www.free-islam.com

Hadith & Sunnah - Mutawatir Hadith can supercede Quran
- Wed 30 May, 2007 2:09 am
Post subject: Mutawatir Hadith can supercede Quran
In the other forum mostly dominated by Indians and Pakistanis, one of them first claimed

1) Mutawatir hadith is equivalent to Quran, now this wasnt enought

2) Mutawatir hadith can supercede the Quran.

Now, do i have comments to pass for this ignorant fool and challenging book of Allaah. Usually i tend to avoid any sectarian based thread but this was wrt the Quran.

Initially i was calm and tried to clear his misconception but this guy supported his ignorance, i will just quote hieght of his ignrance

Code:
Also hadith can supercede an ayah if the hadith in question is mutawatir


Few examples

Code:
Also according to the majority of the scholars (jumhur), a ruling of the Qur????????????????????????????¢?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¬?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¢an can be nullified by the Sunnah, as whatever the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) says is from Allah (Surah al-Najm,v4).

Example for this is the Hadith which says ????????????????????????????¢?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¬????????Wasiyya (bequest) is not permissible for an heir (inheritor). This cancels out the verse of the Qur????????????????????????????¢?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¬?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¢an which indicates that Wasiyyat is prescribed for parents (al-Baqara, v.180).


Now this cant be beaten

Code:
Now lets see what Imam Abu Yusuf r.h (student of Imam Abu Hanifa r.h) had to say about this. His statement can be found in great commentary of the Quran by Abu Bakkar al-Jassas called Ahkaamul-Qur'an (vol. 2, p.425):

The command of the Qur'an can be abrogated by the Sunnah (traditions of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) only if it has reached the level of Tawaatur or Istifadhah, such as the level of narration's of masah 'alal khuffain."


But i went Brother AB WAY, a little aggressive but tried my best this was my rebuttal

To all of them here, i am not talkign about the people who believe that Hadith can supercede the Quran.

Well, people laud themselves by saying i have read this and that, they should understand everyone is not a fool around here and when some comments are passed, they say i read this and i dont do like others again a key of blind following.

I am sorry i lack time as of now but try to put in few insights.
1) We know Quran can abrogate the Quran but not hadith, no where in the Quran its mentioned that mutawatir hadith can supercede the Quran because if its was given Allaah would have surely spoken about it in the Quran.

That Hakim the wisdome which the scholars usually implies for the Prophetic tradition can supercede the word of Allaah.
You see people are looking other way round prove me the verse in the Quran but not the other way round, someone who is intelligent can understand what i have stated.

2) For hadith to qualify it has to be authentic and not contradict with the Quran, again not the other way round someone who feel hadith can abrogate the Quran then his is gravely mistaken and should be lashed accordingly.

3) Now let me take you through the verses in the Holy quran which be a slam dunk to all this theory of mutawatir hadith superceding the Quran.

002.078
SHAKIR: And there are among them illiterates who know not the Book but only lies, and they do but conjecture.
002.079
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.

To understand word illetrate here is a big issue if any one is interested let him/her pm me. The above verses where revealed for the Jews if you can read the verses above and below it. But i find striking resemblance to the people who are supporting such futile claim of hadith superceding the Quran.

If you observe the bold part it clearly says write the book and claim this is from Allaah, now check the similarity a mutawatir hadith can superseded the Quran that is the word of Allaah, please contemplate.

Now the next verse

004.082
SHAKIR: Do they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy.

No doubt about it check it out that means to say Quran naozbillaah had a discrepancy in it and hence a hadith was supposed to supercede the Quran claiming that Allaah had deficiency and even the Prophet who did not say in explicit words that Quran can abrogate the hadith.

The guy who is arguing here, hasnt brought this hadith to me till date but look at the ignorance level instead of asking he says show me a Quranic ayat claiming mutawatir hadith can supercede the Quran, you claim and kindly read my first point for your rebutall and stop copy pasting for heavens sake, dont be blind folded.

NOw this verse will slam dunk the entire theory claimed by great jurists, let Allaah have mercy on them they can commit mistakes but this is a complete slam dunk

005.003
SHAKIR:
This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, so fear them not, and fear Me. This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion; but whoever is compelled by hunger, not inclining willfully to sin, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Now what does that verse mean, the eg of Muadh ibn Jabal read it and see it. It says if not present in the quran then sunnah of the Prophet not the other way round you are just ignorant and spreading some nuisance here regarding the Quran believe me wallaahi billaahi this is a claim which should be thrown to a dust bin and you are supporting it.

Tell me are we foolish just because we dont find Praying action in the Quran we follow the sunnah otherwise, why would we be doing it if present in the Quran. We pray coz its mentioned in the Quran.

Now ponder over the verse 5:3 Islam is complete, complete to claim any mutawatir hadith claims that Islam is incomplete, why i am stating this is because a hadith can supercede the Quran so that implies the word of Allaah was incomplete stating that Allaah naozbillaah is a liar.

Well, ponder over it brothers and sisters because these claims eat up this great religion from Inside.

Now let me quote this famous hadith of the Propohet in arabic then translate it in english. This was most often repeated by Proophet before the Jumaah prayer.

Wa khairal hadisi kitabu Allaah, wa khairal hadi hadii Muhammad salah Allaahyi wa sallam, wa sharal omoori mo da sa tuha, was kullu mohdasatin bidah, wa kullu bidatin dalala wa kullu dalalatin fin naar.

The best of discourse is the book of Allaah, and the best way is the way of Prophet Mohammed,worst matters in the religion are those new introduced, for every innovation in the religion is misguidance, and every misguidance is going astray and ever astray will lead you to hell fire.

Even the Prophet claimed the best discourse, guidance is book of Allaah and this hadith worshippers claim that book of Allaah can be superceded by a Mutawatir Hadith.
- Wed 30 May, 2007 7:36 am
Post subject:
It absolutely beggars belief that people believe this, all this falls down on what the basis of ones religion is, it's obvious that the basis of their religion is not the Qur'an and is in fact the erroneous hadith, just as the basis of the Christian is his erroneous 'Bible'. Even if you did prove it via the Qur'an the basis of their religion is that they value hadith more.

It's as simple as that - they value hadith more than the Qur'an - I have nothing but the most utter contempt for these so-called 'Muslims'
- Wed 30 May, 2007 8:11 am
Post subject:
Salam brother SOA and all

sounds like we have a vey interesting thread in here, thanks mate, I will et back to this thread after I take my daughter to school and do a bit of calls

Cheers matey
- Wed 30 May, 2007 4:47 pm
Post subject:
This guys, new evidence look at the level he is going just to protect his ego,

Code:
Imam Abu Bakar al-Jassas says:

Hanafis, Shaafis and Malikis, allowed the abrogation of the Sunnah by the Qur'an and vice verse...but they could not be abrogated by khabr al-wahid.

He says:
"Naskh is the declaration of the time of the particular ruling which we thought would remain for ever, but the second ruling made it clear that the time of the ruling was for a certain period and it was now no longer valid."

The ayat "we bring better or like thereof" God meant to state that He would make a ruling superior to the first in the sense of its being easier to perform, or richer in terms of reward.

The naskh implied that the later command abrogated the earlier. Sarakhsi says: "The contradiction between the sources is impossible, since this would mean Divine fallibility; in actuality the contradiction is created by our human inability to estimate correctly the date of the texts. Once this has been done, however, the later abrogates the earlier."

Usu1 al-Jassas, fol. 152a.

Ghazzali, Mustafa (2 vols.), Bulaq, 1322/1904, vol. 2, p. 125. Also see Tabari's Tafsir on al-Qur'an, II:106.
- Wed 30 May, 2007 4:59 pm
Post subject:
Al-Quraishi wrote:
It absolutely beggars belief that people believe this, all this falls down on what the basis of ones religion is, it's obvious that the basis of their religion is not the Qur'an and is in fact the erroneous hadith, just as the basis of the Christian is his erroneous 'Bible'. Even if you did prove it via the Qur'an the basis of their religion is that they value hadith more.

