Slavery in Islam

[Abdullah]

Sister,

Two things:

First, I did not post anything from the site which you have posted from above...

And secondly, even that site [which you have posted from] does not say that rape victims should be stoned to death, it states an opinion of a certain 'Mufti Muneeb' that the perpetrator of rape [probably meaning if the raper is a married person] should be stoned to death [and not the victim]. And it states an opinion of a certain 'Javed Ahmed Ghamidi' that a rapist [not the victim of a rapist] commits adultery as well [probably meaning that the rapist commits adultery as well if the rapist is a married person].

The site which i posted from, is a site run by Scholars of the Deobandi Madrasah in India who adhere to the hanafi Madhab. The Deobandi Madrasah is a world renouned Madrasah that is held in high regards by great Scholars all around the world. Even Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi reffered to this School to back up one of his fatwas.

Here is the views regarding rape, from the Hanafi Scholars of Deoband [and the following views probably puts the above views into context]:

1) The Holy Quran prescribes the punishment of adultery in Surah Noor as under

The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. (24:2) ​

In this injunction the word zina is absolute and includes zina bil-raza (adultery) as well as zina bil jabar (rape). In fact it is common sense that rape is a more serious offense than what is done with free will. Therefore, when this punishment is prescribed for adultery with free will, the punishment for rape should be even more severe.



Although in this injunction there is also mention of the woman who commits adultery but in the same surah (Noor) those woman are raped have been exempted from any punishment. Therefore the Holy Quran says:

‘And if one force them (i.e. those women), then, (unto them) after their compulsion, Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.’ (Surah Noor, Ayat 33)​

​

From this becomes clear that if any woman is forced to commit Zina, then she cannot be punished for this, rather the one who transgressed will have to suffer the prescribed punishment (Hadd) which has been mentioned in Surah Noor, Ayat 2.


2. The stated Hadd of 100 stripes is to be inflicted on an unmarried offender. From the Sunnah Mutawatar is further proven that a married person is to suffer Rajm, i.e., lapidating in case he commits Zina. The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam did, in this case has not differentiate between Zina bil Jabr (rape) and Zina bir-Radha (adultery with mutual consent).

Sayyidina Wail bin Hajr radiallahu anhu narrated that during the days of Allah’s Messenger sallallahu alaihi wa sallam a woman had gone out to offer the prayer. On the way a man overcame and raped her. The woman cried for help and the man ran away. Thereafter the man admitted that he had raped her. The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam then inflicted the Hadd on the man only, and not on the woman.​

​

Imam Tirmidhi related this Hadith in his Jami with two different chains of transmission, and he declared the second chain of transmission as reliable. (Jami Tirmidhi, Kitabul Hadd, Bab 22, Hadith nr. 1453, 1454)

3. In the Sahih Bukhari is a tradition according to which a slave had raped a slave-girl. Sayyidina Umar radiallahu anhu then imposed the Hadd on the slave, but not on the slave-girl. (Sahih Bukhari, Kitabul Ikrah, Bab 6)

It is hence proven from the Holy Qur’an, the Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger sallallahu alaihi wa sallam, the decisions of the rightly guided caliphs and the noble companions radiallahu anhum that the same punishment which is to be inflicted in case of Zina bir-Radha is also to be inflicted in case of Zina bil Jabr. It is by no means in order to say that the Hadd mentioned in the Holy Qur’an and in the sacred Ahadith is to be inflicted only in case of Zina bir-Radh; and that it is not applicable in case of Zina bil Jabr.

Now arises the question why is there so much insistence on abolishing the shara’i punishment for Zina bil Jabr? The reason for this is an extremely unjust propaganda which certain circles are busily spreading ever since the Hudood ordinance has been implemented. According to this propaganda, if any rape victim intends to sue the offender under the Hudood ordinance, she is asked to produce four witnesses to support her claim. And if she fails to do so, she herself is arrested rather than the offender. This claim has been and is repeated incessantly, so far that even educated people began to consider it as true. And exactly this point has been used as justification by our president during his speech.

