Serious Hadith explains Quran :

Discussion in 'Islamic Discussion' started by Pure-heart, Feb 14, 2016.

  1. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Assalamu alaikum Sister,

    Your quest for knowledge is commendable. Nobody, not even a scholar can claim to have obtained the final destination in knowledge. We are all students.

    Being thankful to the scholars, from whom you have learned, either directly or through their writing, is natural. However, they should not break our direct relationship with our Lord and the Prophet. They only help us understand, what Allah has reveiled or what the Prophet has taught. If the respect turns into the blind trust, it gets closer to the "scholar-worship", against which the Quran has warned us with the example of Bani Israel.

    A good starting point to learn about Quran, Sunnah, Hadith, the Usool of their study and their application is the book Meezan written by Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, available here:

    http://muqweb.yolasite.com/resources/Islam A comprehensive introduction - Javaid Ahmed Ghamidi.pdf

    Wassalamu alaikum
  2. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Assalamu alaikum
    Nobody is forbidding you to take help of the scholars in quenching your thirst for knowledge. However, you are not allowed to turn off your own rationality. Be at least as choosy for the scholars, as you are choosy for your doctors. You will agree, that even though we have not studied medicine, almost everybody can differentiate a good doctor from the rest, after a couple of encounters. Similarly, in order to choose a good source of knowledge, you don't have to be a scholar yourself.

    Wassalmu alaikum
  3. cabdixakim
    Offline

    cabdixakim Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +80 / 2
    Wa'aleykumas'salaam warahmatul'Lahi wabarakatuh

    you rely on the works of Ahmad Ghamidi, copy and paste his ideas everywhere( even though there is practically little or no hadith, previous righteous people he's basing his claims-in most of what you copy paste of him)... is he a prophet now? Why following him is not a scholar-worship and doing the same with other scholars is? Is he not Only A scholar who makes his own opinions?... Then the OP claims she/he claims to rely on the works of early muffasiriin( who always base their arguments on the understanding of the early muslims up to the prophet(p.b.u.h) via Ahadith and Sunnah_ thus most of their opinions are either based on a hadith, sunnah or in rare cases, on their qualified opinions) and she/ he is in risk of scholar-worship?...

    I disagree with your claims but you nullifying the understanding of so many muslims and being adamant to enforce the personal understanding of your beloved scholar(Ghamidi) beats any point of interupting politely and disagreeing with what you say rather than the person You!

    but nevertheless, I must state that hadith is not for explaining Qur'an Only... it's the sayings,actions,norms,,approvals, attributes of the prophet(p.b.u.h) collected through the memories of the companions(some by way of Tawattur) and passed down through a chain of narrators... One of the many functions of a hadith is to explain the Qur'an,however, hadith itself is verified using the Qur'an(such that any hadith going against it is left and considered a fabrication)...

    how does Qur'an even explain hadith? It beats logic for Allah to explain the words of His slave!

    (i)Hadith explains Qur'an but (ii) Qur'an verifies and authenticates hadith... With this in mind, if an issue arises and it's not directly or completely found in the Qur'an then the Sunnah(which comes via hadiths) and hadiths classified as saheehs, which must be in perfect harmony with the Qur'an, are sought for!

    so Where is this "Qur'an explains hadith' coming from? Which verse in the Qur'an explains what the prophet(p.b.u.h) might've meant in a certain hadith? Or we're simply so blinded by what some scholar has said that we do not bother to even think of what 'explanation' means? and what's with this scholar-worship... I can't see anyone here saying " it is my scholar's words and my scholar's words are the Law"!

    Hadith is not infallible but the companions and the heirs of the prophets worked so hard in verifying and preserving them and without it, Sunnah becomes cultural and without Sunnah Qur'an becomes " pray! but how do we pray"... without hadith we would have lost a huge fortune of the religion, from history to explaining verses of the Qur'an.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Alhamdulillah Alhamdulillah x 1
  4. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Assalamu alaikum brother,
    Welcome to the discussion. I think, we have had a similar discussion before. There is no scholar in this world, who I blindly follow, not even Ghamidi, although he has been a great help to connect me to Quran and Sunnah. We have to stick to the rope of Allah, otherwise, the result will be the same as we are observing right now. I will keep on saying, don't follow scholars blindly and that includes Mr. Ghamidi. I will keep on saying Stick to Quran and Sunnah. You must still remember our discussion with your friend from ISIS, for whom it was enough to quote from Ibn Taymiyya and I kept on isisting to provide the real evidence from Quran and Sunnah.

    What is your iterpretation of scholar-worship, if not the one I have provided? When people start being careless about what Quran has to say about a certain matter or what the Prophet has to say, and it is enough for them, that a scholar of their trust is saying that to kill all Alavites is their religious duty? What else is scholar-worship, if not that?

    I would have thought, you were interupting politely and disagreeing with me already. So you think, there is no point in discussing with me because I am nullifying the understanding of "so many muslims"? Ok, let me nullify, another understanding of "so many muslims": The term "jumhoor" scholars was coined mostly by hanafiya scholars to name exactly that argument, which you are trying to provide. When they say Jumhoor scholars are of this or that opinion, they mean the majority of the scholars. In other words, in the matters of haq and batil, they consider majority as an argument in itself. But in the matters of running a state, they consider democracy to be kufr. So I am well aware of that majority argument. On the matters of haq and batil, I will stick to haq, even if I am the only one in the world. Actually, this is meant by that very verse of Quran, which people use to demonify democracy. But let us spare that discussion for another time.

    There is hardly anything here, to which I can disagree. Quran and Sunnah are the two basic sources of our deen and the for us, the prophet is the source of these two. That means, the Prophet in ahadith is sometimes acting upon Quran, sometimes acting upon the same Sunnah, which he gave us, sometimes correcting our Fitrah. So the topics covered in ahadith are much more comprehensive than Sunnah only.