It's as simple as that - they value hadith more than the Qur'an - I have nothing but the most utter contempt for these so-called 'Muslims'


Absolute right brother, and its happening now he is now supporting claims and changing ayahs of Quran. Unless we Muslims dont follow the Quran we will never regain our past glory.
- Wed 30 May, 2007 9:34 pm
Post subject: Re:
Ok regarding abrogation i might be wrong probably in the thick of things i wrote. Once such eg, which came to my mind was regarding the Alcohol.
Because Allaah through a period of time got this habit out of the Arabs who used to drink like fish. Similar to de addiction camps for drug addicts.

I thought so, as i told you i might be wrong thats why i meant that Quran will abrogate the Quran and not the hadith. Please clarify if i am wrong.
- Wed 30 May, 2007 9:40 pm
Post subject: Re:
Bro AB i am sick and tired of arguing with this guy he is beating around the bush and i get no answer and still maintains supercede, abrogate.

I do feel bad for this guy because its the scholars who have deviated them. I feel we have to rework the whole system and get back to the Quran otherwise we just keep bickering over issues and nothing can be done with this chaps.

They have forgotten the Quran, and now they follow the hadith and attack the hadith which is non sensical they take a you turn and ask have you read the tafsir of the quran.
So they come with such names or jurists, mufassirs we dont even know later blame, well for them I am a wahabi, Laughing a salafi, Laughing or ahle hadith Laughing but what can I do i am happy being a Muslim.
- Wed 30 May, 2007 10:51 pm
Post subject: Re:
SlaveofAllaah wrote:
Ok regarding abrogation i might be wrong probably in the thick of things i wrote.


Salam mate

I didnt mean that you are wrong wrong, I actually doubted that I'm the one who is wrong

SlaveofAllaah wrote:
Once such eg, which came to my mind was regarding the Alcohol.
Because Allaah through a period of time got this habit out of the Arabs who used to drink like fish. Similar to de addiction camps for drug addicts.



I think we have been brain washed to think as such, alcohol was forbidden because in it there is Ithm Kabir (Huge Sin) and all Ithm is forbidden as per The Quran, therefore Alcohol must be forbidden at once the moment the all Ithm was forbidden , however being forbidden does not mean that some believers will never touch it, it is not like they are saints, I'm sure many believers will commit that sin, now if that sin is committed then we can not perform Salat until our mind is clear again so we recognise what we say, it is the sunni corruption who tell us after we finish salat the Isha (the last salat in the day) then we can drink, what a load of non sense man

It is illoigical that Allah put verses in the Quran that contradicts each other, it may look contradictory at a glance but deep down it can't be, that is why I donlt believe that a verse in the Quran abrogates another, it will cause a lot of confusion to the believers if that is the case and I will show later on inshallaah that the the sunni understainding regarding the verse in the quran talking about aborgating itself is nothing but a clear cut mistake by them, please remind me if I forget

SlaveofAllaah wrote:
I thought so, as i told you i might be wrong thats why i meant that Quran will abrogate the Quran and not the hadith. Please clarify if i am wrong.


I will inshallah bro, I;m fully aware of the verses the sunni use for their aborgation allegation, it is a must comment by me and inshalllah I will finish it in the near future

Take care mate
- Thu 31 May, 2007 6:39 am
Post subject:
I always wanted to discuss this issue but now since this thread is the base of what I am mentioning now it gets a little easier to me.

I was running through websites and this is what i found.

Code:
Although these hadith seem at the moment, unrelated to the issue at hand, they provide the foundation for the upcoming conclusions.

The evidence for the permissibility of reciting al-Fatihah behind the imam in salats that are silent AND [b]aloud comes from the mutawatir hadith related by Imam al-Bukhari in which the Prophet(SAWS) said, "There is no salat for the one who does not recite the Fatihah." Even more relevant is the hadith on the authority of 'Ibaadah ibn as-Saamit(RA) in which he said that the Prophet(SAWS) prayed Salat al-FAJR (aloud salat) with him and some others. [/b]After the prayer, the Prophet(SAWS) asked, "Did I see you reciting behind the imam?" They replied, "Yes." The Prophet(SAWS) responded, "Do not recite anything except for the Mother of the Book, for there is no salat for the one who does not recite it." This hadith has been narrarated by Bukhari, Ahmad, at-Tahaawi, Abu Dawud, at-Tirmidhi, al-Bayhaqi and others.

Here we have a hadith about the morning prayer, in which the recitation is aloud, and the Prophet(SAWS) telling the people behind the imam to ONLY recite the Mother of the Book, which is Surah al-Fatihah!


I always wanted to discuss this.
1) Amongst teh hanafis the ruling is dont recite anything during the salah when read aloud or silent, but just keep quiet
2) Amongst shaffis its a must to recite fatiha otherwise salah is not considered at all.

Now problem is i feel atleast when read silently we can recite the verses according to me and its sought of logical
1) We tend to read, and recite the words of Allaah thats most important
2) If we remain silent, even when silent prayer is being performed satan the most experienced being on the face of earth would try whisper(waswasa) and its better we recite.

Now thats my point.

But with the bold part above its says its a mutawatir hadith to recite Surah Al Fatiha, even when Imam is reciting the surah but Allaah u akbar dont you think that we are going against the verse of Allaah

007.204
YUSUFALI: When the Qur'an is read, listen to it with attention, and hold your peace: that ye may receive Mercy.
PICKTHAL: And when the Qur'an is recited, give ear to it and pay heed, that ye may obtain mercy.
SHAKIR: And when the Quran is recited, then listen to it and remain silent, that mercy may be shown to you.

Now my point is Allaah mentions remains silent, when Quran is being recited so can this mutawatir hadith can supercede the Quranic Ayah its not possible and Insha Allaah will never happen.
But i prefer as above mentioned when in silent prayers do recite Surah Al fatiha, but dont recite together with the imam when prayers are aloud.

The second best option would be let imam recite Surah Al Fatiha and the one's behind the imam remain silent until Imam recites Surah Al Fatiha, once completed let imam pause for certain time until the ones praying behind imam recite Surah Al Fatiha and then continue praying.

Initially i used to recite the surah along with imam, but then I got to know the above Quranic verse 7:204, but i still recited surah al fatiha after imam finished reciting it, but by then he would continue with the next surah. But Al Hamdullillaah after contemplationg verse 7:204, i just keep mum now unless imam pauses for certain time.
- Fri 01 Jun, 2007 6:35 pm
Post subject: in reply to brohter Ahmed
Quote:
I think we have been brain washed to think as such, alcohol was forbidden because in it there is Ithm Kabir (Huge Sin) and all Ithm is forbidden as per The Quran, therefore Alcohol must be forbidden at once the moment the all Ithm was forbidden,


All Ithm Kabir is forbidden as per quran? Can it be said that Alcohol is not forbiden directly but technically yes. 1000 of arugments I have read, it is halal, it is haram. Isnt there any simple defination? Being sunni I was learnet that alcohol is haram. Thereafter I read some articles wtih qoutes from quran and article concluded it is no haram. I believed the articles must be right since it has direct quotes from quran. Now Im thinking maybe maybe those articles were not right. Very confusing!

Quote:
however being forbidden does not mean that some believers will never touch it, it is not like they are saints, I'm sure many believers will commit that sin, now if that sin is committed then we can not perform Salat until our mind is clear again so we recognise what we say, it is the sunni corruption who tell us after we finish salat the Isha (the last salat in the day) then we can drink, what a load of non sense man


Maybe sunni from your place think "after we finish salat the Isha (the last salat in the day) then we can drink"
but most sunni I know who even drink thinks its haram. Why blame sunni and not shia or the others. I do feel sad about this commet from senior man like you.

What is it, halal or haram alcohol ?
And Ithm Kabir (Huge Sin) can you please elaborate more, and are there (little sin) too ? I also learned that anyone commiting kabir-sin by drinking aclohol and hvng an affiar will live in hell forever erver.

salam. wsalam.
- Fri 01 Jun, 2007 7:08 pm
Post subject: Re: in reply to brohter Ahmed
Quote:
I think we have been brain washed to think as such, alcohol was forbidden because in it there is Ithm Kabir (Huge Sin) and all Ithm is forbidden as per The Quran, therefore Alcohol must be forbidden at once the moment the all Ithm was forbidden,


Insan wrote:
All Ithm Kabir is forbidden as per quran?