Now if as a result of such propaganda a certain matter is publicized so much that even the children on the streets talk about it, and then people tend to view anyone who talks against it as insane. But if anyone wishes to analyze the matter in a just way, then I would like to request him to leave all propaganda aside for a while, and consider the following points:

The fact of the matter is that I myself have been directly hearing cases registered under Hudood Ordinance, first as a Judge of Federal Shariah Court and then for 17 years as a member of Shariah Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court. In this long tenure, not once did I come across a case in which a rape victim was awarded punishment because she was unable to present four witnesses. It was actually not possible only because of Hudood Ordinance because according to Hudood Ordinance the condition of four witnesses was necessary only to enforce the Shariah punishment (hadd). But at the same time clause 10(3) was included to award the taa’zeeri punishment which did not have the condition of four witnesses. Instead the crime could be proven through one witness, medical examination and chemical analysis report. Consequently most of the rape criminals were awarded punishment as per this clause.

What we need to think is that if a woman was unable to present four witnesses and she was given punishment, which clause of Hudood Ordinance was used to award her the punishment? If anyone says that she was punished because of Qazaf (false accusation of rape) then Qazaf Ordinance, Clause no. 3, Exemption no. 2 clearly states that if someone approaches the legal authorities with a rape complaint, she cannot be punished in case she is unable to present 4 witnesses. No court of law can be in its right mind to award such a punishment. The other possibility could be that the woman is awarded punishment for committing adultery with free will. And if the court of law takes such a decision it may not be because the woman was unable to present four witnesses but because the court arrived at this decision after giving due consideration to all the available evidence. Obviously if a woman accuses a man of raping her but subsequent evidence proves that she committed adultery with her free will and her accusation proves to be false then punishing her will not be against the spirit of justice. But since usually there is lack of sufficient evidence to proof that the woman is lying, even such cases are rare. In 99% of the cases it so happens that the court of law is not convinced that the woman has been raped yet since there is lack of sufficient evidence to prove the willful involvement of the woman, she is given the benefit of doubt and set free.

read full article here [the article is by the great Mufti Taqi Usmani, who is one of the major Sheikhs of Deoband...]:

::: Hudood Ordinance ::::


What is the Islamic punishment for a rapist?


Answer: A. If he is an unmarried person the punishment is 100 lashes. If he is a married person, the punishment is Rajm (stoning to death). Where the punishment is 100 lashes, not death, the Qaadhi may add to the 100 lashes
an additional punishment, e.g. exile or imprisonment.

TheMajlis.net :: Journal Published by Mujlisul Ulama of SA


See, nowhere does it say that the victims of rapes should be stoned to death or even punished at all.


Please dont attribute to Islam and Muslims, untruths


"...and do not let the hatred of a people incite you not to act with justice. Be just; that is nearer to observance of duty." (5:8)

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

"These four schools share most of their rulings, but differ on the particular hadiths they accept as authentic and the weight they give to analogy or reason (qiyas) in deciding difficulties".

So explain my above example. The Hanafi Deobandi sect insist if a woman is raped or touched with lust by her father in law then her marriage is disolved. The other schools strongly disagree. Or is this one of those minor little questions about translating Arabic?

I note you ignored the whole topic but then you always do when it is apparent that your great scholars are doing something stupid.

"The mujtahidouns of jursiprudence do take the Quran first as their primary source from where rulings are derived, and they take the Sunnah as their second source. So what they do first is see if other Quranic verses interpret the Quranic verses in question, and then they turn to the Sunnah

So when Allah gives a clear and unambiguous punishment, why do they find it necessary to go trawling through the Sunnah, looking for monkeys and goats, in order to change Allah's punishment? Have you not heard that the Rightly Guided Caliphs all agreed that the Quran can only be abrogated by the Quran and the Sunnah can only be abrogated by the Sunnah. Therefore the Sunnah cannot abrogate the Quran in any matter. So it follows that if a matter is clearly dealt with in the Quran, it is matterless what the Sunnah says as we must FIRST follow the Quran and only look to the Sunnah when a matter in the Quran is not clear.