    These words of yours have caused me to review everything, which I have said and I have to thank you for that. I have realized, that just reversing the title to "Quran explains hadith" was not a good idea because I am missing the point, which I am trying to make. When I say, Quran explains hadith, what I mean by that is, that Quran provides a proper context to all saying and actions of the Prophet. This is what Sahabah meant, when they said, Quran is the Khulq of the Prophet. When Quran provides a list of reasons, when a human can be given death penalty, then it is the conext of all death penalties, which the Prophet has given. If Quran's words are not permitting any addition to the list, then the Prophet is also not adding anything. However, we both know, that this is not the way things have been studied by most of the scholars. Instead of going the difficult path of explaining those ahadith in the light of Quran, they have taken the eazier path. Mostly it boils down to a statement like, Quran has provided us this or that list and Sunnah as added this or that to that.

    Other examples of the same Phenomenon are the list of things, which Allah has made haram (to eat and drink).

    I think, the real difference between you and me is, that you are quite happy with the way the things are. You think, our ( or your) understanding of deen is perfect and it is a test from Allah, that we are in this mess. Or some other friends think, it is because muslims have started being careless of their prayers and cleaning their teeth with siwak. I, being a minority, is of the opinion, that besides being careful for our prayers, we also have to review our understanding of our deen. We are misunderstanding something or some things and that is why, we are in this mess. And the the wayout to this mess is giving Quran the pivotal role in the whole deen. You may disagree but it is a fact, that with the exception of the earliest generations, this role has been denied to Quran.

    So I will end my discussion by repeating the same. Give pivotal role to Quran in all matters of deen, which is usually not given to Quran. This is all, what I mean, when I say, Quran explains Hadith.


    We both know, that the whole work of muhadithin (which is very respectable) consists of studying the chain of narration of the hadith. In Usool it is there but in practice, the textual critique is simply not done. So when Sheikh Albani says, this or that hadith is Sahih, he only means, that he has done his utmost research on all the narrators in the light of the information available in the rijaal books and no object could be raised on that hadith. Things would have been much better, if they really had accepted those ahadith as Sahih, which are in perfect harmony with Quran. Allah of Quran ordains dress to cover the private parts. I simply cannot recognize HIM, when he does a nacked parade of his prophet in the streets of a city, just because some street boys talked this or that about the genitals of that prophet. Do you see the perfect harmony? I cannot.

    That being said, I do see perfect harmony of most of the ahadith with Quran.

    By now you should know, that I didn't mean it that way. Quran is Prophet's Khulq. Quran provides the proper context of ahadith. This is what I meant and I will stick to that.

    I do respect all efforts to preserve the words of the Prophets for us. May Allah reward them all. However, Sunnah is not following one's ancestors, so it cannot become cultural. Please do read that book. I think, you need to read it.

    Thank you again for being a useful contributor to the discussion.

    Wassalamu alaikum.
  5. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Assalamu alaikum brother cabdixakim

    Here is an "exercise" for us all. Mr. Peter has recently posted this hadith in one of his posts:

    http://turntoislam.com/community/threads/hello.100345/page-4#post-649222



    حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ، حَدَّثَنَا هُشَيْمٌ، عَنْ مَنْصُورِ بْنِ زَاذَانَ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، عَنْ حِطَّانَ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، عَنْ عُبَادَةَ بْنِ الصَّامِتِ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ خُذُوا عَنِّي فَقَدْ جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لَهُنَّ سَبِيلاً الثَّيِّبُ بِالثَّيِّبِ جَلْدُ مِائَةٍ ثُمَّ الرَّجْمُ وَالْبِكْرُ بِالْبِكْرِ جَلْدُ مِائَةٍ وَنَفْىُ سَنَةٍ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ ‏.‏ وَالْعَمَلُ عَلَى هَذَا عِنْدَ بَعْضِ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم مِنْهُمْ عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ وَأُبَىُّ بْنُ كَعْبٍ وَعَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْعُودٍ وَغَيْرُهُمْ قَالُوا الثَّيِّبُ تُجْلَدُ وَتُرْجَمُ ‏.‏ وَإِلَى هَذَا ذَهَبَ بَعْضُ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ وَهُوَ قَوْلُ إِسْحَاقَ ‏.‏ وَقَالَ بَعْضُ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم مِنْهُمْ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ وَغَيْرُهُمَا الثَّيِّبُ إِنَّمَا عَلَيْهِ الرَّجْمُ وَلاَ يُجْلَدُ ‏.‏ وَقَدْ رُوِيَ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم مِثْلُ هَذَا فِي غَيْرِ حَدِيثٍ فِي قِصَّةِ مَاعِزٍ وَغَيْرِهِ أَنَّهُ أَمَرَ بِالرَّجْمِ وَلَمْ يَأْمُرْ أَنْ يُجْلَدَ قَبْلَ أَنْ يُرْجَمَ ‏.‏ وَالْعَمَلُ عَلَى هَذَا عِنْدَ بَعْضِ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ وَهُوَ قَوْلُ سُفْيَانَ الثَّوْرِيِّ وَابْنِ الْمُبَارَكِ وَالشَّافِعِيِّ وَأَحْمَدَ ‏.‏

    Grade: Sahih (Darussalam)
    Reference : Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1434
    In-book reference : Book 17, Hadith 16
    English translation : Vol. 3, Book 15, Hadith 1434
    Report Error | Share
    http://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/17/16

    http://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/17/16

    Why don't to explain this hadith to us. The words "hunna" in the beginning are telling us, that Prophet is talking about some women only and not about men. Why do you think, this is the case? Prophet has ordained 100 lashes and rajam for the married. Do you know another hadith, where has has actually practiced the same? That is, hundred lashes and then rajam?

    Wassalamu alaikum
  6. cabdixakim
    Offline

    cabdixakim Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +80 / 2

    Wa'aleykumas'salaam warahmatul'Lahi wabarakatuh


    I will allow you take the burden of explaining what you think I will miss to explain as I can hardly see myself understanding that hadith in a way different to how it has been understood before...


