Islamic View of the Coming/Return of Jesus
vmi...@yahoo.com
anj...@msn.com (Anjum) wrote:
> The rest of the article is at:
>
> http://www.islamicperspectives.com/ReturnOfJesus.htm
In the article by Dr. Shafa'at, he cites at least two ahadith that
are mutaffiq alayh and which predict the return of Jesus(PBUH) near
the hour of the end. Both ahadith are attributed to Abu Hurairah(RA)
who heard them from the prophet(SAW) himself.
Dr. Shafa'at, then, goes on to say (later in the article):
"Although the ahadith about the return of Jesus probably do not go back
to the Prophet, they are in some way valuable and valid".
I am at a loss to understand the basis of this (strange) statement.
Perhaps you, or someone else in this forum, could shed some light?
BTW, I do not necessarily dismiss the interpretation offered by Dr.
Shafa'at at the end of the article; however, I do take issue with the
ahadith not going back to the prophet(SAW)himself.
wasSalam
Viqar Ahmed
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service New Rate! $9.95/Month 50GB
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
coming of Jesus (God's grace and peace be on him) in the Qur'an.
"He (Jesus) shall be a sign of the Hour (of judgment). Have no doubt
about it! Follow me (Allah); that is the straight way." (Qur'an 43:61)
--
Peace to all who seek God's face.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
ayman
> The Jewish tradition, as is well known, contains expectations of a
> figure called the Messiah, who in Christian tradition is identified
> with Jesus. For the Jews, this figure is yet to come but even in
> Christianity the Messiah, although he came two thousand years ago in
> the person of Jesus, will accomplish his expected work in a future
> time upon his return. Thus the expectation of a future activity of the
> Messiah is common to Judaism and Christianity. In this article I
> discuss Islamic view of this expectation. As always, any discussion
> about Islam needs to be done at two levels: 1) in the light of the
> teaching of the Prophet as contained in the Qur`an and authentic
> ahadith and 2) in the light of other Muslim traditions.
>
> ...
I interpret verse 43:61 to be talking about Isa (Jesus):
43.61: "And indeed he is a knowledge/indication for the hour/time, so
have no doubt about it and follow me, this is a straight path."
Just looking 43:61 alone it is impossible to determine whether the
Arabic word "inahu" means "he" or "it". Hence, the context would be
determined from the verses leading to 43:61.
Reading back to 43:57-59, one finds that Jesus (he) is definitely the
main subject of verses 43:57-59.
The confusion arose because of verse 43:60 coming between 43:57-59 and
43:61. However, verse 43:60 starts with "and". This means that 43:60
is a continuation of 43:59. So 43:59-60 can be read as one sentence
where the main subject is still Jesus. Therefore, I interpreted 43:61
to be still talking about Jesus.
In what way is Isa a knowledge/indication for the hour?
Bukhari and other hadith books claim that Isa did not die and will
return before judgment day along with a character called Mahdi to save
the Sunnis or Shia from humiliation and tyranny and murder everybody
else. This may be one reason why Sunnis and Shias have been living
helplessly under tyranny for much of their history. They are waiting
for Isa and the Mahdi to save them. Had they bothered to read the
Quran directly instead of through the hadith lens, they would have
discovered that their Messianic end-of-days false beliefs have no
validity. From verse 3:55, it is clear that Isa is not still alive as
the books of hadiths claim:
3.55: "When The God said: "O Isa! I am making you die and raising you
towards me and purifying you from those who disbelieved, and making
those who followed you above those who disbelieved to the Resurrection
Day, then to Me is your return, so I judge/rule between you in what,
you were in it differing""
The God caused Isa to die just like He causes everybody else to die:
39.42: "The God makes the selves die at the time of its death, and
that which did not die in its sleep, so He holds that which He ordered
the death on, and He sends the other to a named/specified term/time,
that truly in that are evidences/signs to a nation thinking."
In addition, from 3:55 it is clear that disputes concerning Isa (such
as whether he is dead or not) will be resolved on Judgment day and NOT
by his return before that.
Isa was not the only Prophet who was "raised" by The God:
19.56-57: "And remember/mention in The Book Idris, that he truly was
always very truthful, and a prophet * And We "raised" him a
high/dignified place/position."
2.253: "Those are the messengers, We favored some of them over some,
from them who spoke with The God, and He "raised" some of them
degrees. And We gave Jesus, Mary's son, the evidences, and We
supported him with the Holy Spirit, and if The God willed, those from
after them would not have fought each other after the evidences came
to them, however they differed, so from them who had faith, and from
them who rejected, and if The God willed, they would not have fought
each other, and but The God does what He wants."
Moreover, every self, without exception, tastes death:
3.185: "Every self tastes the death, ..."
See also verses such as 21:7-8 and 21:34-35.
So, if according to the Quran, Isa is dead and not living to return
before Judgment day as Sunnis, Shia, and Trinitarians claim, then how
is he a knowledge/indication of the hour? I believe that Isa is a sign
because events eventually leading to the hour started approximately
2000 years ago while he was alive.
Anyway, when the ending will come doesn't matter. We know for sure
that it will come. When trying to interpret Quranic truths about the
end of the world, it is not intended to divert the attention of people
from the fact that each one of us is less than a breath away from the
end of his/her world, which will come to each one of us when we die.
Whether we die in our sleep, in a car accident, or in a cataclysmic
event doesn't make any difference. The only thing that will matter is
whether we have been serving The God alone or serving the devil by,
for example, propagating his fabricated lies.
There is absolutely no mention in the Quran of Isa or any other figure
such as the Mahdi saving anybody. So Sunnis and Shias continue to wait
in vain. Messianic end-of-days hadith lies have been used to drug them
into waiting for a savior to bail them out from humiliation and
tyranny at the hands of their leaders or other nations instead of
proactively trying to change their own conditions. That is what
happens to nations that were given the Quran then separated themselves
from it.
Peace on who followed the guidance,
Ayman.
________
"This is the book, no doubt, in it guidance for the forethoughtful"
[2:2]
Musa Furber
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5B21136B; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
vmi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>In the article by Dr. Shafa'at, he cites at least two ahadith that
>are mutaffiq alayh and which predict the return of Jesus(PBUH) near
>the hour of the end. Both ahadith are attributed to Abu Hurairah(RA)
>who heard them from the prophet(SAW) himself.
>Dr. Shafa'at, then, goes on to say (later in the article):
>"Although the ahadith about the return of Jesus probably do not go back
>to the Prophet, they are in some way valuable and valid".
Based on what you wrote, Dr. Shafa'at is expressing his opinion that a
given hadith attributed to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)
is not in fact something that the final messenger of Allah did, said, or
approved of (Allah bless him and give him peace). The hadith in question is
found attributed to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) with a
continuous chain of transmission containing narrators. Both Imam al-Bukhari
and Imam Muslim have positively shown that the hadith is rigorously
authentic. As for what Dr. Shafa'at has to say, he will need to show that
there is some flaw in the chains of transmission; mere speculation will not do.
If you are at a loss to understand the basis of this statement, you are not
alone. The hadith scholars after al-Bukhari and Muslim who have intimate
and vast knowledge of hadith and their narrators found nothing wrong.
And dra...@fast-email.com wrote:
>So, if according to the Quran, Isa is dead and not living to return
>before Judgment day as Sunnis, Shia, and Trinitarians claim, then how
>is he a knowledge/indication of the hour? I believe that Isa is a sign
>because events eventually leading to the hour started approximately
>2000 years ago while he was alive.
Perhaps you should look at 4:157.
--Musa
--=======79FA161C=======--
Johnny
I just wish to respond to some of the statements made by Dr Shifat.
I don't understand how the author comes to the following conclusion:
"But humanity has an inbuilt ability to correct the evil that it sets
in motion. Hence the evil brought by the Dajjal will generate
opposition. Another leader will arise to oppose him from within the
Judeo-Christian world that produced him in the first place. This
leader will remind Jews and Christians of the true teachings of Jesus
of Nazareth and lead them on that basis. For this reason he can be
called a second Jesus, or, if you like, the returned Jesus, though not
literally. "
He does not cite any passage to support the above theory. I don't
think there are any traditions, be they authentic or weak, that
present the above picture, or give an impression that there will be
someone who will be "like" Jesus (P), though he will not quite be
Jesus (P), and he will "remind" the true teachings of Jesus (P) and
hence will be called a "second Jesus . . . returned Jesus", though he
will not be Jesus (P) literally. Where did the author pull these
amazing conclusions from? What evidence does he have to support this?
Obviously none.
He continues:
"To the extent this "Jesus" will rise from the Judeo-Christian world,
will be rejected by traditional Christians and Jews, will be supported
by Muslims and will help in the final acceptance of Islam by most of
the world, the traditions in Bukhari and Muslim and other books of
Hadith have got it exactly right."
Then instead of inventing this theory that someone will rise up, who
will not be Jesus (P) but Jesus (P) but "Jesus" etc etc., why not just
accept what the hadith says that Jesus (P) will return? Why invent
such theories, that are not supported by any text? If the author can
so easily stomach the theory, based upon these traditions, that
someone like Jesus (P) will rise "the returned Jesus, though not
literally", then surely there should be absolutely no problem for him
to accept that Jesus (P) will return, not "Jesus", when this is
plainly what the authentic traditions state.
The hadith in Bukhari clearly state that Jesus (P) will return to
earth, however the author also states:
"Although the ahadith about the return of Jesus probably do not go
back to the Prophet . . . "
How does he know they do not go back to the Prophet (P)? The hadith
collection of Bukhari and Muslim have been regarded as authentic by
almost all Muslim scholars for a very long time. What is the reason to
doubt and deny that Abu Hurairah (R) heard the Prophet (P) mention the
return of Jesus (P)? It is unfortunate that some so-called NEW "Muslim
scholars" are today casting doubt over the authenticity of traditions
that have been accepted as authentic by all actual scholars who have
been the masters in this field, and who have done immense studies and
research concerning them for a major part of their lives. What we need
is proper scholars commenting upon the traditions in question
responding to the claims made by these so-called new "scholars".
ayman
> Perhaps you should look at 4:157.
Thank you for the advice. Misinterpretations of 4:157 are common
especially if one is unfamiliar with the language of the Quran, so
perhaps you should learn Arabic in order to understand the difference
between "mata" and the word "qtl" used in verse 4:157:
4.157:"And their saying: 'We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of
Mary, The God's messenger, and THEY HAVE NOT KILLED HIM, and they have
not crucified him, but he was resembled/made unverifiable to them, and
those who differed/disputed in him are in doubt of him, they have no
knowledge except following conjecture, and THEY HAVE NOT KILLED HIM
CERTAINLY."
It would also help if you look at verses such as 3:144. Verse 3:144
makes it clear that there is a difference between DIED ("mata") and
KILLED ("qutil") and those two words are not used haphazardly in the
Quran. Also, the verse makes it abundantly clear that all messengers
before Mohamed have passed. Moreover, since Jesus is a prophet, if
Jesus was to come back them Mohamed wouldn't be the seal of the
prophets as per 33:40.
Jesus was NOT KILLED but he simply DIED:
3.55: "When The God said: "O Isa! I am MAKING YOU DIE and raising you
towards me..."
Jesus died just like everybody else:
39.42: "The God MAKES THE SELVES DIE at the time of its death,..."
3.185: "Every self tastes the death, ..."
See also verses 21:34-35.
On another note:
Musa Furber wrote:
> As for what Dr. Shafa'at has to say, he will need to show that
> there is some flaw in the chains of transmission; mere speculation will not do.
Even though I don't agree with many of Dr. Shafa'at arguments, the
chain of transmission ("isnad") itself is the epitome of subjective
speculation since men who died long time ago even long before Bukhari
and Muslim cannot agree or object to anything that is being propagated
in their name. This makes the "isnad" the most bogus aspect of
hadiths.
There are many examples to support this view. For example, hadiths in
later collections have a more complete chain of narrators then those
in earlier collections. In other words, later traditions have more
perfect "isnad". Another example is that later traditions are more
likely to be "mutawatir".
Those two phenomena can only be explained by widespread manufacture of
the chain of narrators ("isnad") that intensified from one generation
to the next.
Peace on who followed the guidance,
Ayman.
_________
asimm...@yahoo.com
> and Imam Muslim have positively shown that the hadith is rigorously
> authentic.
Yes, in their opinion they believe it to be rigorously authentic.
Yet, the earliest compiled of book of hadeeth, Malik's Muatta makes no
mention of the return of Jesus (AS). Now how can anyone say that the
return of Jesus (AS) is a fundamental aspect of aqeedah, if the
earliest collection of hadeeth makes no mention of an event, that if
true, would in almost all likelihood not been missed by the Muatta.
