quote:Originally posted by homing pigeon: I said initially: I DONT GET MY INFO FROMT HE WEB so I can only offer you the proper pub lications and the names of the scholars. I'm willing to buy them for you and send them over, too if you want
I checked the site,you are Dr.Noha I guess. Posts: 903 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
Then go read: Mohammad Alghazaly's book : The sunna between the hadith people and the jurisprudence people السنة النبوية بين أهل الفقه و أهل الحديث http://www.alghazaly.org/index.php?id=54
A review of the book:
دوري في هذه المقالة لا يتعدى العرض الأمين – إن شاء الله – لكتاب الشيخ محمد الغزالي " السنة النبوية بين أهل الفقه وأهل الحديث" على قدر ما تسمح به مساحة المقال . يلاحظ الشيخ أن الحقائق الرئيسية في المنهاج الإسلامي لا تحتل المساحة العقلية المقررة لها ..زمان كان البدوي يخاطب الفرس أيام الفتح الأول قائلا : جئنا لنخرج الناس من عبادة العباد إلى عبادة الله الواحد ، واليوم صار اهتمام المتدنين بمسائل فرعية من قبيل نقض الوضوء للمس المرأة أكثر مما يشغله إجراء انتخابات مزورة !!. علماء السنة وضعوا خمسة شروط لقبول الأحاديث النبوية ، ثلاثة في السند ( راو واع – تقي ذو ضمير – اطراد هاتين الصفتين في سلسلة الرواة ) واثنان في المتن ( عدم الشذوذ بمعنى ألا يخالف ما هو أوثق ، والثاني هو غياب العلة القادحة أي عيب يبصره المحققون ) ..هذه الشروط كافية جدا لدقة النقل وقبول الآثار والمهم هو إحسان التطبيق . يؤكد الشيخ أن في السنة متواترا له حكم القرآن الكريم ، وفيها الصحيح المشهور الذي يفسر كتاب الله ..ولكن الحديث قد يصح سندا ويضعف متنا بعد اكتشاف الفقهاء لعلة كامنة فيه تأسيا بما فعلته السيدة عائشة رضي الله عنها حينما رفضت حديث أن الميت يعذب ببكاء أهله ( وهو المثبت في الصحاح !!) لتعارضه مع قول الله تعالى ( لا تزر وازرة وزر أخرى ) ، وأوضحت أن ذلك للكافر حيث قال "إن الله ليزيد الكافر عذابا ببكاء أهله عليه ". وهذا المنهج هو نفس فعل أبي حنيفة الذي رفض حديث " لا يقتل مسلم في كافر " برغم صحة سنده لتعارضه مع النص القرآني " النفس بالنفس " فالقصاص شريعة الله والأحناف قدموا ظاهر القرآن على حديث الآحاد . ويؤكد الشيخ على أنه لا علاقة للخلاف بكفر ولا إيمان ..فحديث فقأ موسى لعين ملك الموت صحيح سندا ولكن متنه يثير الريبة إذ يفيد أن موسى عليه السلام يكره الموت ولا يحب لقاء الله وهذا بالطبع مرفوض ثم هل الملائكة تعرض لهم العاهات كما تعرض للبشر ؟ ..يؤكد الشيخ أن الاشتغال بصحة هذا الحديث غير مفيد لأنه لا يرتبط بعقيدة ولا يتصل بعمل ..وبرغم ذلك فإن شارح هذا الحديث اعتبر ناكري الحديث من الملاحدة !!..يقول الشيخ أن وصم منكر الحديث بالإلحاد استطاله في أعراض المسلمين ، وهو يرى أن في متنه علة قادحة تنزل به عن مرتبة الصحة ..ورفضه أو قبوله خلاف فكري وليس عقائديا بحال . نفس المثال يؤكده الشيخ في حديث مسلم الذي يفيد أن الله تعالى يكتب الرزق والأجل على الجنين في رحم أمه بعد أثنين وأربعين يوما بينما يذكر البخاري أن ذلك يتم بعد أربعة شهور ..بين الروايتين تفاوت واضح ولكن أي مسلم يذهب إلى الله تعالى بإيمان واضح وعمل صالح فلن يضيره الجهل بأحد الحديثين أو كليهما معا . لنفس الشيء يستغرب الشيخ ما رواه ثابت عن أنس أن رجلا أتهم بأم ولد رسول الله فأمر علي بضرب عنقه وهو الأمر الذي كاد أن يحدث لولا أن وجده علي مجبوبا أي مقطوع الذكر !!. ..يقول الشيخ أنه يستحيل أن يحكم على رجل بالقتل في تهمة لم يحقق فيها او يسمع له فيها دفاع ..والظاهر أنه نجا من القتل بسبب عاهته ويتساءل أو لو كان سليما أبيح دمه ؟!!..هذا أمر تأباه أصول الإسلام وفروعه كلها . ..................... وأحيانا يكون الحديث صحيحا سندا ومتنا ولكنه قيل في ظروف تاريخية فحديث " خاب قوم ولوا أمرهم إمرأة " كان حينما كانت فارس تتهاوى وتتقلص فإن الوثنية السياسية جعلت الملك ميراثا لفتاة لا تدري شيئا ..فكان هذا الحديث وصفا للأوضاع كلها دون أن يعني هذا انتقاصا من قدرة المرأة على الحكم السليم فالقرآن قص علينا قصة ملكة سبأ التي قادت قومها إلى الإيمان والفلاح بحكمتها وذكائها ويستحيل أن يرسل حكما في حديث يناقض ما نزل عليه من وحي . يؤكد الشيخ أن هذا ليس حكما عاما فانجلترا بلغت عصرها الذهبي أيام الملكة فيكتوريا ..وأنديرا غاندي حققت لقومها ما يصبون حينما شطرت الكيان الإسلامي لشطرين ..الكفاءة هي المهمة في رئاسة الدولة . كما يستغرب الشيخ الحديث الذي يحبذ صلاة المرأة في غرفتها لتعارضه مع الواقع العملي لشهود النساء صلاة الجماعة معه طيلة عشر سنين ..ولقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم " لا تمنعوا إماء الله مساجد الله " ولاستبقاء الخلافة الراشدة صفوف النساء في المساجد بعد وفاة الرسول الكريم ..أبن حزم أراح نفسه وأراح غيره – حسب تعبير شيخنا – حينما كذب أحاديث منع النساء من الصلاة في المساجد وعدها من الباطل ..يقول شيخنا أن الحديث يعتبر شاذا إذا خالف الأوثق . ...................... في هذا الكتاب صك الشيخ تعبير " الفقه البدوي" وبسببه تعرض الكتاب لكثير من التجريح ..يقول شيخنا أننا لسنا مكلفين بنقل تقاليد عبس وذبيان إلى أمريكا واستراليا ولكننا مكلفون بنقل الإسلام وحسب ..والمأساة أن المسلمين مولعون بضم تقاليدهم لعقائد الإسلام لتكون دينا مع الدين ..فما أيسر الإسلام وأيسر أركانه لولا ما أضافه أتباعه من أنفسهم واشترطوا على الناس أن يأخذوا به ..ويضرب بذلك مثلا وهو النقاب الذي لم يفرضه الإسلام . كما أنه يجب أن نختار من الآراء الفقهية ما يناسب عادات القوم فلا معنى لأن نفرض عليهم رأي مالك أو أبن حنبل إذا كان رأي أبي حنيفة أقرب لمشاربهم ..مشهور عن الأوربيين تقديرهم للفنون الجميلة ( كالسيمفونيات والأوبرا ) فهل من المعقول أن نترك مهمة إصلاح عقائدهم ونضع عائقا لهذا الإصلاح الخطير بدعوتهم لترك الغناء والموسيقى ؟ خصوصا وتحريم الغناء يقوم على جملة من الأحاديث الواهية الموضوعة التي لا وزن لها في التمحيص العلمي ..إن الإسلام ليس دينا إقليميا ولا فقها بدويا ضيق النطاق ، وحينما يوضع مع الإسلام في كفة واحدة وتقولون هذه الصفقة لا ينفصل أحدها عن الآخر فستطيش كفة الإسلام وينصرف الناس عنه . .............. عقائد الإسلام تقوم على المتواتر النقلي والثابت العقلي ، ولا عقيدة لدينا تقوم على خبر واحد أو تخمين فكر ..أما التلاوة القليلة للقرآن الكريم والقراءة الكثيرة للأحاديث فلا تعطيان صورة دقيقة للإسلام بل تشبه سوء التغذية لخلل في توازن العناصر .. حديث مسلم " كل ذي ناب من السباع فأكله حرام " يتعارض مع القرآن الكريم " قل لا أجد فيما أوحي إلي محرما على طاعم يطعمه إلا أن يكون ميتة أو دما مسفوحا أو لحم خنزير فإنه رجس أو فسقا أهل لغير الله به " ..تكرر هذا المعنى في أربع مواضع من القرآن الكريم منها سورة المائدة التي هي آخر ما نزل من الوحي . كما يرفض رواية نافع في الغارة بغير إنذار لأنها تتعارض مع حرية التدين وتتناقض مع قوله تعالى " وإما تخافن من قوم خيانة فانبذ إليهم على سواء ، إن الله لا يحب الخائنين " فليس في تاريخ الثقافة الإنسانية كتاب ينشىء العقل المؤمن ويعرض آيات الله في الأنفس والآفاق لتكون ينابيع فكر يتعرف على الله ويستريح إلى عظمته كما وقع في هذا القرآن ..وتصوير الإسلام بأنه يتحرش بالآخرين ويتعطش لدمائهم فهو افتراء على الله والمرسلين .. يؤكد الشيخ أن القرآن أطال الحوار مع مخالفيه وفي طول السور وعرضها مناشدة حارة للإنسان أن يثوب إلى ربه ..ولم تبدأ سياسة العصا الغليظة إلا بعد أن أوجعت عصى الأعداء جنود المؤمنين وكسرت عظامهم ..هنا نزل قوله تعالى "أذن للذين يقاتلون بأنهم ظلموا وأن الله على نصرهم لقدير " ..فإذا ذكر المسلم حديث "أمرت أن أقاتل الناس حتى يقولوا لا إله إلا الله " في معاملة أعداء الإسلام كان ممكن يحرفون الكلم عن مواضعه ويتعامل بغباء شديد مع هدى النبوة ..لم يقل الرسول هذا الحديث يوم صعد الصفا ودعا للتوحيد وذكر بالبعث ..ولا قيل يوم عودته كسير القلب من الطائف ..ولا يوم اختفى في الغار ليضلل مطارديه ولا قالها يوم أعطى الناس حق اللحاق بمشركي مكة وترك الدين إذا استبهظوا تكاليفه ..ولا قالها في عمرة القضاء قبل فتح مكة بعام وهو يطوف الكعبة وحولها مئات الأصنام فلم يكسر صنما ولا نقض عهدا .. لقد قيل هذا الحديث قبل وفاة الرسول بعام بعد جهاد الرسول لوثنيات أعطاها الإسلام حق الحياة ( لكم دينكم ولي دين ) ولم تعطه إلا الموت . ......................... الحكم الديني لا يؤخذ من حديث واحد مفصول عن غيره ..وإنما يضم الحديث إلى الحديث ، ثم تقارن الأحاديث المجموعة بما دل عليه القرآن الكريم ، فإن القرآن الذي تعمل الأحاديث في نطاقه لا تعدوه (إنا أنزلنا إليك الكتاب بالحق لتحكم بين الناس بما أراك الله "..فالأحاديث التي ترغب في الفقر يقابلها التوجيه النبوي " إنك إن تذر ورثتك أغنياء خير من أن تتركهم عالة يتكففون الناس " / والتاريخ يشهد أن العشرة المبشرين بالجنة كانوا من أغنياء المسلمين بل زعم الرواة أن أحدهم خلف من الذهب ما تعمل فيه الفئوس ..يقول الشيخ أن المشكلة ليست في امتلاك المال الواسع وإنما كيف تمتلكه وفيم تنفقه ؟ ويتناول الشيخ بحذر شديد حديث مسلم " إن أحدكم ليعمل بعمل أهل الجنة حتى ما يكون بينه وبينها إلا ذراع فيسبق عليه الكتاب فيعمل عمل أهل النار فيدخلها ..الخ " فيقبله إن كان تنويها بشمول العلم الإلهي أما المعنى القريب فيرده لأنه مخالف للكتاب والسنة ..فنحن بجهدنا أو كدحنا ننجو أو نهلك ..وعقيدة الجبر تطويح بالوحي كله " من كفر فعليه كفره ، ومن عمل صالحا فلأنفسهم يمهدون " و " ذلك جزاء أعداء الله النار جزاء بما كانوا بآياتنا يجحدون " فلن تؤاخذ أبدا بشيء لم تفعله أو تغلب على أراداتك يوما فيحسب عليك ما لم تشأ ..والمشكلة تكمن في أحاديث صحيحة السند غير أن متونها تقف أمامها واجمين لنبحث عن تأويل لها أو مخرج مثل حديث "إن الله خلق خلقه في ظلمه فألقي عليهم من نوره فمن أصابه من ذلك النور اهتدى ، ومن أخطأه ضل " إن الله تعالى يطلب من الإنسان أن ينصف نفسه من نفسه " اقرأ كتابك كفى بنفسك اليوم عليك حسيبا " فهل يقال له ذلك وهو مجبور مسكين ؟ ................... وبأحاديث الجبر ينتهي كتاب الشيخ محمد الغزالى جزاه الله خيرا على اجتهاده ، مصيبا كان أم مخطئا ..ولكنه في الحالتين جدير بأن يقرأ كله بإمعان .
Then look at what he says about abrogation:
بطلان نسخ القرآن والمقصود بالنسخ هو القول بتعطيل العمل بآيات من القرآن الكريم، واعتبارها مجرد ذكرى يتعبد بتلاوتها فحسب، مع إبطال ما جاءت به من الأحكام الشرعية.
وهو ما رفضه الغزالي بشدة ووصفه بقوله: "هذا باطل، وليس في القرآن أبدًا آية يمكن أن يقال: إنها عطلت عن العمل، وحكم عليها بالموت.. هذا باطل.. كل آية يمكن أن تعمل، لكن الحكيم هو الذي يعرف الظروف التي يمكن أن تعمل فيها الآية، وبذلك توزع آيات القرآن على أحوال البشر بالحكمة والموعظة الحسنة".
بل يتعجب الشيخ الغزالي من المسلمين حين يقولون بالناسخ والمنسوخ، على أساس أن الناسخ الأخير أبطل ما صدر قبله من أحكام، وهم يلجئون إلى هذا الفهم إعمالاً للنص الأخير، ودفاعًا لما يتوهم من تناقص بين ظواهر الآيات.
و يصرح الشيخ أن التناقض بين الآيات في الأحكام تناقض لا أساس له من الصحة، وأن التشريعات النازلة في أمر ما، مرتبة ترتيبًا دقيقًا بحيث تنفرد كل آية بالعمل في المجال المهيأ لها، فإذا ذهب هذا المجال وجاء غيره تلقفته آية أخرى بتوجيه يناسبه وهكذا، فهل هذا التدرج في التشريع يسمى نسخًا؟.
ومع ذلك قد قبل الشيخ الغزالي النسخ إذا كان يقصد به أنه "تفصيل بعد إجمال، أو تقييد بعد إطلاق، أو تخصيص بعد تعميم، بيد أن ذلك شيء غير الزعم بأن هناك آيات بطل حكمها، أو وقف تنفيذها..".