    However, I can give simple answers to your two questions... for the first question; "lahunna" refers to the women talked about in (Q4:15)... and this hadith elaborates the meaning and further details of ( أو يجعل الله لهن سبيلا) as found at the end of this verse.


    And for the second question ; No, and this why majority of the scholars say that this hadith is mansookh and they base their opinion on the fact that of the five people the prophet(p.b.u.h) ordered to face Hadd, the Hadd was Rajm only and there was no mention of Jald.


    Majority of scholars(based on rational analysis of texts available, the status of having its narrations Muttawitir and clear incidents that show it was a practical Sunnah ) hold the opinion that the punishment for a married person who commits adultery is Rajm(stoning to death)...


    some,however, based on their own understanding and in dire need to fit in the societies they live with, claim that there is no such thing as Rajm(stoning to death) in the Religion(Islam) and that it was a ruling in the previous scriptures which was abrogated...


    while, some like and including your scholar, Ahmad Ghamidi, have his own opinion that Rajm is practiciple in the case of preventing 'Fasaad fil ardh' and base his arguments on (Quran 5:33)...


    Do we then need to engage in a debate when we know the difference is so much clear... Bearing in mind, that carrying Hadd for Zinna is the one ruling which is almost impossible to enforce on people unless they themselves confess and testify against themselves 4 times( when they're adviced to conceal their sin and repent from it sincerely...) or pregnancy occurs... because it's very difficult to have 4 pious witnesses having their eyes on the action when it's being done.
  7. mezeren
    Offline

    mezeren Junior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    turkey
    Ratings Received:
    +28 / 1
    Quran Expounding Quran

    The Glorified Allah commands:

    الر كِتَابٌ أُحْكِمَتْ آيَاتُهُ ثُمَّ فُصِّلَتْ مِن لَّدُنْ حَكِيمٍ خَبِيرٍ

    “Alif Lam Ra (This is) a Book, whose verses are made decisive, then are they expounded, by One Wise, All-aware” (Hood 11/1)

    ‘Uĥkimat’ -made decisive-[2], are the words that are resolute, having no aspects to cause controversy or doubt neither by utterance nor by meaning. Since ‘decisive’ verses are then expounded by Allah, explanations are to be other verses. Therefore, verses of Qur’an are separated into two groups: first that are decisive and second that are explanatory. Second verse about this subject is as follows:

    اللَّهُ نَزَّلَ أَحْسَنَ الْحَدِيثِ كِتَابًا مُّتَشَابِهًا مَّثَانِيَ

    “Allah revealed the most beautiful Message in the form of a Mutashābihāan, Mathāniya Book. (Az-Zumar/ The Companies 39/23)

    Two things similar to each other are Mutashabih. [3]
    Mathani (مثَانِي) [4] is the plural form of mathna (مثَنى) [5] which means, two by two. That means, verses of Qur’an consist of groups of two, that are similar to each other. This means, a verse may be similar to and in bilateral relation with many verses. Not everybody can find out relational verses. The Glorified Allah commands:

    كِتَابٌ فُصِّلَتْ آيَاتُهُ قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا لِّقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ

    “This is a Book whose verses are expounded as a discourse in the Arabic language, for a Qawm of knowledge.”(Fussilat 41/3)

    Discovering the similar verses is the business of a Qawm of knowledge. Qawm, is a community consisting of men. However, it is used for a community consisting of men and women throughout the Qur’an[6]. Qur’an being Arabic, requires this community to include experts of Arabic language. As expressed in the following verse, these are not ordinary experts. They are “الرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ = Ar-Rāsikhūna Fī Al-`Ilmi”, outperforming; deep and resolute in knowledge; having proven results of their knowledge. This is the kind of a community, who may discover the explanations in Qur’an.

    This is the verse that exposes the subject as a whole:

    هُوَ الَّذِيَ أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُّحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ في قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاء الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاء تَأْوِيلِهِ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلاَّ اللّهُ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلاَّ أُوْلُواْ الألْبَابِ

    “He it is Who has revealed to you the Book: In It are Muĥkamātun[2] verses; they are the foundation of the Book; others are Mutashabaha[3]. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the mutashabih one seeking discord and seeking Tawil of It. However, only Allah knows Its Tawil. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord.” These are only the ones with pure feelings in heart. ” (Al-e-Imran/ The House of Imran 3/7)

    Tawil, is directing something to its target[7]. The target of mutashabih verses is muhkam verses. It is Allah who directs one of them to the other and explains one with the other. Nobody else can do this. But, “..those in whose hearts is perversity follow the mutashabih one seeking discord and seeking Tawil of It.” That means, they ignore the relations between verses and try to direct them to the targets they like to.

    There may be scholars who relate verses to each other incorrectly, although they are good intentioned. Since they do not have perversity in their hearts, they are not from the people described in the verse.

    “And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord.” That means, the One who reveals the verses as muhkam and mutashabih, who relates them to each other and makes the tawil is Him. We try not to make the tawil but try to discover the tawil Allah made.

    Ones who ignore the relations amongst verses, ascribe different meanings to the words tawil[7], mutashabih[3] and mathani[4].

    These mistakes have caused many of verses to be misunderstood and the integrity of Qur’an-Sunnah to be broken. Some supposed Sunnah as a second, independent resource of information beside Qur’an, which contends that Qur’an and Sunnah may regulate different fields in life or they may conflict with each other.

    However, proper application of the method described by the above verses, prevents all potential mistakes while trying to understand the Qur’an.
  8. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Assalamu alaikum cabdixahim
    I have chosen this hadith as a case-study, because this is one of those few ahadith, where the Prophet is making a direct reference to Quran. I have already written in this thread, that if something can be attributed to the Prophet without a doubt, it is obligatory to every muslim. So yes, if a hadith has a strong chain of narration, it is not contradicting Quran, not contradicting Musallamaat (well accepted facts by humanity in general) of rationality and not contradicting Sunnah almutawatirah, we will accept everything in it. And this hadith certainly belongs to that category.