GF Haddad
> Yet, the earliest compiled of book of hadeeth, Malik's Muatta makes no
> mention of the return of Jesus (AS). Now how can anyone say that the
> return of Jesus (AS) is a fundamental aspect of aqeedah, if the
> earliest collection of hadeeth makes no mention of an event, that if
> true, would in almost all likelihood not been missed by the Muatta.
You will not find in the Muwatta' a hadith on belief in `Isa, upon him
peace, in the first place. Yet it is obligatory for every Muslim to
believe in every Prophet. This is because the Muwatta' is not an
all-encompassing book of Islam but a book of Islamic PRACTICE that is
devoted to FIQH and its subheadings. NOT `Aqida.
Furthermore, this entire thread so far missed the point that belief in
the descent of `Isa at the end of time is beyond the probative
authentication of al-Bukhari and Muslim as it is MUTAWATIR. The
evidence to that effect has been collected by many of the Ulema,
and... but enough said.
{Whoever wishes to believe let him believe and whoever wishes to
disbelieve let him disbelieve.} {Unto you your religion and to me my
religion.}
Hajj Gibril
John Berg
all the diacritical marks, to be precise. I was always impressed with the
characteristic of German to be a scientific language and we all know that
today's lingua franca for science, diplomacy, and the Internet is English.
Indeed, today the Qur'an may be read by more people in English than any
other language.
Let's parse 4.157:
1. "And their saying:
2. 'We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, The God's messenger,
3. and THEY HAVE NOT KILLED HIM,
4. and they have not crucified him,
5. but he was resembled/made unverifiable to them,
6. and those who differed/disputed in him are in doubt of him,
7. they have no knowledge except following conjecture,
8. and THEY HAVE NOT KILLED HIM CERTAINLY."
What does "resembled/made unverifiable" and "differed/disputed in him" mean?
The gist of this verse is that some had a story about how Jesus died but
they really couldn't know because they weren't there. The narrator, the one
speaking to us in line 1 with this verse, is person A. A tells us in line 2
that a people, B, have a saying (with a sense of long standing), "We, people
B, killed Jesus." But in line 3 the narrator, A, returns to tell us in the
verse's present, People (C) of Jesus' time didn't kill him in that distant
time of the saying.
Line 4 adds in the narrator's voice and time, "nor did People C in their
time crucify Jesus." The redundancy suggests that either line 3 or 4 was
added at a later time for emphasis or to defend against a specific
contemporary challenge. Perhaps some in the Amended Narrator's time (a time
after the first version was recorded) were saying, "Crucified, yes, but
killed, no." or "Killed, Yes, but crucified, no."
Lines 5 and 6 provide an unintelligible explanation of why (5) the people C
were mislead and, further, those among people B argue and have no
conviction about what happened (6) in Jesus' time.
For one like myself who insists on better control of dating extant records
and differing facts with mere unsupportable tradition, line 7 suggests that
by the narrator's time, those with this saying had no way of knowing. They
had just "conjecture" which is a fairly good synonym for "tradition."
Line 8 again may have been appended at a later time for emphasis.
Thus we have several time periods in this single verse:
1. the time of Jesus,
2. the time much later when the story of Jesus was a conjecture,
3. a time even later when, in the narrator's present, he can refer to the
saying,
4. and times when the clarifications were added or appended, and, of course,
5. today when we are reading this.
Now, we're discussing the precision with which the Qur'an was written. You
can argue that only Arabic readers who can read Arabic correctly without the
diacritical marks (which later interpreters added), can know Allah--the rest
of us are invincibly ignorant. Or that you have puzzled out a different
meaning, or even that you've found N differing interpretations over the last
thousand years.
But you can't say that the English translation above is clear and precise.
At best it has the "authority" of a Qur'an contemporous hadith.
John Berg
"ayman" <dra...@fast-email.com> wrote in message
news:81e3736a.03050...@posting.google.com...
>
Chadly
"ayman" <dra...@fast-email.com> wrote
Moreover, since Jesus is a prophet, if
Jesus was to come back them Mohamed wouldn't be the seal of the
prophets as per 33:40.
That is not true , The Prophet said there will be no(new) prophet
after me except Issa ( 3alayhe's'Salaam) and he will follow Islam.
Check this site.
http://www.compuex.com/ad101/mahdi.html
Altway
"John Berg" <john...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:%g8va.541555$OV.507960@rwcrnsc54...
> Let's parse 4.157:
1. "And their saying:
2. 'We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, The God's messenger,
3. and THEY HAVE NOT KILLED HIM,
4. and they have not crucified him,
5. but he was resembled/made unverifiable to them,
6. and those who differed/disputed in him are in doubt of him,
7. they have no knowledge except following conjecture,
8. and THEY HAVE NOT KILLED HIM CERTAINLY."
What does "resembled/made unverifiable" and "differed/disputed in him"
mean?
Lines 5 and 6 provide an unintelligible explanation of why (5) the people C
were mislead and, further, those among people B argue and have no
conviction about what happened (6) in Jesus' time.
Comment:-
"Unintelligible" to whom?
It seems perfectly clear to me.
But I suppose if I did not want to accept this, then I would try to
find some anomallies.
The whole thing is a single verse and should be understood as one,
but I will follow the sections you have made:-
In line 1, "their saying" refers to Jews
Line 2 tells us what they say : that they killed Jesus.
Line 3 and 4 denies that they killed or crucified Jesus.
Line 5 should be read or interpreted:-
"It (the reality) was obscured or hidden."
This is made clear from all the other sections -
It is only because you have isolated it from the others that
you have confused yourself.
Line 6 tells us that people disputed about the facts
because they had doubts.
Line 7 points out that they were speculating because
they had no knowledge.
Line 8 confirms that they did not kill him.
It follows also that those who say that a substitute was crucified
instead of Jesus are also speculating.
The whole verse is perfectly self-consistent.
---
Hamid S. Aziz
Understanding Islam
www.altway.freeuk.com
.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> asimm...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<92717884.03050...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Yet, the earliest compiled of book of hadeeth, Malik's Muatta makes no
> > mention of the return of Jesus (AS). Now how can anyone say that the
> > return of Jesus (AS) is a fundamental aspect of aqeedah, if the
> > earliest collection of hadeeth makes no mention of an event, that if
> > true, would in almost all likelihood not been missed by the Muatta.
>
> You will not find in the Muwatta' a hadith on belief in `Isa, upon him
> peace, in the first place. Yet it is obligatory for every Muslim to
> believe in every Prophet. This is because the Muwatta' is not an
> all-encompassing book of Islam but a book of Islamic PRACTICE that is
> devoted to FIQH and its subheadings. NOT `Aqida.
>
1. It is obligatory to believe in every Prophet because it is
recorded in the Quran. The return of Jesus (AS) is something
extraneuous. To even compare the two is utterly absurd and
incomparable in the least degree.
2. Is that why the narration that records the Prophet (S) witnessing
Jesus (AS) performing tawaaf around the Kaaba, followed by the Dajjal,
is reported in the Muatta?
3. The Muatta records various hadeeth, and whatever you have argued
is an assumption which is not substantiated by the simple narration
quoted.
> Furthermore, this entire thread so far missed the point that belief in
> the descent of `Isa at the end of time is beyond the probative
> authentication of al-Bukhari and Muslim as it is MUTAWATIR.
Yes, it is so mutawattir that it was missed in the 'earliest'
compilations of hadeeth, and that being by the people of Medina, not
Iraq where the tendency to believe in an awaited saviour was common.
>
> {Whoever wishes to believe let him believe and whoever wishes to
> disbelieve let him disbelieve.} {Unto you your religion and to me my
> religion.}
>
Our friend often has the tendency to argue about how the Najdi's use
verses in reference to the disbelievers and applying them to those who
believe in Islam. Now it is his turn.
But, it doesn't bother me. He still hasn't sufficiently answered the
question.
John Berg
I thank Altway and others for illuminating verse 4.157. I have replaced the
clarifications in the verse.
[An Arab writes sometime after the traditional dates of Mohammad (8th
Century)]
1. "And [the 8th Century Jews had a] saying:
2. '[earlier Jews] have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, The God's
messenger, [this line is the saying]
3. and [I, the Arab writer assert] THEY HAVE NOT KILLED HIM,
4. and they have not crucified him,
5. but [the Messiah, etc.] was [obscured] to [Jews],
6. and [I, the Arab writer assert] [ 8th Century Jews] who [argued and
had doubts about the Messiah],
7. [these 8th Century Jews] have no [direct] knowledge [because the 8th
Century Jews with the saying were not present in the earlier time] except
[these later 8th Century Jews are] following conjecture,
8. and [I, the Arab writer assert] THEY HAVE NOT KILLED HIM CERTAINLY."
The discussion issue was the clarity of the verse and usefulness of Arabic
as a precise language for recording history,
Altway writes "Unintelligible" to whom? It seems perfectly clear to me."
<snip>
"The whole verse is perfectly self-consistent."
But Altway does not explain the redundancy, the appendation, nor how the
Arab writer uniquely in the 8th century had the "facts." Tradition,
conjecture, sayings, when they are in Arabic are facts.
John Berg
Altway
"John Berg" <john...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:R5Eva.554743$OV.530396@rwcrnsc54...
> [An Arab writes sometime after the traditional dates of Mohammad (8th
> Century)]
1. "And [the 8th Century Jews had a] saying:
2. '[earlier Jews] have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, The God's
messenger, [this line is the saying]
3. and [I, the Arab writer assert] THEY HAVE NOT KILLED HIM,
Comment:-
Where did you get this?
Is it impossible for you to read things without adding your own
speculations?
John Berg:-
> The discussion issue was the clarity of the verse and usefulness of
Arabic
as a precise language for recording history,
Altway writes "Unintelligible" to whom? It seems perfectly clear to me."
"The whole verse is perfectly self-consistent."
But Altway does not explain the redundancy, the appendation, nor how the
Arab writer uniquely in the 8th century had the "facts." Tradition,
conjecture, sayings, when they are in Arabic are facts.
Comment:-
I do not believe there is any redundancy.
There is emphasis.
The verses of the Quran are compact in that they concentrate
several meanings, outer and inner, into them.
The Quran is a book on religion, about Spirituality and Morality
and a Way of Life, inner and outer - It is not just a book of History
(or of Politics, or Economics or Law or Science or Philosophy).
It does not understand History is as a collection of facts without
significance or value.
We believe that the Quran is a revelation from God
I am sure you know this!
It was written to be understood by those who accept this.
You obviously do not accept this.
It will, therefore, always be unintelligible for you
and it cannot possible have any utility or value for you.
This has been pointed out several times and several articles have been
posted
on this site about the nature of the Quran.
So is there any point in wasting your time and ours?
"Those unto whom We have given the Scripture, who read it with a right
reading, those believe in it. And whoso disbelieves in it, those are
the losers." 2:121
"Nay, but it (the Quran) is a clear revelation in the hearts of those
who are endowed with knowledge, and none deny Our revelations save the
wrongdoers (or unjust)." 29:24
GF Haddad
> 1. It is obligatory to believe in every Prophet because it is
> recorded in the Quran. The return of Jesus (AS) is something
> extraneuous. To even compare the two is utterly absurd and
> incomparable in the least degree.
1.a. The return of `Isa, upon him peace, IS in the Qur'an,
Surat al-Nisa' (4:159): {There is not one of the People of
the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and
on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them}.
1.b. The mutawatir hadiths form stronger proof because
1.b.(i) their probativeness is explicit (sarih al-dilala)
while that of the Qur'an is allusive. Read my lips: Sarih
al-Dilala means NOT OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. (This is for
your friend in this thread.)
1.b.(ii) I am dealing with people that routinely reject
the Qur'an based on their whims, and when asked to produce
a single example from Tafsir fall mute and run away.
> 2. Is that why the narration that records the Prophet (S) witnessing
> Jesus (AS) performing tawaaf around the Kaaba, followed by the Dajjal,
> is reported in the Muatta?
2.a. There is no such narration in the Muwatta' as narrated
by Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani (d. 189) from Malik.
2.b. You are actually referring to the later Muwatta' as narrated
from one of the YOUNGEST of all Malik's students, Imam Yahya ibn
Yahya al-Laythi (d. 232).
2.c. NEITHER version contains any `aqida except from a few hadiths
prohibiting discussion of Qadar. This completely puts to rest the
preposterous claim that "a fundamental aspect of aqeedah... would
in almost all likelihood not been missed by the Muatta."
> 3. The Muatta records various hadeeth, and whatever you have argued
> is an assumption which is not substantiated by the simple narration
> quoted.
3.a. Now why would I discuss your assessment of my unsubstantiated
assumption about the Muwatta' with someone that I know knows
3.a.(i) neither the Muwatta'
3.a.(ii) nor its milieu
3.a.(iii) nor its author
3.a.(iv) nor its transmitters
3.a.(v) nor hadith
3.a.(v) nor its methodology?