"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts, etc.) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like palms of hands or one eye or both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer dress like veil, gloves, head-cover, apron, etc.), and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms, etc.) and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands fathers, their sons, their husbands sons, their brothers or their brothers sons, or their sisters sons, or their (Muslim) women (i.e. their sisters in Islam), or the (female) slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And all of you beg Allah to forgive you all, O believers, that you may be successful. (Chapter #24, Verse #31)

Where did you get that drivel from? Here we go:

If I didn't have a clue about Arabic I might think that “juyubihinna" actually means FACE. There is no way that this word means face or body in Arabic. It comes from the root word meaning neck, collarbone in arabic.

B) Surah An-Nur, Verses #30 and #31
‘And Say to the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer palms of hands or one eye or dress like veil, gloves, head cover, apron), and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)

The "translation" of this ayah is particularly poor. The Arabic text is, "Wa qul li al-muminat yaghdudna min absarihinna wa yahfazna furujahunna wa laa yubdina zenatahunna illa maa zahara min haa wal-yadribna bi khumurihinna alaa juyub hinna". This is properly translated as, "And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their adornment except what is apparent of it, and to extend their khumur to cover their juyub". First, the word "juyub". This is the plural of the word "jayb", which means "bosom". The word is used in Arabic to refer to the breastpocket of a shirt, and to a certain type of mathematical curve. As well, Surah al-Qasas ayah 32 describes Moses as putting his hand in his "jayb", and this means his breast, not his "body, face, neck and bosom"!!! Whoever has translated "juyub" as "bodies, faces, necks, and bosoms" does not understand the Arabic language very well! To read about the mathematics, see The Origin of the Word Sine. To see an image of this curve, click here. Let's just say that, for most people, the image should remove any doubt over what part of a woman's body a "jayb" is! So I'm sorry whoever wrote this, "juyub" means "bosoms". There is no way to get the meaning of "bodies" or "faces" out of it, period. There is also the question of the meaning of "except what is apparent of it". The interpretation inserted here basically is that it refers to the outer surface of the garments that a woman customarily wears. This is the opinion of the Sahabi, ibn Masud (rAa). But it is hardly the only opinion! Shaykh Yusuf Qaradawi has provided an excellent survey of the opinions on this subject, which can be found in his book The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam. A summary is that of the Sahaba, Aisha Umm al-Muminin (rAa), ibn Abbas (rAa), Anas ibn Malik (rAa), and Miswar ibn Makhrama (rAa), and of the Tabi'un, Sa'id ibn Jubair (rAa), Ata (rAa), Qatada (rAa), al-Dahhak (rAa), Mujahid (rAa), and al-Hasan (rAa) all said that the meaning of "what is apparent of it" is "the face and hands". This is in fact the majority position on the meaning of this verse. The commentators on the Quran Tabari, Razi, Zamakhshari, and Qurtubi have all taken this position. Clearly then, this ayah of the Quran has not been taken by most scholars to command niqab.
Note: I have written an essay on this ayah, which is at A Study of Surah an-Nur ayah 31.

This comes from the site below, it was a 2 year study, by a Saudi Arabian woman, into the correct dress for Muslim women and if you go to some of the essays you can see how the interpretations of the Quran have been corrupted and words added where words simply do not belong. This is not an LM site, it is Muslim women doing a proper study into the Arabic language used in the Quran and the Sunnah, in order to establish our correct method of dress.

Examining the Dalils for Niqab

Or do Arabic women not understand their own language now? Perhaps you must have a penis to be able to understand the language?

"It takes a Mujtahid/Muffasir to understand the Quranic words correctly, for they have a deep insight into the Arabic language,

Oh look I was right, you do believe you must have a penis to understand the Arabic language. It is amazing Abdullah, only the people whose views you adhere to can understand the Arabic language, really it is sad to see such blindness.