ويرى أن القائلين بالنسخ بعيدون عن التفسير الموضوعي للقرآن الكريم، سواء كان هذا التفسير يتبع قضية واحدة في طول القرآن وعرضه، أو كان استكشافًا للوَحْدة التي تشمل أجزاء السورة، والتي تجعل آياتها معالم لصورة بينة التقسيم، مُتَعانِقة المعاني والأهداف، ولا يعد من النسخ التدرج في التشريع، كما الشأن في الخمر والربا، فليس في القرآن آية كانت تقول بحلهما، ثم جاءت آيات أخرى تحرمهما.
أما التدرج في الكشف عن حقيقة حكمٍ ما فإنه يبدأ تلويحًا يفهمه الأذكياء، ثم تزداد الإبانة بما يكاد يوحي بالحكم، ثم يجيء الحكم حاسمًا بالمعنى المراد، وقد تم تحريم الربا والخمر بهذا الأسلوب المتأني، وليس في القرآن نص بإباحة الخمر أو الربا !.
وفي آيتي الأنفال، الأولى التي ترى أن قتال المسلم أمام عشر من المشركين، ثم خفف الحكم ليكون المسلم مطالب بأن يقاتل اثنين، يرى الشيخ أنه ليس هناك نسخ، فالرخصة تستخدم في حينها، والعزيمة باقية.
ويرد الشيخ الغزالي على الأدلة التي قال بها مثبتو النسخ، كقوله تعالى: "ما ننسخ من آية أو ننسها "، فهو يرى أن الآية هنا المعجزة، وليس الآية الدالة على التشريع، وأن النظر إلى ما قبلها وما بعدها يؤكد أن معنى الآية هنا المقصود بها المعجزة. ويرفض الغزالي رحمه الله أن يكون هناك قرآن نزل ثم سحب قائلا: "ومن الشائعات التي انطلقت في ميدان النسخ أن هناك قرآنًا أُنزِل ثم سُحب! والمعروف في ديننا أن القرآن لا يثبت إلا بالتواتر الذي يفيد اليقين، وأن خبر الواحد لا يُثبِت قرآنًا أبدًا، فالزعم بأن قرآنًا كان ثم رُفع كلامٌ لا يُلتفَت إليه" (مائة سؤال عن الإسلام).
ولكن الشيخ الغزالي يقبل أن يكون القرآن ناسخا للسنة النبوية، وهو أمر يتماشى مع ما يراه من علو القرآن على السنة النبوية، ومن سبيل ذلك تحويل القبلة، ومنع تسليم النساء المسلمات لمشركي قريش
posted
yes but as u see I have a problem with participation as I dont have an Arabic keyboard and I have to use an online Arabic keyboard to type which is very time consuming.
It's a very "elitist" board actually with everybody there sir'ing and ma'aming each other and people who participate are at a very high level of knowledge. That's why they take good care to reference everything they cite very carefully. You'll be able to get to the SOURCES they get their info from using their accurate refereincing and you will be able to see how both sides discuss these issues , at least, a change from the one sided perspective.
-------------------- Noha Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"ما ننسخ من آية أو ننسها "، فهو يرى أن الآية هنا المعجزة، The Aya here refers to miracle as Shiekh said but how the miracle will be abrogated and forgotten to the prophet?! the close interpretation that it refers to the quranic verses,because miracles can't be forgotten.
Posts: 903 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Miracle replced by miracle refers to renewal. It's Mankind who forget the miracles of the prophets and go astray again then God sends another prophet with other miracles. There are strong arguments against the possibility of abrogation of verses as you put it and there are several other opinions about the meaning of "naskh" listed even in Ibn Kathir. Other scholars mentioned by ALghazaly have stated their arguments as well. Check out his books. There's an excerpt of one of them in that other thread where we talked abotu abrogation before.
Abrogation of the peaceful verses is an idea that is propagated by radical groups to justify their being so hot on THEIR concept of jihad , which in itself is twisted and faulty. Jihad has its set of rules and restrictions that THEY want to erase and disregard . It's the Bin Laden mentality.
If YOU go on propagating THEIR ideas, you're simply feeding the fire. You're propagating what you want to eradicate.
Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There it is what I copied before into another thread. I did promise to translate but I cant get round to do it at the moment. But , u,loveforever can read it..as well as other who read Arabic. I appologize to those who dont. It's just that this info is not available in translation
النسخ في القرآن كتاب الشيخ محمد الغزالي اسم الكتاب : كيف نتعامل مع القرآن في مدارسة أجراها الأستاذ عمر عبيد حسنة مع الشيخ محمد الغزالي - الطبعة الأولى 1412هـ / 1992 م دار الوفاء للطباعة والنشر والتوزيع ص 77..... [ طالما أن الخلود سمة القرآن الكريم ، فهذا يعني من وجه آخر خلود المشكلات والقضايا الإنسانية التي جاء القرآن لمعالجتها في أصولها ، وإن تغيرت في بعض فروعها وألوانها.. أي أن القرآن خالد ، والقضايا الإنسانية المطلوب علاجها أيضاً خالدة . ولا تزال في الإنسانية حالات كفر ونفاق ، وضعف في الإيمان واستكبار وعلل نفسية، وصور من الولاء والبراء والسقوط والنهوض ، والنصر والهزيمة .... إلخ فكيف يمكن والحالة هذه أن نعمل بعض الآيات ونعطل بعضها بسبب القول بالنسخ؟ وفي الوقت نفسه نقول بالخلود؟ وكيف يمكن مواجهة الحالات المتعددة التي ستطرأ على الحياة الممتدة المتطورة ، ومعالجتها بحل واحد انتهت إليه الجماعة المسلمة الأولى ، في ظرف تاريخي معين ، وشروط ميلاد وتطور معروفة ؟ هذه قضية هامة في نظري ، ولابد أن نعرض لها بشيء من الإفاضة والتفصيل إلا إذا اعتبرنا المجتمع الإسلامي الأول هو البداية والنهاية ، وبذلك نكون قد وقتـّنا ( أي جعلناه موقوتاً) القرآن بشكل عملي وإن كنا نرفض ذلك بشكل نظري..] ويقول في صفحة 78.... [ المجتمع القديم الذي نزل فيه القرآن هو مجتمع بشري ، وأحواله صورة مما يعتري البشرية على امتداد الزمن إلى انتهاء الحياة . فالحكم في أي صورة من هذه الصور هو حكم بطبيعته ممتد ، لأنه ليس خاصاً بهذه الصورة بل هو يتجدد مع كل صورة مشابهة لها إلى قيام الساعة. ومن هنا جاء الخلود. ] وفي صفحة 79..... [ لكن حينما نأتي لنقول : هذه الآية نسخت التي جاءت لمعالجة حالة معينة، نسخت بعد انتهاء الحالة في مجتمع النبوة فمعنى ذلك أن هذه الحالة سوف لن تتكرر في البشرية، وليست بحاجة إلى هذا الحل. لا يمكن أن يقع هذا في القرآن .. آية بطلت لأن حكمها انتهى ، والشخص أو الجزء الذي اتصل بها تلاشى ، لا يوجد هذا في القرآن إطلاقاً ] وفي صفحة 80 الذين قالوا بالنسخ في بعض الآيات التي كانت في مرحلة من المراحل تشكل حلاً لمشكلة قائمة ، وقدمت لها حلاً ، ثم حينما ارتقى المجتمع وجاءت مرحلة أخرى ، قالوا : بأن الآية السابقة نسخت مع أن المجتمعات تتكرر فيها مثل هذه الحالة السابقة التي كانت ! هذا عيب الذين يقولون بالنسخ : إنهم يظنون أن حكماً انتهى أمره لأن القصة لا تتكرر .. القصة إذا تكررت تكرر معها المتصل بها .. ويقول أيضاً صفحتي 80 ، 81 : شاع بين المتأخرين من المفسرين من أن النسخ ، بمعنى إبطال آيات في القرآن موجود .. وجدت أن الشيخ الفقيه المؤرخ الأستاذ الخضري رفض النسخ رفضاً باتاً وقال : لا يكون إلا تخصيص عام ، أو تقييد مطلق أو تفصيل مجمل .. والشيخ رشيد رضا فعل هذا بما هو أوضح وتكلم عن آية " وما ننسخ من آية أو ننسها " البقرة :106 فبين أن الآيات تكليفية وتكوينية ، وأن الذي تنسخه آية سورة البقرة هنا هو الآيات التكوينية ، وليست هناك آيات تكليفية نسخت بهذه الآية .. ومعنى التكوينية معروف وهو خوارق العادات التي كانت يؤيد بها الأنبياء ، وهي التي تتغير بتغير الأزمنة .. أما الآيات التكليفية فأنا نظرت إليها نظرة واقعية عند قوله تعالى "وإذا بدلنا آية مكان آية والله أعلم بما ينزل قالوا إنما أنت مفتر" النحل : 101 الخازن قال أن هذه الآية جاءت رداً على أسئلة بأن محمداً يقرر حكماً ثم ينسخه ! فتساءلت : هذه الآية من سورة النحل مكية ، أين هي الأحكام التي تـنـدر المشركون بها لأنها نسخت بعد أن نزلت وحدث اضطراب في تقرير الأحكام بسبب ذلك ؟ .. لا يوجد .. وهذا الكلام عن سبب نزول الآية مختلق. ولم يوجد أحد من المشركين قال : أن محمداً يقرر حكماً شرعياً ثم ينسخه .. ما وجد .. لأنه ما وجد حكم في مكة نسخ بآية مكية .. لم يعرف في تاريخ النزول ولا في تاريخ البشرية أن حكماً نزل في مكة نسخ بآية مكية ، القرآن لم يعرف ذلك.. فإذاً الكلام باطل ، ولا توجد أحكام بطل معناها .. وكل ما هنالك أن هناك عدة آيات نظر فيها ، وكان النظر قاصراً مثل قوله تعالى " الآن خفف الله عنكم وعلم أن فيكم ضعفاً " الأنفال : 66 فالآيات الأولى تأمر بوقوف الواحد لعشرة ، ثم نسخت بأن يقف لاثنين.. الشيخ الخضري رحمه الله قال : إن هذه رخصة مع عزيمة ، والرخصة مع العزيمة ليست نسخاً. الحكم الدائم الباقي : أن يقف المسلم لعشرة.. ويعود ليقول في صفحة 82 : ( والزعم بأن 120 آية من آيات الدعوة نسخت بآية السيف ، هو حماقة غريبة دلت على أن الجماهير المسلمة في أيام التخلف العقلي والعلمي في حضارتنا جهلوا القرآن، ونسوا بهذا الجهل كيف يدعون إلى الله وكيف يحركون الدعوة وكيف يضعون نماذج حسنة للعرض الحسن .. ولعل هذا من أسباب فشل الدعوة الإسلامية ووقوف هذه الدعوة في كثير من الأيام عن تبليغ رسالتها ، ظن أن السيف هو الذي يؤدي واجب التبليغ ! وهذا باطل باتفاق العقلاء. فقصة النسخ ، أو تحنيط بعض الآيات ، فهي موجودة لكن لا تعمل ، هذا باطل ، وليس في القرآن أبداً آية يمكن أن يقال أنها عطلت عن العمل وحكم عليها بالموت .. هـــــذا باطـــــــل .. كل آية يمكن أن تعمل ولكن الحكيم هو الذي يعرف الظروف التي يمكن أن تعمل فيها الآية ، وبذلك توزع آيات القرآن على أحوال البشر بالحكمة والموعظة الحسنة. ) وبالنسبة لآية " وما ننسخ من آية أو ننسها " البقرة 106 يقول في صفحة 83 : السياق قاطع بأنه لا مكان للقول بالنسخ التكليفي هنا .. والشيخ رشيد ذكر هذا الموضوع .. فالكلام في آية " وما ننسخ من آية أو ننسها نأت بخير منها أو مثلها ألم تعلم أن الله على كل شيء قدير " هو كلام عن قدرة وليس أحكام تكليفية وإلا قال : ( ألم تعلم بأن الله عليم حكيم ، مثلاً بدل " قدير" ).
Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by *The Dark Angel* aka CAT:
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:Originally posted by Snoozin No More:
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: All these religions are worshiping different gods
No, all these religions are worshipping the ONE God, just in different ways.
Not possible. Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddist, Hinduism, or whatever are worshiping different gods. There is only one true faith and there is in no possible way the one true God allows us to worship him any kind of way. Christians God has a son the Muslim god do not have a son. This is not the same god. Christians' god forbid idolatry; Buddism do not, this is not the same god.
NOOOOO, We were talking about the three religions: Islan, Christianity & Judaism all worship one God
AND THAT'S A FACT
They all worship one god but not the same god and that's a fact!
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Batman, non-stop, righteous machine:
quote:Originally posted by *The Dark Angel* aka CAT:
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:Originally posted by Snoozin No More:
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: All these religions are worshiping different gods
No, all these religions are worshipping the ONE God, just in different ways.
Not possible. Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddist, Hinduism, or whatever are worshiping different gods. There is only one true faith and there is in no possible way the one true God allows us to worship him any kind of way. Christians God has a son the Muslim god do not have a son. This is not the same god. Christians' god forbid idolatry; Buddism do not, this is not the same god.
NOOOOO, We were talking about the three religions: Islan, Christianity & Judaism all worship one God
AND THAT'S A FACT
NO not a fact chritsian creed say they worship jesus the son the father the holy ghost
this is corruption
Christians worship God, the Father!
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Not possible. Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddist, Hinduism, or whatever are worshiping different gods. There is only one true faith and there is in no possible way the one true God allows us to worship him any kind of way. Christians God has a son the Muslim god do not have a son. This is not the same god. Christians' god forbid idolatry; Buddism do not, this is not the same god.
What religion are you, that you believe in multiple gods like this?
I don't believe in multiple gods. Where in the heck you get that from?
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Question: How many times in your life have you or other Christians around you prayed in the following way; ...... in Jesus name I pray. ???
Posts: 2133 | From: Redneckland | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suggest you read the Bible in the original Greek. All of it. Otherwise you can't claim to understand Any of it. Posts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Undercover: I suggest you read the Bible in the original Greek. All of it. Otherwise you can't claim to understand Any of it.
Oh but I am not interested in attacking the christian faith all over the web. I dont particularly need to read the Bible.
Hey but the bible is not originally in Greek , is it? I thought it was Amaraic.
Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament was written in Greek.
HISTORY OF TRANSLATIONS
The first translation of the English Bible was initiated by John Wycliffe and completed by John Purvey in 1388.
A few chapters of the books Ezra (ch. 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26) and Daniel (ch. 2:4 to 7:28), one verse in Jeremiah (ch. 10:11, and a word in Genesis (ch. 31:47) are written, not in ancient Hebrew, but in Aramaic. Aramaic is about as closely related to Hebrew as Spanish is to Portuguese. However, the differences between Aramaic and Hebrew are not those of dialect, and the two are regarded as two separate languages.
From which language was the KJV was translated. Here is how it came about: 54 college professors, preachers, deans and bishops ranging in ages from 27 to 73 were engaged in the project of translating the KJV. To work on their masterpiece, these men were divided into six panels: two at Oxford, two at Cambridge, two at Westminster. Each panel concentrated on one portion of the Bible, and each scholar in the panel was assigned portions to translate. As guides the scholars used a Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, a Greek text for the New. Some Aramaic was used in each. They consulted translations in Chaldean, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian and Dutch. And, of course, they used earlier English Bibles—at least six, including William Tyndale's New Testament, the first to be printed in English. So what language did they use? Everything that was available.