3.b. These replies, as most if not all my posts, are not primarily
discussions but presentations of the topic or corrections of
certain misconceptions.
> > Furthermore, this entire thread so far missed the point that belief in
> > the descent of `Isa at the end of time is beyond the probative
> > authentication of al-Bukhari and Muslim as it is MUTAWATIR.
>
>
> Yes, it is so mutawattir that it was missed in the 'earliest'
> compilations of hadeeth, and that being by the people of Medina, not
> Iraq where the tendency to believe in an awaited saviour was common.
Amazing, now you are going to teach me what comes from Hijaz
and what comes from Iraq?? Are you so sure the narrations of
the descent of `Isa upon him peace do not have some of the
greatest early Imams of the Hijaz in their chains - long
before Malik ibn Anas?!
If you are going to manipulate the texts it would be safer to
stick - as you have done - to what is a little bit more fluid,
for example English renditions of the Qur'anic meanings
purposely stripped of any Tafsir authority. Now there's a
sound basis for your kind of teachings.
{Whoever wishes to believe let him believe and whoever wishes to
disbelieve let him disbelieve.} {Unto you your religion and to me my
religion.}
> Our friend often has the tendency to argue about how the Najdi's use
> verses in reference to the disbelievers and applying them to those who
> believe in Islam. Now it is his turn.
This writer is hardly a friend of those that peddle their
whims in lieu of the truth.
> But, it doesn't bother me. He still hasn't sufficiently answered the
> question.
It takes a keen wit to know sufficient.
Hajj Gibril
vmi...@yahoo.com
> {Whoever wishes to believe let him believe and whoever wishes to
> disbelieve let him disbelieve.} {Unto you your religion and to me my
> religion.}
But one can also neither necessarily believe, nor necessarily disbelieve.
Certain matters need not be of a binding nature.
At the same time, if a muslim has sincere doubts regarding whether or
not the prophet(SAW) actually taught something about a specific issue, let
him/her present the basis (e.g, a contradictory teaching or conduct on the
part of the prophet(SAW)) which would justify having such doubt. Merely
asserting that (in the absence of any contradictory evidence) an authentic
hadith may not, in fact, be based on the prophet's teaching, is
unconvincing IMHO.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> asimm...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<92717884.03051...@posting.google.com>...
>
> <snip>
>
> > 1. It is obligatory to believe in every Prophet because it is
> > recorded in the Quran. The return of Jesus (AS) is something
> > extraneuous.
>
>
How can the Quran, a book that composes maybe 1/10th law, miss the
second return of Jesus (AS). How can anyone claim that the aqeedah of
Islam, the fundamental basis on which islam rests, includes the return
of Jesus (AS) when the Quran nowhere mentions it?
> >To even compare the two is utterly absurd and
> > incomparable in the least degree.
>
> not absurd....the quran is mutawatir....the hadiths about the return
> of isa are mutawatir in meaning...the belief in isa and the belief in
> his return are both supported by mutawatir evidence....
>
No, the hadeeth are not mutawatir. I asked why the Muatta possesses
only one narration of Jesus and the Dajjal, yet there is no evidence
of his descent or return. How can the earlliest compilation of
hadeeth only recorded this dream, and yet miss all the other ones?
UNTIL SOMEBODY PROVIDES AN EXPLANATION OF WHY THE MUATTA RECORDS THIS
NARRATION ALONG WITH NARRATIONS ABOUT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPHET,
QADAR, AND OTHER EVENTS, MY POINT STILL STANDS:
`Abdulla#h Ibn `Umar reports that the Prophet said: In a dream, I
found myself near the Ka礎ah one night. I saw a man near the Ka礎ah of
brownish colour, the best of brownish people you could have seen. He
had hair till his shoulders, the best you could have seen of such
appearance. He combed his hair while they dripped with water and he
was leaning on two people ... and circumambulating the Ka礎ah. So I
asked: Who is this person? Someone told me that this is Jesus son of
Mary. Then suddenly I saw another man who had curly hair and had a
blind right eye ... So I asked: Who is this person. Someone replied
that this is Dajja#l-Masi#h@. (Kita#b al-Ja#mi`)
> he definitely has answered the question of why the muwatta doesnt
> contain reports about the return of isa....to think it should contain
> these reports is to misunderstand the nature of the book...why should
> it contain reports about the return of isa(s)?
Why does it mention the dream of the Prophet (S)? Why does it mention
the names of hte Prophet (S)?
He never answered the question, and by the way, all the early scholars
were primarily dealing with fiqh and they were concerned were finding
justification for certain rituals. Even Bukhari and Muslim primarily
deal with fiqh.
asimm...@yahoo.com
>
> > 1. It is obligatory to believe in every Prophet because it is
> > recorded in the Quran. The return of Jesus (AS) is something
> > extraneuous. To even compare the two is utterly absurd and
> > incomparable in the least degree.
>
> 1.a. The return of `Isa, upon him peace, IS in the Qur'an,
> Surat al-Nisa' (4:159): {There is not one of the People of
> the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and
> on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them}.
>
1. This is an extraneuous opinion based upon sources outside of the
Quran and the difference between the two, as I stated before, is
INCOMPARABLE even in the slightest degree. There are emphatic
declarations in the Quran that it is a requirement of faith to believe
in all the Prophets of God.
2. Even from your translation, there can be 3 meanings:
a. The ahl-kitab will believe in Jesus, before Jesus' death.
b. The ahl-kitab will believe in Jesus, before his own (the
ahl-kitab) death.
c. Every ahl-kitab shall believe the fact that the Jews did not kill
Jesus before his own death.
Even the commentators differ on the meaning of this verse.
Thus, once again, there is no basis FROM THE QURAN that Jesus' (AS)
will return, and TO LIKEN TO CASE OF BELIEVING IN HIS RETURN AND
BELIEVING IN ALL THE PROPHETS IS INCOPARABLE TO EVEN THE SLIGHTEST
DEGREE.
> 1.b. The mutawatir hadiths form stronger proof because
>
The Quran is the FURQAN, not the othe way around.
> 1.b.(i) their probativeness is explicit (sarih al-dilala)
> while that of the Qur'an is allusive. Read my lips: Sarih
> al-Dilala means NOT OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. (This is for
> your friend in this thread.)
>
The Quran is not allusive in this matter. The verse is a conclusive
piece of evidence regarding a proof for the hereafter and to take it
in isolation leads to having to seek extraneuous opinions that defeat
the very context of the verse in question.
The series of ayahs are addressed to the disbelievers, and the verse
is preceded by a series of verses on the miracles of Jesus (AS), his
being born of a virgin mother, and his raising the dead to life.
Thus, the events of Jesus' life are undeniable proof for the
ressurection of the dead in the next life. If God Almighty had
created jesus (AS) out of events contradictory to normal events, and
further blessed him with the power to raise the dead, then their is
nothing stopping God from raisig men the second time.
If the verse was referring to the advent of Jesus (AS) the second
time, then it would irrelevant to the direct addressees of the Quran,
the original disbelievers.
> 1.b.(ii) I am dealing with people that routinely reject
> the Qur'an based on their whims, and when asked to produce
> a single example from Tafsir fall mute and run away.
>
I have consistently asked you to back uf opinions from the tafseer
books in the CONTEXT OF THE QURAN, and provide evidence that their
opinionis stronger, and yet you continually fall mute and run away.
The Quran is the furqan, not the other way around.
Ibn Kathir writes:
"Ibn Jarir says: Interpreters have a difference of opinion regarding
the meaning of this verse."
>
> 2.c. NEITHER version contains any `aqida except from a few hadiths
> prohibiting discussion of Qadar. This completely puts to rest the
> preposterous claim that "a fundamental aspect of aqeedah... would
> in almost all likelihood not been missed by the Muatta."
>
Notice that it was YOU that made the claim that Muatta does not
mention the events of Jesus and the Dajjal because of it being a book
on fiqh, YET THE VERY MUATTA MENTIONS THE DREAM OF THE PROPHET (S)
WITNESSING THE DAJJAL AND JESUS.
Now once again, you have given further proof that the Muatta includes
narrations that concern aqeedah. Than you very much.
The rest is more polemic from Hadda, who has ther tendency to write
sarcastic comemnts in the terminology of 'scholarship', all the time
avoiding the answers and claiming at the same time, that he does not
need to refute people who are not grounded in hadeeth scholarship.
Yet lo and behold, he made a 'refutation' originally and now he avoids
the response. Not impressed.
Johnny
anj...@msn.com (Anjum) wrote in message news:<fdb9c2b0.0305...@posting.google.com>...
> johnny_b...@yahoo.com (Johnny) wrote in message news:<a867f173.03050...@posting.google.com>...
> > Assalam Alaikum.
> >
> > I just wish to respond to some of the statements made by Dr Shifat.
> >
> > I don't understand how the author comes to the following conclusion:
> >
> > "But humanity has an inbuilt ability to correct the evil that it sets
> > in motion
>
> Sheer common sense and a deep observation of Allah's Laws that have
> manifested throughout human history. After every dark night, there is
> a bright sunny day. Humanity has a built-in mechanism whereby it
> fluctuates between two extreme positions.
I agree with you completely. Here is the complete passage in
question:
"But humanity has an inbuilt ability to correct the evil that it sets
in motion. Hence the evil brought by the Dajjal will generate
opposition. Another leader will arise to oppose him from within the
Judeo-Christian world that produced him in the first place. This
leader will remind Jews and Christians of the true teachings of Jesus
of Nazareth and lead them on that basis. For this reason he can be
called a second Jesus, or, if you like, the returned Jesus, though not
literally. "
My statement: "I don't understand how the author comes to the
following conclusion" did not refer to the one sentence that you have
quoted as is quite obvious I think. I was referring to his conclusion
of the "Jesus" who will be "like" Jesus but not quite Jesus. This is
what I did not understand and fail to see how anyone can arrive upon
such a conclusion based upon the traditions in question, whether
authentic or inauthentic, which all clearly mention the return of
Jesus (P) and not a "Jesus". I think that *this* particular conclusion
has nothing to do with common sense.
>
> > Then instead of inventing this theory that someone will rise up, who
> > will not be Jesus (P) but Jesus (P) but "Jesus" etc etc., why not just
> > accept what the hadith says that Jesus (P) will return?
>
> > It is unfortunate that some so-called NEW "Muslim
> > scholars" are today casting doubt over the authenticity of traditions
> > that have been accepted as authentic by all actual scholars who have
> > been the masters in this field, and who have done immense studies and
> > research concerning them for a major part of their lives.
>
> And these "masters" in this field, were they directly inspired by God
> or was it a human endeavor?
Was Dr. Shifat inspired by God to say that the Jesus (P) who will come
will not be Jesus (P) but "Jesus", someone like Jesus (P) but not
quite Jesus (P)? I only wish to know how he arrived at this
conclusion, thats all.
No the "masters" in the field of hadith were not "inspired" by God,
but they were obviously far more knowledgable in this field than Dr.
Shifat and some of these other modern day pseudo scholars. What I know
is that the hadith collection of Bukhari and Muslim has always been
unanimously accepted by Muslim scholars as authentic. And this reality
cannot be put aside so conviniently.
>Have the Hadith sciences reached their
> optimum level of development or can they be further refined and
> developed?
I don't see how the hadith, that is the authentic ones, that clearly
state the return of Jesus (P) can be "refined" to argue the emergence
of a "Jesus" and not Jesus (P). As for the refinement of the science
itself, then all I see is a few "scholars" here and there making some
noise over the issue, whereas the majority of scholars do not seem to
have a problem in accepting them as authentic.
>
> Anyway, I have posted Dr. Shafaat's response elsewhere in this thread.
Thank you for that.
GF Haddad
A contribution to this thread from an outside reply.
>I have learned that Hazrat Ees'a (as) will return from
>the heavens before Yaum'al-Qyamat [...] but I know a
>muslim who will not believe in it. In Ahadith we find
>several which say that ibn Maryam (as) will return.
>This friend of mine interprets a verse from the Holy
>Quran kind of special. This verse is "Never said I to
>them aught except what Thou didst command me to say to
>wit `Worship Allah my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a
>witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when
>Thou didst take me up thou wast the Watcher over them
>and Thou art a Witness to all things."5:117 She says
>that this verse means that Jesus (as) will not know
>that the Christians believe in him as God's son (nauzubillah).
>She continues and accuses me for shirk, and calls me kafir
>because I tell her that there is very many muslims who
>think that ibn Maryam (as) will return. In Yusuf Ali's
>interpretation notes I read that he wrote: "There is
>difference of opinion as to the exact interpretuation
>of this verse. The words are: The Jews did not kill
>Jesus, but Allah raised him up (rafa'u) to himself. One
>school holds that Jesus did not die the usual human death,
>but still lives in the body in the heaven, which is the
>generally accepted Muslim view." How can I as her muslim
>brother explain her that she can't accuse other muslims
>for being kafir, because I said: "ibn Maryam (as) will
>insha'Allah return"? [...] She says that a muslim does
>not believe that ibn Maryam (as) will return.