    You have correctly pointed out, that the Prophet is referring to Q4:15 in this hadith. However, the question is only half answered by that. The other half remains, why is this verse in Quran and the Prophet in this hadith mentioning only women. We all know, that the kind of lewdness Quran is speaking about here cannot be done without a man. Also if you compare it with Q24:2, Quran has explicitly used the words Adultress and Adulterer. Where is the difference?

    Since you have imparted the burden of explanation on my shoulders, I will leave that question for you to answer but also provide my answer, as I have learned from Javed Ahmed Ghamidi. The verse is actually not speaking about adultry in the usual sense but about adultry in the sense of prostitution. The evidence for that is talking about women only and the words of Quran "Allati ya'tin al fahisha", which point out to a certain ihtamaam on the part of the women.

    Quran 24:2 is the punishment of Adultry itself in the plain form. However, prostitution, rape and adultry with the bond of marriage are crimes, which are committed in addition to adultry. Since these are the crimes, which seriously challenge the order of the society, they have been addressed in Quran in the following verse:

    The punishments of those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and strive to spread disorder in the land are to execute them in an exemplary way or to crucify them or to amputate their hands and feet from opposite sides or to banish them from the land. Such is their disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom save those who repent before you overpower them; you should know that Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Ever Merciful.(5:33-34)

    The prophet is doing nothing but adding the punishments of Fasad fil Ard in accordance with the above verse to the punishment of adultry in accordance with Q24:2. This is the proper context of the hadith provided by Quran. This is, what the Prophet means, when he says, Allah has provided a way for those women, since Allah has revealed Q24:2 and Q5:33-34.

    Since this hadith is giving us the exact text of the law, it is more relevant than those, where a third person is narrating his decisions using that law or implentation of the same. Even in the modern jurisprudence, it is a recognized principle, that the accouncement of punishment and the execution of punishment are two different entities. Even today, when a punishment of a hardened murderer is announced, it reflects all the crimes he has committed. But if one of the punishment is death penalty, only death penalty is actually executed. This is just the application of the morality of law. While executing those rapists and married prostitutes, the Prophet has chosen not to execute the "jald" part, since it was combined with rajm. It does not mean, that the punishment itself was not there.

    You see, I end up accepting this hadith verbatim and you end up denying to accept it as a source of law because scholars have this or that opinion. If you will start seeing those ahadith in the light of Quran, they will start making more sense to you and you will end up accepting more of them.

    By the way, this interpretation cannot be credited to Javed Ahmed Ghamidi. Allamah Hamiduddin Farahi was the first scholar to point out, that rajm is nothing else but the application of Q5:33-34. In my next post, I will go into more detail about what we can learn from this "case study". I will get back to the original topic in my next post.

    Wassalamu alaikum.
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2016
  9. Pure-heart
    Offline

    Pure-heart Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2016
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings Received:
    +10 / 0
    I agree with you brother , we should have direct relationship with our Lord and his prophet ( saw) . Yes I try to think about what scholars write, sometimes I disagree with them sometimes I agree with one of them. The main issue is that reading their works strengthen my faith , my knowledge of Islam . Their efforts are great , we can learn a lot from them .
    Thank you for the link I shall see it InshaAllah .
  10. Pure-heart
    Offline

    Pure-heart Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2016
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings Received:
    +10 / 0
    Thank you brother your argument is very interesting, I need sometime time to think about it.
    Wassalamu alaikim
  11. Pure-heart
    Offline

    Pure-heart Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2016
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings Received:
    +10 / 0
    Sorry brother saif I thought your message was directed for me. Still I shall study your argument .
  12. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Assalamu alaikum sister Pure-heart. Of course, it was also meant for you. In fact, I should say sorry for hijacking your thread. Please keep on contributing to the discussion.
  13. cabdixakim
    Offline

    cabdixakim Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +80 / 2

    Wa'aleykumas'salaam warahmatul'Lahi wabarakatuh, brother

    :) you just brought up a discussion that I though to have avoided but any way...

    I did not disown this hadith... I said it is regarded as mansookh...

    My answer was (Q4:15) not (Q 4:15-16)... Read (Q4:15), there is no mention of men... it talks about the punishment for married women who committed adultery and were testified against by 4 witnesses; which is confinement in houses until death comes them or (→Allah finds a way for them) and thus the hadith was revealed to the prophet(p.b.u.h) As a leviation for the confinement.. it even begins with ( جعل الله لهن سبيلا) the same words which (Q4:15) ends.

    now, Why are some women speficically talked about in that verse because the action calls for men also? Is it because they're prostitutes? No... firstly, it's how Allah has revealed the verse, this particular verse is on women and the one following it is about men... secondly, the verse is speaking about married women! So their profession is family not prostitution. Thirdly, the verse calls for 4 witnesses and prostitution is simply for all to witness. Finally, there is nothing in that verse which suggests that their action was repetative/habit/profession... so one cannot simply take from that verse that it's clearly referring to prostitutes!

    And brother, I have read about this argument of Ahmad Ghamidi, it sounds critical analysis on the Book of Allah but it has nothing tangible to support it; neither historical accounts, other hadiths, nor the very verses of (Q5:33-34) which it's based on.

    for instance now, is there any hadith or historical account which indicates that out of the five people the prophet(p.b.u.h) ordered to be stonned, any of them did adultery as profession?

    i) Was Mai'Z for instance a pervert and rapist or prostitue? was he a man spreading mischief in the land and risking and endangering the honour of women, bearing in mind that he brought himself to the prophet and testified against himself four times? Those who spread Mischief in the land call for punitive measures from the Leader of muslims and yet for this man the prophet(p.b.u.h) turned from him whenever he tried to confess, looked for him excuses such as "maybe you just kissed her" , "were you drunk?"... how could he be categorised among those who spread mischief in the land?

    ii) Was the ghamdiyah (the woman from Ghamid tribe) a prostitute and spreading mischief in the land, bearing in mind that she testified against herself, was told to give birth then come back, then told to breastfeed then come back to be executed and so basically she was stonned 2-3 years after she confessed and all that time she was bringing herself and was eager to expiate herself, could such a woman(who the prophet said her repentance could have sufficed all the people in Madinah if it was distributed among them) be categorised as those who spread mischief in the land and must be executed?

