example where something the Prophet (saw) ordered or explained was contrary to what God would teach? As I said, I don't know much about the content of the hadith, but I already know from the Quran that the Prophet is capable of error because the Quran tells us in Sura 80 that he wrongly ignored a blind man who came to him for instruction.

The is a strawman. No one has argued that the Prophet (saw) was never corrected. What is argued is that the Prophet (saw) is infallible in terms of following the shariah and what God commanded. This does not invalidate the hadith.

Ron Webb wrote: rami, if I have shown you that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is even 0.0001% fallible, or that the Hadith are even 0.0001% inapplicable today, then I would count that as progress.

The problem is that you believe you are throwing daggers, secondary to your ignorance about Islamic Law and requirements for worship, so the reality is that you are lobbing "helium balloons". It is probably hard for you to believe, but Muslim scholars, since before the time Christian Europe was bathing or even writing, were discussing various scenerios concerning "fiqh". So, no, you are not the first to come up with it, and the rules surrounding worship and the requirements to be filled for the worship to be accepted have been wroked out even in Alaska. 

So, I have yet to find a single point you have raised that has made any of the hadith irrelevant, or to show that the Prophet was wrong.

When a person is called 'infallible', this can mean any of the following:

1. Some statements or teachings made by this person can be relied on to be certainly true
2. All statements or teachings made by this person can be relied on to be certainly true
3. All information believed by this person is true
4. This person is free from flaws or defects, especially of a moral nature

Andalus wrote: The Prophet (saw) was a messenger to mankind, with a message from God. His message was from an "omniscient" source, which does not imply that the prophet (saw) was "omniscient". The Prophet (saw) was infallible in regards to his prophethood, and he never made a "mistake" in regards to following what God had ordered.

Right.  God ordered him to recite the Quran, and no doubt he did that flawlessly.

His message lives on. Obeying Allah and His messenger did not have a time stipulation.

Given that his message was the Quran (which is timeless), that makes sense too.

The is a strawman. No one has argued that the Prophet (saw) was never corrected. What is argued is that the Prophet (saw) is infallible in terms of following the shariah and what God commanded. This does not invalidate the hadith.

That's the part that doesn't make sense to me.  You agree that the Prophet is infallible in his recitation of the Quran, but not necessarily in his daily life, right?  And yet, his followers compile the details of his daily life, and once compiled these details become infallible law?

I'm not trying to prove that any particular hadith is wrong.  I'm saying that any of them could be wrong, or could be outdated, or could need to be interpreted in light of new circumstances.  I'm saying that they need to be approached with reason and common sense.  They may be the words of a great man, instructed by Allah Himself; but they are still the words of a man, not the infallible Word of God.

rami wrote: When a person is called 'infallible', this can mean any of the following: Some statements or teachings made by this person can be relied on to be certainly true All statements or teachings made by this person can be relied on to be certainly true All information believed by this person is true This person is free from flaws or defects, especially of a moral nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallible - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallible

Well, you've certainly convinced me of one thing: Wikipedia is not infallible.  The second definition is what I mean, and I think what most people mean by the word (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infallible - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infallible ).  The first definition in particular is virtually meaningless -- if only some statements can be relied upon, then how can we know which ones?  It's like saying, "I'm infallible whenever I'm right, and any false statements don't count."

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the Prophet was infallible only in matters of doctrine.  Okay, how do we know when something is a matter of doctrine, and when it is not?  If the Prophet talks about family, or about war, or about beards, or whatever, how do we know that this is timeless doctrine and not simply recommendations to his contemporaries in the seventh century?  I'm sure that Islamic scholars have given their rulings on these questions, but are they infallible?

It's not my religion, of course, so I suppose I shouldn't really care; but for what it's worth, to me the obvious answer is that the statements the Prophet told his followers to write down (i.e., the Quran) were clearly intended to be timeless doctrine; but whatever else he said, the statements he specifically commanded his followers not to write, i.e. the hadith, were not intended to be recorded for all time.

Ron Webb wrote: It's not my religion, of course, so I suppose I shouldn't really care; but for what it's worth, to me the obvious answer is that the statements the Prophet told his followers to write down (i.e., the Quran) were clearly intended to be timeless doctrine; but whatever else he said, the statements he specifically commanded his followers not to write, i.e. the hadith, were not intended to be recorded for all time.

What makes you think that Muhammed did not command/ask his companions to write down the hadiths?

The hadiths are a collection of Muhammed's actions in what to do in religious matters/life. A guide to know what to do. The hadiths and the qu'ran go hand in hand, you cannot have one without the other, this is what I've learnt over the years.

Angel wrote: What makes you think that Muhammed did not command/ask his companions to write down the hadiths?

I was going to quote Wikipedia on this, but since I've already said they are "not infallible", here's a different (and maybe less biased) source:

In Hadith literature, there are hadiths that forbid and others that permit the writing down of hadiths, which often causes a confusion for some people. Prophet Muhammad once said, "Do not write from me anything except the Qur'an and whosoever has written anything from me other than the Qur'an should erase it." (Al-Bukhari) By this hadith Prophet Muhammad actually meant that nothing should be written with the Qur'an on the same sheet, as this might lead to mixing the text of the Qur'an with that of the Hadith. This command was given when the Qur'an was being revealed piecemeal and was still incomplete. Another interpretation of the hadith is that it was forbidden to write down hadiths in early days because all attention was to be paid to the Qur'an and its preservation. Then later on, when there was no fear of abandoning the Qur'an, the previous order was abrogated and the Companions were permitted to write down hadiths. On the other hand, there is evidence that Prophet Muhammad approved of writing down his hadiths. http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1188044001762&pagename=Zone-English-Discover_Islam%2FDIELayout - http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&am p;cid=1188044001762&pagename=Zone-English-Discover_Islam %2FDIELayout

At best, this is another example of a hadith obviously directed only at the Prophet's contemporaries and not meant to be applicable today.  At worst, it could be interpreted as invalidating the whole collection.

Angel wrote: The hadiths and the qu'ran go hand in hand, you cannot have one without the other, this is what I've learnt over the years.

Angel, can you explain your understanding of this concept some more......

please

Imam Ahmad [one of the four most renowned islamic scholars in history] recorded that `Abdullah bin `Amr said, "I used to record everything I heard from the Messenger of Allah so it would be preserved. The Quraysh discouraged me from this, saying, `You record everything you hear from the Messenger of Allah , even though he is human and sometimes speaks when he is angry' I stopped recording the Hadiths for a while, but later mentioned what they said to the Messenger of Allah , who said, (Write! By He in Whose Hand is my soul, every word that comes out of me is the Truth.)'' Abu Dawud [author of one of the 6 most authentic hadith collections]  also collected this Hadith.

poga wrote: layalee wrote: No muslim that has taken the shahada and believe, and have a basic understanding of Tawheed will ever deny that only Allah(swt) is 100% infallible. if any muslim believe MUHAMMAD Sallel La Hu Alahi Wa Sallim is not 100% right always from begening till end he or she is not MUMIN

My statement is not to say that the righteousness of the prophet Muhammad (p.b.uh.) was any less. The Quran itself state he was sinless. But by no means can I place our prophet on the same level as Allah(swt).

The phopet was infallible as a prophet.

but when I think of TOTAL perfection, I think of Allah(swt).

May this clarify my statement, Insha'Allah.

layalee wrote: poga wrote: layalee wrote: No muslim that has taken the shahada and believe, and have a basic understanding of Tawheed will ever deny that only Allah(swt) is 100% infallible. if any muslim believe MUHAMMAD Sallel La Hu Alahi Wa Sallim is not 100% right always from begening till end he or she is not MUMIN My statement is not to say that the righteousness of the prophet Muhammad (p.b.uh.) was any less. The Quran itself state he was sinless. But by no means can I place our prophet on the same level as Allah(swt). The phopet was infallible as a prophet. but when I think of TOTAL perfection, I think of Allah(swt). May this clarify my statement, Insha'Allah.

ASSALAMUALAIKUM

laylee ALLAH is not perfect nor ALLAH is imperfect

it is ALLAH who creates perfection and all limitation he is ABSULUTE

i understood you perfectly sister we all are just MUSLIM but we need to be like SHAHABA to become MUMIN

there is big difference in this two

we who are born in MUSLIM house and learn and accept ISLAM or who are born in non muslim family and learn about ISLAM and become MUSLIM

we all have to go long way to become MUMIN

i hope this will clarify my point JAZAKHALLAH KHAIR

poga Say's in a foolington maze

Unequal is unique unlike alike or opposite
Unequal is unique there is nothing like it
Unequal is unique unlike anything like it
Unequal is like every moment
Like this instant no other opposite
Unequal is unique there is nothing like it

unequal is ALLAH la illah illel la MUHAMMADUR RASULULLAH

from SWEETSWORDS 18 [ Compass ]

Thanks for your response, rami.  I know I'm trying your patience and I know you put a great deal of time into your comments.  I think we are closer to understanding each other than we were before, so I have found it a benefit.

rami wrote: The scholars have gone through all the ahadith and categorised all his statements to being personnel to him alone or actual teachings about islam, its not that hard but there have been some small cases of confusion due to differences of opinions but this is the exception and not the rule.

I think it would be very hard indeed, otherwise anyone could consider himself to be an Islamic scholar.  Even the authenticity of the hadiths themselves are often contested.

Just out of curiosity, though, how would you decide whether the Prophet's comments about beards are "about religion" or not?  The way I see it, we are given two things, and only two things, directly from Allah: the Quran, and our own intelligence.  If there is nothing in the Quran about beards (is there?), and my own common sense tells me that having a beard does not make me a better person, then I see no reason to assume that the Prophet's comments still apply today.

I'm guessing you see the burden of proof on the other side though, eh?  You need strong evidence that it doesn't apply before making that assumption.  I think that is our fundamental difference.

It depends on the subject matter and that is what im trying to make you see that most of what he taught had a timeless nature becouse  the subject matter itself was timeless while other topics such as warfare does change overtime but the actions he took or things he said you can extract principles of law from, which can be applied to different situations at different times.

If that is what you are trying to make me see, then we were never far apart to begin with.  My impression was that you were claiming that all of what he taught had a timeless nature and that nothing of relevance had changed.

believer wrote: follow hadith when the Quran is supposed to be complete? Is it possible that Mohammad was not finnished when he died?

Hi believer,

the best way for you to understand this is that "the hadith" is like the gospels of John, matthews, Luke, and Paul. The account of what Jesus was saying and doing written by many people, and not God speaking in first person. So Hadith is not the word of God, while Quran is the word of God.

Phrophet Mohammed(pbuh) in his last sermon declared that he has completed the mission he was sent for.

Hasan

 Yes, I believe that the bible of the church is like our books of Hadith. Our books are more reliable than the bible. The books of Hadith describe what our holy prophet said and did. Similarly,the bible NT describes what Jesus did and said. Both the bible and the Hadith are not the words of God. They are sort of biographies of the two prophets of Allah.

LOL!  Mohammad recognized the Holy Scriptures from GOD, - the Torah and Gospel!  Mohammad never said that the Torah and Gospel were like hadith.

You mustn't dismiss the Holy Bible so easily.  The Bible is a beautiful miracle written over so many years through so many GOD inspired writers.  Jesus is GOD speaking in first person and the Bible is the Word of GOD.

It might interest you to study the fufilled prophecies of the Bible.  The Holy Bible has been proven historically acurate.

John 19

believer wrote: John 19 The Death of Jesus  28Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty." 29A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips. 30When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

 Believer please tell me if the above are all the words of God. Did God say those words?? To whom did he say those words?? Then how those words got to the scribe? You will understand that those are not the words of God at all. Not even the words of Jesus. You see, this happened and that happened etc. Who is describing all that?? It is not God and not Jesus.

 But it is upto you to believe the way you like because you are a believer.

Transmission of the messages of Allah/GOD.

Allah-> Gabriel-> Mohammad-> Scribes

GOD-> Apostles who happened to be eye witnesses and scribes.

believer wrote: LOL!  Mohammad recognized the Holy Scriptures from GOD, - the Torah and Gospel!  Mohammad never said that the Torah and Gospel were like hadith. You mustn't dismiss the Holy Bible so easily.  The Bible is a beautiful miracle written over so many years through so many GOD inspired writers.  Jesus is GOD speaking in first person and the Bible is the Word of GOD. It might interest you to study the fufilled prophecies of the Bible.  The Holy Bible has been proven historically acurate.

Hi believer,

let me correct you, it was God who confirmed in the Quran that Torah and Gospel were from Him in the past, not Mohammed (pbuh) through whom that message came. Also Quran confirms that they were changed and altered.

Now as far as your insistance that Jesus (pbuh) was God and thus whatever he spoke was God's word, your source (the bible) have not been able to prove that  without contradicting that claim. And you have been unable to explain the following verse I quoted previously and I will quote it again: John 20:17

....but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Remember, those of us who believe in One Creator, One true God, do not believe that God has a God, a wife, a son or a daughter.