A Muslim of pure belief believes that Isa ibn Maryam,
upon our Prophet and upon both of them peace, will
certainly return. The proofs for this are mutawatir
- mass-transmitted - and to reject them is the mark
of misguidance and worse. In addition there are allusive
proofs of his return in the Qur'an, among them:
{And He (the son of Mary) shall most certainly be a
sign of the Last Hour. Have no doubt about it!} (43:61).
{There is not one of the People of the Scripture but
will believe in him before his death, and on the Day
of Resurrection he will be a witness against them} (4:159).
Your friend is a person of foul innovation. In
addition, she commits kufr in accusing a Muslim of
kufr for believing something which does not justify
such a charge but rather is the truth in which she
herself is obliged to believe. If she is prone to
commit such a major sin and will not repent, on top
of holding deviant views, then it is best to get far
away from such an evil friend even if she pleases you.
The reasoning that `Isa, upon him peace, did not
know that Christians would commit polytheism after
him is unrelated to his descent from heaven at the
end of times. Muslims believe that Allah Most High
spares His Prophets knowledge of the kufr of their
followers after they leave this life, even as He
may make them aware of all their other states. The
good and bad deeds of this Umma are shown to the
Prophet, upon him peace, in Barzakh, but not the
apostasy of individuals so as not to harm him.
The difference of opinion whether `Isa died or was
raised to the heaven alive and in the body, is also
unrelated to his descent at the end of time.
Regardless of everything else Jesus WILL descend
from the heaven. He will destroy the cross and
kill the swine. The sincere among the Jews and
Christians will enter Islam at his hand while the
insincere will deny him and join the Dajjal -
the Arch-Liar. He will renew the Shari`a of our
Prophet Muhammad and kill the Dajjal. He will
marry and have children and die together with
the last band of believers left on earth, after
which the Hour will rise. This is our Sunni faith
and whoever wishes to disbelieve let them disbelieve.
Pure Muslim belief in relation to deviant pseudo-
Muslim belief in the time we live in, is dearer and
rarer than Islam itself in relation to other creeds.
Cling to the faith of the pious predecessors and
leave all the rest as so much smoke and whisperings.
Hajj Gibril
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Amazing, now you are going to teach me what comes from Hijaz
> and what comes from Iraq?? Are you so sure the narrations of
> the descent of `Isa upon him peace do not have some of the
> greatest early Imams of the Hijaz in their chains - long
> before Malik ibn Anas?!
>
Now I am teaching you? I did not know that I was studying under you.
All this time I thought I was on a forum discussing Islam.
Here is another qualified statement: "Do not have some of the
greatest early Imams of the Hijaz IN THEIR CHAINS - long before Malik
bin Nas." Does one think by qualifying statements
I am sure even Bukhari and Muslim have some of the greatest early
Imams of the Hijaz IN THEIR CHAINS, but I am also sure that not a
single one of them is a PURELY MEDINAN CHAIN.
Is all they teach in religious schools nowadays how to make qualified
statements for sarcastic purposes?
MrAbcX
back:
1) Jesus was a prophet of God, and he announced his prophethood as an
infant (19:30).
2) Muhammad was the messenger of God and the last prophet. No prophet
will come after Muhammad (33:40).
If we agree on these two points, we will agree on the third. As the
logical result of the above facts, the third fact is:
3) After the last prophet Muhammad, Jesus will not come back, since
Jesus was a prophet.
It is simple logic, but I guess sunnis/shia won't have the neccessary
skill to understand this.To claim that Jesus, in his second coming,
will not be a prophet, is denying the verses about Jesus' prophethood.
If Jesus will come back, he has to believe the Quranic verses that say
he is a prophet. If he
accepted that he is a prophet, he would being denying the final
prophethood of Muhammad.
Those Muslims who adopted Christian stories about the second coming of
Jesus, tried to manipulate the meaning of several verses, such as
43:61
and 4:159.
God said, "O' Jesus verily, I shall cause thee to die and shall exalt
thee unto me." (3:55)
* The word "Rafaa" means honoring or exalting. Nowhere in the Quran is
there any warrant for the popular believe that God has taken up Jesus
bodily into heaven.
"And we raised Enoch (Idrees) in honor." (19:56)
"(O' Muhammad!) We did not give any person before you immortality"
(21:33).
"Muhammad is but a messenger, all messengers before him have passed
away.
If he dies or gets killed, will you turn back? " (3:144)
This verse makes clear that Jesus too has died. He has passed away
and
was not raised to the heavens.
Is the Qur'an not sufficient for these people? (29:51).
You will never find change in the Laws of Allah (48:23) (Bodily
ascension is not a Law of Allah. Returning from
heaven to this world too, is not His law).
The Qur'an states "Allah does not change the condition of a nation
unless they bring about a change in their psychology." (13:11)
Please stop here and think for a moment why Jesus would come to change
the condition of a nation or nations? Doesn't this dogma collide with
a
rock solid law of the Qur'an.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> piece of evidence regarding a proof for the hereafter and to take it
> in isolation leads to having to seek extraneuous opinions that defeat
> the very context of the verse in question.
>
The follwoing verse being pointed to that is used for another proof
for the return fo Jesus (AS) is:
Sura 43 (Zukhruf), verse 61 says the following:
"And (Jesus) shall be A Sign of the Hour of Judgment..."
The future tense is used in the translation, and often causes
confusion, though it should be the present tense. This verse ia what
is referred to.
Tomasz Antkowiak
asimm...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<92717884.0305...@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
> 2. Even from your translation, there can be 3 meanings:
>
> a. The ahl-kitab will believe in Jesus, before Jesus' death.
> b. The ahl-kitab will believe in Jesus, before his own (the
> ahl-kitab) death.
> c. Every ahl-kitab shall believe the fact that the Jews did not kill
> Jesus before his own death.
- Do you think dying in the 'afterlife' is a possibility? If not, how
else can Isa (a.s.) die and have the ahl-kitab believe in him?
Salaam,
Tomasz Antkowiak
vmi...@yahoo.com
I shall be snipping parts of Dr. Shafa'at's response which (I believe)
are not central to the discussion, and also because I am not a qualified
scholar of hadith to offer any, other than personal, opinions.
anj...@msn.com (Anjum) wrote:
> vmi...@yahoo.com wrote in message
> > Dr. Shafa'at, then, goes on to say (later in the article):
> > "Although the ahadith about the return of Jesus probably do not go back
> > to the Prophet, they are in some way valuable and valid".
> > I am at a loss to understand the basis of this (strange) statement.
> > Perhaps you, or someone else in this forum, could shed some light?
>
> Here is Dr. Shafaat's response:
>
> How we evaluate the reliability of ahadith depends on how we answer
> four questions:
>
> First...
>
> Second, if the process of determining authentic ahadith is a human
> science, has it reached its final development or can it be improved
> further to a considerable degree? My answer is that it can be improved
> further to a very high degree.
Personally, I feel that some probative inquiry into certain contentious
ahadith may be possible. The million dollar question is who, in this day
and age, are the qualified people to deal with this subject. Certainly, I
am not one of them. Equally certain is the fact that this is a very
sensitive issue, not to be casually trifled with.
However, even a person of rather limited knowledge (like myself) does not
see how the present authentic collection can be improved to a very
significant degree (as Dr. Shafa'at suggests). Perhaps more qualified
people in this forum can deal with this in a separate thread. It should
also be pointed out that in a series of excellent articles, Br. Haddad
dealt with the subject of the probativeness of Sunnah, sometime ago in this
forum. Perhaps those articles could be re-posted and interested readers can
take the discussion from there.
> The basis of this is that even in exact
> sciences such as physics human beings have been proved wrong each time
> they concluded that a science has reached its final development.
With due apology, I think the analogy is not apt. Physics is a proper
scientific discipline where theorizing is based strictly on observed
experimental data. Probativeness of Sunnah, however, is a matter (at least
in my view)of critical historical inquiry. At best, one can subject the
contentious issues in hadith to critical logical inquiry, but what more?
Furthermore, if we were to treat it as a human scientific endeavor, we will
have to re-evaluate it's worthiness based on the view that it offers of the
unfolding human state of affairs over time. Looked from this point of view,
it seems to me that it is, all in all, quite remarkable.
> Third, do the Qur`an and the Hadith together form the foundation of
> Islam or is the Qur`an the foundation upon which the Hadith builds by
> explanation and elaboration and by providing the context?
Personally, this is where I become unstuck. My understanding, May God(SWT)
Forgive me, is that the primary sources of Islamic teachings are the Qur'an
and Sunnah (not hadith), in that order. Sunnah refers to the acts and
teachings of the prophet(SAW), wherease ahadith are the reports about such
actions and teachings. I do not doubt the correctness of things that
prophet did and taught. I am (occasionaly) doubtful about certain *reports*
pertaining to what certain matters.
> My answer is
> that the Qur`an alone is the foundation. The basis for this is
> provided by several Qur`anic verses and several ahadith that clearly
> state that Qur`an provides complete guidance for humanity. My answer
> is also based on the fact that only the Qur`an has been preserved with
> complete faithfulness by a divine act. If the Qur`an and the Hadith
> were both foundational, they should have both been preserved with
> equal faithfulness.
I think it would be more correct to say that the essentials of faith
(Iman) are all grounded in the Qur'anic teachings themselves. Certainly,
all *seven* elements of the declaration of faith in detail (Iman-e
Mufassal) are all there in the Qur'an. The role of hadith vis-a-vis the
essentials of faith is, at best, expository. To that extent, I can see Dr.
Shafa'at's point.
That said, the way he has worded his views above sounds dangerously close
to the Qur'an-Only proponents. I am reasonably certain the he(Dr. Shafa'at)
does not hold that view.
> Let us now turn to the ahadith about the return of Jesus. My view that
> these ahadith probably do not go back to the Messenger of God is based
> on the following arguments already presented in my article:
>
> 1) The Qur`an does not state that Jesus will return to establish the
> religion of truth throughout the earth.
I think I am among those who take issue with this assertion. Certainly,
other posters have argued that the Qur'an alludes to the return of
Jesus(PBUH) at a later time.
> This fact will not have much
> relevance for those who believe the Hadith to form the foundation of
> Islam along with the Qur`an. But if one believes, as I do, that the
> Qur`an is the foundation while the Hadith builds upon it, then the
> omission of a reference to the return of Jesus from the Qur`an becomes
> much more significant. The return of a past prophet and the global
> victory of Islam is such an important event in the history of humanity
> that a reference is expected to it in the Qur`an if it is the
> foundation of Islam.
But who suggested that it is a matter of foundation of Islam? It is
certainly not an independent element of the decalaration of faith, either
in its concise, or detailed, form. To those who believe in its plausibility
(like myself), it is subsumed in the belief in Divine Revelation. We need
not state it as an independent article of faith.
> 2) Muwatta also does not mention the return of Jesus. In the article I
> showed that if Imam Malik knew of the traditions of Jesus’
> return and he believed in them, he would have no reason to omit them.
> Hence there are only two possibilities: either the Imam did not know
> about these traditions or he did not believe in them. In both cases
> the authenticity of the traditions is cast into doubt. Malik wrote his
> Muwatta after the middle of the second century, about 150 years after
> the Prophet. During this time the belief in the return of Jesus -- an
> interesting, fascinating and important belief -- would have spread far
> enough for a man of Malik’s knowledge to come to know about it.
> And if Malik knew about it but did not believe in it, then his
> judgment in the matter carries considerable weight since he lived a
> considerable time before Bukhari and Muslim.
I am certainly not convinced by this argument. The fact that it is not
in Muwatta does not signify anything to me, unless Imam Malik's stated
goal in compiling it could be shown to be faithfully capturing all
prophetic reports pertaining to the essentials of faith alone. And, while
I have not myself reasearched it, that is not so to the best of my
knowledge. If Muwatta is the ultimate criterion for what we do, or do not,
consider acceptable, then we should entirely do away with the rest of the
authentic collection. For, whatever is in Muwatta is redundant (in the
authentic collection), and whatever is not can be dismissed on the basis
that it is not in Muwatta.
> 3) In Bukhari all the ahadith about the return of Jesus have chains
> that pass through Ibn Shihab and then after one more link through Abu
> Hurayrah. If the isnad method was very dependable this would have been
> acceptable but given the fact that the isnad method has not produced
> too dependable results we cannot put too much confidence in the
> reliability of these ahadith.
Imam Malik was born in 93A.H, long after the prophet had passed away. It
cannot be that what he collected is what he heard from th prophet himself.