The first American edition of the Bible was probably published some time before 1752.
posted
The reason the apostles wrote their New Testament books in Greek is that Greek was the dominant language, the lingua franca, of the world in which they lived. Prior to the 4th century B.C., Aramaic was the dominant language of the Mediterranean world, reflecting the long dominance of the Mesopotamian empires. But during the Golden Age of Greece, and especially as a result of the sweeping conquests of Alexander the Great, the Greek language increasingly dominated the international life of the ancient world. The Roman Empire, which overthrew the Greek powers, was known for its military and political superiority, and adapted the higher culture of Greece. Latin became the language of empire, while Greek remained the language of literature and philosophy.
quote:Originally posted by homing pigeon: Miracle replced by miracle refers to renewal. It's Mankind who forget the miracles of the prophets and go astray again then God sends another prophet with other miracles.
so what the benefit of the sacred texts isn't for reminding all generations about prophets,if you are right it means prophet Mohammed as the seal of prophets he should performed miracles greater than anybody came before including Jesus but as everybody knows Jesus was unique in everything birth,miracles,end so how your explaination can apply on prophet Muhammed's case.
Abrogation of the peaceful verses is an idea that is propagated by radical groups to justify their being so hot on THEIR concept of jihad , which in itself is twisted and faulty. Jihad has its set of rules and restrictions that THEY want to erase and disregard . It's the Bin Laden mentality.
If YOU go on propagating THEIR ideas, you're simply feeding the fire. You're propagating what you want to eradicate.
Abrogation not only based on one verse but there are another two verses: First Sura 16:101 [101] When We substitute one revelation for another,and Allah knows best what He reveals they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not. وَإِذَا بَدَّلْنَا آيَةً مَّكَانَ آيَةٍ وَاللّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا يُنَزِّلُ قَالُواْ إِنَّمَا أَنتَ مُفْتَرٍ بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ
The four greatest Scholars in Islamic History consensused about the abrogation is present in Quran and God knows the best as they said.
Second Sura 22:52 [52] Never did We send a Messenger or a prophet before thee, but, when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but Allah will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and Allah will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِن قَبْلِكَ مِن رَّسُولٍ وَلَا نَبِيٍّ إِلَّا إِذَا تَمَنَّى أَلْقَى الشَّيْطَانُ فِي أُمْنِيَّتِهِ فَيَنسَخُ اللَّهُ مَا يُلْقِي الشَّيْطَانُ ثُمَّ يُحْكِمُ اللَّهُ آيَاتِهِ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ
As you see from the verse above that scholars said prophet Muhammed was sitting with Quraish and said the verse 53:19 Manat and Al-lat are good Gods then Jabreal blamed him and said these verses were from Satan,then the above verse came to prove that God changes the Satanic verse by divine verse.
So from the above you can't based only on Ghazali and leaving other scholars and as I told you that Al-Azhar is teaching the abrogation as a subject,it's hard for one or two scholars to deny all that,and how prophet Muhammed couldn't distinguish between satanic verses and God verses styles by the way!!
The main point as Al-ghazaly said in his book فكيف يمكن والحالة هذه أن نعمل بعض الآيات ونعطل بعضها بسبب القول بالنسخ؟ وفي الوقت نفسه نقول بالخلود؟ He said How we can accept abrogation and the eternal of Quran?he hit the nail.this equation lead him to refuse the abrogation and to accept Quran without holes.
But he forgot to mentioned that if for every occasion and event God revealed verses as solution or wisdom it means most of Quran matching the events that happened before and the verse that revealed for this event can't match or life now,because the law always fitting its era WHICH prove that Quran can't be eternal but only historin book.
For example Muslim women still following verse in Quran that divorced woman has to stay four months untill married again to be sure she isn't pregnant althought she can make pregenancy test within five minutes, many examples not our issue and Jesus didn't give new law but he said I came to complete the law,Jesus's law was spiritual where anyone can follow it in anytime and this is why there is New and Old testeamnt,the propblem of prophet Muhammed that he left Jesus and returned back to the Law of Moses as Warqa Ibn Noufal said to Khadija about prophethood of Muhammed "this is the Law/code of Moses" and he excluded Jesus at all while Jesus said "Give what for Cesar to Cesar and what for God to God".Don't you agree?
Posts: 903 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Loveforever, I been thru these tafseers several times. You have selected the one sentence from a whole page that conveys what you want to say and omitted to list all the other explanations that the commentators have listed. This is such a vicious circle. You dont have to come and tell me there are people who say it is possible. I KNOW that. I am telling you there are even more people who say it is not possible. The question in the end of your post is posed by Ghazaly to say this cannot be possible because the quran is eternal... (Oh, for God's sake, Loveforever, you said you understand Arabic very well, come on!)
LOOK, Let me step out of my Muslim self for a moment and meet you on completely pragmatic grounds. One of the members of this board said once before that the problem with Islam is that it did not undergo reform like christianity did. Lets assume for a minute (only for the purpose of this conversation) that abrogation is true and Now some leading scholars and well respected religious figures say that it isnt true.That , consequently, means :1- the peaceful verses that regulate the relationship with the people of the book are still standing 2- The capital punishment for apostates does not exist.
Wouldn't that suit you? I say it should. It gives you what you want, doesn't it? Then why are you setting yourself up against it so much? Wouldnt it suit the whole world and propagate peace and udnerstanding? Then why do you work so hard at convincing muslims and non muslims that abrogation is true and turn around the effect?
In a PM I received from Undercover previously she insists that Muslims are only Muslims if they are fanatics and that all the rest of us are pretend Muslims because we dont live the same way that Mohammad lived and do what he did (from her point of view). Do you recognize what the effect of such assertions on pious moderate Muslim youth? If you keep on drumming such ideas into their heads, you are simply creating more terrorists.
I ask you, for God's sake, are you doing this on purpose, Loveforever? Is this a way for legitimizing the continuous conflict between west and Islam? so to give legitimate grounds for occupation of muslim countries, maybe? I mean, because it doesnt make sense on the religious or humanistic grounds at all ....so I have no choice but to pose a political theory!
-------------------- Noha Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Loveforever, when you were muslim is this how people got you to convert? Just because it made some sense to you at that time doesnt mean it makes sense. It must have been hard to have these questions thrown at you and you not know how to answer, must have helped convince you they were right, but there are answers and gratefully provided by homing here, If you are so happy with your chosen religion why do you have to keep trying to convince yourself you have chosen the right one?
-------------------- If you don't learn from your mistakes, there's no sense making them. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by homing pigeon: Loveforever, I been thru these tafseers several times. You have selected the one sentence from a whole page that conveys what you want to say and omitted to list all the other explanations that the commentators have listed. This is such a vicious circle. This is untrue I mentioned the beginning of Tafsir coz it's too long and I gave you the links to read.
You dont have to come and tell me there are people who say it is possible. I KNOW that. I am telling you there are even more people who say it is not possible. The question in the end of your post is posed by Ghazaly to say this cannot be possible because the quran is eternal... (Oh, for God's sake, Loveforever, you said you understand Arabic very well, come on!) The main point here that you can't say abrogation is a lie fake as you said before or hater's claim because part of scholars confirmed that it present in Quran,you should say no consensus on that which it's the truth I understand,but your denying in that way is dishonest.
Wouldn't that suit you? I say it should. It gives you what you want, doesn't it? Then why are you setting yourself up against it so much? Wouldnt it suit the whole world and propagate peace and udnerstanding? Then why do you work so hard at convincing muslims and non muslims that abrogation is true and turn around the effect?
Because it will contradict with Quran it's self Sura 4:82
[82] Do they not consider the Qur-an (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.
Abrogation=contradiction=discrepancy=read the verse again.
I ask you, for God's sake, are you doing this on purpose, Loveforever? No purpose at all just discussion and open some doors for who is concern.
Posts: 903 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
**** off all and stop this and join us in Eldon Motel where you can do what you want Posts: 61 | From: usa / cairo | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: so what the benefit of the sacred texts isn't for reminding all generations about prophets,if you are right it means prophet Mohammed as the seal of prophets he should performed miracles greater than anybody came before including Jesus but as everybody knows Jesus was unique in everything birth,miracles,end so how your explaination can apply on prophet Muhammed's case.