Believer, Torah and Gospel were words of God, what we now call 'the bible' is not. And that is not just because I said so or someone has said so. Instead that is what its contents prove to be. You and I, and everyone probably will agree that God's word (coming from the All Knowing should not have inconsistancies in it. Some typos or man made mistake are possible through trasmission but contradictions to the degree this book has does not make God look good, if we accept that its pure word of God. In truth I cannot do that because for me God is not inconsistance nor incapable. Thus the blame for those inconsistancies goes to the men who assumed the charge of keeping it (the Bible) in accordance with their own understanding and belief and not what God was teaching.

I think its silly to prove bible's authenticity through "the fulfilled prophesies of the bible"  while its own contents cannot stand by it in truth.

Hasan

Where does the Quran confirm that the Holy Scriptures were changed?

We have the original Torah and the original Gospel.  Actually there are more inconsistencies in the Quran that can not be explained.  GOD for sure is not inconsistant nor incapable.

Your heart is closed to the fulfilled prophecies- that is the only true way to prove if a book is from GOD.  Otherwise all you have are the words of a man, no witnesses, although Paul did have witnesses.

You are correct in believeing that GOD does not have a wife, sister, brother.

Jesus as a manifestation of GOD does in fact have the One True United GOD, as His GOD.

Remember though that Jesus was 100% man and 100% GOD 

 From believer:

You are correct in believeing that GOD does not have a wife, sister, brother.

Jesus as a manifestation of GOD does in fact have the One True United GOD, as His GOD.

Remember though that Jesus was 100% man and 100% GOD 

 Believer, you have the inconsistency in your words, Jesus 100% man and 100 % god. That is the most impossible thing that any one heard. In actual fact, you are all in trouble and you cannot explain the contradictions in bible without having Jesus as a man and son of man and common man and as a prophet too and as a god too.

 That is very funny. Just convince your self with some truth please.

 Now look what you have written above. God does not have wife, sister and brothers. As Jesus was a god, did he not have a mother? and sisters? and brothers? What would you say please? Jesus had the sisters and brothers.

 So how do we know when he was a God and when he was a common man and when he was a minister and when he was a prophet?? Was Jesus an ordinary man till the age of 25?? Was jesus a god when he was 5 years old. that would be child god??

 God has to be worshipped. Was Jesus ever worshipped as a god at any time. I know that never happened. Even his apostles never worshipped Jesus even one day.   ??????

Where in the Quran does it say the Torah and Gospel were changed and altered?

minuteman- hypostatic union,  The divine nature of GOD attaches the human nature to Himself.  The divine nature of GOD wrapped in human flesh.

The human nature of Jesus did have a mother, and possibly a brother or 2.

minuteman - you really need to read the Gospels to understand.  Have you read the story about Jesus at the temple?

The Boy Jesus at the Temple

 41Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. 42When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom. 43After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."

 49"Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" 50But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

 51Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

LOL!  your own Quran says He spoke from the cradle.

believer wrote: Where does the Quran confirm that the Holy Scriptures were changed? We have the original Torah and the original Gospel.  Actually there are more inconsistencies in the Quran that can not be explained.  GOD for sure is not inconsistant nor incapable. Your heart is closed to the fulfilled prophecies- that is the only true way to prove if a book is from GOD.  Otherwise all you have are the words of a man, no witnesses, although Paul did have witnesses. You are correct in believeing that GOD does not have a wife, sister, brother. Jesus as a manifestation of GOD does in fact have the One True United GOD, as His GOD.   Remember though that Jesus was 100% man and 100% GOD

Hi believer,

let me ask you: Do you believe in logic, reasoning or truth? Because in all honesty you seem to deny those very principals needed to get to the truth. When things are shown to you, you say you agree and in next line you repeat your song of denayal again. I do not mean to offend you in any way and I respect your interest in learning if that is the case honestly, but I feel your purpose is to make fuss if you don't like what you hear.

You asked, "Where does the Quran confirm that the Holy Scriptures were changed?"

Before I answer that question, let me ask you, will you believe it than?

Hasan

The Qur'an says it accepts the �the Book,� the word  �Bible� means the book

Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were never questioned as GOD Holy Scripture. 

believer wrote: Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were never questioned as GOD Holy Scripture.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm - Just who were the real authors of the Bible? Today's Books and Gospels' authors of the Bible are UNKNOWN.  See the comments from the NIV Bible itself.

believer wrote: The original manuscripts were written on very fragile material so of course the first written one does not exist

 If the original manuscripts had been lost,then what makes you be so sure that everything into today's gospels is 100% accurate?

believer wrote: but the very original GOD's WORD does exist in Jesus Christ for He was GOD's WORD made flesh.

 And not a single gospel was written in his life time.Then what is authenticity of your gospels?