"So do you want to argue against the experts of the Arabic language by saying, "well according to the apperant meaning of the word as it has been translated into english,

No I do not, I have given you an Arabic speaker above, who made a 2 year study of the verses of the Quran and hadith that relate to womens dress but of course she doesn't hold your views so must be wrong, despite her ability to speak Arabic.

"The cutting of the hands of the thief is verry clearly mentioned in the Holy Quran sister...The LM's cannot concede on this one, because to get rid of what they consider to be 'barbaric' is a one of their major aims, thus they will lie to you and confuse you with a manipulated and disotrted 'interpretation' of theirs in telling you that the traditionalists have got it wrong.

You are the one who is so keen on the correct Arabic translation. I gave you the Arabic and the root, so look it up - it means 3 or more. Now, I accept I only live with 80 million Arabic speaking people, some of whom make their living translating the Arabic language, so what can they know? Now explain to me how you can anatomically cut off 3 or more hands of one human person?

This is not to say I am against the punishment but as you know I object strongly to your scholars putting words in Allah's mouth.

"Allah does not make fardh what is too difficult for mankind to abide by, and the fact that learning to say Salaat in Arabic [or to understand the meaning of what one is saying in the Arabic recitations of Salaat] is not hard at all, goes to show that there is no injustice at all in Allah making Arabic recitations in salaat a fardh [obligation] for all mankind

Now give me the verse that states salaat will not be accepted in any other language than Arabic. Also explain to me why a traditional scholar who founded one of your beloved schools allowed salaat in Persian?

"Another wisdom behind why Salaat has to be said in Arabic, is that when a people leaves the orignal language of a religion/imperative religious practices, and adopts translations in it's place, then this is how gradually a religion and it's practices gets gradually corrupted and distorted, as 'translations' can easily faciliate the orignal teachings/meanings to shift from it's orignal teachings/meanings, wether it is done by 'flexibilty' that translation allows, or wether it is done with the deliberate intention to distort. Thus sticking to the orignal language of a religion blocks the paths to the religion getting gradually distorted.

So by your argument the whole world must speak Arabic as it's mother tongue. Anyone that does not, no matter how pious a Muslim they are by definition corrupted and distorted. Interesting view. So is Arabic your native language Abdullah? How many dialects of Aramaic can you speak and understand?

"That is correct, so the Sunnah is from Allah Himself, so why shouldn't we follow the Sunnah AS THE SECOND SOURCE OF SHARIAH [in importance to the Quran] as Allah directs us in the Quran to do so?

We should but what we should not do is say no we don't like what the Quran says so we shall follow the hadiths instead, which is what you do in so many cases. The Quran is the word of G-d and when a matter is clear we as humans have no right to go looking for alternatives. The Quran is uncorruptable, whereas the hadiths in many cases have been corrupted - the monkeys you never mention is a great example.

"And obeying/following the Sunnah is not worshipping the Prophet [saw]. Heres the evidence:

And whoever obeys the Messenger, thereby obeys Allâh. (4:80)
See

So you interpret this as "You don't have to obey Allah as long as you obey the Messenger because by doing so you are obeying Allah"? Yep, sounds like the usual nonsense. By following the Sunnah, in contradiction to the Quran that is what you are doing.

"Believe, then, in Allâh and His Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, who believes in Allâh and His words, and follow him so that you may be on the right path. (7:158)

Now isn't that an interesting one - the unlettered Prophet. We both accept that the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was unable to read and write, so how many hadiths did he write?

"Obeying and following the Sunnah is ordered by Allah in the Quran, and Allah makes it clear that the obeidence of the messenger [saw] is the obedience of Allah, so therefore, it is not idol worship but it is the worship of Allah.

When you take something from the Sunnah as truth that clearly goes against the Quran then that is idol worship, worshipping the scholars who according to you know better than Allah Himself. Good luck with that one.