Every prophet was equipped with the miracles that would impress his people the most; his people as in the population he is first to address in the beginning of his mission. So because Moses's people were very well versed in the art of magic, God supported Moses with Magic miracles. When Pharoah called in the mightiest magicians of his realm to face up to Moses (the equivalent of a logic debate today, I guess!) the magicians recognized that what they were doing is magic but what Moses was doing was for real, soemthing out fo their world so they (being the experts on this) bowed down to the miracle and backed off accepting Moses and his God. With Jesus, his people were well versed (for their age) in the arts of healing and medicine so Jesus was supported by the gift of healing the ill and bringing back people from death. Similarly, Mohammad was sent to people whose main strength was linguistics and was supported by a miracle that challenges their most supreme abilities. On top of that, every prophet was supported by a set of extra miracles; in the case of Mohammad, it was for example the israa and miraaj...when he told his people about it, they tried to examine him by asking him what the place looked like in Jerusalem when they all knew he had never been there but some of them had been and knew the answers. He did tell them. He was also supported by the miracle that allowed his tiny army in Badr to defeat the huge unbeliever army with the help of a thousand angels sent down to fight with them. That sort of miracle,again is suitable for th Arabian desert culture. It is equivalent to Moses spliting the sea and going thru it which is suitable for Pharoah's magician culture. Today, you feel that Jesus is unique becuae probably you are impressed the most by his miracles....maybe we are like this in this time and age BUT remember those miracles were not sent for US, they were sent as proof to the peopel who first received them in order to establish the creed. And one of the interpretations of the concept of abrogation is about abrogation of the AGE OF MIRACLES altogether.
(By the way, I got that link from Farida on the Arabic discussion board I told u it was useful)
while Alghazaly's book, the sunna between hadith and jurisprudence ,that I gave u a link to earlier would address your remarks upon the hadith contents by displaying the big picture of collection of hadiths and history of what Mohammad did and the approach to their verification which should place some perspective in the way you view the more dubious hadiths that are in Bukhari. This is stuff that I gave a summary about before...so if what you need is the detail, check out the books.
Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I object to describing my position on abrogation as dishonest. It's like demanding that I admit that Bin Laden's view of jihad may be correct and that there is no consensus there.Or that I acknowledge the shi'a views on this or that. It's pointless.
The majority of Muslim scholars do not believe in abrogation. Ibn Kathir mentions it because it is talked about out there . He mentions it for academic completeness. It doesnt mean that he endorses it. He is just presenting the facts. Now when the major religious figures in the Muslim world take the information from the mother books and work out that Abrogation is not true, this is the consnsus that I give you. I'm not under an obligation to consider views of errant groups as well. I, as a person belonging to moderate muslim system (al3aqeeda alwasateya), have been warned against them. There are many hadiths that bring this warning up. I'm surprised you havent come across them.
Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El Don: **** off all and stop this and join us in Eldon Motel where you can do what you want
Your motel is in business because of the fanatic views being discussed here....people get frustrated enough to come to u...so go count ur blessings and let them be!! Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would also like to point out a few things that come back to link with the topic of abrogation.
- The few very early companions (not scholars) who thought abrogation was possible took this belief with a proviso of faith in God, Abraham-style faith, that if indeed it is there, there must be a very good reason for it. Their belief in abrogation did not lead them in the natural line you're taking that if abrogtaion is true, then the quran cant be divine. - The reports of these people when recorded in Ibn Kathir will take on, to some extent, the same shade of reservation (not denial, mind you) that has been placed on the bukhari system of collection of hadiths. How's that? When did Ibn Kathir live and die? IBN Kathir was born in 701 hijri. when did Alqortoby live and die? I dont have his birth date handy but he died in 1273 AD(verifiable from wiki). They never met these companions (like Ibn Abbas for example, who was the prophet's cousin and lived at the same time as him. He features in Ibn Kathir a lot because he was known to have a very good grasp on the quran.) and therefore the recording of the companions' views is passed on with a series of "3an3ana"..this person heard it from that person and so on. So it has the same limitation of the bukhari system. However, the idea here is that the reservations in this case are less relevant because IBN Kathir and other comentators are interpreting the quran based on THEIR study of it, only guided by the views of the companions, which as u have seen offer a range of views everytime....so that Ibn Kathir and Tabarry and others ultimately have to make up their own minds based on their taking in all the available information. The whole information is presented, anyway, for your guidance, for academic purposes. There wer no sloppy academics in the medieval islamic era
I'd also like to point out that the culture in Arabia was oral. History, poetry..etc were preserved orally across the ages...and a man's integrity depended on his spoken word to the point of life or death.....so, u c, it wasnt totally barking mad for bukhari and others to go collecting the hadiths in the way they did....
So where lies the problem? The further away you go from Arabia, the culture changes, the oral preservation of heritage is no longer the norm. Things start to get dropped, altered or extra bits added, some of which is wild and untrue. This was the basis of the beginning of the collection of the quran .... and the basis of the untrue claim that Othman changed the contents of the book; the truth of this story is that in the sprawling and extending Islamic empire, one of the state governors somewhere in Persia sent an urgent message back to Othman telling him he was concerned about the way the quran is being recited in his province because people are beginning to make mistakes in it; no oral culture and Arabic is not the antive tongue. He reported that there were some written versions of the book that were written down in those provinces in circulation that definitely had mistakes in them. At the time, there was only one written copy of the full true quran kept in safe keeping by .... cant remember which of the companions (have to go back and ask my mother becuase she teaches this bit). Othman ordered that every copy of the quran available other than this copy to be burned and they set about making a single approved copy for every province to be sent out to them.
As to the compilation of the copy that was in safe keeping. How do we know it is free from errors. You need to know the way they went about to compile it and how many quality control levels they employed. This is a long story and before I write it down I'm gonna go double check it with my mum and her references to make sure everything I say is correct.
You also need to keep in mind the political strife that was rampant towards the end of Othman's days and how the situation progressed leading to the development of the shi'a later on. It is acknowledged among hadith scholars that this political situation might have contributed to the smuggling in of fake hadiths into the Bukhari and others. The reason being that the shi'a having a problem with Ayisha and some other companions wanted to discredit them and so on. After all, they were all ordinary people liable to what we are all liable to. Bukhari's system might have helped exclude many thousands of unsubstantiated reports and hadiths but even Bukhari can not swear that he managed to exclude every doubtful one. That os the reason why modern hadith scholars have introduced new rules for verification of the hadiths. These are listed in ALghazaly's book that I mentioned in my previous post. Applying these rules, would exclude almost every one of the hadiths that you are unhappy with,loveforever.
Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad. I love all the Prophets of God. Thats why Islam is the religion of all Prophets begining with Adam and ending with Muhammad peace and blessings be upon them. ameen.
Posts: 4597 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
-I hope by your reply pigeon you can understand why First Council of Nicaea held by 1800 bishops on 325 AD to anounce the right faith from the other heretical ones and why they accepted the four canonical Gospels.it's the time for Muslims to do the same.
-I am totaly agree on your historical points,but my point that fathers of Islamic scholars mentioned many confused stuff on Islam in their Books that Sunna and Alazhar accpeted like Sahih Bukhari —Sahih Muslim —Sunan Abi Da'ud -Sunan Nisai — Al-Muwatta —Sunan al-Tirmizi — Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal and another bunch of books if I came now and quoted anything from any of these books you should accepted because Islamic council accredited them as genuine islamic heritage records but now Muslims discovered that they mentioned unbelievable events and deeds by prophet of Islam which conflict by the stereotype of righteous prophet infallible,who is the guilty me who is reading these books or Al-azhar that he is silent and accepting the contents of these books,if you are skeptic and other about these Tafsir and Sira books which you say they are untrue then the Islamic Council by the president Sheikh Qaradawi should be held and announce which books are authorised but leaving Muslims to flounder and non Muslims to use these stuff in their work against Islam.this silence is driving me crazy why the Islamic councils and Al-Azhar leaving all these books available without even warning which one is fake and you know that this silence consider acceptance.