Hello

All ithim is forbidden, being Kabir (big) or saghir (small)

The Ithim in alcohol is Kabir (big) as the Quran told us

Insan wrote:
Can it be said that Alcohol is not forbiden directly but technically yes.



Yes,

however that is the case with Zina (Adultry) as well, it was never said about it that it is haram (as far as I remember), however it was described as being "Fahisha", "Indeceney" and the Quran prohibited all Fawahish, i.e. Zina is Haram

Insan wrote:
1000 of arugments I have read, it is halal, it is haram. Isnt there any simple defination?



There is, there is Ithim Kabir in the Khamr and all Ithim is prohibited

Insan wrote:
Being sunni I was learnet that alcohol is haram.


I agree with the sunni in here


Insan wrote:
Thereafter I read some articles wtih qoutes from quran and article concluded it is no haram.[



If A is haram and if B is part of A then B is haram

1 + 1 = 2


Insan wrote:
I believed the articles must be right since it has direct quotes from quran.



It does not mean for anyone tpo post verses form the Quran that they truely understand it, i have seen many on the aloners web site

Insan wrote:
Now Im thinking maybe maybe those articles were not right. Very confusing!


Actually I was thinking like you when I read those articles a while back, then a decent Muslim sister made me aware of the ithim al kabir in it, therefore it has to be haram against my wish btw

Quote:
however being forbidden does not mean that some believers will never touch it, it is not like they are saints, I'm sure many believers will commit that sin, now if that sin is committed then we can not perform Salat until our mind is clear again so we recognise what we say, it is the sunni corruption who tell us after we finish salat the Isha (the last salat in the day) then we can drink, what a load of non sense man


Insan wrote:
Maybe sunni from your place think "after we finish salat the Isha (the last salat in the day) then we can drink"


Yep, many of them do as such using a verse in the Quran, however I replied to that already

Insan wrote:
but most sunni I know who even drink thinks its haram.



and of they drink it afer Salat Isha then they are hypocrites


Insan wrote:
Why blame sunni and not shia or the others. I do feel sad about this commet from senior man like you.



I agree with you that directing my comment at the sunni alone was unwarranted, sorry, however I have to explain myself, I only use the word sunni to refer to all hadith advocates sects who consider the hadith is as holy as the Quran, I donlt really mean the sunni sect specifically, however I will refrain myself from now on to specifically flag the sunni

Insan wrote:
What is it, halal or haram alcohol ?


In alcohol there is Ithim Kabir, all Ithim is haram, i.e. Alocohol is haram


Insan wrote:
And Ithm Kabir (Huge Sin) can you please elaborate more, and are there (little sin) too ?


of course sins can vary in magnitude, for example the sin of lying is less than the sin of killing, the biggest of all sins is Kufr, and due to the fact it is the biggest of all sins, kufr is unforgiven.


Insan wrote:
I also learned that anyone commiting kabir-sin by drinking aclohol and hvng an affiar will live in hell forever erver.

salam. wsalam.


No one knows who will live in hell or heaven for ever but Allah

Take care
- Sun 03 Jun, 2007 5:10 am
Post subject:
Assalam alaikum.
Is lier more bad then drinker or drinker more bad then lier? Is drinking more harram from lieing? Pls give reasan answer Inshallah. Jazakallah.
- Sun 03 Jun, 2007 9:32 am
Post subject:
iqbalismail wrote:
Assalam alaikum.
Is lier more bad then drinker or drinker more bad then lier? Is drinking more harram from lieing? Pls give reasan answer Inshallah. Jazakallah.


Salam mate and welcome to Free-Islam

Lying is a sin of course, we were ordered in the Quran to say the truth even if it will hurt us, we also told that if we lie about Allah it will be a great sin and we will be following what Satan wants us to do exactly, we were also told many times to be with Al Sadiqeen, i.e. the truthful, which means those who don't lie, so I say it is not a small sin, as well I'm not really sure if its ithim magintude is described as the case of Alcohol, i have to do more researches inshallah and get back to you, however assuming that the ithim in lying is described as te ithim in alcohol was described, i.e. in it there is ithim kabir, that still does not make them equal in magnitude, we will never know how Allah judge the two compared to each other but we now well that one was described as in it is ithim kabir and the other was repeatedly warned against and the contrary of it which be truthful is the main theme of the Quran

Allah knows best

Take care
- Sun 03 Jun, 2007 9:34 am
Post subject:
Hey bro SOA

How are you man?, here is a debate I just had with a couple of clear cut sunnis and hadith advicates from www.islammessage.com, look how they have been slam dunked bro, no agression at all, so they should have no reason to rant:




Salam all

Glad to see islammessage back online again, I was trying to reply for the last few days with no joy, let me reply to a couple of comments :

wel_mel_2 wrote:
Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.


Salam brother Wael

wel_mel_2 wrote:
Do you mean to say that Prophet Muhammad pbuh was making up his own rules concerning adultery and that he goes against the Qur'an ?


Well, I didn't mean to say that, but it seems that other people make up their own ruling regarding Zina, while the ruling on Zina is very clear in the Quran, what is also clear in the Quran, is this:

26: Say: Allah knows best how long they remained; to Him are (known) the unseen things of the heavens and the earth; how clear His sight and how clear His hearing! There is none to be a guardian for them besides Him, and He does not make any one His associate in His Judgment.

27: And recite what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord, there is none who can alter His words; and you shall not find any refuge besides Him.
[The Quran ; 18:26-27]

قُلِ اللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا لَبِثُوا لَهُ غَيْبُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ أَبْصِرْ بِهِ وَأَسْمِعْ مَا لَهُم مِّن دُونِهِ مِن وَلِيٍّ وَلَا يُشْرِكُ فِي حُكْمِهِ أَحَدًا (26)
وَاتْلُ مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيْكَ مِن كِتَابِ رَبِّكَ لَا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِهِ وَلَن تَجِدَ مِن دُونِهِ مُلْتَحَدًا (27)

-> See, وَلَا يُشْرِكُ فِي حُكْمِهِ أَحَدًا, Wa La Yushrik Fi Hukmihi Ahda, i.e. and He does not make any one His associate in His Judgment., now Allah judged in the Quran that both the Zani and Zania should be lashed 100 lashes in public, but you guys are not happy with that so you want another associate to add to the judgment of Allah regarding Zina, i.e. you guys had made an associate to Allah regarding the judgment of Zina and simply are following both rules, I.E you have committed SHIRK. The next verse makes it even clearer:

-> See what Allah is telling Mohammad, And recite what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord, now let me ask you, was Mohammad ordered to recite his hadith instead of the Book of His Lord?, of course Mohammad can't change the words of Allah nor anyone for that matter, look what the verse is telling us : there is none who can alter His words however you guys are changing the words of our Lords, you are trying to convince us with the inconvincible which is the words Zani and Zania, mean those unmarried who commit adultery, while the matter of the fact is clear, Zani and Zania are those (single or married) who commit adultery, do you agree with that?

If you agree that Zani and Zania mean those (single or married) who commit adultery, then let me ask you why you are changing the words of Allah out of its intended meaning?

Now, how do you want me to accept another ruling from another human which involves killing a soul while Allah told us above He does not take any associate regarding His rulings)?