 

[Muslimwoman]

sorry posted twice

 

[Muslimwoman]

Sorry I posted the first half twice and missed the second half

Let us discuss the case of Imrana and the fatwa against her by the Hanafi Deobandi sect.

I feel sure that you know the story so will not bore you with the details. Quick overview for anyone not aquainted:

She and her husband were legally married when her father in law forceably raped her. The scholars and jursits of the Hanafi Deobandi sect decided that her marriage was null and void because of this act of violence against her. She is no longer permitted to live with her husband (even though he wants to be married to her) and they are not allowed to marry each other in the future.

So this woman has been punished by the brutality of rape and is now punished by men by being taken away from her husband and home. Because her marriage is considered null and void she has no rights to maintenance payments, a home to be provided for her and she is now guilty of fornication with her father in law.

Of course to normal thinking people this is a matter of a human rights violation but not to the scholars. The Deobandi scholar Maulvi Mubin Akhtar Qasmi of the al-Mahad al-Qazi, New Delhi, says, ‘It is not advisable for ordinary people to issue statements on the Imrana case. The ulama have provided full guidance on every sort of burning issue. They are aware of international affairs and have full capacity of giving the right decisions’.
So they want us all to say "oh well they know best and forget about it", they state that the courts have no right to interfere in what is purely a religious matter. Yet the views of scholars from different schools are striking differntly in relation to this case.

So Abdullah let us examine what your wonderful scholars have said about this case.

Their whole basis of argument (and their only basis) and judgement is just one Quranic verse:

004.022
YUSUFALI: And marry not women whom your fathers married,- except what is past: It was shameful and odious,- an abominable custom indeed.
PICKTHAL: And marry not those women whom your fathers married, except what hath already happened (of that nature) in the past. Lo! it was ever lewdness and abomination, and an evil way.
SHAKIR: And marry not woman whom your fathers married, except what has already passed; this surely is indecent and hateful, and it is an evil way.

Now the Hanafi scholars interpret this verse as saying "a man is forbidden to remain married to a woman his father has sex with, even if forced".

Mufti Mukarram Ahmad also stated that if a father in law even touches any part of a daughter in law with lust then the marriage to the son is dissolved. So if my husbands father grabs my bum my marriage is dissolved, I have no rights to maintenance, a home, my children become illegitimate and lose their inheritance and no matter how much my husband and I love each other we are prohibited from marrying again.

Hell that sounds fair to me... are you all quite mad? Read the verse, a man is forbidden to marry a woman his father has been married to. Where does it mention rape, where does it mention touching in lust?

However, the Shafi and Malkli schools state that "no matter who rapes a woman her marriage is not affected because a haram act cannot make a halal relationship haram, as this would give the woman a double punishment and it is not allowed in Islam".

Maulvi Ikhlaq Husain Qasmi (Deobandi) stated "marriage is a blessing, it cannot be undone simply by an evil deed such as rape, no matter who the rapist is, uses the argument of Shafi". So he uses the Shafi view to explain himself but resolutely refuses to declare the Deoband fatwa void.

Mufti Muhammad Ahsan Qasmi writes that in order to resort to the ruling of another Muslim school on a particular matter there has to be a consensus of all the mufti's and ulama authorising this. Which very effectively lays down impossible conditions and therfore stops their own authority being undermined. This is all about power and ensuring the Deobandi school of thought remains a consensus, even when scholars accept that the view is wrong. It does nothing to protect the woman or her husband or the ummah. It is clear that large sections of the Deobandi ulama believe that if Muslims are allowed to resort to other schools of law in difficult situations their own authority would be undermined and they simply can't have that.

So what happened to your argument that only a husband, and not any third party, can end a marriage tie? Or do you say the marriage never took place because the father in law raped the daughter in law - so in fact the son and daughter in law must be punished for fornication?

These insane, power hungry men are telling this poor woman that if she goes to any other school of thought in order to save her marriage, as she wants to do, she will burn in hell fire forever. What sort of monsters are they? Marriage is sacred and cannot be undone by an act of rape and all this to protect themselves and their positions.