 �Not a single Gospel was written down at the time of Jesus, they were all written long after his earthly mission had come to an end� (Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, the Quran, and Science p. 127),

believer wrote:   002.079 YUSUFALI: Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. PICKTHAL: Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby. SHAKIR: Woe, then, to those who write the book with their hands and then say: This is from Allah, so that they may take for it a small price; therefore woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. Is talking about this verse in the Bible:

 This verse is referring to the children of Israel; the whole section starting from verse 25 onwards is about the children of Israel. So hence here we see a clear verse speaking of Bible corruption, some of the children of Israel wrote their own books and said it is from God. So basically this means they made copies and added their own ideas and desires and said this is from God, and when you do this over a long period of time the original book gets lost and is gone and that is what happened. So they wrote books with their own hands and claimed it is from God i.e. the Torah.

believer wrote:  Jeremiah 8  8 " 'How can you say, "We are wise,        for we have the law of the LORD,"        when actually the lying pen of the scribes        has handled it falsely?   How do they know it was handled falsely?  There were so many copies circulating people were quickly aware when a false copy shoed up.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/jeremiah8_8.htm - Jeremiah 8:8 proves Historical Corruption in the Bible - by John McCarthy.   Got detailed archeological evidence.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/argument_of_jeremiah_8.htm - - Chapter 2: Christian Proof Texts (Jeremiah 8:8).

believer wrote: Jesus died a physical death but His soul lived!!

 Where Quran says that?

believer wrote: He then ressurected  and Mohammad is confirming that inded Jesus is sitting at the right hand of GOD.

 Where Quran says that?Where Muhammad said that?

believer wrote: Some Muslims think Jesus is dead, some think he never has died, they are confused as to when Jesus died, etc.

 Not a single muslim doubt that Jesus was died by crucifixion.

 Let me quote the verse with commentary by Maulana Maududi

 004.157
YUSUFALI: That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow,*194 for of a surety they killed him not:-

*194. "Those who differed' refers to the Christians. The Christians have dozens of different versions, rather than one universally agreed view, regarding the crucifixion of the Messiah. This in itself is an eloquent testimony that the Christians were doubtful about the actual event. Some of them held the view that the one who was crucified was someone other than-Jesus and that Jesus himself in fact remained standing somewhere nearby, laughing at their folly. Others were of the opinion that the one who was crucified was certainly Jesus himself, but that he did not die on the cross and was still alive when brought down from it. Others asserted that though Jesus died on the cross, he later returned to life, met his disciples and conversed with them about ten times. Again, some believe that the human body of Jesus suffered death and was buried, while the spirit of godhead in him was taken up on high. Yet others believe that after his death the Messiah was resurrected physically and was subsequently taken up to heaven in physical form. Had the truth been fully known and well-established so many divergent views could not have gained currency.( http://www.tafheem.net/main.html - Source )

 The Quran states that if anyone believes that Jesus died and was crucified they then follow nothing but CONJECTURE which is corruption. Which book today tells us that Jesus died and was crucified? The Bible, so hence the Quran here does call the Bible corrupt. So it can't get anymore clear than that.

003.055
YUSUFALI: Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
PICKTHAL: (And remember) when Allah said: O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me, and am cleansing thee of those who disbelieve and am setting those who follow thee above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then unto Me ye will (all) return, and I shall judge between you as to that wherein ye used to differ.
SHAKIR: And when Allah said: O Isa, I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so l will decide between you concerning that in which you differed.

029.046
YUSUFALI: And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)."
PICKTHAL: And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our Allah and your Allah is One, and unto Him we surrender.
SHAKIR: And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our Allah and your Allah is One, and to Him do we submit.

As a "newbie" to your forum, I have found this discussion thread at times very insightful, yet sadly also needlessly divisive.  It is a pity that ALL cannot see what binds us, instead of focusing on what divides us?  I believe GOD/Allah/Yahweh/Jehova is patiently waiting for us to finally get that.  Fact: we are human; therefore flawed.  Our religous texts were written by humans and, therefore flaws exist.  What IS important is the basic intentions of HIS word. The 10 commandments spell it out pretty well.  Jesus's 11 comandment 'seals the deal' as to what we aLL must do.  Muslims, Christians & Jews are NOT to have false gods. We are NOT to treat others harshly, we ARE to forgive others.  The bottom line is that all 3 religions have flaws because they are rooted in our flawed humanity.  The sooner we really truly practice 'forgiveness', the sooner we will be in God's graces.