    Meanwhile, if you read (Q5:33-34) Which your argument is based on...

    " Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,
    Except for those who return [repenting] before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Mercifu".

    ... you learn that verse 34 puts exception for those who repent before they're overpowered(apprehended) ... but then all the people whom the Prophet(p.b.u.h) ordered to be stonned, repented before their execution, so how could the prophet(p.b.u.h) go against the verse of the Qur'an and order to execute people which the verse calls to be forgiven?...

    That theory which the likes of Ahmad Ghamidi uphold has these genuine challenges and it is easy for anyone who is not a scholar-worshipper to disown this theory, for Rajm applies to all the people who were previously involved in a halal marriage...(that's what's learnt in the Sunnah).
    • Ma sha Allah! Ma sha Allah! x 1
    • Alhamdulillah Alhamdulillah x 1
  14. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Assalamu alaikum wa rahamtuallahi wa barakatuh brother cabdixahim
    To be honest, I have been avoiding many unpleasant discussions too. I could hardly stop myself from starting a discussion on the law of shahadah, as has been understood by muslims, reading the last paragraph of your second last post. But we will take one at one time.

    Also I wanted to avoid the discussion on Rajm itself and I wanted to confine our discussion to the relationship of Quran and Hadith.

    I understood you correctly brother. My words were, you don't take it as a basis for any law. May Allah never let me become like those mullahs, who are dishonest in representing other's opinions. You will agree, that this is the usual scene in the religious discussions. Unfortunately.

    Your opinion about Q4:15 has been nullified by the Prophet himself, when he includes the unmarried among them in the hadith under our consideration. For myself, there is no need for further comments.

    The second verse makes my point even clearer. In that verse, both men and women are mentioned, which makes it clearer, that there is something about the women in the first verse, which makes the mentioning of men redundant.

    Here is another challenge for both of us. Both Quran and Hadith are clear that they are not theorizing something but a serious need of this verse is at hand. Can you name one woman, who was brought out from house confinement and was stoned afterwards? I can't. Therefore, when we are talking about "those women", we have to confine ourselves to the text of the law, which is very clear. Deriving law from the application of law is called reverse engineering in modern English and I don't think this is a good idea, given the fact, that it is very hard to get the exact "court proceedings" and many a times the "court proceedings" consisted of several sittings, where one and the same evidence is bound to be scarce and sometimes, the prophet was visited, when he was alone. Yet on your insistence I will comment on the few cases, which we know in ahadith.

    Very good observation and I fully agree with that. You have correctly pointed out, that getting 4 male muslim witnesses is almost impossible. Quran deals with the special case of married women with husband as the only witness in a separate verse. Here, the 4 witnesses against prostitutes are the same, as can be against prostitutes.

    Like I said, there is a hint in the language of Quran, when it says, "For those among your women, who DO adultery,...". Women "doing adutery", and not mentioning men. Now be honest to yourself and tell me, which version is closer to the text of Quran? Without any bias, I seriously believe prostitution is a better interpretation. That hadith testifies it by adding punishments to the quranic punishment of 100 lashes, that their crime was more than just adultery. This iterpretation gives quranic punishment in Surah anNoor its due status. You will say, you are giving it its due status by doing its tahdeed for the unmarried adulterers. But do you know, that the scholars like Imam Shafi'i, Imam Ahmed, Imam Daood, Ishaq bin Rahwiah, Sufiyan Thoury, Hasan bin Saleh and Ibn Abi Lailah would differ with your opinion, because they take the punishment of unmarried adulterers also from "Sunnah": 100 lashes and 1 year of banishment". So they think the same about that verse in Surah anNoor, as you think about that hadith: Read it and get reward for reading it.

    I respect your opinion. I hope you have studies him without any bias. His understanding of fasaad fil ard is, that it is every nuisance, which challenges the order of the society and which goes beyond the normal crimes. So when theft becomes robbery, when murder becomes terrorism, when adultery becomes rape, prostitution or incest, then there is an added element of nuisance to the normal crimes, which has to be dealt with in accordance with Q5:33-34. Do you have a better definition of fasaad fil ard?

    Let me write a second post for the rest of your post, since it is getting too long.

    To be continued.
    Wassalamu alaikum
  15. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    sorry, that was my mistake.
  16. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Rape is the kind of added nuisance for men, which is equivalent to prostitution for women. That brings me to another unpleasant subject, which I wanted to avoid but I have to bring it up now, because all of us must now where you are coming from and where I am coming from.

    Is rape a bigger crime than adultery with consent? Every sane person without religious bias will say, yes. Then let me ask you, what is the islamic punishment for an unmarried man of age 40, who rapes a 14 years old girl? I don't want to make it more unpleasant by asking about a 9 years old girl. What will be his punishment, when he is, say 70 and unmarried?

    I am just wondering, that a serious student of knowledge like yourself does not know, that it was a clear case of rape. Had he brought himself to the Prophet and told everything to the Prophet about his crime? By one account yes. But the riwayah of Ibn Abbas in Muslim tells, that the Prophet was well aware of his crime, when he was brought before him:

    ان النبی صلی اللّٰہ علیہ وسلم قال لماعز بن مالک: أحق ما بلغنی عنک؟ قال: وما بلغک عنی. قال : بلغنی انک وقعت بجاریۃ آل فلان، قال: نعم، قال: فشھد اربع شھادات، ثم امر بہ فرجم.(مسلم ، رقم ۴۴۲۷)

    Also the name of the woman, with whom he committed his crime is known to be muheera. There is no hadith available about her punishment. On the contrary, a riwayah of ibn Sa'ad tells us, that the Prophet called upon her but never punished her.