So he must also have relied on reports through chains of narration. Now
how is that any different from the issue of isnad that Dr. Shafa'at
questions?
vmi...@yahoo.com
anj...@msn.com (Anjum) wrote:
> Is the belief in the return of Prophet 'Isa in this realm of existence
> binding? Does its rejection cause a Muslim to leave the fold of Islam?
Is it binding? Well that depends now, does'nt it? For those who beleive
that the Qur'an does (or may) allude to the return of Isa(PBUH), rejecting
his return is tantamount to rejecting the Qur'an. And I need not tell you
what that means.
Plus, rejection is a positive action. You can only reject something that
you *know* to be false. And I do not see how you, or any one else, can
definitively know? Are you saying that that the verses in the Qur'an which
allude to his(PBUH) return could not possibly, under any circumstance, have
that meaning?
AFAIAC, Isa's return may very well be alluded to in the Qur'an. In that
sense, it becomes an essential part of faith.
To give another example, the Qur'an calls Muhammad(SAW) the Seal of the
prophets. It does not explicitly say that he is the last prophet. But an
overwhelming majority of muslims (myself included) believe that he(SAW)
*was* the last prophet based not only on the preferred meaning of the word
KHAtam, but also mutawatir reports of the prophet himeself having taught
so.
On the basis that Qur'anic mention of this concept is a bit ambiguous,
would you also be willing to say that the Qur'an does not refer to the
finality of prophethood?
flamestar
then Islam is finished.
vmi...@yahoo.com
> > Merely asserting that (in the absence of any contradictory evidence) an
> > authentic hadith may not, in fact, be based on the prophet's teaching,
> > is unconvincing IMHO.
I have already responded to this in another post. There are some weak
points in his (Dr. Shafa'at's) argument. Even if his reasons are
accepted, they would be applicable to the entire collection of ahadith
that we have. They do not provide a basis for rejecting a specific
authentic hadith only.
Perhaps there needs to be a discussion about the centrality of Muwatta
in establishing the authenticity of the entire body of ahadith.
Would it not be possible for Dr. Shafa'at to come to this forum and
discuss his ideas about further fortifying the authentic hadith collection
with other posters far more knowledgeable than me.
wasSalam,
Abu Ali
Anjum <anj...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:fdb9c2b0.03051...@posting.google.com...
>
> Fourth, how far the isnad method is reliable? My answer is: not very
> much and here is my basis for saying so.
>
Another hadith denier?
There goes the sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh).
Welcome to the Qur'an only club
G. Waleed Kavalec
> A Muslim can not believe that Jesus will return. If Jesus comes back
> then Islam is finished.
Yes a Muslim can believe this, because many DO believe it.
The Qur'an tells us that the Jews did not kill. We are also told that
Allah raised him up to Himself.
The usual understanding of Al-Zukhrur 43.061
Wa-innahu laAAilmun lilssaAAati fala tamtarunna biha waittabiAAooni
hatha siratun mustaqeemun
[YUSUF ALI]
"And (Jesus) shall be a Sign the Hour:
therefore have no doubt, but follow ye Me:
this is a Straight Way."
The actual reference to Jesus is several ayah earlier, but the
grammaital evidence is clear that he is the subject.
Exactly HOW he will be a sign of the hour is not made clear, so there
are some Muslims who do not agree with the idea that he will return.
So we are best guided (IMHO) to leave it as part of the as-yet-hidden.
Arguing about it serves no perpose.
Peace
G.
Musa Furber
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-47B15D64; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 2003-05-15 14:36:09 PST flamestar (stamf...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>
> A Muslim can not believe that Jesus will return. If Jesus comes back
>then Islam is finished.
Really? When `Isa (peace be upon him) comes back he will be bringing
anything new; he will call people to the same thing that Muhammad (Allah
bless him and give him peace) brought with him. He comes as a reviver and
an awakener--not as a bearer of new revelation. What will be finished is
conversion to Islam.
Muslims not only can believe that `Isa (peace be upon him), it is part of
the creed.
Regards,
Musa
--=======6C745818=======--
Tomasz Antkowiak
asimm...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<92717884.03051...@posting.google.com>...
> The follwoing verse being pointed to that is used for another proof
> for the return fo Jesus (AS) is:
>
> Sura 43 (Zukhruf), verse 61 says the following:
>
> "And (Jesus) shall be A Sign of the Hour of Judgment..."
>
> The future tense is used in the translation, and often causes
> confusion, though it should be the present tense. This verse ia what
> is referred to.
Honestly brother, what is the difficulty? Are there any particular
reasons why you reject the coming of Isa' (a.s.)?
Here is a portion of Ibn Kathir's commentary on Surah 43 aya 61:
=====
Ibn Kathir's commentary
www.tafsir.com
=====
(And he (`Isa) shall be a known sign for (the coming of) the Hour.)
The correct view concerning this phrase is that it refers to his
descent before the Day of Resurrection, as Allah says:
(And there is none of the People of the Scripture but must believe in
him before his death) (4:159). -- meaning before the death of `Isa,
peace be upon him --
And on the Day of Resurrection, he will be a witness against them
)4:159(. This meaning has the support from an alternate recitation of
the Aya0t?(And he shall be a known sign for (the coming of) the Hour.)
means, evidence that the Hour will surely come. Mujahid said:
(And he shall be a sign for (the coming of) the Hour.) means, sign and
"One of the signs of the Hour will be the appearance of `Isa son of
Maryam before the Day of Resurrection. '' Something similar was also
narrated from Abu Hurayrah, Ibn `Abbas, `Abu Al-`Aliyah, Abu Malik,
`Ikrimah, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ad-Dahhak and others. Many Mutawatir
Hadiths report that the Messenger of Allah said that `Isa will descend
before the Day of Resurrection as a just ruler and fair judge.
Abu Ali
Is it not arrogance on your part that you titled your thread 'Islamic View
of the Coming/Return of Jesus'
Are you not aware that not even 1 % of muslims adhere to this veiw? How can
you call such a view 'Islamic'?
A better and more honest title would be 'Dr Shafaats view of the
Coming/Return of Jesus'
If one were to agree with the Dr.s of today one would be led to the
conclusion that the Muslim Ummah on the whole misguidedly based her deen on
unreliable sources (Isnaad ) and not one great muslim scholar was
intelligent enough to figure this out until the Doctors of today came along.
GF Haddad
John Berg
additional revelation subsequent to the Qur'an? How many "last" prophets
can one religion have?
John Berg
"Anjum" <anj...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:fdb9c2b0.03051...@posting.google.com...
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
wrote:
snip
>Then, we are asked by non-Muslims "whose Islam are we going to
>implement", as Count is asking brother Mahdi in another thread. He is
>asking a fair question. He knows the current state of our affairs. And
>so do many other intelligent non-Muslims.
It's rather like seeing the Reformation come to life, at least for
this intelligent and sympathetic non-Muslim. Although I am pulling
for Islam to look at what happened in Christian thought and do things
differently with Islamic schisms, I fear that hope isn't working out.
>The point is not that we should care much about what other non-Muslims
>think about us. I know what they truly think of Islam. The point is
>simple: we need to tolerate differences of interpretations in our
>midst and stay above them and focus on unity, something I have brought
>up on this forum in the past.
Actually, you might be surprised by what some non-Muslims think about
Islam and Muslims.
And unity is a good thing, no matter what faith you are discussing,
and unity and agreement between faiths that God/Allah is in charge is
also a good thing. Some people come to God through Islam, and that is
better than them never coming to God. God speaks to people in
different ways...for me, Islam does not speak as my path, but it
strikes sympathetic chords which I do not share with pagans or
atheists.
snip
>And that's a major problem: intolerance of minority views.
Intolerance of minority views is a problem in many places. It happens
in Catholic Christianity as well as Protestant Christianity--the
problem you descibe is not an Islamic problem alone. Or Christian,
either..on another newsgroup some folks were arguing the niceities of
Judaism and showing the same sort of intolerance.
Grace and peace upon all who read this.
jrw
(aisha)
asimm...@yahoo.com
> A'salaamu'alaikum
>
> asimm...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<92717884.03051...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > The follwoing verse being pointed to that is used for another proof
> > for the return fo Jesus (AS) is:
> >
> > Sura 43 (Zukhruf), verse 61 says the following:
> >
> > "And (Jesus) shall be A Sign of the Hour of Judgment..."
> >
> > The future tense is used in the translation, and often causes
> > confusion, though it should be the present tense. This verse ia what
> > is referred to.
>
>
> Honestly brother, what is the difficulty? Are there any particular
> reasons why you reject the coming of Isa' (a.s.)?
>
> Here is a portion of Ibn Kathir's commentary on Surah 43 aya 61:
>
1. The contextual analysis of the Quran rejects this intepretation.
In the very context of these ayahs, the Quran refers to the attitude
of the disbelievers of the Prophet's (S) time, WHO DENIED THE
RESURRECTION, that whenever that Blessed Prophet (S), Jesus (AS), is
mentioned they get riled up and angry. The life of Jesus (AS), that
the Quraysh knew well including his miraculous birth and the miracles
he performed in his life such as the raising of dead to life, is being
used as a proof of the resurrection and would have no applicability to
the disbelievers of the Prophet's (S) time is the verse referred to
the 'second coming' of Jesus (AS). The very power of God that was
manifest in the life of Jesus (AS) is ample proof, and a clear AYAH of
the coming of the Hour. In fact, all of the periods of Messenegrs and
Prophets are signs of this tremedous event.
2. According to the linguistic principles, one cannot translate one
portion of the sentence future tense, and the second one in present
tense. "The noun sentence is 'copulated with a verb sentence, the
period of a noun-sentence must be the same as that of the
verb-sentence. Hence, the noun-sentence must be translated in the
present-tense."
3. I am not forcing anyone to NOT BELIEVE in the return of Jesus
(AS). The one who says it is a FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT OF AQEEDAH is
making it obligatory for people of believe in the return of Jesus
(AS). My personal belief is that all apects of faith, I.E. AQEEDAH,
have been delineated very clearly in the QURAN.
4. The point I was making is that the return of Jesus (AS) is
EXTRANEUOUS TO THE QURAN.
asimm...@yahoo.com
In early Islam there was A DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUNNAH AND HADEETH. If
I were to ask you how you perform salaah, most likely you will say
that you have not learned from Bukhari or Muslim, but from the
PERPETUAL PRACTICE of the Muslims since the time of the Prophet (S).
Sunnah, in the linguistic sense, is a 'WELL-BEATEN PATH'. It is a
path that is continualy trodden, such that the path is so clear there
is no doubt about it.
One can theoretically dispense with hadeeth, and still fully perform
the rites of salaah, pay the rites of zakaah, perform fast in
Ramadaan, and perform the rites of hajj. The reason for this is that
the thousands of people DURING the life of the Prophet (S) were
performing these rituals all over the Arabian peninsula, and when the
Sahabah (R) expanded all over the world, the Muslim world was still
performing these rites, and the transmission has been an ONGOING
DYNAMIC PRACTICAL PHENOMENON NOT BASED UPON A SIMPLE ISNAD OR
HISTORICAL NARRATION.
Johnny
> It is very simple to prove that Jesus is dead and he will not come
> back:
I would like to make some comments concerning you "simple prove":
>
> 1) Jesus was a prophet of God, and he announced his prophethood as an
> infant (19:30).
True
>
> 2) Muhammad was the messenger of God and the last prophet. No prophet
> will come after Muhammad (33:40).
True.
>
> If we agree on these two points, we will agree on the third.
No.
>As the
> logical result of the above facts, the third fact is:
>
> 3) After the last prophet Muhammad, Jesus will not come back, since
> Jesus was a prophet.
Wrong. Muhammed (P) is without doubt the last and final messenger of
God and no new messenger or prophet will come after him (P). However,
Jesus (P) is not a "new" Prophet and Mesenger, he is the same Jesus
(P) who was born before Muhammed (P). Jesus (P) was apointed a Prophet
(P) before Muhammed (P) and not after. His return therefore does not
mean he will be a new Prophet, or someone apointed a Prophet after
Muhammed (P). Jesus (P) will return to earth and will follow the
shariah of Muhammed (P). And once he returns then he (P) will die as
all humans do. Jesus' (P) return does not disprove or contradict the
fact the Muhammed (P) was the last and final prophet of God.
Allah's Apostle said "How will you be when the son of Mary (i.e.
Jesus) descends amongst you and he will judge people by the LAW OF THE
QUR'AN and NOT BY THE LAW OF THE GOSPEL." (Bukhari, Fateh-ul Bari page
304 and 305 Vol 7).
Some important referneces:
Allama Zamakhshri (467 A.H.-538 A.H) writes in his commentary entitled
Kashshaaf, "If you ask how Muhammad can be the last of the Prophets
when Hadrat `Isa (Jesus Christ) will appear towards the end of the
world? I shall reply that the finality of Prophethood of Muhammad
(PBUH) means that no one will be endowed with prophethood after him.