Of course the ruling of stoning the adulterers in Islam is man made, because it is not in the Quran, why it is not in the Quran, because when the prophet was asked to include the alleged verse of The Sheikh and Sheikha, if the commit Zina, stone them outright, he refused to include it in the Quran, let's have a look at some info from the books of the hearsay Hadith:

[Umar said:] Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the holy book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the verse of Rajam (the stoning of married persons, male and female, who commit adultery) and we did recite this verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say "By Allah's Book", we do not find the Verse of Rajam in Allah's Book, and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed.
(Sahih Bukhari, vol. 8, p. 539)

`Umar said from the pulpit, '... and part of what was revealed in the Qur'an read, "the saikh and the saikha, when they fornicate, stone them outright". Some will repudiate this, and but that men would say, "`Umar has added to the Book of God," I will write it on the margin of the mushaf.'
(p. 78-79, al Sarakhsi, "Mabsut", 30 vols., Cairo, 1324, vol. 9, p. 36)

[`Umar] announced from the Prophet's pulpit, God sent Muhammad with the truth and revealed to him the Book. Part of what God revealed was the stoning verse. We used to recite it and we memorised it. The Prophet stoned and we have stoned after him. I fear that with the passage of time some will say, 'We do not find stoning in the Book of God', and will therefore neglect a divine injunction which God revealed. Stoning is a just claim....
(p. 77-78, Ahmad b. al Husain al Baihaqi, "al Sunan al Kubra", 10 vols., Haiderabad, 1925-38/1344-57, vol. 8, p. 210)

ibn `Abbas reports a sermon by `Umar in the course of which he said, 'Men! stoning is a penalty laid down by God. Do not neglect it. It is in the Book of God and the Sunna of your Prophet. The Messenger of God stoned; Abu Bakr stoned, and I have stoned.'
(p. 75, Sulaiman b. Da'ud al Tayalisi, "Sunan", Haiderabad, 1904/1321, p. 6)

Malik reports ibn `Abbas as declaring, 'I heard `Umar b. al Khattab say, "Stoning in the Book of God is a just claim against the non-virgin, man or woman, who fornicates, when valid proof is adduced, or pregnancy ensues, or self-condemnation is volunteered."'
(p. 75, Malik b. Anas, "al Muwatta'", K. al Hudud.)

`Ali reported that the stoning verse had been revealed but those who bore it together with other verses in their memories perished in the Yemama.
(p. 121, Burhan al Din al Baji, "Jawab", MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur "majami`", no. 207, f. 14) [/b]

In a variant version `Umar fears that with the passage of time some will say, 'We do not find the stoning verse in the Book of God.'
[i](p. 78)

Two men brought a case before the Prophet. One of them said, 'Messenger of God, judge between us in accordance with the Book of God.'

The other, who was more familiar with litigation, said, 'Yes, Messenger of God, judge between us in accordance with the Book of God and let me speak first. My son served as a hired hand under this man, but he fornicated with his employer's wife. The man, informing me that my son had incurred the stoning penalty, I ransomed him from that penalty with 100 sheep and a slave girl I had. Subsequently I enquired of the learned who informed me that the stoning penalty lay on the man's wife.'

The Messenger of God said, 'By Him in Whose hand is my soul! I will judge between you in accordance with the Book of God. Your cattle and slave girl are to be restored to you.'

At this point, the direct speech ends, but the hadith continues, 'He awarded the son 100 strokes and banished him for a year. He ordered Unais al Aslami to go to the employer's wife, and in the event that she confess, imposed the stoning penalty. She confessed, and Unais stoned her.'
( Anas b. Malik, "al Muwatta'", K. al Hudud)

The aunt of Abu Usama b. Sahl told him that the Prophet had instructed them in the reciting of the stoning verse.
(p. 82, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)

God sent Muhammad and sent down the Scripture to him. Part of what he sent down was the passage on stoning, we read it, and we heeded it. The apostle stoned and we stoned them after him. I fear that in time to come men will say that they find no mention of stoning in God's book and thereby go astray in neglecting an ordinance which God has sent down. Verily stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and women who commit adultery.
(Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 684)

All the above evidences look cool and dandy, however it only has one problem, IT IS NOTHING BUT CONJECTURES and surely violates the Quran in two aspects:

1) Violates that Allah promised to reserve the Quran
2) Violates that Allah does not take associates in His rulings

While all the hearsay above confirm that the stoning verse was revealed to Mohammad, we suddenly read the following:

Ubayy said, 'It used to equal the length surat al Baqara and we used to recite in Ahzab the stoning verse.' Zirr asked, 'What is the stoning verse?' Ubayy recited, 'If the saikh and the saikha fornicate, stone them outright as an exemplary punishment from God. God is might, wise.'
(p. 80, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)

Ubayy asked Zirr b. Hubais, 'How many verses do you recite in surat al Ahzab?' Zirr replied, 'Seventy-three verses.' Ubayy asked if that was all. 'I have seen it,' he said, 'when it was the same length as Baqara. It contained the words "The sheikh and the sheikha, when they fornicate, stone them outright, as an exemplary punishment from God. God is might, wise."'
(p. 78-79, Ahmad b. al Husain al Baihaqi, "al Sunan al Kubra", 10 vols., Haiderabad, 1925-38/1344-57, vol. 8, pp. 210-11)

I.e. the hearsay hadith above is telling us that sura 33 was the same length as sura 2\ but somehow we ended up with only 73 verses as we see them today, i.e. the Quran is not preserved contrary to what Allah is telling us in the Quran

Ahzab was identified as the sura originally containing the stoning verse, and, in addition to Ubayy and Abu Musa, `A'isa reports that Ahzab used to be recited, in the lifetime of the Prophet, as having 200 verses, but when `Uthman wrote out the mushafs, all they could find was its present length.
(Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)

A variant of this hadith speaks of writing out the mushaf with, however, no mention of date or attribution. ibn al Anbari concluded from `A'isa's report that God withdrew from the sura everything in excess of its present length, and Mekki reminds us that withdrawal is one of the modes of naskh.
(p. 84, Burhan al Din al Baji, "Jawab", MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur "majami`", no. 207, f. 10) Ahzab has only seventy-three verses in today's mushaf. (p. 84)

Therefore if this concept called naskh is true then Allah has withdrew the verse of the stoning, again this is nothing but conjectures, however assuming it is true then the stoning DOES NOT APPLY ANY MORE, indeed when the prophet was asked to add the stoning verse to the Quran HE DECLINED:

Zaid b. Thabit and Sa`id b. al `As were writing out the mushaf. When they came to this verse, Zaid said, 'I heard the Prophet say, "the sheikh and the sheikha."' `Umar stated, 'When it was revealed, I went to the Messenger of God and said to him, "Shall I write it?" but he seemed to disapprove.' `Umar added, 'Don't you see that the mature, if unwed, would only be flogged in the event of fornication, yet the youth, if wed, would be stoned?'
(p. 80, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 119; Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 26)

Marwan b. al Hakam asked Zaid why he would not write the verse in the mushaf. Zaid replied, Don't you see that the youth if married is stoned? We raised this question with `Umar and he said, 'I'll see to it.' He went to the Prophet and asked his permission to record the verse. The Prophet said he could not permit that.
(p. 81-82, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 131; Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 26-7)

Hmmmm, was the prophet and his companions moderating Allah words?, of course not, it seems the best conjecture to fit all the above hearsay that Allah has changed His words contrary to 18:27 and withdrew the stoning verse so He ordered Mohammed not to include it in the Quran, and if this is true while I still don't believe it then the stoning does not apply anymore, the verse is mansookh according to the alleged naskh concept.

It has to be an order from Allah because if Mohammad moderated Allah words without Allah permission, this is what should have happened to him:

43: (This is) a Message sent down from the Lord of the Worlds.

44: And if he had fabricated against Us some of the sayings,

45: We would certainly have seized him by the right hand,

46: Then We would certainly have cut off his aorta.

47: And not one of you could have withheld Us from him.