    دعا رسول اللّٰہ صلی اللّٰہ علیہ وسلم المرأۃ التی اصابھا فقال: اذہبی ولم یسألھا عن شی ء. (الطبقات الکبریٰ ۳/۲۲۹)

    What is your guess about a case, where a man is stoned to the death and the woman does not get any punishment? What else is that, if not rape?

    Again testifying against oneself, when she was already pregnant, does not bail her out a lot. Like I said earlier, it is the case, where "people" are talking about several encounters of her and the Prophet and it is almost impossible, that a rawi was present in all the encounters. Also the reports are conflicting. In one riwayah, she was stoned directly after the birth of the child, because a sahabi took the responsibility of her child.

    قالت : انھا حبلی من الزنیٰ فقال: آنت؟ قالت: نعم، فقال لھا: حتی تضعی ما فی بطنک. قال: فکفلھا رجل من الانصارحتی وضعت، قال: فاتی النبی صلی اللّٰہ علیہ وسلم فقال: قد وضعت الغامدیۃ، فقال: اذاً لا نرجمھا وندع ولدھا صغیرًا لیس لہ من یرضعہ فقام رجل من الانصار فقال: الیّ رضاعہ یا نبی اللّٰہ، قال: فرجمھا. (مسلم، رقم۴۴۳۱)

    Secondly, there is no explicit mention in any hadith, that she was married. Nobody knows the name of her husband. She was never accompanied by any of relatives or people of her tribe. Even affter confession, she was kept by an ansari. There are no signs of her being a family woman. Instead, everything available about her points out, that after bay'ah with the Prophet, she did not stop herself from adultery and she had to confess it before the Prophet after getting pregnant.

    Also she was never asked about the man she was involved with. Is this really the islamic law, that we should never ask about the father of the child, when a pregnant adulterer is to be punished? That she did the true taubah and was praised for that by the Prophet, I have no doubt about that. Because I do not believe, that the door of taubah is closed for prostitutes. So, that argument does not count. Now again, if you honestly analyse the whole situation, you will get more evidence to prove my point than yours.

    Again, that would be a gross misrepresentation of Quran, if you think it is saying, let the terrorist or robber go scot-free, if he himself comes to you in confession. Correct interpretation in its true spirit would be, don't punish them for fasad fil ard but as normal criminals. So a terrorist would be punished for murders, a robber would be punished as a thief and a rapist would be punished for adultery only. Do you know a better interpretation?

    As for the given examples, I have already given my opinion about them. Confession, when people would know anyways, is like getting caught.

    I would respect that, if a real not-scholar-worshipper comes to the conclusion, that his thoughts are baseless. As for myself, I have been appealing your honesty in your analysis all the while, by which you should conclude, that I really honestly think, his interpretation is truely representing Quran and Sunnah. You would not believe it, but there are certain things, which I do not take from him.

    Wassalamu alaikum
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2016
  17. cabdixakim
    Offline

    cabdixakim Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +80 / 2
    wa'aleylumas'salaam warahmatul'Lahi wabarakatuh, brother...

    This may take me longer time and space than anticipated but in shaa Allah, I hope you be connected in this lengthy post...

    First of all, I never claimed I'm student of knowledge, and whatever we lack of knowledge(as we'll come to know you too are guilt of) let's not be surprised of each other!

    My claim that "mai'z was not guilt of fasaad fil ardh ,in that case, of rape" is based on many lenghty hadiths, I will write one and take the references of others...

    Narrated Sulaiman b. Buraida reported on the authority of his father that Ma, iz b. Malik came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said to him: Messenger of Allah, purify me, whereupon he said: Woe be upon you, go back, ask forgiveness of Allah and turn to Him in repentance. He (the narrator) said that he went back not far, then came and said: Allah's Messenger, purify me. whereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Woe be upon you, go back and ask forgiveness of Allah and turn to Him in repentance. He (the narrator) said that he went back not far, when he came and said: Allah's Messenger, purify me. Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said as he had said before. When it was the fourth time, Allah's Messenger (may, peace be upon him) said: From what am I to purify you? He said: From adultery, Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) asked if he had been mad. He was informed that he was not mad. He said: Has he drunk wine? A person stood up and smelt his breath but noticed no smell of wine. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Have you committed adultery? He said: Yes. He made pronouncement about him and he was stoned to death...(until end of hadith).

    Other similar Ahadith: ( Sahiih muslim. kitaabul hudud 4205)... (sahiih muslims 17: 4196,4198,4199,4201,4202)... (sunan Abu Daud 4425,4426,4427,4430)... ( Sahiih Al-bukhari 4969)... All these hadiths of some different chains speak of a sincere repenting man who is in no form of endangering the honour of women!

    You have made many claims, which can be said by lack of further reading... i) How does Imam shafii differ with my opinion? (Which opinion though :/ the one about that particular hadith being regarded as mansookh?) ... Imam shafii is actually the one who upholds the opinion that the hadith is mansookh and by that he argues the punishment for married adulterer is Rajm only without the 100 lashes as learnt in the Sunnah... so I don't know what that was!

    ii) you claim that it was a clear case of rape, based on what? That the lady was not punished? Do you know of the ruling if the man confesses and the woman does not and he cannot provide evidence? Consider this hadith...

    Narrated Sahl ibn Sa'd:
    A man came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and made acknowledgment before him that he had committed fornication with a woman whom he named. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) sent someone to the woman and he asked her about it. She denied that she had committed fornication. So he gave him the prescribed punishment of lashes and left her". (sunan Abu Daud 4466) ... so did she or did she not confess too? And other such questions which ultimately does not change his fate maybe derived from that argument...

    ii) and about Mai'z being married and actually an orphan, I think you know it by now.