Hadrat 'Isa is among those upon whom prophethood was endowed before
Muhammad(PBUH). Moreover, Hadrat 'Isa will appear as a follower of
Muhammad and he will offer prayers with his face towards the Qiblah of
Islam, as a member of the community of the Muslims." (Vol. 2, p. 215)
Allama Baidawi(died A.H. 685), in his commentary, Anwar-ul-Tanzil,
writes: "In other words he, Muhammed (PBUH), is the last of all
Prophets. He is the one in whom the line of Prophets ends or the one
whose advent has sealed the office of Prophethood. The appearance of
Hadrat 'Isa (peace be upon him) after Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) is not a
contradiction of the finality of Muhammed's Prophethood, because
Hadrat Isa will appear as a follower of the Shariah of Muhammed."
(Vol. 4, p. 164)
'Allama Hafiz-ud-Din Al-Nasafi (died A.H.710), in his commentary,
Madark-ut-Tanzil, writes: "And he Muhammad(PBUH) is the one who has
brought the line of prophets to an end...in other words he is the last
of all prophets. God shall not appoint another prophet after him. In
respect of Hadrat `Isa(peace be upon him) it may be stated that he is
among those who were appointed Prophets before the time of
Muhammad(PBUH). And when Hadrat `Isa appears again, he will be a
follower of the Shar'iah of Muhammad, and one among faithful." (p.
471)
Shaikh Isma'il Haqqi (died 1137 A.H.): "The appearance of Hadrat Isa
(PBUH) after Muhammad(PBUH) is not a contradiction of the finality of
Muhammad's prophethood. The term Khatam-un-Nabiyyin makes it clear
that no one will be appointed a prophet after Muhammad(PBUH). Hadrat
Isa (PBUH) was appointed Prophet before Muhammad(PBUH) and Isa(PBUH)
will appear as a follower of the Shari'ah of Muhammad(PBUH). He
(Isa)(PBUH) will offer prayers with his face turned towards the Qiblah
designated by Muhammad(PBUH). Hadrat Isa (PBUH) will be one among the
faithful of Islam. He will neither receive any Divine revelation nor
will issue new injunctions; he will act as a follower of
Muhammad(PBUH)."
[all above quotes taken from: "Finality of Prophethood" by Syed Abul
A'la Maududi http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/prophet/finalprophet.html
]
>
> It is simple logic, but I guess sunnis/shia won't have the neccessary
> skill to understand this.
Not is not as simple as you imagine. What I mentioned and cited above
is simple and requires minimum mental skill to comprehend.
>To claim that Jesus, in his second coming,
> will not be a prophet, is denying the verses about Jesus' prophethood.
No it is not.
> If Jesus will come back, he has to believe the Quranic verses that say
> he is a prophet. If he
> accepted that he is a prophet, he would being denying the final
> prophethood of Muhammad.
Huh?
Finally, your interpretation of certain verses are not the only
interpretations that everyone has to accept without question. Since we
know that the hadiths on the second coming of Jesus (P) are mutawatir,
the logical conclusion is that your interpretations are erroneous.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
"John Berg" <john...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> Why do Muslims blithely skip over the fact that a "genuine" hadith has to be
> additional revelation subsequent to the Qur'an? How many "last" prophets
> can one religion have?
>
> John Berg
You seem to be confused over what the ahadith are and their relationship
to prophetic revelation.
The Arabic word /HadiiTH/ means a speech, report or accout. In relation
to the Prophet Muhammad (God's grace and peace be on him) the ahadith
are the collected traditions of the words and deeds of Muhammad as
related by his Companions.
In legal language, they are all "hearsay", things other people say they
heard the Companions say were the words and deeds of the Prophet. The
degree of confidence or reliablity placed in them is based on a
complicated system of analysis and classification used by those who
later made and published compilations of them. There is, therefore,
always a possibility that one rejected as false or classed as weak may
in fact be totally true and that one classed as sure and certain may be
a false invention.
In the Qur'an, God tells us to take the Prophet Muhammad as our model.
Thus Sunni Muslims are those that follow the Qur'an way /sunnah/ of the
Prophet. Since there were no cameras or sound recorders in the time of
the Prophet, our only source of the sunnah are the second-hand or een
third-hand collections of his words and deeds (the ahadith).
I don't understand what you mean by your question "How many 'last'
prophets can one religion have?" in relation to the ahadith. The
putative source of EVERY hadith is a saying or an action of the Prophet
Muhammad himself.
There is NO rule that every hadith has to be divine revelation
subsequent to the Qur'an. However, SOME ahadith are considered to be
such.
The ahadith are divided into two large categories: /Hadiith qudsii/
(Holy Ahadith) and /Hadiith shariif/ (Noble Ahadith).
The holy ahadith are very few in number and are believed to be reports
of direct revelations from God to the Prophet given outside the
revelation of the Qur'an itself. Unlike the Qur'an, they are not the
direct words of God, but the words of the Prophet, inspired by God. The
vast majority of ahadith (the noble ahadith) are all the other reported
sayings and and actions of the Prophet. In BOTH cases, they are hearsay
and no single one is known with absolute certainty to be absolutely
true. The ahadith purported to be holy are always identified in the
introduction as being a declaration by the Prophet of something that God
inspired him to say.
It is said that a person who recites even one word from the Qur'an has
done a good deed and will be rewarede 10 times. However the Holy Ahadith
cannot be recited in the daily prayers and their recitation does not
involve a divine reward.
--
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
asimm...@yahoo.com
> A'salaamu'alaikum
>
>
> [snip]
> > 2. Even from your translation, there can be 3 meanings:
> >
> > a. The ahl-kitab will believe in Jesus, before Jesus' death.
> > b. The ahl-kitab will believe in Jesus, before his own (the
> > ahl-kitab) death.
> > c. Every ahl-kitab shall believe the fact that the Jews did not kill
> > Jesus before his own death.
>
> - Do you think dying in the 'afterlife' is a possibility? If not, how
> else can Isa (a.s.) die and have the ahl-kitab believe in him?
>
>
Brother, this would be the case if one believed that Jesus (AS) did
not die ALREADY. If I hold the opinion that Jesus' (AS) died, and God
raised his body up so that the Jews could not desecrate it, than the
possibility of dying in the hereafter is irrelevant.
The main point is that the verse is drawing attention to one of the
many examples of the Bani Israel's breaking of the covenant of God
Almighty. The final manifestation of this as a nation, which led to
their expulsion from the Temple and their being scattered all over the
world, was their attempt to kill a MESSENGER OF GOD. The Jews
understood that unlike Prophets or Nabi, sometimes God sends Rasools
into this world who serve as manifestations of God's judgement in this
very world. The biggest example of this in their own history was the
great messenger, Moses (AS), whose Messengership signalled the
judgement of Pharoah and His army. In the verses surrounding the
sentence of believing in Jesus before 'his death' is made, there is
actually an IMPLICIT BOAST by the Bani Israel that they had thwarted
the sunnah of God by killing a Rasool.
The Quran is simply refuting the baseless allegations of the Bani
Israel, and fruther, God says that one of the reasons for the
confusion was His, Glorious Be He, raising the body of Jesus (AS) up
and not even leaving any trace of him. Thus, the ahl-kitaab who
rejected will believe in this fact.
>
> Salaam,
> Tomasz Antkowiak
vmi...@yahoo.com
anj...@msn.com (Anjum) wrote:
> vmi...@yahoo.com wrote in message
> > Is it binding? Well that depends now, does'nt it? For those who beleive
> > that the Qur'an does (or may) allude to the return of Isa(PBUH),
> > rejecting his return is tantamount to rejecting the Qur'an. And I need
> > not tell you what that means.
> Agreed! It comes down to a person's own interpretation or his
> acceptance of someone else' interpretation. Once a person has decided
> on an interpretation, it becomes binding for him. However, an
> intelligent person will recognize that just like he went through a
> process to understand a verse, other people go through a process as
> well, and they may come up with a different interpretation.
I am unable to agree with your opinion above; at least not in the way you
have worded it. I think it is fair to say that the overwhelming majority
of traditional muslims do not "decide" on personal interpretations. If they
did, there would be countless interpretations of whatever is not explicit
and 100% clear in the Qur'an. In other words, the "...he/she went through a
process to understand a verse ..." does not normally happen. What does
happen, is that traditional muslims resort to what the prophet(sAW) taught
and, if not, how his closest companions understood the Qur'an. And this
information is normally available in all the major tafsirs of the Qur'an.
Thus, your assessment that muslims form unconstrained opinions of their
own, and then deny the right of dissenting opinions, is not correct.
> The idea is not that every Muslim has the same understanding of
> certain verses of the Qur`an. Certainly there are verses that do not
> leave any room for alternative interpretations, so we are talking
> about those that leave room for alternative interpretations. In the
> case of these verses, the test for us is not that we all come to the
> same understanding of them; rather, the test is: can we co-exist as
> Muslims in a single community DESPITE our differences? And that is the
> test, and that is the challenge facing us Muslims today.
Again, I would request you to reconsider. The process of understanding
the verses of the Qur'an is not a free for all. Ahl-as-Sunnah have come to
an (overwhelmingly) acceptance of the procedure for this.
Now, if you are suggesting that this procedure is questionable, at least
provide a basis for this dissent. Simply stating that "... well this may
be your understanding, but here is mine (which is different)..." is an
unconvincing argument.
> There is no way over 1 billion muslims will ever agree on everything.
> This is Allah's plan! So this should not be an objective. The idea is
> to allow minority views to flourish and co-exist.
This may seem harmless enough to you, but it could open floodgates to
mass confusion. Such chaos has destroyed other ummahs in the past. The
majority community among muslims is co-founded on a very important element
of consensus, which has been crucial in its ability to remain the community
of choice for the overwhelming majority.
> What difference does it make to my daily life as a Muslim whether or
> not Prophet 'Isa is coming back? But the way we handle divisions and
> differences of opinion in our midst does affect us in our day-to-day
> living.
I think that is a less central question. But if you re-phrase it as
"what difference does it make if a wholesale rebuild (for no compelling
reason) of the edifice of community in Islam is understaken?", then you
may be able to see how much destructive forces such a course is capable
of unleashing, which will affect lot more lives than just yours and mine.
> So the point of publishing the original article of Dr. Shafaat was not
> to convince anyone. Rather, I wanted to see what kind of reactions it
> would get. Would we allow minority views or would we resort to calling
> them pseudo-Muslims or non-Muslims on the basis of this difference of
> interpretation?
But who am I, or someone else, to allow (or disallow) this or that view?
The proper Authority for this Rests with Allah(SWT) and His Messenger(SAW).
This is why Sunnah is so central, and there is Qur'anic authority for
this. When we see so much of Sunnah documented in the Qur'an itself, as
example for muslims to emulate , what justifiable reason do we have to
deny its cucial significance in theological matters?
>From this issue to the penalty of rajm, and to many other issues, if
> you look around the Muslims, you will see differences.
I think this is becoming a long post, and we should deal with this related
issue in a different thread (or at least a different post). I would like to
respond to this point of yours, as it has crucial bearing on the contenious
issue at hand.
> We can't even
> agree on the start and end of Ramadan. There is more movement towards
> fragmentation caused by differences of opinion than there is towards
> unity DESPITE our differences. Every time, we form a group, over time,
> it fragments into sub-groups. A difference arises; people feel so
> sacred about their own interpretation that they start considering
> those who disagree with them as less-than-good-Muslims, and yada yada
> yada, we get sub-groups. I have seen it happen many times and I
> realize that the main reason is: intolerance towards minority views.
Certainly this is deplorable. You would not find any argument from me on
this lament.
> Then, we are asked by non-Muslims "whose Islam are we going to
> implement", as Count is asking brother Mahdi in another thread. He is
> asking a fair question. He knows the current state of our affairs. And
> so do many other intelligent non-Muslims.
I think this question *can* be answered. But we need to proceed with
extreme patience, order and method; and, above all, sincere intentions.
> The point is
> simple: we need to tolerate differences of interpretations in our
> midst and stay above them and focus on unity, something I have brought
> up on this forum in the past.
While there is no question that we need to be far more tolerant and kind
towards each other (which we are not, and *all* of us are about equally
guilty of this), we *must* also realize that a carte blanche for dissension
without rhyme or reason is going to lead us nowhere except to disaster.
> But I know that the so-called "traditional" mindset is not ready for
> it. It considers its interpretations too sacred to think that a few
> others may have some differences with it. So they won't allow them in
> their midst.
If it is the "traditiopnal mindset" that is the reason for intolerance,
you would be surprised to just know how many of us have it (you and I
included).
> They consider them pseudo-Muslims.
I remember a poem whose substance really struck me. The poet was talking
about running into someone who looked familiar, though immensely changed.