Now due to this farce everyone starts to depend on his mind and accept what seems right to him and matching his rosy image ,do you agree?
Posts: 903 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank god someone else has the sense to look to the Nicean council for understanding. It was here that the various religions sat and BATTLED out what was to be in the Holy texts, who was who in the sotries and which of the Gods were to be revered. It was here that the concept of "trinity" divided Christianity and Islam, and it was here that the other Gods were "retired".
Religion pre-dates organized government, and each society had to find a way to order its members, and to control behavior. Knowing that faithful members will be praying 5 times a day seems a pretty sure bet to be able to control what and where they are no?
Posts: 1071 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is it so difficult to convey the concept that all the sunna books you mentioned are true and accredited within their limitations? I have no problems that the Azhar accepts them and I am not asking for them to be banned. I myself use them in the way that Alghazaly and other modern hadith scholars have suggested.
It's like looking at a research report about new medications. There could be some conflicting data there but that doesnt mean that the whole study should be rejected.
It is exactly for this reason that early hadith scholars like Bukhari and Muslim would not let anybody have their collections of hadith without having studied hadith science with them first. Apparently there is a problem with the availability of information in an uncontrolled way...people make conclusions when they are not quite ready or qualified to do so. Like self prescribing medication after self diagnosing from internet without haviing studied medicine. In some countries, you can just walk into a pharmacy and buy the medicine,too.
I dont agree that a Nicean Council is needed. I would certainly oppose with a vengeance that any group of people would sit and rewrite the quran for me so would every Muslim in existence .....but any QUALIFIED person is welcome to have a go at the sunna books and review the authenticty of their contents according to the additional conditions placed by jurisprudence scholars. The Bukhari is not at the level of the quran or anywhere near it. This, however, is not going to eliminate the early sahihs from existence....so how is that going to help? Already, the Azhar has pointed out which hadiths are considered "definitive" قطعية الدلالة and which are not i.e. ظنية الدلالة while the sahihs are still appreciated.
Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a question to you, Loveforever, why do you think that anything good or reasonable will be somebody's rosy view rather than the reality? Why dont you credit the possibility that it is the reality?
-------------------- Noha Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
my religion is best...NO! my religion is best...Neither is right, my religion is best...wanna fight about it!!! the fact of the matter is....god exists in each one of us, and he/she [(whatever you prefer)actually beyond the plurlatives] and all this entity wants us to do is to connect. it's not that my teacher is better than your teacher. everybody has different propensites toward god. some are attracted by love, servitude, knowledge, good works, or even friendship (something that APPEARS to be lacking here). Buddha appeared for a certain group of people, as did yeshua, as did krsna. it doesn't matter who you follow, because the goal is the same...just different paths...now you kids try to behave youselves...OK?
-------------------- when you see a sacred cow..milk it for all it's worth Posts: 72 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by krishna: the fact of the matter is....god exists in each one of us, and he/she [(whatever you prefer)actually beyond the plurlatives] and all this entity wants us to do is to connect.
The whole post is good but i like this part the most
Posts: 3128 | From: Not Your Heaven | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The concept of abrogation was invented to explain why Muhammad contradicted himself over the years. Consider the verses about wine. In one place the Qur'an says that wine has “some profit” (2:219) for mankind, but elsewhere declares it an “abomination, of Satan’s handwork” (5:90). Muslim scholars generally agree that the wine verses are a relatively clear instance of abrogation. Without abrogation, a pious Muslim would have to declare that "Satan's handiwork" offers "some profit" for mankind.
To quote Robert Spencer:
The Quran is basically a cut-and-paste job, with statements taken out of their original context. Verses are only partially ordered in terms of sequence and categorical subject matter. Chapters are mixed up in terms of temporal order of revelation. We need the Hadiths and Sira to sort out the chronological order of revelation. This is important for establishing a coherent storyline.
The chronology is also needed in deciding issues of abrogation. The doctrine of abrogation is approved in the Quran, whereby later revealed verses cancel out earlier ones where there is a contradiction between them. One needs to know the order. (Those of the Quran-Only Muslims who reject abrogation must nevertheless try to resolve some obvious contradictions, e.g., 2:256 is contradicted by 9:5 and 9:73-74, and others).
The other problem is categorization. The Quran is not organized into different categories of subject matter. But if we don’t know the exact meaning and usage of certain words and phrases (as would be detrmined by reading the hadiths and sira), how do we know the categorical subject matter of the verse? For example, does a particular instance of “those in whose hearts is a disease” refer to adulterers or hypocrites?
1. Removing the context provided by Hadith and Sira ends up making some verses even more objectionable. Without the Hadith and Sira, how does one explain these verses:
33:60 (Hilali-Khan) "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease (evil desire for adultery, etc.), and those who spread false news among the people in Al-Madinah, cease not, We shall certainly let you overpower them, then they will not be able to stay in it as your neighbours but a little while. 33:61. Accursed, wherever found, they shall be seized and killed with a (terrible) slaughter. 33:62. That was the Way of Allah in the case of those who passed away of old, and you will not find any change in the Way of Allah."
The verses call for killing of hypocrites. And what is “spreading false news,” and why does it receive the death penalty? Who are "those in whose hearts is a disease"? (Note that the parenthetical insertion pertaining to "adultery" in the above quote of 33:60 from Hilali-Khan is based on tafsir and Hadith). Some answers to these questions can be found in the contextual information provided in the Hadith and Sira. The tafsirs generally rely on those sources. Removing the Hadith and Sira, in the Quran-only approach, removes many of the apologetic options that defenders of Islam may use for in explaining away these verses (e.g., that the hypocrites in question had allegedly attempted sabotage or had committed treason). Consequently, the Quran-Only Muslim is left with trying to explain why the killing of mere hypocrites, or those who spread false news, is a religious duty. The defender of the Quran-only approach, in this case, can only imagine that "Allah" must have had a "just cause" to order Muhammad to order Muslims to kill the hypocrites. But what is a "just cause"? The Quran is too ambiguous, and contains too many injunctions to kill disbelievers without clear or sufficient justifications provided in the text (e.g., 9:5, 9:29, 9:12-14, 9:123, 8:39, 8:35), for us to have any confidence in a notion of "just cause" that is derived only from the Quran itself (i.e., without importing context from Hadith and Sira, and without importing modern legal principles and moral values).
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Christians worship God, the Father!
It is important that God as "Father" must not be viewed within a biological context. God as "Father" refers rather to a relationship; a description of the covenant and fellowship relationship between God and man.
Posts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This commentary was made by a premier Pakistani scholar.
On verses 2:106, 107
At first, Muslims used to pray with their faces turned towards the Baytul-Maqdis at Jerusalem; later on, Allah commanded them to turn towards the Ka’bah. Similarly, certain other injunctions were abrogated altogether, or replaced by others. …
"The people belonging to all the Shari’ahs are unanimous in accepting the validity of abrogation and its actual occurrence both. …
Imam al-Qurtubi says:
"It is essential to understand the question of abrogation, and great benefits flow from such an understanding, which no scholar can dispense with, and no one can deny abrogation except the ignorant and the dull-headed."
In this connection, al-Qurtubi has related a very illuminating incident. The fourth Khalifah Sayyidna ‘Ali saw a man preaching in the mosque. He asked the people what the man was doing. On being told that he was preaching, the blessed Khalifah said: "He is not doing anything of the sort, but only announcing to the people that he is such and such a man and the son of such and such, and asking them to recognize and remember him." Calling the man to his side, he asked: "Do you know the injunctions which have been abrogated and those which have abrogated the earlier ones?" When he confessed that he did not, the Khalifah turned him out of the mosque, and ordered him to never preach there.