    The evidence that argues your view is just too numerous, and it is more likely that even if I exhaust all the lierature written against it, you'll still be up for a never ending "pull me I pull you" discussion so let's leave our corners and meet somewhere in the middle...

    ASSUME that for Mai'z it was a case of rape, and the ghamidyah a case of prostitution(and by no means am I associating that to them, just for the sake of argument) were they punished for Fasaad fil ardh? They were not spreading mischief(when they were apprehended ,for the sake of argument) in fact, they were sincere repentants and as you've rightly pointed out,such a person who spreads mischief in the land but repents before apprehention will be punished even though not for 'fasaad fil ardh' but for the crimes they committed... so let's take the case of Mai'z, he was spreading mischief in the land righ?, but desisted from it and sought repentance and so he could only be punished for his crime,adultery and not for previously spreading mischief. But why was he stoned when you believe the punishment for adultery is 100 lashes? ... of course, he was married according to (Al-Bhukhari 4969) (Muslim 17:4196) (Abu Daud 4430)... So unless the penalty for married adulterer is stoning to death even that theory of 'fasaad fil ardh' fails to make any sense... This is for you to consider according to the theory you uphold...

    Besides using analysis and the question " what could or not have been", the enormity of authentic texts that speak of this matter ' Rajm for married adulterers' is also something to consider... for instance now, how do you negate the following saheeh Ahadith or harmonize them to your theory? ...

    (i)

    Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:

    Narrated 'Abdullah:
    Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

    (ii)

    Narrated Al-Lajlaj al-Amiri:
    "I was working in the market. A woman passed carrying a child. The people rushed towards her, and I also rushed along with them.
    I then went to the Prophet (ﷺ) while he was asking: Who is the father of this (child) who is with you? She remained silent.
    A young man by her side said: I am his father, Messenger of Allah!
    He then turned towards her and asked: Who is the father of this child with you?
    The young man said: I am his father, Messenger of Allah! The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) then looked at some of those who were around him and asked them about him. They said: We only know good (about him).
    The Prophet (ﷺ) said to him: Are you married? He said: Yes. So he gave orders regarding him and he was stoned to death.
    He (the narrator) said: We took him out, dug a pit for him and put him in it. We then threw stones at him until he died. A man then came asking about the man who was stoned.
    We brought him to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said: This man has come asking about the wicked man.
    The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: He is more agreeable than the fragrance of musk in the eyes of Allah. The man was his father. We then helped him in washing, shrouding and burying him. (The narrator said:) I do not know whether he said or did not say "in praying over him." This is the tradition of Abdah, and it is more accurate". (Sunan Abu Daud 4435)

    (iii)

    Abu Hurairah and Zaid b. Khalid al-Juhani said:
    "Two men brought a dispute before the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). One of them said: Pronounce judgement between us in accordance with Allah’s Book, Messenger of Allah! The other who had more understanding said: Yes, Messenger of Allah! Pronounce judgement between us in accordance with Allah’s Book, and allow me to speak. He (the Prophet) said: Speak, He then said: My son who was a hired servant with this(man) committed fornication with his wife, and when I was told that my son must be stoned to death, I ransomed him with a hundred sheep and a slave girl of mine; but when I asked the learned, they told me that my son should receive a hundred lashes and be banished for a year, and that stoning to death applied only to man’s wife. The apostle of Allah (ﷺ) replied: By him in whose hand my soul is, I shall certainly pronounce judgment between you in accordance with Allah’s Book. Your sheep and your slave girl must be returned to you, and your son shall receive a hundred lashes and be banished for a year. And he commanded Unias al-Aslami go to that man’s wife, and if she confessed, he should stone her to death. She confessed and he stoned her..."( sunnan Abu Daud 4445)

    (iv)

    Abu Hurairah reported the Prophet (ﷺ) as saying:
    When the slave-woman of any of you commits fornication, he should inflict the prescribed punishment on her, but not hurl reproaches at her. This is to be done up to three times. If she a fourth time, he should flog her, and sell her even if only for a rope of hair."( sunan Abu Daud 4455)... Note: this hadith speaks of repeating action but same punishment until the fourth time and there is no stoning even then because she isn't married.. so there is an objection here about "persistence in the evil act" and to whom this stoning applies even if you use your theory.
  18. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Assalamu alaikum wa rahmtaullahi wa barakatuh brother cadixahim
    I thank you so very much for taking time. This is very generous of you. Please bear with me, when my post gets lengthy too.

    In a more colloquial sense, we are all students. I didn't use that word in the sense the the saudi scholars and salafiyyah use it.

    On rereading it sounded like I was taunting the lack of knowledge on your part. I can assure you, that that was not my intention. For that I apologize.

    Ok, wait a minute. Like I told you, I didn't intend to have a debate on rajm. We have to get back to our original topic, which is the relationship of Quran and Hadith. Let me first of all summarize our discussion until now

    • Our discussion started, when I pointed out, that Quran explains ahadith in the sense, that it provides a context of every words and deeds of the Prophet.
    • In order to provide an example I took that hadith, which is mansookh in your opinion and provided a possible interpretation in the light of Quran, by which you don't have to consider it mansookh
    • The purpose of choosing that hadith was to get into more advanced questions like, can hadith do tahdeed or tanseekh of quranic verses. How have our classical scholars answered these questions. But we have still not opened that chapter. Let us hope, we will get back to that, after we have closed this discussion on rajm.
    Now, from your post I can gather, that you still don't understand my position on Q5:34-35. Following is a summary of my position for your consideration:

    • The verse provides a list of punishments for muharba and fasad fil ard ranging from softest punishment of banishment and reaching to harsh punishments like taqteel or cruicifixion. Rajm is a form of Taqteel.
    • It is clear from the verse, that the degree of punishment can be chosen depending on the severity of the crime and the circumstances of the one committed it.
    • From my very first post on this issue, I have maintained the position, that committing adultery after being married is also a form of fasad fil ard. (see post No. 28) So if you are assuming, that the question of being married or unmarried does not play and role for me, then I have been unable to clearly state my position.
    • The Prophet had the sole right to choose any of the given punishments for those who had committed fasad fil ard.
    • If somebody accepts his crime before being overpowered and repents, then the judge may choose to give a milder punishment (for the normal crimes). However as you can imagine, all this depends on the situation, how reliably he could convince the judge, that he has sincerely changed his ways. Similarly, a punishment can be shortened or made milder afterwards, if somebody seems to show a real change and sincere repentence. Mark these words and I will get back to them.
    Now back to the discussion on rajm. I had explained, why it was a bad idea to reverse engineer the law from the application of law. So I personally do not draw the law from all those ahadith you have been presenting. The law has to be stated as a law. However, I should be able to explain all ahadith as a true application of the law. Even in my previous post I have accepted, that you will find enough stuff to support your claim but if you look carefully, you will also find ahadith, which support my claim. I have not claimed that those ahadith are conclusive. That means, I already accept, that all those hadith you have copied here are supporting your claim. I hope, we are on the same page now!

    Now I will go deeper into the event of rajm of Ma'iz and will try to provide you two more evidences, which to me are burhan-i-qaate' on this issue. But let me first comment on your comments on the two evidences I have provided in my previous post.

    First about that woman muheera: There is no mention in the riwayah of Ibn Sa'd that she denied after being asked about adultery. In fact, missing such an important part cannot be expected from the rawi. So if my claim cannot be varified, your can't be varified either.

    The muslim's riwayah, which I have provided makes it clear, that the Prophet was well aware of his crime, when he came for his confession. That alone is equivalent of being overpowered already. You have not tried to explain that part.

    Now let me provide you two further evidences.

    According to a rawayah of Muslim, after anncouncing rajm of Ma'iz, the Prophet gave following khutbah at Asr on the same day:

    upload_2016-2-29_17-53-48.png

    "Isn't it like, when we go in the way of Allah on Jihad, a man from among us remained behind and who was uncontrolled in his shahwah like a male goat. Beware, It is my duty to give such a criminal an examplary punishment"

    It is true, that some people insist, that it is not about Ma'iz because he is not mentioned by name. But this is quit natural, when the Prophet is referring to an event so fresh and on everybody's mind already.

    For me the most decisive part is, that according to abou daood raqam 4420, when he was stoned, he cried and said O people bring me to the Prophet. The people of my tribe have let me die. On hearing about all that the Prophet asked people, why hadn't you foresaken him. May be he could do taubah and Allah would listen to his taubah (Abou Daood Raqam 4419). Now following can be concluded by that:

    • When he himself came to the Prophet, the main reason of his coming was, that people of his tribes had assured him, he would get a milder punishment. However, the news of his crime had already reached the Prophet, so he did not give him any relaxation.
    • The Prophet was not convinced about his taubah or repentive behaviour, when he anncounced his rajm.
    • The burhan-i-qaate' is : The nature of the punishment was such, that the Prophet had some margine to give a milder punishment, if he had been convinced of his repentive hebaviour. Now remember my words, while explaining Q5:34-35. Is there any margine of milder punishment available in your interpretation, when the person is sincerely repenting? As far as I know, NO. Then why don't you consider my interpretation, which explains all ahadith and all verses.
    The arguments, which you have provided with those list of questions, which the Prophet asked do not weigh a lot because of the following reason. The Prophet was acting as a judge and it was his duty to ask all those questions to avoid any misconception about the nature of crime.

    Let me write a second post for the rest of your post.
    Wassalamu alaikum
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2016
  19. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Assalamu alaikum wa rahmtaullahi wa barakatuh brother cadixahim
    This is to address the following passage, in which you said, you didn't get what I meant. Let me explain that in greater detail.

    I can repeat my words.

    "This iterpretation gives quranic punishment in Surah anNoor its due status. You will say, you are giving it its due status by doing its tahdeed for the unmarried adulterers. But do you know, that the scholars like Imam Shafi'i, Imam Ahmed, Imam Daood, Ishaq bin Rahwiah, Sufiyan Thoury, Hasan bin Saleh and Ibn Abi Lailah would differ with your opinion, because they take the punishment of unmarried adulterers also from "Sunnah": 100 lashes and 1 year of banishment" ".

    As far as I know, only Ahnaaf accept the quranic verse in Noor as a basis for the punishment of unmarried adulterers. So, what I was saying was, that they are at least giving it some status by doing its tahdeed. Without knowing, if you belonged to that school of thought, I just assumed, that maybe you would also give that verse some importance. Unfortunately, the given list of scholars take even the punishment of unmarried from Sunnah, which is 100 lashes and 1 year of banishment. I raised the question, what kind of a treatment is that with Quran? Is it only for reading and getting reward for reading it? I hope it is clear now.

    On finding time, I will address the rest of the issues in your post.

    Wassalamu alaikum.
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2016
  20. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh dear brother Cabixahim
    Please have a positive dhann about me and remain optimistic, that you can prove your point. Until now you have argued only on the nature of questions of the Prophet and the fact, that some ahadith tell, that he came to the Prophet in confession. But I hope, I could successfully explain to you the exact nature of that confession with the help of other ahadith. I hope, you also understand now, that whatever the nature of his crime could have been, the Prophet would have asked the same questions.

    You have toiled and sweated too much without a reason. From the very beginning I have raised serious questions on their submission before getting overpowered. You have built all your argument on an assumption, which is yet to be proved. At least for Mai'z, I have provided enough evidence. As for Ghamidiya, you have not addressed my point, that coming in confession after getting pregnant is like getting overpowered. Also you know yourself, that that case is very badly documented and hence not suitable for reverse engineering the law. When you cannot even prove, that the Prophet ever asked her about her merital status, what is left there for you to make your point?

    To be continued.
    Wassalamu alaikum
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2016

Share This Page