With anxious curiosity he launched into a conversation with this person in
a desperate attempt to figure out who he was and where the poet had known
him from. Only to realize, in the end, that he was looking at, and talking
to, himself in a dream.
There is no "they". It is only "us".
wasSalam
Viqar Ahmed
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service New Rate! $9.95/Month 50GB
GF Haddad
> In early Islam there was A DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUNNAH AND HADEETH.
Not really. This is another one of those orientalist myths.
Hajj Gibril
John Berg
mean "all of us," have substantial concrete and objective documentation in
the world's media that currently a common behavior (we ignore outliers like
female circumcision, etc.) marks Islam and supports the truth of Islam.
This commonality simply reflects the fruition of oral tradition over 1400
years and mocks the absence of concrete documentation.
If every one claims he does the same thing for the same reason, we have to
assume that Allah told him.
I believe this is similar to the argument used in "The Miracle on 34th
Street."
John Berg
<asimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
Qas...@ziplip.com (GF Haddad) wrote:
The sunnah is the way of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him), that
is, it is what he said and what he did. Since he and his companions are
dead and since there are no audio or video recordings of him, we have no
direct access to the sunnah.
What we do have is the written, hearsay, record of those who wrote down
what had been transmitted orally about the Prophet's words and actions.
That imperfect and incomplete written record is what is now available to
us in the form of the hadeeth collections. Thus it is througth the
hadeeth collections that we learn what the Prophet said and did, that
is, what his way was.
--
Peace to all who seek God's face.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
vmi...@yahoo.com
> >
> > Thus, your assessment that muslims form unconstrained opinions of their
> > own, and then deny the right of dissenting opinions, is not correct.
> >
>
> understanding of it. He should be allowed to raise and ask questions.
> There must be a free flow of views, ideas and discussions, all
> revolving around the Qur`an. There must not be a monopoly of "the
> clergy" on the Qur`an.
I think you misunderstood, and perhaps it is my fault. I did not mean
that muslims should ignore personal study of the Qur'an. Far from it.
What I meant to convey was that it is not true that muslims have indulged
in a free for all when it comes to understanding the Qur'an. Overwhelming
majority have studied the Qur'an with the help of existing tafasir.
I doubt that there is any preponderance of individual muslims independently
interpreting the Qur'an. It would require expert command of the Arabic
language with a keen eye on the Arabic idiom at the time of the
prophet(SAW). Alos one would have to be very well versed in the Islamic
sciences of Hadith and fiq'h. Plus a discerning heart deeply inclined to
the essence of Islamic spirit.
>
> If a population is generally educated, is not afraid to ask questions
> and express their opinions, no matter how absurd, all based on the
> Qur`an, its collective consciousness will eventually rise, benefitting
> the entire society.
>
> The Qur`an must form the foundation and an anchor of our education and
> discussion.
I agree with you entirely. But for this to happen will take a long time,
and we have to put in place an educational system that will enable them to
acquire the necessary skills as well as develop in-depth understanding of
deen. I have lamented about the lack of realization on the part of muslims
for such an educational system, and have written about it in days gone by,
both in SRI and ARI.
We cannot put the cart before the horse. To expect that all muslims have a
deep understanding of the Qur'an, without first providing them with the
necessary tools, is a pipe dream.
What muslims need, more than anything else, is to understand what is
muqaddam and what is mu'akhar. We need to conduct an interdependency
analysis in order to define a roadmap for developing not only the necessary
technical/professional skills to succeed in this world, but also an
in-depth understanding of Islam.
> We have done a great disservice to the Qur`an by leaving it to the
> "specialists" only and merely reciting it on solemn occasions without
> trying to understand what it is saying. Most Muslims I have met in my
> life (and I am not as young as you might think), are utterly ignorant
> of the Qur`an. They learn their basic Islam as children, which is
> fine, but while reverance towards the Qur`an remains high, the
> knowledge of it remains dangerously shallow.
True. But the solution is not to continue to lament about it, and in
the meantime go along with whatever interpretation one comes along with
in complete disregard to the historical body of knowledge. Newtonian
physics may have been imperfect, but it was only because of it that
quantum and relativistic Einstinean physics became possible. In his own
words, Einstein was able to see farther because he stood on the shoulders
of giants.
> What I am objecting to is belittling those who come out
> with minority viewpoints, even though they try very hard to anchor
> their ideas and interpretations on the Qur`an. It's this attitude of
> "I know better than you do!" or "Our ancestors knew better than us!"
> or "Who the heck are you, how are you qualified!" that bugs the heck
> out of me!
While I agree with the gist of what you say above, there has to be a
delicate balancing act in proceeding. It would be destructive to throw
out the baby with the bath water.
> Any society that suppresses minority views will not flourish!
Do you mean to advocate that any bid'ah should be accepted in the name of
championing the minority view?
asimm...@yahoo.com
Then what do the terms means:
a)imam fi'l hadith wa laysa bi-imam fi'l sunnah
b)imam fi'l sunnah wa laysa bi-imam fi'l hadith
c)imam fihima jami'an
And why was the terms used separately in the debates between Al-Awzai
and Abu Yusuf. Or are we simply suppose to accept one of your
standard refutations. Its either 'wahhabi', 'salafi', or
'orientalist'.
Abu Ali
> Islam is founded on the Qur`an with Hadith explaining and
> elaborating on it.
Yes Islam is based on the Qur'an and hadith explaining it BUT
Islam is not founded on the idea that every Tom, Dick and Harry can open
the Qur'an, Hadith and come up with views that are contrary to views held by
Ulema of Islam for centuries. Do you want more mirza ghulam ahmed qadianis
in Islam? Do you respect his views? He and his followers interpret the Quran
and Hadith differently from the rest of Ummah. Do you think his views are as
valid as the rest of Muslims and people like him should be given the right
to spread their views freely? I hope you wont evade these questions.
> Are you not aware that not even 1 % of muslims adhere to this veiw?
> How can you call such a view 'Islamic'?
> So what? They give their reasons. Deal their reasons with your
> reasons.
Again, Islamic views are the views that find support with majority of
Muslims. Same could be said about Christian views, Hindu views etc. Its a
simple concept. Views of individuals that do not find support in the Ummah
are not Islamic even if held by great Muslims like Abu Hanifa (ra). Would
you call the belief Islamic that the last two surahs of Qur'an are not part
of the Qur'an? Do you know the person who held it? And you're telling us any
tom, dick and harry of today can call his/her idea Islamic just because
he/she finds it interesting. This IS arrogance.
> A better and more honest title would be 'Dr Shafaats view of the
> Coming/Return of Jesus'
> My Response:
> Perhaps. But his reality is his Islam. Your reality is "your" Islam.
There is no my Islam, his Islam, Anjum's Islam, Shafaats Islam etc. Islam is
the guidance sent down by
Allah through prophet Muhammad (S.A.W) as understood by the pious and
knowledgable of the Ummah. If there is a consensus on an issue then opposing
views are heresy.
> If one were to agree with the Dr.s of today one would be led to the
> conclusion that the Muslim Ummah on the whole misguidedly based her
> deen on
> unreliable sources (Isnaad ) and not one great muslim scholar was
> intelligent enough to figure this out until the Doctors of today came
> along.
> Deal reasons with reasons. The above is not a rational response.
The above is the logical conclusion everybody will arrive at if he/she
accepts the views of Dr. Shafaat.
Altway
> > Islam is founded on the Qur`an with Hadith explaining and
> > elaborating on it.
> Yes Islam is based on the Qur'an and hadith explaining it BUT
Islam is not founded on the idea that every Tom, Dick and Harry can open
the Qur'an, Hadith and come up with views that are contrary to views held
by
Ulema of Islam for centuries.
Comment:-
Yes this is correct provided one knows what is meant.
The Quran asks us to seek knowledge and meditate on the Quran
but not to interpret it according to our own desires, whims, fantasies
or prejudices.
It is the duty of each Muslim to seek such knowledge and to do this
he can consult those who know.
Past scholars do not hold a monopoly on the truth.
There can be scholars even today.
---
Hamid S. Aziz
Understanding Islam
www.altway.freeuk.com
.
G. Waleed Kavalec
> Yes Islam is based on the Qur'an and hadith explaining it BUT
>
> Islam is not founded on the idea that every Tom, Dick and Harry can open
> the Qur'an, Hadith and come up with views that are contrary to views held by
> Ulema of Islam for centuries.
Salaam
What Islam is founded on, brother Abu, is Submission to Allah.
And HE clearly tells us Who it is who teaches the Qur'an...
Alrrahmanu
AAallama alqur-ana
Khalaqa al-insana
AAallamahu albayana
Cleary not your scholars.
It is He who decided which Tom, Dick, or Harry from among a people
would receive His Message; it is He who decides who will be guided.
>From this I can only conclude that He has the power to make any Tom,
Dick, or Harry HE chooses aware of truths that have not been obvious
to the Ulema for centuries. Such a Tom, Dick, or Harry would not need
to be a Rasool or Nabi, they would need only to be more willing (in
Submission) to receive guidance.
In fact I strongly doubt that He will reserve this blessing to one or
two humans but will instead guide all who truly seek Him. This is
Islam awakening, and it is happening all around you.
Peace
G.
vmi...@yahoo.com
> vmi...@yahoo.com wrote in message
> > Do you mean to advocate that any bid'ah should be accepted in the name
> > of championing the minority view?
> Yes! Minority rights are minority rights are minority rights! The best
> way to deal with "bid'ah" is through a free flow of ideas and thoughts
> and education. Not through suppression! Why shouldn't a minority be
> allowed to believe and practice their paths, so long as they are
> living in a peaceful co-existence?
I never said that a minority should not be allowed to believe in, and
practice, their own path. However, this does not require the majority to
modify, or to accept, the minority viewpoint.
> Yes, in the beginning, there will be confusion, divisions, debates,
> bid'ah, and "deviance", but eventually, things will even out.
I cannot speak for all, but I am not comfortable with the idea of deviance
and confusion flourishing in a muslim community. Surely Allah(SWT) Is More
Deserving of our obedience,than political correctness.
> The knowledge of
> Arabic will be widespread as the Qur`an is in Arabic. And that will
> have other benefits as many of the classical works are in Arabic.
So, just may be we should first put in place a set up where the knowledge
of Arabic, and of Qur'an, hadith and fiq'h is widespread. If masses were
in need of being good in swimming, would you want them jumpin en mass into
the ocean while expertise in swimming is being developed? Surely you could
shrug your shoulders and say amny will drown in the ensuing confusion, but
eventually everyone would have become a good swimmer and there will be no
danger from the water waves any more.
Does'nt sound to me like a wise person's course of action.
> It's a shame what we have done to the Book of God!
True! So we might as well expose them to danger, and let them learn to
read and understand the Qur'an while they are struggling to cope with
danger.
> However, the
> overall level of knowledge of the Qur`an of the population will rise.
And who shall bear responsibility for the aaqibat of those who may go
astray, and die in a state of confusion.
Qur'an is very emphatic about the loss of someone who was put on the path
to guidance, then went on the wrong path.
> People will read the Qur`an, discuss the Qur`an, debate various
> injunctions and ayaah in the Qur`an without any fear of being asked:
> "Who the heck are you? What qualified to discuss the Qur`an?" And that
> will build a strong foundation on the Book of God!
OK, shall we see how many readers (far ore knowledgeable than me) would
like to jump into this fray, and enthusiastically start debating the
verses of Qur'an, in response to your assertion.
Mind you, whatever happens here (in this forum) is probably a good
indicator of how far knowledgeable muslims will be willing to venture out
to embrace the notion of free debate.
Conversely, if knowledgeable people here desist from unnecessary debates,
that too should give us a glimpse into the shape of things to come.
Is that fair enough for you?
> --- Yes, I know all about the verse of rajm that was later taken out
> of the Qur`an! I don't accept that, and neither does Maududi by the
> way; he says that when the companions talked about that verse being in
> the Book of God, they were referring to earlier revelations. ---
Now where did that come from. Are you suggesting that because I have a
lot of respect for Maudoodi, that I should swallow every opinion of his
-- hook, line, and sinker?
Maudoodi himself would not have wanted muslims to behave in this way. For
the record, I have *no* opinion on the ayat of rajm. Whether it was in the
Qur'an at one time, or not, it is'nt part of it now. My understanding is
that the punishment of rajm is based on the Sunnabh of RasulAllah(SAW).
And before anyone jumps on me, yes -- it is documented even in Muwatta.
vmi...@yahoo.com
> A majority getting nervous over a minority viewpoint merely shows its
> sense of insecurity.
That seems like an overstatement. I doubt that anyone is getting *nervous*
over a different viewpoint, or its proponent's right to present it. By all
means anyone can present their case, as this is a forum for discussion
about Islam. They do not, however, have the right to expect that the
majority should embrace and accept it.
Equally, the dissenters have the right to take issue with it, and to rebut
it.