In "The Qur’an and its Exegesis" Helmut Gätje quotes Zamakhshari and Baidawi on 2:106:
Zamakhshari and on 2:106:
(As the occasion of the revelation of this verse) the following is related: The unbelievers had challenged the canceling of verses and said: "Look at Muhammad, how he commands his companions to do something, and then forbids it to them and commands the opposite. He says something today and retracts it tomorrow." Thereupon this verse came down.
The sahih (authentic) Hadith contain numerous examples of Companions saying that various verses have been abrogated. Are the Companions reliable? And if they’re reliable, shouldn’t their narrations be accepted or at least given the benefit of the doubt unless other Islamic source material proves otherwise?
Ibn Sa’d states plainly that Gabriel recited the Quran twice to Muhammad in the year that he died and thereafter Muhammad met with Ibn Masud to review what had been abrogated. Neither Muhammad or Ibn Masud were familiar enough with the other Scriptures to evaluate them. Is Ibn Sa’d’s statement unreliable?
If one reads the Sira, one finds the historical facts and cannot escape abrogation.
How did all these different Companions derive the same incorrect understanding of abrogation, i.e. that one Quranic verse cancels another? Who taught them this false doctrine, or did they individually and independently come up with it? Why didn’t Muhammad or another Companion correct them?
Were all of them so far removed from Muhammad and was their understanding the Quran so inaccurate, that they could all invent, accept, and teach the same error?
Isn’t it possible that the Companions could have learned the doctrine of abrogation from Muhammad? After all, what does Aisha gain by saying that ten sucklings were abrogated by five? Why would Muhammad have to meet with Ibn Masud to discuss what was abrogated if nothing was abrogated?
Posts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've responded to all that before. It's a waste of time to do it again. If you read those responses you wouldnt be here bringing this up again but obviously all you can do is insist on what you want to see. Thankfully, there are other people who have a head over their shoulders and can put 2 and 2 together. You're nto bringing in any new arguments, just reiterting old ones.
-------------------- Noha Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Christians worship God, the Father!
It is important that God as "Father" must not be viewed within a biological context. God as "Father" refers rather to a relationship; a description of the covenant and fellowship relationship between God and man.
it is a symbol
Posts: 3128 | From: Not Your Heaven | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by homing pigeon: I have a question to you, Loveforever, why do you think that anything good or reasonable will be somebody's rosy view rather than the reality? Why dont you credit the possibility that it is the reality?
The possibility gives probability for the idea to be correct or wrong because our religion beliefs not based on evidences we have seen but on sacred texts we inherited along with historic support if available, we are only believing what we believe based on our communities high educated scholars that confirming our beliefs are right, at school,Mosques,Churches…all of us have blind faith to our religion although for most things we need a physical evidences and logically proofs to believe in something to the degree of follow it as fact.
We believed that Moses splited the sea and Jesus rised deads which it’s conflict with our logic and natural laws but we believed because others believed the same and trying to convince us that all these miracles and events happened in past were true, everything based on thinking and thoughts can't be absolutely right but what is related to sacred things like books or prophets we always thinking as we have raised that it should be infallible, for example if someone said Jesus killed and raped this will conflict with our stereotype on Jesus sinless concept though nobody living actually saw him this also apply on prophet Muhammad(with big difference),then at the end everyone will try to accept the good things and refuse the negative ones about inherited sacred things otherwise it means accepting the shock of being on the astray path infront the media propaganda that we are right and others are wrong ,the issue is very important for our eternal life, where we are going? Sometimes I envy the atheisms and deisms for their laying back of these arguments.
Posts: 903 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by *The Dark Angel* aka CAT:
quote:Originally posted by Undercover:
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Christians worship God, the Father!
It is important that God as "Father" must not be viewed within a biological context. God as "Father" refers rather to a relationship; a description of the covenant and fellowship relationship between God and man.
it is a symbol
Often when debates come up with Christians on the divinity of Christ, the passage from chapter ten in the book of John comes up; this passage is verse 30, which basically reads:
30 I and my Father are one
Now I don’t understand why many Christians would quote this verse, specifically Trinitarians, because what does this verse prove? Trinitarians do not believe Jesus is the Father, so why do they quote it? Are they quoting it to try and show that Jesus is equal to the Father? Well that isn’t true, since the Gospel of John shows the opposite, in fact if we quote one verse back we read:
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
This is verse 29, it comes right before verse 30, and in verse 29 Jesus says the Father is greater than ALL, this obviously includes Jesus since he is not the Father. So therefore how to Christians try and assume that this verse shows equality between Jesus and the Father is beyond me, just a verse before it Jesus says the Father is greater than everyone!
In fact this is not the first time that Jesus says the Father is greater than him, he does it again later:
28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I (John 14:28)
So here we once again have Jesus claiming the Father is greater than him, so how is Jesus equal to the Father when Jesus says the contrary? Now Christians have come up with a way of trying to explain this verse off, they say that Jesus was talking as a man here, that as a man the Father is greater than him, they try and say that the Father meant he is greater than Jesus in rank and authority and not in essence.
However so what did Jesus mean in John 10 when Jesus said the Father is greater than ALL? Jesus placed himself in the category of ALL people, so therefore the Christian response will not work for John 10:29. It must be said though that the Christian response does not work for John chapter 14:28 neither, because the Christian argues from silence and is arguing something they have yet to prove. Christians cannot prove that Jesus has 2 natures, they can never get a single quote from the lips of Jesus saying I am man and Divine, that I have 2 natures and I gave one up and took on the man nature, this is non-existent, so therefore the response is from silence provided with no proof or a solid basis.
1-The fact is the Bible shows that the Father is greater than Jesus in essence, the Father is all-knowing and Jesus is not.
2-The Father gives Jesus everything from miracle to doctrine.
3-Jesus begs the Father to save him, obviously showing that life and death is controlled by the Father and NOT Jesus.
For all these arguments the Christian will say as man Jesus is not all-knowing, as man Jesus receives things from the Father, however so I will kindly ask the Christian bring this proof from the words of Jesus, they shall never be able to do it, this doctrine is an invention and not something to be found from Jesus.
So therefore in conclusion, John 10:30 proves nothing in support of the divinity of Jesus, it does not show equality, since Jesus made it clear that the Father is greater than him, so therefore Jesus is not equal with the Father.
quote:Originally posted by loveforever: The possibility gives probability for the idea to be correct or wrong because our religion beliefs not based on evidences we have seen but on sacred texts we inherited along with historic support if available, we are only believing what we believe based on our communities high educated scholars that confirming our beliefs are right, at school,Mosques,Churches…all of us have blind faith to our religion although for most things we need a physical evidences and logically proofs to believe in something to the degree of follow it as fact.
We believed that Moses splited the sea and Jesus rised deads which it’s conflict with our logic and natural laws but we believed because others believed the same and trying to convince us that all these miracles and events happened in past were true, everything based on thinking and thoughts can't be absolutely right but what is related to sacred things like books or prophets we always thinking as we have raised that it should be infallible, for example if someone said Jesus killed and raped this will conflict with our stereotype on Jesus sinless concept though nobody living actually saw him this also apply on prophet Muhammad(with big difference),then at the end everyone will try to accept the good things and refuse the negative ones about inherited sacred things otherwise it means accepting the shock of being on the astray path infront the media propaganda that we are right and others are wrong ,the issue is very important for our eternal life, where we are going? Sometimes I envy the atheisms and deisms for their laying back of these arguments.
Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on ur perspective) this is what faith is about. FAITH does not happen in the mind.
But now u're confusing me. You're beginning to talk from a non religious perspective whereas only recently you were talking from a christian perspective. Which is it? Because if I am addressing a christian, I dont have to address the idea of faith since you would presumably already have it. A christian believes that Jesus was born of a virgin mother wihtout any proofs and that Jesus brought back people from the dead and so on. So if we're talking to another person who possesses this elusive entity "faith", the approach is always going to be different.
Do you want to discuss faith?
Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic