Since I started reading the Bible, I am puzzled by its contents. This time its the commands God is quoted to give to Joshua. I am appalled that God would be so unjust to command and aid this kind of behavior.

Joshua 8:1-2

Now the LORD said to Joshua: �Do not be afraid, nor be dismayed; take all the people of war with you, and arise, go up to Ai. See, I have given into your hand the king of Ai, his people, his city, and his land.  And you shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king. Only its spoil and its cattle you shall take as booty for yourselves. Lay an ambush for the city behind it.�

And here is what was done in Jericho.

Joshua 6:20 So the people shouted when the priests blew the trumpets. And it happened when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat. Then the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city. And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword.
22 But Joshua had said to the two men who had spied out the country, �Go into the harlot�s house, and from there bring out the woman and all that she has, as you swore to her.� 23 And the young men who had been spies went in and brought out Rahab, her father, her mother, her brothers, and all that she had. So they brought out all her relatives and left them outside the camp of Israel. 24 But they burned the city and all that was in it with fire. Only the silver and gold, and the vessels of bronze and iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD. 25 And Joshua spared Rahab the harlot, her father�s household, and all that she had. So she dwells in Israel to this day, because she hid the messengers whom Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.
26 Then Joshua charged them at that time, saying, �Cursed be the man before the LORD who rises up and builds this city Jericho; he shall lay its foundation with his firstborn, and with his youngest he shall set up its gates.�
27 So the LORD was with Joshua, and his fame spread throughout all the country.

I learn and believe through Quran that God commands justice and restraint, and does not order indiscrminate destruction of life and property as represented in these verses of the Bible or am I misreading them?

Hasan

Hi Honeto,

Maybe, just maybe, it�s like this: when violence and bloodlust agrees with our religious preconceptions, we tend to applaud, justify and rationalize it, but when it doesn�t, and especially when it is practiced by the �other,� whether the other is in this case a Muslim or the entire Kshatriya (warrior) caste, we tend decry it as Satanic.

My recommendation to Muslims, who at times seem unapologetically martial in their approach, is that they not, repeat not, read Exodus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, both books of Samuel, both books of Kings and some of the Psalms without first taking a mild sedative or at least straining them through a pacifistic, Christian filter (exegesis).  Of course, one should take that recommendation for what it is worth.

Best regards,

Serv

Honeto wrote:

Hi Serv,

the only reason I brought this subject up was due to the fact that many followers of the Bible portray themselves and the message of their book as peace and love and justice, something that I don't find in the quotes I mentioned. They are quite contradictory in nature to what is superficially portrayed.

It�s nice to meet you, Hasan (Honeto).  I understood your original point and I think it was well, in fact excellently, made.  Parts of my post, in response, were written with my tongue in my cheek and I probably should have said so.

The disciples of the aspiring if, in my opinion, myopic theologian-cum-historian Robert Spencer like to get their antennae in a twist over the Quran allowing, in certain and I am told rather specific instances, exactly that which the righteous Judah and his men did to Adoni-bezec.  Except that Judah, in this act of retribution, not only cut off the infidel�s fingers, he also cut off his toes (Judges 1:6)!

It is because such instances of ruthlessness might appeal to Muslims and incite them to violence that I, not seriously because I don't think they are in the main given to violence, suggested that they not read some of the especially martial Biblical books (named above) without first taking a mild sedative.  I also said to take my advice for what it is worth which in this case is absolutely nothing.

Best regards,

Serv

Honeto not sure what you are asking here:  " whoes followers were Mary and Jesus (pbuh) as well??"

Then we will all be in hell- away from GOD.

Yes and through our free will none of us is worthy.  GOD loves us and wants us with Him.

Annius of Viterbo came up with this theory in the late 15th century, decades after the Gospels were written.  Sure it would explain the reason why Jesus is not the seed of David, but theologians discount it as false since historically the mother's lineage was never recorded and no mention is made in the Bible of Mary's lineage, period....

LOL!!  Think about it,  Why would first and second hand eye witnesses include contradicting genealogies in their manuscripts?

Minuteman has quoted a very key verse of Quran which says that some people get stuck to some portions of Quran. This will mislead them more and more. That is why Quran says many people become misled with Quran (means misunderstanding of verses and/or fast judgments based on a portion of it) and many people get the guidance from it. That is one of the reasons I think Hadith and Sunnah is also vitally important.

In a Hadith from an infallible it is said that a few things are always hided in a few other things. Then the infallible counts them. One of them is the following:

�For everyone that sin which is the most unpleasant sin beside Allah (swt) is hided in their sins. Be extremely careful to seriously avoid  underestimating ANY of your sins (and committing it again). A small sin beside you may be not so beside Allah (swt)�

Therefore, our duty is to take a lot of care as much as possible in a sincere way (this means Taghvaa in Arabic). But about the Shirk, I think first of all we�d better to remember that �to be worshiped� is only and only the Allah�s Right. In Arabic this falls into the category of �Hagho�llah�. We can not judge if Allah (swt) forgives a Moshrik or not then He is just or not. This is DIRECT Right of Allah (swt). However, when Allah (swt) forgives a Moshrik, this doesn�t mean the Moshrik is not a loser on the Last day, does it?

As much as I know from Islam teachings, I can say that if a person be sinful and unjust to other people then Allah (swt) will NOT forgive that person on the Last day unless those people (who have been sinfully and unjustly behaved by the corresponding person) get satisfied and/or forgive that corresponding person. In Arabic this falls into the category of �Hagho�nnaas�.

Minuteman: �All the companions of the prophet s.a.w.s. were polytheists (Mushrik)��

I am sorry but I have to disagree here. We can not say ALL of them were necessarily Mushrik even if there is one exception.

minuteman wrote: I have provided the verses prior and the afterward verses to the number 4:48 verse under discussion here. Please note that this verse 4:48 is a special warning to the people of the books. It is clearly for the people of the books, Jews, christians and Muslims etc that they should not ascribe partners with Allah. If they do then they will never be forgiven.    So it seems that there will be no repentence for such people. Thanks to you for the correction. And good-bye to repentence for the people of the book if they do any shirk. There is no excuse for them.    But others who have never had any message from God/ Allah, there case may be different. I feel that this is a reasonable reply. What do you say please.

But back to the subject: I think if there is a way to resolve the contradiction it would have to be in the definition of "shirk".  If shirk is unforgivable, and Allah forgave the Israelites, then it follows that the Israelites did not commit shirk.

I have always been puzzled by the phrase "setting up partners with Allah".  If Allah had meant idolatry, or worshipping other god(s), why didn't He just say that?

I think the answer is that the Golden Calf is not a "partner" with Allah -- it is a replacement for Him.  The same can be said about worshipping other gods, even polytheism.  Those who worship other gods do not know Allah.  They are ignorant but not evil.

To me, "setting up partners" would be to believe in Allah and the Quran, but to claim that Allah is not sufficient -- that He needs a "partner" to complete His message and establish His authority.  Such a message implies that Allah is a weak, inadequate God.  Moreover, it corrupts the message of Islam from within, whereas Golden Calves and other competing religions can only attack it from the outside.  I can see why Allah would find such corruption treasonous and unforgivable.

Frankly, I think the sin of shirk was a specific warning to Muslims not to treat Mohammad as a partner to Allah.  Allah's message, the Quran, is sufficient and complete.  It does not need to be, and must not be, augmented with the Hadith or the Sunnah.  As great as Muhammad may have been, he was only the messenger of Islam, not a co-author.

But I am not a Muslim, so what do I know, eh? 

Ron: �It does not need to be, and must not be, augmented with the Hadith or the Sunnah.�

"Shasta'sAunt: the people did as Moses told them to do...

I am sorry but this is not a good excuse for them. Moses (as) surely didn't want them to be like a good trained animal. I think he had told them "WHY" for sure ... "

Perhaps Moses did tell them that the One and Only God was leading them from bondage, but that doesn't mean that they understood what that meant. They were idolators and pagans.

Shasta'sAunt: Even today there are people who follow certain tenets of Islam without knowing why.

 I appreciate that Ron.- "I'm just saying that it is not logically inconsistent."

Ron: I'm just saying that it is not logically inconsistent.

There is logical inconsistency in that case. But, is it logically inconsistent or shirk beside you if a Muslim wants to know: who was the last Prophet, what he said and how he lived (in behavior) and if a Muslim use them in his/her life if they are (logically, historically) reliable not against what is written in Quran?

Ron: give me an example where the Hadith and/or Sunnah are needed?

Where are they needed? Let me give you the simplest and most apparent example.  In Quran there are many times where Allah (swt) commands us to perform praying "Salaat in Arabic" telling us it is a must for a Momen (believer) and it essentially guides the believer. But nowhere is written how to pray. Please reply honestly, if you want to read and act according to Quran, would it be not a question for you: �how to pray�? Was it not a question for Muslims who used to live at the time of prophet? If it was and it is, who would be the first choice for you to go to and learn.

Believer: Your mind can be open sure but if your heart is closed you will never know the truth- because you will think you see contradictions that don't really exist.

I have a simple question: what makes you believe in Jesus (as) but not in Mohammad (sawa)? Why do you believe in one prophet but not the other?

Unfortunately you are making your own definition of prophethood. It seems your mind and heart is open more to the news and advertisements  rather than the truth. However, let me question your points one by one.

Jesus was about loving your enemy, He never lead an army

How did you understand Jesus (as) loved enemies but Mohammad (sawa) didn�t? because of war? If yes, I must say it is a rather superficial conclusion. The existence of war doesn�t prove such a thing; to love someone is a status of heart not what you see. You may see a mother is talking to her child angrily. Do you conclude that the mother doesn�t love her child? You may be in a war with an enemy who has attacked to your family to kill your innocent children and spouse. Don�t you defend as a human being?

following the commandments of YHWH, 

If you mean Allah (swt) by YHWH, then Mohammad (sawa) has also followed Him. How do you know he has disobeyed YHWH?

healed the sick and raised the dead. Mohammad has absolutely no proof that he was speaking for GOD, just his say so.  Jesus had proof. 

Did you find it by your mind or heart? Have you got this information not from the History? Go back to history and see Moses (as) had also some Miracles and so many had Mohammad (sawa) and other prophets. Did Jesus (as) say that �raising a dead� is the only criterion to prove the validity of prophet�s Miracles?

Mohammad/Allah made laws about the rewards of this life- booty from war, how many wives you can have, control of people- how to pray, what to wear.  All tings of the physical world. Jesus was all about the soul and next world with GOD.   

How do you understand that these laws are only applicable for physical world? How can you say �how to wear� and �how to pray� are independent of soul and meta-physical world? How can you prove that they are not influential in both physical and non-physical world? Did Jesus (as) forbid people to marry, work, trade and live in this physical world? Do people have not to pass this physical world to reach the next world? Does anything apart from (what is happening  in) this physical world determines the situation in the next world?

myahya wrote: There is logical inconsistency in that case. But, is it logically inconsistent or shirk beside you if a Muslim wants to know: who was the last Prophet, what he said and how he lived (in behavior) and if a Muslim use them in his/her life if they are (logically, historically) reliable not against what is written in Quran?

Yes, if a Muslim uses the sayings or actions of the Prophet to define additional rules of worship or living that are not found in the Quran, then I believe that is what is meant by the phrase "setting up partners".

By the way, I am not saying that you, personally, are guilty of Shirk.  You are simply accepting doctrine that others have taught you.  The ones who were guilty of Shirk are the Imams who first set up this partnership many centuries ago and began teaching it.

Let me give you the simplest and most apparent example.  In Quran there are many times where Allah (swt) commands us to perform praying "Salaat in Arabic" telling us it is a must for a Momen (believer) and it essentially guides the believer. But nowhere is written how to pray. Please reply honestly, if you want to read and act according to Quran, would it be not a question for you: "how to pray"? Was it not a question for Muslims who used to live at the time of prophet? If it was and it is, who would be the first choice for you to go to and learn.

Has it never occurred to you that maybe Allah doesn't care exactly how you pray, as long as you do so sincerely and regularly?  Prayer is not for Allah's benefit, but for yours.  Why should He care what words you use, what direction you face, whether you bow or kneel or just close your eyes and concentrate on your thoughts?  If it makes you happy to emulate the Prophet then by all means do so, but Allah never required it.  If He had, He would have said so in the Quran.

The same situation exists for Haj, Zakat, Infagh, Jihad, and so on. Some details are not mentioned. This can be really dangerous if one doesn�t use reliable Hadith and Sunnah and wants to decide only and only based on WHAT he/she understands from reading it or its translation. It doesn�t mean that Quran is not sufficient but our comprehension is limited and can be drastically influenced by what we would like to do (not what Quran actually tells us). Therefore, we need a teacher who is the best example (as Quran says about the prophet) to teach us (as Quran says) the book.

Again, has it never occurred to you that maybe such details were never intended to be rigidly defined?  The principles of pilgrimage, charity, etc. are important, but the exact processes must necessarily adapt to different times and different places.  Muhammad may have ridden to Mecca on a horse or a camel.  Does that mean you have to ride on a camel?  Of course not!

It is surprising to me: even when you send your daughter to school to get educated you are actually hiring teacher for her to teach her the books. Why do you not just buy the same books giving them to your daughter to read them herself?

Because a live instructor can answer questions and interactively adapt his instruction to the specific circumstances and requirements of the learner.  The Hadith cannot do that.  It is a collection of live, interactive lessons intended for a specific time, place and people, which were collected and preserved for all time and all people as a "companion" volume to the Quran.  But you don't see that by doing so you are setting up Muhammad as a "companion", a.k.a. "partner" to Allah, in defining the doctrine of Islam?

Yes I know, it's not an equal partnership.  Allah is still the one supreme God.  But a junior partner is still a partner.

LOL!!  minuteman read the Bible!! 

John 4

Jesus Talks With a Samaritan Woman

 4Now he had to go through Samaria. 5So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph. 6Jacob's well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about the sixth hour.

 7When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, "Will you give me a drink?" 8(His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)

 9The Samaritan woman said to him, "You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?" (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.)

 10Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."

 11"Sir," the woman said, "you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?"

 13Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

 15The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water so that I won't get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water."

 16He told her, "Go, call your husband and come back."

 17"I have no husband," she replied.

   Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no husband. 18The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true."

 19"Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet.[ http://www.islamicity.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=59082&FID=10 - myahya  please note ] 20Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem."

 21Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

 25The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."

 26Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he."

The Disciples Rejoin Jesus

 28Then, leaving her water jar, the woman went back to the town and said to the people, 29"Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Christ?" 30They came out of the town and made their way toward him.

 31Meanwhile his disciples urged him, "Rabbi, eat something."

 32But he said to them, "I have food to eat that you know nothing about."

 33Then his disciples said to each other, "Could someone have brought him food?"

 34"My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work. 35Do you not say, 'Four months more and then the harvest'? I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest. 36Even now the reaper draws his wages, even now he harvests the crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together. 37Thus the saying 'One sows and another reaps' is true. 38I sent you to reap what you have not worked for. Others have done the hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labor."

Many Samaritans Believe

 42They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."

Believer, I read the verses you quoted from Bible but I don�t understand how do they relate to what I said and asked? you have counted some characteristics of Jesus (as) for his prophethood. Loving Allah (swt), Loving all people, having miracles, and there are many more which used to be in common for all prophets. However the existence of war doesn�t show anything. Did Jesus (as) say that if any person was in a war (for any reason), then that person must surely not be a prophet? Or may be you think Jesus (as) is the last prophet?

I understand that you may love Jesus (as) and believe in his prophethood. But it doesn�t mean you should deny the other Prophets. Do you think Jesus (as) is satisfied with you if you deny one of the Prophets of his same God, Allah, Father or whatever you call?

Ron: �Yes, if a Muslim uses the sayings or actions of the Prophet to define additional rules of worship or living that are not found in the Quran, then I believe that is what is meant by the phrase "setting up partners".�

I am not sure if I have understood what you mean by �using the sayings or actions of the Prophet to define additional rules of worship or living that are not found in the Quran�. If you mean some people have been always using sayings or actions of the Prophet to mislead other people, I agree. It has always happened not only for the Prophet of Islam but also for Quran. Some people have always used Quran, Sonnat and Hadith showing themselves a believer in all of them and even an Imam but they have changed some of them (even slightly) or used them wrongly (not in right situations) and the result was  more misleading (in themselves and others). I can say these are the worst people according to Quran�s description. They are called Monafigh in Quran. However, this doesn�t mean we should say bye to sayings and actions of the Prophet if the sayings and actions are not wrong (historically reliable and not injected) and not changed because:

1-     There can not be sayings or actions of the Prophet which are not confirmed by Quran. What a Prophet says or acts can not be (logically) in contradiction to what Allah (swt) wills. Otherwise he is not a Prophet. This reason is written in Quran I am not saying it without Quran�s support.

2-     When the Prophet says a sentence and it is not contradicting Quran but confirmed by Quran and I should say (by Quran�s support) it is teaching us the Quran, then the meaning can surely be found in Quran. I think we are talking about the meaning not about the linguistically formed structures (word by word equality).

3-   To obey the Prophet is what Quran commands. I have not produced it from myself.

After all, would you please show me where in Quran it is written that you shouldn�t care about the Prophet�s sayings or trust them unless Quran? If you can not show it in Quran (and I am sure you can not), then this is you who are now defining additional rules which is not in Quran. I wish you can see or understand that you can not separate the Prophet and Quran.   

If one simply accepts a doctrine without a reason they will easily deviate from the right pass even if the doctrine is right. I do my best and pray to Him to guide me enshaa allaah.  Anyway, I am giving you reasons and you are a human with intelligence. Do not judge fast and do your best.

Ron �Has it never occurred to you that maybe Allah doesn't care exactly how you pray, as long as you do so sincerely and regularly? �

Is it written in Quran or is an additional rule to it? Please show it to me if it is written in Quran.

Ron: �Prayer is not for Allah's benefit, but for yours.  Why should He care what words you use, what direction you face, whether you bow or kneel or just close your eyes and concentrate on your thoughts?�

Why not? It can have many different reasons for your benefit but you don�t know it and Allah (swt) knows. Sometimes you may advise your children to do a specific task in a particular way or to avoid doing something in a particular way because you know that it is better for them, even if they do not understand it. On the other hand, Allah (swt) can examine us how we obey Him with regards to His Prophet. Remember in Quran it is explained that He examined angles asking them to prostrate to Adam (as). By the way, why Allah (swt) cared about the action of prostration while He knew which angel was sincerely doing it about Adam (as) (in heart or thoughts) and which one was not?

Ron: �Allah intended Islam to be an easy religion�

Ron: �Again, has it never occurred to you that maybe such details were never intended to be rigidly defined? �

In Quran principles are mentioned and at the same time we are referred to the Prophet (to learn). All details are not necessary to be mentioned. If all details were supposed to be defined and mentioned in Quran, then a library had to be recited rather than a book.  

Ron: �The principles of pilgrimage, charity, etc. are important, but the exact processes must necessarily adapt to different times and different places. Muhammad may have ridden to Mecca on a horse or a camel.  Does that mean you have to ride on a camel?  Of course not!�

The boundary between invariant principles and variant process that must be adapt to different times and places can also be understood by studying Quran and the Prophet sayings and actions and also wisdom. For example you have understood one of them: Of course it is not needed to ride on a camel today to perform Haj.

Ron: �Because a live instructor can answer questions and interactively adapt his instruction to the specific circumstances and requirements of the learner.�

Ron: �Yes I know, it's not an equal partnership.  Allah is still the one supreme God.  But a junior partner is still a partner.�

Beliver: �I believe that Jesus is more then a mere prophet- He was the message a prophet might spread. He was GOD's WORD in flesh on earth to guide us and save us.�

There has always been Allah�s WORD (Kalematollah in Arabic, or may be I say Khalifatollah Or Hojjatollah) living in the world (at each moment till the Last day) to guide and save us. Even now there is. The sentences you have quoted from Bible do not contributes this characteristic (only and only) to Jesus (as). The violation of this can lead to erroneous conclusions. I agree there was a message all prophets used to spread but this message was not Jesus (as) and did not end with him. People have to still wait till then. Jesus (as) will also come back on the same day.

Believer: �I honor prophets, they have much to teach us, but they were sinful man just like all of us.  A person has to weed through the bad stuff to get to the good stuff.�

I am sorry that I have to say you do not honor prophets. You are making mistakes. How can you conclude prophets have been all sinful unless Jesus (as)? This is not even the word of Jesus (as) nor can wisdom tell us that. Furthermore, you have no reason for it. That is why I say you are making your own definitions. You accuse prophets of committing sins and at the same time you claim that you honor them!!!!!

"Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

Ron: �Yes, if a Muslim uses the sayings or actions of the Prophet to define additional rules of worship or living that are not found in the Quran, then I believe that is what is meant by the phrase "setting up partners".�

myahya wrote: I  am not sure if I have understood what you mean by "using the sayings or actions of the Prophet to define additional rules of worship or living that are not found in the Quran".

And I am not sure what you don't understand, but let me put it this way.  If the Prophet makes a statement that is corroborated in the Quran, then it is superfluous and can be discarded.  If it is contradicted in the Quran, then it is obviously not authentic and should also be discarded.  And if it is not mentioned in the Quran at all, then either it is unimportant or the Quran is missing something important (which I think we can agree is impossible).

After all, would you please show me where in Quran it is written that you shouldn�t care about the Prophet�s sayings or trust them unless Quran?

I didn't say that you shouldn't care about them.  What I said (or meant, anyway) was that they should not be regarded as doctrine, because by the logic I outlined above, everything in the hadith is either superfluous, incorrect or unimportant.  Read them as history, or for inspiration, or for spiritual strength.  Just don't read them as doctrine.  Don't look in them for things that you think are "missing" from the Quran.

I think the clearest statements warning against the hadith are the ones which warn against setting up partners with Allah.  However, I think Sura 45:6 is also quite interesting: "These [i.e. the Quran] are the communications of Allah which We recite to you with truth; then in what announcement would they believe after Allah and His communications?"  I have read that the word "announcement" is actually "hadith" in the original Arabic.  Is that true?

In Quran principles are mentioned and at the same time we are referred to the Prophet (to learn). All details are not necessary to be mentioned. If all details were supposed to be defined and mentioned in Quran, then a library had to be recited rather than a book.

And if a library had been required, do you think Allah could not have dictated it or Muhammad could not have recited it?  Allah does not "run out of words".  As the Quran (31:27) puts it: "And were every tree that is in the earth (made into) pens and the sea (to supply it with ink), with seven more seas to increase it, the words of Allah would not come to an end."

I have told many times that it is stated in Quran to follow the Prophet. Therefore, such a following doesn�t make a partnership at all. It is what Allah (swt) wills.

"Following the Prophet" doesn't make a partnership if it means following him in living according to the Quran.  It only makes a partnership if you regard Islam as partly defined by Allah via the Quran, and partly by Muhammad via the hadith.

Believer:

"You honor someone by telling the truth about them. 

YES  prophets are men and all men have sinned and will continue to sin."

Unfortunately you are not telling the truth. You are only telling a sentence  which is obviously wrong. Because it doesn't pass even the simplest basic wisdom of a human, who is going to find his/her right way according to religions.  You do not have even a basic logical reason to prove sinfulness of prophets. Therefore, You are welcome to what you may like. We will wait till the day of Allah�s judgment.

Ron: �If the Prophet makes a statement that is corroborated in the Quran, then it is superfluous and can be discarded.�

1-     As I told the Prophet doesn�t (for sure) make a statement or act that is contradicted in Quran.

2-     The prophet (as a human being) makes statements or has a life style which can not be found in Quran nor contradicts it. For example, the prophet used to wear clothing similar to people in that period of time of history and that place. The prophet had a hair (or beard) style of course and used to ride camel or horse and so on. Copying such a living style doesn�t mean one is following the prophet.

3-     I disagree when the prophet makes statements or acts in a way which is corroborated in Quran then it is superfluous. We can not conclude it even in our daily activities. A student doesn�t understand a section in a physics book. He/she goes to the teacher and asks about it and the teacher explains. The explanation is corroborated in the book but no one says it is superfluous.

Ron: �I think the clearest statements warning against the hadith are the ones which warn against setting up partners with Allah.  However, I think Sura 45:6 is also quite interesting: "These [i.e. the Quran] are the communications of Allah which We recite to you with truth; then in what announcement would they believe after Allah and His communications?"  I have read that the word "announcement" is actually "hadith" in the original Arabic.  Is that true?�

Yes in Arabic it is Hadith (in Quran). Hadith in Arabic means �sayings� in general. Which sayings does it mean? Sayings after Allah and His communications (proof, manifestations or Aayaat in Arabic). What communications does it mean in this verse? Please read the verses from the first of the same Sura till the vers 6. The communications are defined there. Here is a translation:

 
[45:1]   H. M.

[45:2]   The revelation of the book from Allah, the Almighty, Most Wise.

[45:3]   The skies and the earth are full of communications (Aayaat) for the believers.

[45:4]   Also in your creation, and all animals that He scattered in the earth, there are communications (Aayaat) for people who are certain.

[45:5]   Also, the alternation of the night and the day, and what Allah sends down from the sky from sustenance with which He revives the earth after its death, and the manipulation of the winds; all these are communications (Aayaat) for people who understand.

Now after all of them counted to remind in the first verses, in the verse 6 it is asking an unbeliever: in what else, in what sayings after (rejecting) Allah and all His communications do you (unbeliever) want to believe? Is there anything else left which is not from Allah? Anything (you may want to believe in, instead of Allah) is already from Allah, from skies to the earth from night to day and from creation of yourself to all things. I think the name �Allah� is intentionally separated from manifestations (Aayaat) to emphasize that none of those manifestations or communications is Allah (swt).

No, He could do it but He didn�t. You see it is one book; every required thing is revealed in it but not in details and sometimes not very explicit. Otherwise, as you selected the right verse and mentioned it, the words of Allah would not come to an end.

Ron: �"Following the Prophet" doesn't make a partnership if it means following him in living according to the Quran.�

myahya wrote: Now after all of them counted to remind in the first verses, in the verse 6 it is asking an unbeliever: in what else, in what sayings after (rejecting) Allah and all His communications do you (unbeliever) want to believe? Is there anything else left which is not from Allah? Anything (you may want to believe in, instead of Allah) is already from Allah, from skies to the earth from night to day and from creation of yourself to all things. I think the name �Allah� is intentionally separated from manifestations (Aayaat) to emphasize that none of those manifestations or communications is Allah (swt).

Thank you for that explanation, but I don't see how it supports your position.  It still seems to me that the intent of the passage is to show that no, there is nothing that is not from Allah, no other "sayings" (hadith) that should be believed in.

Ron: �And if a library had been required, do you think Allah could not have dictated it or Muhammad could not have recited it? � No, He could do it but He didn�t. You see it is one book; every required thing is revealed in it but not in details and sometimes not very explicit. Otherwise, as you selected the right verse and mentioned it, the words of Allah would not come to an end.

Can you give me an example of something that is in the Quran, but not in details or not very explicit?  In other words, something that needs to be supplemented with the hadith?

Ron: �Thank you for that explanation, but I don't see how it supports your position.�

It is simple. The Prophet never invites anybody to believe in anything instead of or together with Allah (swt) to worship. Obviously the word �Hadith� in the verse doesn�t come back to the Prophet�s Hadith. It comes back to any saying which invites people to believe in one or more of the manifestations (like the Golden Calf story) instead of Allah (Kofr) or together with Allah (Shirk). Not only the Prophet never committed either Kofr or Shirk in his own sayings and actions but also Allah (swt) recited all those Ayaat (46:1-5) to the Prophet (46:6) and then he had the mission from Allah (swt) to proclaim and recite them to people. Now the question is how anybody can be led to commit Kofr or Shirk by following this Prophet if he/she is sincerely and properly following? It contradicts the basic aim of the guidance and the prophethood. It is also written in Quran that the Prophet doesn�t say anything on his own desires but what We (Allah swt) send down to him.

It is in history whenever anybody wanted to call prophet Allah or to behave in a way to worship the prophet (and the same for the leaders in my belief) they used to strictly prevent those people to do so. There are many Hadiths in their sayings to warn people seriously avoiding Shirk and Kofr and there are many Hadiths in which they define different types of Shirk and Kofr in details and from Quran.

Ron: �the Quran, and our own intelligence�

Right, but I think the more complete expression is �The Prophets and our own intelligence�. Because you know there were many prophets who didn�t recite book and there are a few of them who recited books to people. And one of the miracles of the last prophet (and the most important and the main one I think) is Quran which also encouraged people to study of science and nature.

Ron: �Can you give me an example of something that is in the Quran, but not in details or not very explicit?  In other words, something that needs to be supplemented with the hadith?�

There are many. One time I gave the most appear examples about Salaat, Haj, Jihad and so on. More complicated, I remember we had this question:  who are �those who have authority among us� (mentioned in Quran)? As one reads Quran, they can never claim they comprehend it thoroughly.

myahya wrote: Now the question is how anybody can be led to commit Kofr or Shirk by following this Prophet if he/she is sincerely and properly following? It contradicts the basic aim of the guidance and the prophethood.

Well, in the first place it seems to me that "following the Prophet" was intended to apply only to Muhammad's contemporaries.  I don't think it's possible to follow a leader who is dead, unless one intends on following him into the grave.

Even for his contemporaries, however, following the Prophet meant following him in worshipping according to the Quran, not adding other "sayings" not already there.  So I guess the question is, do the hadith add anything new, or do they simply interpret what is already there?  For that we need to discuss specific examples, as I have requested below.

It is also written in Quran that the Prophet doesn�t say anything on his own desires but what We (Allah swt) send down to him.

As I recall, that statement occurs in a passage that describes the revelation of the Quran.  It seems clear to me that the statement is meant to say that in reciting the Quran, the Prophet is not speaking on his own behalf.  It seems frankly ridiculous to think that he never said anything in his entire life except as directed by Allah.  Did he never say "pass the salt" at the dinner table, or was that too an instruction for Allah?

Ron: �the Quran, and our own intelligence� Right, but I think the more complete expression is �The Prophets and our own intelligence�.

We don't have the Prophets directly from Allah.  We have only their writing and sayings, which have passed through innumerable intermediaries.

Ron: �Can you give me an example of something that is in the Quran, but not in details or not very explicit?  In other words, something that needs to be supplemented with the hadith?� There are many. One time I gave the most appear examples about Salaat, Haj, Jihad and so on. More complicated, I remember we had this question:  who are �those who have authority among us� (mentioned in Quran)? As one reads Quran, they can never claim they comprehend it thoroughly.

We have mentioned Salaat, Haj, etc., in general, but I don't think you gave a specific example of a hadith that adds details concerning any of those topics that are not in the Quran.  Sorry if I missed that, but could you remind me?

So who are "those who have authority among us" according to the hadith?  And why should we assume that those in authority circa 600 A.D. would also be in authority today?

Ron: �Well, in the first place it seems to me that "following the Prophet" was intended to apply only to Muhammad's contemporaries.  I don't think it's possible to follow a leader who is dead�

In Islamic ideology nobody becomes dead in soul. You can communicate with souls. The death is only like a bridge for our soul to journey from the state of this world to another. It is only for the body. Even the body can be revived after the death by Allah swt.  This is mentioned in Quran even in the same verses we reviewed (about the earth as a communication for those who understand 46:5).

Ron: �It seems clear to me that the statement is meant to say that in reciting the Quran, the Prophet is not speaking on his own behalf.�

I think it is much more general. There used to be many times in the Prophet�s contemporaries when people would come to him to ask general serious questions about verses of Quran, about the religion, past, future and so on. The prophet had to answer the questions and the answer shouldn�t had been to misguide people and deviate them from the right path, which tends them to Allah swt. This may be one of the reasons why even in Quran the prophet is the main reference to interpret Quran and to guide people towards Allah swt.

Ron: �It seems frankly ridiculous to think that he never said anything in his entire life except as directed by Allah.�

This discussion has different sides I think. Form one side; I think the Prophet had desires of course but he didn�t use them in contradictory way with Allah�s desires because he knew what satisfies Allah swt as the best slave (Abd). From another side, I think recitation or communication between Allah swt and his prophet would not be limited to Quran. Surely Allah swt used to communicate (whether through Gabriel or not) to his prophet and not necessarily limited to a time when a verse of Quran was supposed to be recited. About the example of �salt �, we can understand with our intelligence that �the act of asking for a salt� doesn�t have anything to do with misguiding people and it can be a simple desire of any human being. However, one may learn �how to do it� even in such a simple example.

Ron: �We don't have the Prophets directly from Allah.  We have only their writing and sayings, which have passed through innumerable intermediaries.�

I meant the prophets were created first and then the words and sentences (linguistically expressions) were sent to them. Even the Arabic language (the language of Quran) is created after human being. There had been a truth which was expressed in a book called Quran. That truth is created before and beyond any linguistic form and it was with all prophets, I believe.

As I promised to give and example, here I have quoted an 
example about the time of Praying which was asked from the 
Prophet:

In Al-Bukhari (v3), Muslim and others have chapters on 
Prayer and Time of Prayers. Here is a sample:
 
Sahih Muslim Hadith # 1278  narrated by Buraydah:
 
"Someone asked the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) about the time
of prayer.  Upon this he said: Pray with us these two, meaning for two
days. When the sun passed the meridian, he gave the command to Bilal who
uttered the call to prayer, then he commanded him to pronounce the
Iqamah for noon prayer. (Then at the time of the afternoon prayer) he
again gave the command and the Iqamah for the afternoon prayer was
pronounced when the sun was high, white and clear. He then commanded, and
Iqamah for the evening prayer was pronounced, when the sun had set. He
then gave him the command and the Iqamah for the night prayer was
pronounced when the twilight had disappeared. Later he gave him the
command and the Iqamah for the morning prayer was pronounced when the
dawn had appeared.  When it was the next day, he commanded him to delay
the noon prayer until the extreme heat had passed and he did so, and he
allowed it to be delayed till the extreme heat had passed. He observed
the afternoon prayer when the sun was high, delaying it beyond the time
he had previously observed it. He observed the evening prayer before the
twilight had vanished; he observed the night prayer when a third of the
night had passed; and he observed the dawn prayer when there was clear
daylight.  He (the Holy Prophet) then said: Where is the man who
inquired about the time of prayer?  He (the inquirer) said: Messenger of
Allah! Here I am.  He (the Holy Prophet) said: The time for your prayer
is within the limits of what you have seen."

Combining of the Dhuhr and Asr together in the shared time and the Maghrib
and Ishaa together at night has also been reported in many hadiths. The same
hadiths tell of the number of Rukaas, too.

Bukhari (v1, p292, #529) from Ibn Abbas: "The prophet
(s) prayed seven together and eight together."

myahya (May 2) wrote: Ron: �Well, in the first place it seems to me that "following the Prophet" was intended to apply only to Muhammad's contemporaries.  I don't think it's possible to follow a leader who is dead� In Islamic ideology nobody becomes dead in soul.

That's not much help for those of us who cannot communicate with the dead.  Let me rephrase: I don't think it's possible to follow a leader if you cannot communicate with him, nor he with you.

myahya (May 5) wrote: As I promised to give and example, here I have quoted an example about the time of Praying which was asked from the Prophet:

Thank you, myahya.  Unfortunately my ignorance of the specifics of Muslim prayer practice makes it difficult to understand your example.  However, I can see that Muhammad is adapting his instructions to suit the circumstances (delaying a prayer because it is too hot, for instance).  Again, that is the true function of a leader -- a function that he cannot perform for us here and now.

Frankly, I think you are confusing leadership with authority, and that is why I am becoming concerned about shirk.  To recognize Muhammad as a temporal leader, giving commands to his contemporaries, is legitimate; but to transform his words into timeless doctrine is to give him the kind of authority that properly belongs to Allah, and thus to make him a partner with Allah.  That's the way I see it anyway.

Good point Ron-

Even for his contemporaries, however, following the Prophet meant following him in worshipping according to the Quran, not adding other "sayings" not already there.  So I guess the question is, do the hadith add anything new, or do they simply interpret what is already there?  For that we need to discuss specific examples, as I have requested below."

Ron: �That's not much help for those of us who cannot communicate with the dead.  Let me rephrase: I don't think it's possible to follow a leader if you cannot communicate with him, nor he with you.�

To add some to good explanation of Honeto, I have to say human communication is not limited only to physical or visual (material) communication. What you mean by �death� can only and only be defined with respect to the prophet�s body. Generally the death of a body doesn�t show what one may consider:

Quran (3:169) And reckon not those who are killed in Allah's Way as dead Nay, They are alive and are provided sustenance from their Lord.

Ron �However, I can see that Muhammad is adapting his instructions to suit the circumstances (delaying a prayer because it is too hot, for instance).  Again, that is the true function of a leader -- a function that he cannot perform for us here and now.�

The act of adapting was an instruction too. From Quran and Sunnah (true sayings and actions of the Prophet), even the adaptation in that example, the experts had been (and are) concluding and extrapolating the functions which are needed at any time by using wisdom and intelligence. That is called Fiqh in Islam. There is no error from the prophet�s side. He also did and completed what he was supposed (by Allah swt) to do. The rest is our responsibility to learn and find out what we need here and now.

Ron �Frankly, I think you are confusing leadership with authority, and that is why I am becoming concerned about shirk.  To recognize Muhammad as a temporal leader, giving commands to his contemporaries, is legitimate; but to transform his words into timeless doctrine is to give him the kind of authority that properly belongs to Allah, and thus to make him a partner with Allah. �

Both leadership and authority is given to the prophet by Allah swt. I provided both logical reasons and evidence from Quran to show it.

Ron:� That's the way I see it anyway.�

As I have stated before, a Muslim is a person who believes and bears that there is nothing which can be worshiped except Allah swt the only One without partner, and that Mohammad (sawa) is His slave and messenger. Such a Muslim believes in Quran and does his/her best to comprehend it and act according to it sincerely.  Till here there is no contradiction with �the way you see� right? If yes, do not afraid. Go ahead and do so sincerely. I do not continue discussing more details and only pray: Allah swt may guide all of us to the right pass without deviation.

honeto wrote: For example, The Quran gives us the command of praying or offering Salath at fixed times. It does not tell us how to offer the Salath, through the prophet's pratice and explanation, those around him learned how to do Salath or wash before entering into Salath. It is not that with his death we have to leave those examples and practices.

Do you think Allah forgot to tell you how to offer Salath, or how to wash?  Do you think He "ran out of words", or ran out of time or patience, when He dictated the Quran?  Or do you think He delegated those duties to His "partner"?

Or is it perhaps possible that he left it out because it was never intended to be part of Islam?  Could it be that he doesn't really care how you offer Salath as long as you do so sincerely and regularly?  Is it possible He felt that Muslims ought to be smart enough to figure out how to wash their hands on their own?

A daisy is an excellent example of a flower.  But not all flowers have to be daisies.