Surely you are not suggesting that the only recourse for the dissenters is
to break out in applause everytime a contentious viewpoint is presented in
SRI.
G. Waleed Kavalec
> It is the duty of each Muslim to seek such knowledge and to do this
> he can consult those who know.
>
> Past scholars do not hold a monopoly on the truth.
> There can be scholars even today.
Salaam
Well put. Let us add to that:
Past scholars were not incapable of error.
Only Allah does not err. But too many of the 'hard-line' schools of
thought tend to elevate the words of scholars of the past to some
exalted, almost scriptural, status.
This is mental hardening of the arteries for our ulema.
What it the cure?
Peace
G.
GF Haddad
> The sunnah is the way of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him), that
> is, it is what he said and what he did. Since he and his companions are
> dead and since there are no audio or video recordings of him, we have no
> direct access to the sunnah.
If that were true then we would have no direct access to the Qur'an
either. Nor is the definition of Sunna given above correct. The Sunna
is not only what the Prophet, upon him peace, said and did; it is also
what he tacitly approved and disapproved, and includes his appearance
in the definition of Ahl al-Hadith.
As for the supposed discrepancy in the definition of Sunna -
supposedly by Abu Yusuf and al-Awza`i - it is a Schachtian concoction
refuted by Dr. Azami in the book recently quoted by one of the
contributors in another thread.
Hajj Gibril
vmi...@yahoo.com
> You were not paying attention to my main point. If the level of
> knowledge of the Qur`an increases in a society and every thought and
> view emanates from the Qur`an, then how can there be deviance and
> confusion in a Muslim community?
That is a big IF, would'nt you say? And it will take time getting for
the society to get to that stage. From my viewpoint, the problem is
that you are intent upon exposing the community to confusion and chaos
regardless of whether, or not, it is equipped to deal with it.
> Do you not think that as our
> communities get closer and closer to the Qur`an and become more and
> more in tune with it, that our level of consciousness will increase,
> resulting in less confusion and deviance?
Even better, I expect that they would realize the waste of time and
energy over abstract debates.
> Viqar stated:
>
> So, just may be we should first put in place a set up where the
> knowledge
> of Arabic, and of Qur'an, hadith and fiq'h is widespread.
>
> My Response:
>
> Now, you are with me!
I beg your pardon! When did you ever speak of first putting in place
a system which is imbued with the Islamic spirit all around, and in
which to first educate our future generating into informed and
discplined communities?
All I have seen you do is championing tolerance of "minoriy" viewpoints,
even at the risk of confusion in the society.
> This is exactly what is needed, starting from Arabic and the Qur`an.
> It should start with Kingergarten, with basic Arabic and recitation of
> the Qur`an. Arabic and Qur`anic studies must be part of the curriculum
> in every grade. Let various sects follow their own practices, but let
> focus on the Qur`an.
So, then let us drop all these other pointless debates, and focus on
establishing such educational set ups instead of promoting other concepts.
> Viqar stated:
>
> Qur'an is very emphatic about the loss of someone who was put on the
> path
> to guidance, then went on the wrong path.
>
> My Response:
>
> I am not sure we are connecting on this. So let's leave it.
What is our problem connecting on this? A couple of posts ago you admitted
that there would be confusion and pandemonium in the beginning. My question
is this:
For the confused souls who die (before the society recovers from its
initial confusion), and who have to give account to their Lord(SWT, who is
going to assume responsibility for their errors? Are you and I willing to
do it, given that we championed taking the calculated risk which may have
led to their confusion in the first place?
> Viqar stated:
> Conversely, if knowledgeable people here desist from unnecessary
> debates,
> that too should give us a glimpse into the shape of things to come.
>
> My Response:
>
> And we all too well aware of the pathetic condition the "Muslims" have
> been in for centuries!
>
> The Qur`an caused a people to rise and it will cause another people to
> rise! It's the Qur`an that made the difference in the past and it will
> make the difference again.
You could'nt be more wrong. Do you think that if RasulAllah(SAW) did not
toil ceaselessly for 23 years, just having the book (Qur'an) would have
made much difference?
Why not just download the book and do away with the messengers(PBUTA)?
If we just embrace the book, and close our eyes to the lives of the
prophet(SAW) and his companions(RAA), I am doubtful that even God(SWT)
Would be Willing to Help us.
Altway
"G. Waleed Kavalec" <G.Wa...@Kavalec.com> wrote in message
news:47594d65.03052...@posting.google.com...
> > Past scholars do not hold a monopoly on the truth.
> > There can be scholars even today.
> Past scholars were not incapable of error.
> Only Allah does not err. But too many of the 'hard-line' schools of
> thought tend to elevate the words of scholars of the past to some
exalted, almost scriptural, status.
Comment:-
It would need another scholar to show that the past scholar erred.
There can be a difference of opinion between scholars in different times
because they are dealing with different facts (knowledge having increased)
or with different situations that pose different problems and need different
solutions.
It also seems to be a fact that past scholars were not dogmatic but
humble enough to know that they had limitations and could be wrong.
> This is mental hardening of the arteries for our ulema.
> What it the cure?
Comment:-
The cure is to get back to humility.
In so far as Islam means "Surrender to Allah",
humility is an integral part of it - it means willingness to
give up ones own subjective opinions - i.e. to hold them
tentatively while seeking to expand knowledge and awareness.
That is why we have the formula "Insha allah"
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
Qas...@ziplip.com (GF Haddad) wrote:
> Abdelkarim Benoit Evans <kev...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:<kevans-697BF9....@news.videotron.net>...
>
> > The sunnah is the way of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him), that
> > is, it is what he said and what he did. Since he and his companions are
> > dead and since there are no audio or video recordings of him, we have no
> > direct access to the sunnah.
>
> If that were true then we would have no direct access to the Qur'an
> either. Nor is the definition of Sunna given above correct. The Sunna
> is not only what the Prophet, upon him peace, said and did; it is also
> what he tacitly approved and disapproved, and includes his appearance
> in the definition of Ahl al-Hadith.
You are correct about what the things tacitly approved or disappoved of
by Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) being part of the sunnah. I think
many of us, like myself, consider that category to be tacitly (!)
included in our use use of the expression "said and did". You are wise,
however, to point it out.
The transmission of the Qur'an and the transmission of the sunnah are
not equivalent. It was God's will that we receive the Qur'an in its
entirety and without corruption. It was known to many reciters and was
correctly transcribed in the accepted readings. An account of some of
the sunnah was preserved but there are words and actions (including
tacit ones) that were never known beyond a small group of persons (or
sometimes just one person) and were eventually lost or forgotten.
Although we do have ahadith that relate much of the sunnah, it is not
always entirely reliable and its validity has no divine assurance. Thus
the Qur'an is perfect and complete whereas the recorded sunnah is
imperfect and incomplete.
Abu Ali
> You have yet to provide arguments that are based on the Qur`an and
> those traditions that fit the Qur`anic patterns to counter Dr.
> Shafaat's line of arguments, with whom I disagree on this issue anyway
> but give him the right to present his case.
You keep insisting to refute Dr. Shafaat's arguments on this issue
but this specific matter does not concern me much. My objection is to his
general veiw about ahadith (being unreliable) and ignoring the consensus of
Ummah which is dangerous. I also object to your calling something 'Islamic'
that is not
Islamic. Would you call the belief in the prophethood of Isa (a.s.) a
christian view? Even though you agree with it. You wont, because you know
thats not what christians believe. Funny thing is you yourself don't agree
with Dr. Shafaat but you titled your post 'Islamic View of the
Coming/Return of Jesus'.
I posted an excerpt from Maulana Maudoodi's Tafheem-ul-Quran where he quotes
Imam Ghazali
on the authority of consensus and why it is not right to reject it and form
minority views against mainstream views.
But that post was rejected so i'll just post the link. Move half way down
the page where he writes
"Imam Ghazali (450 A.H-505 A.H.) says `If the right of denying the authority
of consensus be admitted, it will give rise to many absurdities...."
http://www.hezb-e-islami.org/finality.html
Now if there is no consensus on Isa (a.s) returning then I can happily
accept Dr. shafaats views but I think there is a consensus and that is why
it is wrong for him (or any one else ) to come up with such ideas.
Wasalam
vmi...@yahoo.com
> It's this lack of diving into the Qur`an that has increased the
> chances of loss of souls in our communities around the world. So how
> can diving into the Qur`an will make things worse or keep them at the
> same level? It will certainly improve things.
We are talking apples and oranges. You see the risk in not diving into the
Qur'an. I never said that we should'nt.
I see the danger in a "free for all" understanding of the Qur'an, and
exposing less than a semi-literate society to "anything goes" kind of
interpretations.
If you want to be reponsible for the loss of a "few" souls in the process,
that is up to you. I cannot see a way out for my own soul, yet, on the
DOJ, EXCEPT that it be by God's(SWT) Mercy. I am certainly not willing to
accept the responsiblity for "any" lost souls, and will do my level best
to stop it from happening in any muslim society.
vmi...@yahoo.com
> Whatever the case may be, I am not suggesting that the Prophetic model
> is not necessary. All I am pointing out to you is that the
> "foundation" of a society needs to be based upon the Qur`an.
I have read your entire post, and I am afraid that this exchange, too,
is becoming a discussion with diminishing returns.
Let us say, for the sake of argument, that we want to create a
a society which is based on the Qur'an. Just how do you believe that
the Qur'an has to be lived by?
Is not the prophet's life the best example of how one should live, and
lead, in accordance to the Qur'anic guidance? This is not a hypothetical
suggestion? It is one that has been explicitly answered in the Qur'an
itself.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> If that were true then we would have no direct access to the Qur'an
> either. Nor is the definition of Sunna given above correct. The Sunna
> is not only what the Prophet, upon him peace, said and did; it is also
> what he tacitly approved and disapproved, and includes his appearance
> in the definition of Ahl al-Hadith.
>
1. The Quran is mutawattir and has been TRANSMITTED DYNAMICALLY AND
ORALLY, through the masjids five times a day, besides the constant
teaching by the Companions of the Prophet of God as a COLLECTIVITY.
By the death of the Prophet (S), Islam had engulfed all of the Arabian
peninsula, and by the time of Umar (R), Islam was all over North
Africa, penetrating into Russia and Europe. The Sahabah (R) had
settled all over the Muslim landa, the masjids were ringing with the
adhan, and the Quran was constantly being recited. Umar (R)
established many schools for this purpose. The Quran SUFFICIENTLY
STANDS ON ITS OWN AND IT IS A SHAME that anybody would argue the
authority of the Quran depends upon the hadeeth.
2. The same phenomenon was present with the Quran, except that the
sunnah was transmitted DYNAMICALLY AND PRACTICALLY. The Muslims were
praying five times a day, without dispute as a collective, and the
Muslim state, organized originally by the Prophet (S), under the
guidance of the Sahabah (R) were collecting the fixed rates of zakaah
since the beginning. The hajj rites were being commemorated every
year by the Sahabah (R) without any dispute on the major rites, and
the Muslim world fasted collectively, every year during hte month of
Ramadan. The sunnah sufficiently stands onw its own and it is a shame
anybody would argue that the authority of the sunnah depends on
hadeeth.
3. Why do you qualify everything? "And includes his appearance IN
THE DEFINITION OF AHL AL-HADITH." Of course this is the definition
according to the ahl-hadeeth, who, in their very stance, take even
ahad hadeeth. This is not the definition of ahl-fiqh, and it is very
well known, that in original Hanafi law, an ahad hadeeth would not
constitute any legal proof. This was because a universal principle of
shareeah was not going to be transmitted through a single or even
double chain alone.
4. The ahl-fiqh and ahl-hadeeth disagree on the nature of mutawattir.
These are fundamental differences, and the rigid sense of
interpretation that is being given is in direct contradiction to the
flexibility in early Islam.
> As for the supposed discrepancy in the definition of Sunna -
> supposedly by Abu Yusuf and al-Awza`i - it is a Schachtian concoction
> refuted by Dr. Azami in the book recently quoted by one of the
> contributors in another thread.
>
1. There is NO REFUTATION of this basic fact.
2. I asked you why there was a difference in terminology and you once
again avoided to respond directly to me.
3. I did not point to any discrepancy in what constitutes sunnah by
the two. Both of them agreed upon the notion of PRACTICE, i.e. sunnah
within the Muslim community. Hadeeth was never intertwined with
sunnah.
4. The definition of sunnah is well-known in Arabic, and it
constitutes a 'well-trodden' path. God Almighty uses it for his
unalterable law that is well-known throughout history. And despite
the 'qualifications' of Br Haddad, there is practically no hadeeth ,
according to the definition of ahl-fiqh, that reaches even close to
mutawattir or well-trodden, with the exception of a few. Among them
is the statement "He he attributes to me (S), what I did not say ..."