48: And most surely it is a reminder for those who guard (against evil).
[The Quran ; 69:43-48]

تَنزِيلٌ مِّن رَّبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ (43)
وَلَوْ تَقَوَّلَ عَلَيْنَا بَعْضَ الْأَقَاوِيلِ (44)
لَأَخَذْنَا مِنْهُ بِالْيَمِينِ (45)
ثُمَّ لَقَطَعْنَا مِنْهُ الْوَتِينَ (46)
فَمَا مِنكُم مِّنْ أَحَدٍ عَنْهُ حَاجِزِينَ (47)
وَإِنَّهُ لَتَذْكِرَةٌ لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ (48)

In the verses above Allah is telling us about His Quran:
-> 43: (This is) a Message sent down from the Lord of the Worlds., now if the prophet has modified this message without Allah permission:44: And if he had fabricated against Us some of the sayings,, refusing to include the stoning verse must fall under this of course, i.e. the prophet must have been fabricating sayings against Allah (Allah forbids), it never happened of course, because if it did, then this is what should have happened to Mohammad:45: We would certainly have seized him by the right hand, and 46: Then We would certainly have cut off his aorta. and no one would have been able to save him :47: And not one of you could have withheld Us from him. then Allah is summing it beautifully to us that the Quran is the reminder for Al Muttaqeen :48: And most surely it is a reminder for those who guard (against evil). and in the Quran we read Allah ruling regarding the punishment of the Zina as follow:

2- The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.
[The Quran ; 24:2]

الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي فَاجْلِدُوا كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا مِئَةَ جَلْدَةٍ وَلَا تَأْخُذْكُم بِهِمَا رَأْفَةٌ فِي دِينِ اللَّهِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلْيَشْهَدْ عَذَابَهُمَا طَائِفَةٌ مِّنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (2)

-> 24:2 is telling us the punishment of a Zani or a Zania , The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

However according to your logic, you are not happy with the above and only ruling by Allah regarding the Zani and Zania, so you are changing the words Zani and Zania to mean only those who are not married, while in Arabic this is nothing but false of course, because the word Zani and Zania mean anyone (married or not) who commits adultery, on the other hand assuming that the verse of the stoning was included in the Quran, yet the words SHEIKH and SHEIKHA DO NOT MEAN A MARRIED MAN and A MARRIED WOMAN, rather AN OLD MAN and AN OLD WOMAN, indeed a sheikh and a sheikha may be singles, DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

You have absolutely no point brother, unless you want to follow conjectures said by many people who look like they were confused about the subject and you want to take their hearsay as ruling from Allah under His Sharia, well, those who do that must be those the following verse is talking about:

Or have they associates who have prescribed for them in the religion that Allah does not sanction? And were it not for the word of judgment, decision would have certainly been given between them; and surely the unjust shall have a painful punishment.

[The Quran ; 42:21]

أَمْ لَهُمْ شُرَكَاء شَرَعُوا لَهُم مِّنَ الدِّينِ مَا لَمْ يَأْذَن بِهِ اللَّهُ وَلَوْلَا كَلِمَةُ الْفَصْلِ لَقُضِيَ بَيْنَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الظَّالِمِينَ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ (21)

-> See, -> See, أَمْ لَهُمْ شُرَكَاء شَرَعُوا لَهُم مِّنَ الدِّينِ مَا لَمْ يَأْذَن بِهِ اللَّهُ, i.e. Or have they associates who have prescribed for them in the religion that Allah does not sanction?, please tell me, how many Sheikh, Mullahs, Imams and Muftis prescribed the ruling regarding the Zani and Zania in a way that Allah never sanctioned it in His Quran?, can't get clearer than this

wel_mel_2 wrote:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: [Under Islamic laws in an Islamic state] It is not lawful to shed the blood of a Muslim except for one of three sins: a married person committing fornication, and in just retribution for premeditated murder, and [for sin of treason involving] a person renouncing Islam, and thus leaving the community [to join the enemy camp in order to wage war against the faithful]. (Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, and An-Nasa'i)


Great, now I ask you why he refused to include it in the Quran, was he moderating the unchangeable Allah words?

wel_mel_2 wrote:
Salam
Wael.


Salam Brother


Muslimah wrote:
Bismillah
Brother Ahmed I think u really need to reconsider much of what you post, not because of who reads,


Salam sister

I would have preferred that you pin point me to where exactly I got it wrong, it is all for the sake of the truth, right?, thank you

Muslimah wrote:
but because of yourself.


Of course it has to be for myself, I only care to save myself in this test to be honest, however I don't want others to be doomed while not realizing it, would that be a bad thing to do?

Muslimah wrote:
Re read the Ayahs carefully, and try to understand.


Which Ayahs please?, can you pin point me to where exactly I got it wrong?, cheers

Muslimah wrote:
And if this is who u intend to translate the meanings of Quran,


Translate, or understand? There is a big difference dear sister

On the other hand, did I understand the meaning of the words Zani and Zania wrong?, does it mean those who are not married and commit adultery? Or does it mean anyone (single or not) who commits adultery?

Do I understand the meaning or the words Sheikh and Sheikha wrong?, do they mean old married man and old married woman, or only mean an old man and an old woman?

So under the human ruling you are following:

We have the following case studies:

A) a 17 years old married man and a 15 years old married woman who commit adultery
B) a 65 years old single man and a 55 years old single woman who commit adultery

The two young and unexperienced couple will be stoned to death while the two old adults who suppose to be mature enough and have years of experience will be flogged 100 lashes?

Is that what you are telling me? well before you answer I will remind you with what Omar said:

Umar added, 'Don't you see that the mature, if unwed, would only be flogged in the event of fornication, yet the youth, if wed, would be stoned?'

Muslimah wrote:
then I sincerely advice you to hold on and try to revise your knowledge.


Thank you for the advice dear sister and I sincerely advice you and advice others to do the exact same

Salam Sister


Salam All
- Sun 03 Jun, 2007 1:24 pm
Post subject:
Salam all

I posted the a bove refute to the stoning punishment on the kuffar web site www.faithfreedom.org , this is what i got inclusing how i replied to it:

katlike wrote:
So your saying that the koran isn't very clear and is open to various, broad, interpretations?


Not at all, what I'm saying that the Quran is clear regarding the puishment of adulterers, on the other hand the hadith is the one that is not clear and clearly is full of contradictions.

katlike wrote:
What are you going to do if those muslims you are arguing with are correct and your wrong?


According to the Quran, I'm sorry, I can't be wrong, ironically according to the hadith I can't be wrong either, please read my comment thoroughly

katlike wrote:
Are we kafirs to know any different?


What do you mean by that?

katlike wrote:
Wouldn't this tiff amoung you be enough to prove the koran isn't real clear and the kafirs were right all along?


It seems you either didn't read my article nor understood it well, the kafirs were wrong all along exacly as those hadith advocates, on the other hand what i showed from both the hadith and the Quran proves that the Quran is not man made.

katlike wrote:
koran claims...it is clear and for all people of all time.


The Quran never claimed to be clear, however I agree that it should be clear to the true believers.

katlike wrote:
You and your rivals have certainly proven that is not the case.


You are wrong, firstly I dont have rivals, seconadly it is the so called rivels whom under their allegations the Quran seems wrong, however I proved them wrong using the Quran and their hadith.

katlike wrote:
I for one would agree with your arguement,


My argument is simple to comprehend and let me tell you darling, my argument is irrefutable

katlike wrote:
but I am not "learned" in the koran like your opposistion.


I like the word opposition more than rivals, well I doubt that my oppsitions are realy learnt in the Quran, i even doubt that they are learnt in their hadith.

katlike wrote:
They must know islam and god much better than a pagen like me. And since you and I agree, what does that make you?


It does not make me anything other than standing for Allah words that I see as a believer that it is the only truthful sayings I heard in this life.

katlike wrote:
Care to tell us what should happen to you now that you are in agreement with a pagen?


Sure I care to tell you, well I dont care what will happen to me, this is because i know well that whatever is going to happen to me must be allowed by Allah and I have blind trust regarding what He chose to allow and not allow

Salam
- Sun 03 Jun, 2007 7:22 pm
Post subject:
Hello All

Here is a comment by Mughal from FFI regarding my stoning article, I used to fight really ugly with him on another web site about two and half years ago, however on FFI both of us approaches the other very carefully, it looks like peaceful enviroment between us since I joined FFI, he is over 50 years old and claim to have left Islam, I don't believe him though and accused him of lying over a couple of years ago:

Mughal wrote:
Hello brother Ahmed Bahgat, greetings and thank you for your informative post.



Salam bro Mughal

No worries

Mughal wrote:
I have quoted you in my thread on the similar topic.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=856563#856563


You are welcome

Mughal wrote:
Bro you seem to reject hadith in its entirety here, am I understanding you correctly?


No you don't, I only reject what contradicts the Quran and the common sense

Mughal wrote:
I still have problem understanding the perspective you are trying to give to the quran ie regarding your stance.


Well, my stance is clear, I only follow any hadith teaching (if required) as long as it does not contradict the Quran, for the Quran though, I follow it blindly

Mughal wrote:
For example, do you believe that islam is a complete and perfect way of life?


Through its manual (the Quran), yes I believe so

Mughal wrote:
Does your version of Islam separate between religion and state?


I don't have a version of Islam, however if you want to call it a version, then my version is Quran based and any hadith that is not contradicting the Quran nor the common sense

Regarding religion and politics, yes I'm in favour that both should be separated in a well established country, however if the country is messed up then both has be done by the same ruler

Mughal wrote:
Thanks for the thread and keep up the good work. O yes and good luck with your debate with our sunni brethren.


They have not replied to me yet, I'm eager to see what they are going to say

Mughal wrote:
regards and


Salam
- Sun 03 Jun, 2007 7:25 pm
Post subject:
And another one:

Mughal wrote:
Thanks bro ahmed for taking the trouble to clarify your position.


No trouble really, but you are welcome as long as you don't insult or lie about my prophet or the Quran.

Mughal wrote:
However, your explanation raises further questions eg


Sure, I didn't expect that my reply was the end of it

Mughal wrote:
what makes you think that the quran wants you to separate religion from state


Well, because the state is going to perish, in fact the whole earth is going to perish and what will be left is only the faith and the good deeds, the rulers and the people are equal in that aspect.

Mughal wrote:
and how would you come to know whether a country is messed up or not


Well, that is easy to know, a country like Australia is not messed up and a country like Egypt is messed up, the level of ignorance, crime, corruption etc are major criteria to judge if a country if messed up or not

Mughal wrote:
and when exactly to separate religion and state


When the country is not messed up

Mughal wrote:
and when not to do so?


When the contry is messed up, this is because when you apply the sharia of Allah in a country, then the first questionable citizen should be the ruler, on the other hand in a messed up country, you need to not only educate them politically but religioulsy as well and if you are the ruler it will be much easier to do so, when the people who are living in Jahillia are educated religiously enough, we can leave them on their own, at least we know that this is what they are going to do to their children, therefore we will replace the messed up generations with a religiously educated one that fear no one but Allah not their rulers or others.

Mughal wrote:
And yes, it would be interesting to know what reply you are going to get from the sunni side, in your on going debate.

regards and


It is a challenge to them, because my comment is very well put as you can see. See, I used what the enemy of Islam say against them but yet proved that both are wrong using the Quran, that is not an easy task btw, that is why I believe my article is irrefutable by both. See, falsehood is destined to perish

Salam
- Mon 04 Jun, 2007 7:00 am
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
No trouble really, but you are welcome as long as you don't insult or lie about my prophet or the Quran.


Mughal wrote:
Thanks and you know as well as I that I do not lie nor insult on purpose.



Hello

The above raised my eye brow, so you agree that you may lie and insult but not on purpose?, forget insults, let????????????????????????????¢?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¬?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¢s concentrate about lying without being on purpose, so if you discover that you lied without being on purpose will you have the curage to acknowledge it?

Mughal wrote:
My evidences if at all are all from the islamic sources regardless you like them or not.


It is not a matter of me liking them or not, it is matter of having one main source of Islam which is the Quran that should qualify all other sources including the Bible and the Torah, on the other hand you want those third party sources to be the judge on Islam, this is very misleading of course.

Mughal wrote:
I only use evidences that are appropriate in a discussion and the person I am discussing things with.


You have to understand very well, that in any Islamic discussion being between a muslim and a muslim or a muslim and a kafir, the Quran is the only thing that MUST prevail at the end.

Mughal wrote:
When I talk about islam in general I use standard islam and its standard well known sources because that is what a huge majoirty of muslims believe and in that case odd individuals are not taken into account.


It does not mean that if the majority believe in it that what they believe is right, it is only a matter of inheriting falsehood from their parents exactly as the Christians inherited their falsehood. Therefore to purify the corruption in Islam or to expose it, you can only use the Quran as the sole Islamic source.

Mughal wrote:
Of course I am a human being and therefore not perfect and then neither are you my friend so we must not expect perfection of each other.


Exactly, as long as me and you acknowledge our mistakes when they are exposed.


Mughal wrote:
This however does not mean that your views do not matter, for they do because whoever talks sense is also imporant to be considered.


Cool, and btw most of my arguments MUST have sense behind it, I don????????????????????????????¢?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¬?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¢t parrot non sense that was taight to me by others.

Mughal wrote:
Some times when we discuss things our positions are not clear as to where we each stand and that should not be taken as insults but lack of information about the people involved as to where they stand.


Ok

Mughal wrote:
Just becuse you may not know my views or for that matter I may not know you views about islam should not be an obstacle.


Sure. My views about Islam are nothing but what is documented in the Quran in Arabic.

Mughal wrote:
Gradually we could move towards understanding each others views as discussions start and move on. So hope this clarifies the situation for both of us.


Sure

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Well, because the state is going to perish, in fact the whole earth is going to perish and what will be left is only the faith and the good deeds, the rulers and the people are equal in that aspect.


Mughal wrote:
Well bro, if you look at things from that point of view then state does not perish either as the concept of it lives on for all your rewards will be because of this state in the next state. Therefore life in this world cannot be separated from the next.


I????????????????????????????¢?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¬?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¢m talking about the state subject from a believer in the Quran point of view, the Quran clearly tells us that everything in this life is going to perish and what we will have on the JD is what is going to stay, so in effect whatever we build on this earth (state wise) is going to perish, it is all about testing the people by Allah and a good ruler must help his people pass that test. Not drive them into darkness and Jahillia, however I agree that what we do in this life is the only criteria for passing the test on the JD and in this aspect only yes I agree that the two lives can not be separated yet the states perished on that day.

Mughal wrote:
Moreover I was simply speaking in sense of politics in this world.


I disagree with all politicians in the world

Mughal wrote:
So kindly if you please clarify the situation for me so that I could see how you see political separation of religion and state.


as I said, when the country is stable in morals and principals and its people fear no one but Allah then politics can be separated from religion, however the ruler must always be held accountable to what the religion says even after separation, the laws of Allah are the only laws that can be trusted, I don????????????????????????????¢?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¬?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¢t trust the human laws, they don????????????????????????????¢?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¬?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¢t make any sense to me, for example you get caught with dope in Australia, you get a slap on the wrist but of you get caught in some other places on earth you get executed, while the same crime is committed by the same person for that matter, another examples goes like this, homosexuality was no no 50 years ago, now it is a great life style under the humans flawed laws, so in a state the laws of Allah must rule because these are the only laws that can never be changed according to our low desires.

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Well, that is easy to know, a country like Australia is not messed up and a country like Egypt is messed up, the level of ignorance, crime, corruption etc are major criteria to judge if a country if messed up or not


Mughal wrote:
But bro Australia is a secular nonmuslim state and egypt is a muslim state



That????????????????????????????¢?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¬?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¢s on papers only, it is not like when a human call him/herself a muslim I should take that for granted, this also applies to countries, so it is not like when a country call itself a muslim country that people should take this for granted, as a matter of fact I have never seem a true Muslim country in my 42 years of life, the closer I have see to the laws of Islam is what I saw in some western countries like Australia and America, in Australia there is Islam without Muslims, in Egypt there Muslims without Islam, this is how I see it


Mughal wrote:
and therefore despite all goodness australia is not free of unislamic things



Of course but it is closer to Islamic laws than the so called Muslimcountried, at least from the rulers aspect and their integrity.

Mughal wrote:
and inspite of all bad things there is a hope egypt could become free of unislamic things.


Dream on, it will never happen unless Allah wants it to happen, on the other hand Allah does not change the people status for better unless they change themselves first

Mughal wrote:
So I am a bit taken aback by your explanation so to speak. See if you can detail things a bit more for me.


I hope I did

AhmedBahgat wrote:
When the country is not messed up


Mughal wrote:
But Australia would seem messed up because there are unislamic things going on there all the time eg adutery, drinking, gambling just to name a few. Again please clarify things for me if you can, thanks.


It seems you don????????????????????????????¢?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¬?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¢t know a lot about the middle east countries which full of so called Islamic countries, in Egypt they do it more but hidden, at least the Australians do it without hiding it, they are being honest, not hypocrites like many Egyptians who call themselves Muslims and god fearing people who do all immoral shit behind the scenes, so in Egypt there are far more whoring, far more alcohol, far more drugs, far more gambling, far more adultery far more fags, etc etc, it is mostly hidden that????????????????????????????¢?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¬?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¢s all.

AhmedBahgat wrote:
When the contry is messed up, this is because when you apply the sharia of Allah in a country, then the first questionable citizen should be the ruler, on the other hand in a messed up country, you need to not only educate them politically but religioulsy as well and if you are the ruler it will be much easier to do so, when the people who are living in Jahillia are educated religiously enough, we can leave them on their own, at least we know that this is what they are going to do to their children, therefore we will replace the messed up generations with a religiously educated one that fear no one but Allah not their rulers or others.


Mughal wrote:
I understand the later part but not the first in your this reply. I do not think that when people are corrupt you can apply shariah,


What I mean is this, when people is corrupt, you get an uncorrupted ruler to fix the people flaws using Gods rules, when you face them with God rules while they claim to be believers then they should be able to argue while in the laws are man made then a believer may think that he has the right to argue about it, it is all about putting the people on the right track of democracy which is on of the basis of Islam.

Mughal wrote:
for why would people who are corrupt let you apply shariah?


Because Ii assumed that I will be the rulers so they can not mess around with me. LOL, an uncorrupted ruler though.

Mughal wrote:
In other words only islamically good would want shariah and not others


True, but which sharia exactly, a man made sharia or the God sharia?, so that what is putting all these so called countries behind because they follow a mix of man made and god made sharia, they are Mushrikoon.

Mughal wrote:
and if people are already islamcially good then you are saying let them be free,


Not really, because if they Islamically good and following the true sharia of Allah then there is no need for me to expect the contrary, on the other hand it may happen due to the human flaws and the Satan effects, so on a separated and stable state, a trusted religious body should be in place to always educate the people of Allah sharia not the man made sharia. In this case the rulers will be concentrating on politics and building his state.

Mughal wrote:
which is again a confusing answer as I see it,


It may look confusing however it is certainly a tough answer and hard to understand as well hard to implement under the current level of corruption that went on for a lengthy period of time (years and years) under corrupt rulers and a disabled religious body

Mughal wrote:
so please clarify exactly what is it that you want me to make of your this explanation?


I hope I did.

AhmedBahgat wrote:
It is a challenge to them, because my comment is very well put as you can see. See, I used what the enemy of Islam say against them but yet proved that both are wrong using the Quran, that is not an easy task btw, that is why I believe my article is irrefutable by both. See, falsehood is destined to perish
Salam


Mughal wrote:
Well, I wish you luck and wait and see what you get in reply if anything at all. I think sunnies are a tough nut to crack


You have to understand that there should be no sects in Islam, the sunni sect was the first sect created and the seed for all other sects to deviate from it and create their own sects, so I hold the sunnis the most responsible for the division of Islam and I;m going to be a tough nut to crack for them as well, I speak their language btw, whatever that language is, I was raised between them and I know very well how they think and react.

Mughal wrote:
and as far as perishing of falsehood, so far the falsehood (whatever it means to anyone) has not perished but you never know time has not ended yet.
Thank for your reply bro, take care and


Of course falsehood is widely spread, FFI, FM and many other so called Islamic web sites help in spreading this falsehood, but for me I????????????????????????????¢?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¬?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¢m not worried because I now that the promise of Allah must come true that falsehood is DESTINED to perish whatever long it lives

Take care
- Mon 04 Jun, 2007 4:40 pm
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
iqbalismail wrote:
Assalam alaikum.
Is lier more bad then drinker or drinker more bad then lier? Is drinking more harram from lieing? Pls give reasan answer Inshallah. Jazakallah.


Salam mate and welcome to Free-Islam

Lying is a sin of course, we were ordered in the Quran to say the truth even if it will hurt us, we also told that if we lie about Allah it will be a great sin and we will be following what Satan wants us to do exactly, we were also told many times to be with Al Sadiqeen, i.e. the truthful, which means those who don't lie, so I say it is not a small sin, as well I'm not really sure if its ithim magintude is described as the case of Alcohol, i have to do more researches inshallah and get back to you, however assuming that the ithim in lying is described as te ithim in alcohol was described, i.e. in it there is ithim kabir, that still does not make them equal in magnitude, we will never know how Allah judge the two compared to each other but we now well that one was described as in it is ithim kabir and the other was repeatedly warned against and the contrary of it which be truthful is the main theme of the Quran

Allah knows best

Take care


Assalam alaikum

Jazakallah and u too welcome.

I always very argue with my freinds about what faraz in Islam. I not say drinking alocohol good or not read namaz good but only say that doing other good things like speak truth and help others equal goodness. BUt they say NO not matter if u speak lie and, do bad but reading namaz most importent.
I do not readQuran so I do not know true. What Quran tell is most important? Give reasan answer Inshallah
Jazakallah.
- Mon 04 Jun, 2007 5:41 pm
Post subject:
Baal wrote:
"Let he with no sin, casts the first stone."


Salam Baal

Do you know why Jesus said that?, I mean what logic you think Jesus was trying to present?

Baal wrote:
"Father, Father, Why have you forsaken me."


Ok, let me ask you, if you are a father and one day you have seen a mob hurting your child, urinating at him, bashing him, spitting at him, nailing him, spiking him, then want to hang him on a cross to kill him and to further humiliate his dead body, wouldn't you die to save your child?

if yes then please convince me how this god with all mighty power, failed to save his only son?, that weak god should be charged with child abuse because it would have been so easy for him to save his only biological child but he prefered to watch the mob humiliating him before they killed him in the worst manner possible, obvioulsy if that is true no one should wonder why the child screamed "Father, Father, Why have you forsaken me.". yep I second that and say : Father, Father, Why have you forsaken your only child.

Baal wrote:
Hello Ahmad,
That is a good and precise debate on why stoning should not be allowed in islam.


No doubt about it bro, even the kuffar agree on its merit which makes me happy of course. however it is not to make the kuffar happy rather to show the truth as seen from Allah words (the Quran) and their hearsay (the hadith)

Baal wrote:
I feel sorry you have to deal with those mockery of humanity,


I won't call them a mockery of humanity but i will call them misguided, as well i call you the same, sorry bro.

Baal wrote:
that would ask you to reconsider without taking the time to read or pinpoint what obviously took you a very long time to put together.


True man, they still have a long list from me to reply to, their web site domain has changed btw, it is now www.islamww.com, please have a look there, apparantly their web site is more popular than FFI, this is how the reports come from alexa.com

Baal wrote:
Your logic is that since Uthman's koran made a ruling and the hadith gives another ruling then Uthman's Koran takes precedence. Your logic is correct.


Actually I never mentioned Uthman, however what I mentioned to them that the THE PROPHET HIMSELF WAS THE ONE WHO RULED NOT TO INCLUDE IT IN THE QURAN according to their hearsay hadith that they believe in, me on the other hand incline to believe that hearsay regarding this matter. it just won't change the outcome that there is no stoning in the Quran.

Baal wrote:
Unfortunately for Islam and for those 2 people you were arguing with: You also open the door that Muhammed, for years, wrongfully stoned a lot of people.


I think you are missing an important issue, we just can't know for certain that Mohamed did that nor we can know the circumstances involved with each case neither it is important because the following simple fact, the stoning was already an order in the Bible, and possibly the verses of sheikh and sheikha was revelaed but Allah withdrew it, indeed there is a strong evidence in the Quran that suggests that this was the case (I can walk you through it if you are interested), I actually need to clarify my understanding a bit for someting I said earlier, I said no one can change Allah words, however I missed to say BUT HIM, I.E. there is nothing that can prevent Allah from changing His rules, infact there is many examples in the Quran that Allah has changed His laws, so when I say no one can change Allah words, I always mean BUT HIM., who can hold Him accountable for doing so?, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE. so possibly Allah has withdrew the verse as a mercy from Him towards the Zani and Zania, indeed if you look at 24:2 again where the punishment of Zanin and Zania is stated as 100 lashes you will see that NO COMPASSION TO BE SHOWEN is part of the package, it seems to me that Allah has decreased the punishment from stoning to lashes knowing in advance that the number of Zani and Zania will be on the rise as the human number on earth is increasing, that is possibly why NO FURTHER COMPASION is part of the package as read in 24:2, this should rimes with His Mercy of course, but I stress that what i just said is nothing but conjecture and surely Allah knows best.

Baal wrote:
One act of stoning I recall, took Muhammed 3 years from the moment Muhammed knew about the act to the moment of execution. It is impossible that, on such a critical judgement, as to executing a young new mother with a very painful and prolongued method, Muhammed did not ask Allah and Gabriel for advice and guidance.


I dont know bro, however the Quran told us that Mohammad was sent as mercy to the all humanity, so your conjecture is quite pluassible but it has to stay as conjecture, we just can't know, what we know well that there is no stoning in the Quran and the prophet declined to include the stoning verse on the Quran according to their hadith that they believe in and if that is true then permission from Allah must be given, he just could't do it on his own

Salam bro
- Tue 05 Jun, 2007 7:35 am
Post subject:
iqbalismail wrote:
Assalam alaikum


Salam mate

iqbalismail wrote:
Jazakallah and u too welcome.


No worries

iqbalismail wrote:
I always very argue with my freinds about what faraz in Islam.


Sorry mate, what is faraz?, do you mean obligatory?

iqbalismail wrote:
I not say drinking alocohol good or not read namaz good but only say that doing other good things like speak truth and help others equal goodness.


Sure

iqbalismail wrote:
BUt they say NO not matter if u speak lie and, do bad but reading namaz most importent.


I donlt get you bro, can you please elaborate?

iqbalismail wrote:
I do not readQuran so I do not know true.


Please try to read it and ask me questions if you have any, I will do my best to answer them to the best of my knowledge

iqbalismail wrote:
What Quran tell is most important? Give reasan answer Inshallah
Jazakallah.


I believe the most important thing to do in this test is to believe in Allah and not take any associates whatsoever with him,

Take care
- Tue 05 Jun, 2007 8:58 am
Post subject:
Quote:
iqbalismail wrote: ????????????????????????????¢?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¬????????????????????????????¹ Select ????????????????????????????¢?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¬????????????????????????????º
BUt they say NO not matter if u speak lie and, do bad but reading namaz most importent.


I donlt get you bro, can you please elaborate?

Hes is talking about those people who are corrupt, and they say salat is compulsary no matter what you do.

In my opinion these people live with false hope, becasue they think and do false things. Actually they are blind. But to question their salat is wrong, its a matter between human and God. And nobody knows what is in anybody heart.

Salam
- Tue 05 Jun, 2007 8:12 pm
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
iqbalismail wrote:
Assalam alaikum


Salam mate

iqbalismail wrote:
Jazakallah and u too welcome.


No worries

iqbalismail wrote:
I always very argue with my freinds about what faraz in Islam.


Sorry mate, what is faraz?, do you mean obligatory?

iqbalismail wrote:
I not say drinking alocohol good or not read namaz good but only say that doing other good things like speak truth and help others equal goodness.


Sure

iqbalismail wrote:
BUt they say NO not matter if u speak lie and, do bad but reading namaz most importent.


I donlt get you bro, can you please elaborate?

iqbalismail wrote:
I do not readQuran so I do not know true.


Please try to read it and ask me questions if you have any, I will do my best to answer them to the best of my knowledge

iqbalismail wrote:
What Quran tell is most important? Give reasan answer Inshallah
Jazakallah.


I believe the most important thing to do in this test is to believe in Allah and not take any associates whatsoever with him,

Take care


Assalam alaikum

No I am sorry. I not want to worry u. I am sorry. I mean farz. Yaa compulsry.

Yaa they tell do bad bad thing and read namaz and Allah (S.W.T) forgeve u and bring u inside Jannat ul firdaus (Haven) .Do good thing and not read namaz Allah (S.W.T) very angry and bring u inside Jahannam. (Hell)

I not read english but i read english very slow. I try for ur telling Inshallah. Jazakallah. My MUslim freind very bad. Mother Theresa very good but she Christan. Why Allah (S.W.T) bring my freinds in haven and Mother Theresa in hell? Sorry if I not allaow to ask this thing. my freind telling me Allah (S.W.T) not like it. Yaa not take any asociates with Allah (S.W.T) Jazakallah.
- Tue 05 Jun, 2007 8:19 pm
Post subject:
Life wrote:
Quote:
iqbalismail wrote: ‹ Select ›
BUt they say NO not matter if u speak lie and, do bad but reading namaz most importent.


I donlt get you bro, can you please elaborate?

Hes is talking about those people who are corrupt, and they say salat is compulsary no matter what you do.

In my opinion these people live with false hope, becasue they think and do false things. Actually they are blind. But to question their salat is wrong, its a matter between human and God. And nobody knows what is in anybody heart.

Salam


Life wrote:
Quote:
iqbalismail wrote: ‹ Select ›
BUt they say NO not matter if u speak lie and, do bad but reading namaz most importent.


I donlt get you bro, can you please elaborate?

Hes is talking about those people who are corrupt, and they say salat is compulsary no matter what you do.

In my opinion these people live with false hope, becasue they think and do false things. Actually they are blind. But to question their salat is wrong, its a matter between human and God. And nobody knows what is in anybody heart.

Salam


Assalam alaikum

Yaa yaa. They say do bad thing and read namaz more good. I say not do bad thing and not read namaz more good. WHat i try telling is I tell Listen if only read namaz or only do no bad thing then only do no bad thing. What Quran say abaut this? Pls give reasan answer Inshallah. Jazakallah.
- Fri 08 Jun, 2007 12:50 am
Post subject: I TELLING LISTEN
Assalam alaikum

Quran not telling anything? Very sad. I retell what i telling. Listen in Day of Qayamat Allah (S.W.T) more forgeve not reading namaz and less forgeve doing bad thing. Am my friend right or I right? Pls give reasan answer Inshallah. JazAkallah.
I forget telling. My freinds reading namaz rich n Me poor. If I telling anythings to them they telling me than why do Allah (S.W.T) making us rich n making u poor? I telling them many gayr musalman too SOOO rich. SO what if I poor n they rich. BUt I think they right n I sad.
- Thu 28 Apr, 2011 5:46 pm
Post subject:
Wonderful post...
- Sun 01 May, 2011 1:21 pm
Post subject:
Salam all;

Well concerning the status of alcohol, I will put in my two-cents worth (taken from the commentary):


???????????????¢??They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit. And they ask you as to what they should spend. Say: What you can spare. Thus does Allah make clear to you the communications, that you may ponder.???????????????¢????????????????

2:219


The precepts of Islam are clarified by the Qur???????????????¢??an (it is the Criterion). Zakat is what we can afford. This ayah also shows that there is no abrogation concerning alcohol. Revealed before 4:43 and 5:90-91, it clearly states that consuming alcohol is a sin. 4:43 merely mentions the conditions for prayer (state of mind, ablution etc.) whilst 5:90 declares that intoxicants are the work of Iblis. Why would Allah (SWT) wait until 5:93 to declare this? Did intoxicants only become the work of Iblis at that moment? No, 5:90-91 is a reminder for the inhabitants of Medina:

???????????????¢??O you who believe! intoxicants and games of chance and (sacrificing to) stones set up and (dividing by) arrows are only an uncleanness, the Shaitan???????????????¢??s work; shun it therefore that you may be successful. The Shaitan only desires to cause enmity and hatred to spring in your midst by means of intoxicants and games of chance, and to keep you off from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer. Will you then desist????????????????¢????????????????

5:90-91

The words ???????????????¢??Will you then desist????????????????¢???????????????? confirms that it is a reminder. To a new ayah, 16:67 should not be considered an allowance for the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Rather, it states that alcohol AND goodly provision is obtained from the palm and grapes. One is that which is pure and wholesome food for us, and the other is that which turns into alcohol after it rots. It has been left to our choice to obtain pure, healthy food from this providence or to drink it as an intoxicating wine (exciting us and making us lose self-control). This also contains a hint as to the prohibition of wine.


In short, there is no punishment for drinking alcohol, but as a matter between each person and Allah (SWT), it seems to represent a black mark on one's faith.

Peace.
All times are GMT + 10 Hours
Powered by phpBB 2.0 .0.17 © 2001 phpBB Group