The Barelvi Maulvi Yasin Akhtar Misbahi, seeking to counter his detractors, he claims that the shariah, which he appears to equate with the traditional Hanafi corpus of laws, lays down such rules to ‘protect’ women.

These are the people you follow so blindly?

 

[Muslimwoman]

read full article here [the article is by the great Mufti Taqi Usmani, who is one of the major Sheikhs of Deoband...]:

If you bothered to read my posts you would see that you have simply quoted the exact same article that I had posted before you, wherein I pointed out the contradictions and asked you a number of questions about it.

So to suggest I read the full article simply shows you did not read my post or you would know this is the article I read fully and posted sections of to ask you questions.

 

[Muslimwoman]

Abdullah

I am trying to decide if you are just being bloody minded or you really believe that women are not killed under sharia law because they were raped. Read all of the above and then take a look at some Pakistani newspapers articles. If a woman cannot produce 4 male Muslim witnesses, that saw actual penetration and can confirm the woman cried out for help then she is accused of adultery and subject to rajm. I can find loads of scholars opinions that deny this, yet I can also find so many cases where it has been required. Now look around the internet and ask yourself why Pakistan is now known as the rape capital of the world - if you were a woman that had been raped would you report it and wait to see if you would be stoned to death? 2-3 women are now raped there every day, thousands and thousands are in jail waiting punishment for being a rape victim. You may claim not to follow blindly but you have to be blind not to see that in certain areas, sharia is set up in such a way that women are dying for being the victims of crime. It is not the police or local jurists that set this system up but the scholars.

I note that as our discussions have progressed you are posting opinions of more and more extreme scholars. You say things like perhaps he is talking about and he probably means......open your eyes Abdullah. You tell me women are not being oppressed in Islam, now look at reality, for some women they are not only being oppressed they are being murdered by the men controlling sharia. These men sit smugly and say the rape victim cannot be punished and then they set up a system that makes it impossible for a woman to prove her claim of rape and suddenly she becomes an adulteress and subject to rajm. The rapist on the other hand can repent and his punishment is removed or lessened - don't believe me, look around the internet. Look at the 6 men who gang raped a woman in the town square as punishment for something her brother had done. Despite hundreds of witnesses 5 were found not guilty and 1 had a lesser sentence because "he repented and the case was weak". If hundreds of witnesses make a weak case what do they need the angel Gabriel himself to bear witness?

I love Islam and I love being a Muslim but at least I am honest about what men have done to our faith. I accept that women are being treated in the most appaulling ways 'in the name of Islam' and no amount of posting scholars opinions is going to change that reality for millions of women.

14 young girls in Saudi were beaten back into a burning school by the religious police because they were not dressed properly. Numerous scholars came out in support of their actions. These girls actually died a horrible death because even though their heads were covered, in their rush to leave the building, they had failed to don their black sheet. Tell me honestly Abdullah, do you think if the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) had been there he would have allowed or approved of this?

This is the reality of sharia, not all the pretty words or the protection of the ummah but the murder of victims, the murder of girls trying to leave a burning building. Before you support something, without question, I suggest you find out how it is practiced in reality.

Your lack of humanity really offends me.

Salaam

 

[Abdullah]

[/color][/size][/font]

If you bothered to read my posts you would see that you have simply quoted the exact same article that I had posted before you, wherein I pointed out the contradictions and asked you a number of questions about it.

So to suggest I read the full article simply shows you did not read my post or you would know this is the article I read fully and posted sections of to ask you questions.

sorry sis, the article was taking so long to load, that I thought I'll give it a miss for the meantime...

 

[Abdullah]

So explain my above example. The Hanafi Deobandi sect insist if a woman is raped or touched with lust by her father in law then her marriage is disolved. The other schools strongly disagree. Or is this one of those minor little questions about translating Arabic?

Any differences arises for the reasons mentioned in the above articles...

So when Allah gives a clear and unambiguous punishment, why do they find it necessary to go trawling through the Sunnah, looking for monkeys and goats, in order to change Allah's punishment? Have you not heard that the Rightly Guided Caliphs all agreed that the Quran can only be abrogated by the Quran and the Sunnah can only be abrogated by the Sunnah. Therefore the Sunnah cannot abrogate the Quran in any matter. So it follows that if a matter is clearly dealt with in the Quran, it is matterless what the Sunnah says as we must FIRST follow the Quran and only look to the Sunnah when a matter in the Quran is not clear.

The Quran included the verse of Rajm in it, but then Allah abrogated it only in recitation but not in command.

The verses in which Allah tells us that the prophet's [saw] duty is also to interpret and expound on the Quranic verses for us, are verry clear indeed, thus we should look at the interpretation of the Quran [Sunnah] and not just the verses of the Quran.

The Sunnah makes it clear that the lashes punishment that is prescribed in the Quran is only for unmarried people who commit zina, and for married people it is stoning.

The principle of ijtihad/tafseer is to first look at how other Quranic verses may interpret the verse in question and then the Sunnah is looked into. The principle of first interpreting the Quran with the Quran does not mean that we totally overlook the Sunnah. the Sunnah is the meaning of the Quran so thus that should be looked into as the second source of shariah, in matters of jurisprudence and tafsir...

If I didn't have a clue about Arabic I might think that “juyubihinna" actually means FACE. There is no way that this word means face or body in Arabic. It comes from the root word meaning neck, collarbone in arabic.

B) Surah An-Nur, Verses #30 and #31
‘And Say to the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer palms of hands or one eye or dress like veil, gloves, head cover, apron), and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)

The interpretation of the above verse is correct according to the ijma of the mujtahids who are masters in Arabic and it's ancillary sciences...not one mujtihd has differed on it from the time of the prophet [saw] to this time...interpretations of non-Mujtahids are erroneous and spurious.

The hadiths...expound on and affirm the above interpretation. Allah makes it clear in the Quran that the Sunnah is the interpretation of the Quran, We cannot ignore the hadiths that interpret and expound on Quranic verses.

Oh look I was right, you do believe you must have a penis to understand the Arabic language. It is amazing Abdullah, only the people whose views you adhere to can understand the Arabic language, really it is sad to see such blindness.

Women can be mujtahids as well .

No I do not, I have given you an Arabic speaker above, who made a 2 year study of the verses of the Quran and hadith that relate to womens dress but of course she doesn't hold your views so must be wrong, despite her ability to speak Arabic.

Is she a mujtahid? ... did she take the Sunnah [the meaning of the Quran] into consideration?. did she take the shariah law of ijma into consideration?

You are the one who is so keen on the correct Arabic translation. I gave you the Arabic and the root, so look it up - it means 3 or more. Now, I accept I only live with 80 million Arabic speaking people, some of whom make their living translating the Arabic language, so what can they know? Now explain to me how you can anatomically cut off 3 or more hands of one human person?

Do you mean the word 'hands' in the verse means 'three or more'? how can 'hands' mean three or more?, it may mean 'two hands' as it has an 's' at the end, but that where the meaning of the Quran [the Sunnah] comes in handy and the Sunnah clarifies for us that we cut of one hand at a time, e.g, for first theft, cut of one hand, for second theft, cut of the other, etc.

Now give me the verse that states salaat will not be accepted in any other language than Arabic. Also explain to me why a traditional scholar who founded one of your beloved schools allowed salaat in Persian?

Being a universal religion, Islam is meant for all people with their different languages. Although Arabic is the language of the Qur'an and Islamic heritage, Islam did not aim at eradicating other languages that are mother tongues of Muslims in some parts of the globe. Islam views the differences of human tongues as one of the Signs of Allah in His creation. This is proven by the fact that Arabic is not the native tongue of the majority of Muslims. However, Muslims are required to perform prayer in Arabic with few exceptions, as in case of new converts until they become able to say their prayers in Arabic, according to the Hanafi Juristic School.

Explaining the wisdom behind this ruling, Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah in his well-known book, Introduction to Islam, states the following:

"(1) It is well known that during their service of worship [Salaat], Muslims employ only the Arabic language: They recite certain passages of the Qur’an and pronounce certain formulae to attest to the sublimity of God and humility of man. This is done both by the Arabs and the non-Arabs, even by those who do not know a word of Arabic. Such was the case in time of the Prophet Muhammad and such has been the case (since to this day, whatever the country and the tongue of Muslims.

read full article here [it also explains how Imaam Abu Hanifa later changed his view to that Salaat has to be prayed in Arabic]:

IslamonLine.net

The Prophet [saw] said: "Pray as you see me pray" [he prayed in Arabic]

One hadith says: "There is no Salaat for he who does not recite suraah Al-Faatihah". Surah Al-Faatihah can only be recited in Arabic for it's translation is not the Quranic surah of Al-Faatihah but only a translation of it.

And another conclusive and decisive evidence which I have is that, the view that Salaat is only valid in Arabic is the absolute consensus of the Scholars and the Sunnah clarifies that ijma cannot be wrong.

There may be more Quranic and Sunnah evidence but I am not aware of it.

So by your argument the whole world must speak Arabic ...the whole world must speak Arabic as it's mother tongue. Anyone that does not, no matter how pious a Muslim they are by definition corrupted and distorted. Interesting view. So is Arabic your native language Abdullah? How many dialects of Aramaic can you speak and understand?

Dont be silly , Allah has made praying Salaah in Arabic a fardh... People are free to talk their own languages and even read translations of the Quran and Sunnah, but it is well known that for a mujtahid to understand the Quran and Sunnah properly, they have be be masters of the Arabic language and it's ancillary sciences...

We should but what we should not do is say no we don't like what the Quran says so we shall follow the hadiths instead, which is what you do in so many cases. The Quran is the word of G-d and when a matter is clear we as humans have no right to go looking for alternatives. The Quran is uncorruptable, whereas the hadiths in many cases have been corrupted - the monkeys you never mention is a great example.

Your being silly again . The muslims say "we will look at the Quran and the hadith for Allah orders Muslims to obey the Sunnah and Allah tells the Muslims in the Quran that the Sunnah is the intepretation of the Quran that He will protect. So Muslims do not dismiss or overlook the Sunnah.

So you interpret this as "You don't have to obey Allah as long as you obey the Messenger because by doing so you are obeying Allah"? Yep, sounds like the usual nonsense. By following the Sunnah, in contradiction to the Quran that is what you are doing.

How can obeying the Sunnah be in contradiction to the Quran when Allah ordes us in the Quran to obey the Sunnah?

Now isn't that an interesting one - the unlettered Prophet. We both accept that the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was unable to read and write, so how many hadiths did he write?

His [saw] Companions [ra] wrote them down and memmorised them, just like they wrote down the Quranic verses and memmorised them.

When you take something from the Sunnah as truth that clearly goes against the Quran then that is idol worship, worshipping the scholars who according to you know better than Allah Himself. Good luck with that one.

The Sunnah can never go against the Quran because Allah orders us in the Quran to obey the Sunnah. What may seem conclusive from the Quran... [such as the punishment for zina verses], is acutally expounded on by the Sunnah, so that is why we should never draw our conclusions from the Quran alone...as Allah makes it clear in the Quran that the Sunnah interprets and expounds on the Quran and that we have to follow/obey the Sunnah.

Salaam

 

[Abdullah]

Sister, where Mufti Taqi Usmani says that in that verse the word zina is absolute in that it includes adultery and rape, then if you read what I posted from the same article, you will see that the mufti is infact using the word 'adultery' to mean 'zina' [fornication] and not to mean adultery in the sense which it is used to mean the zina of a married person. this is clear from the fact that in the part of his aritcle that I posted, he says that if the rapist is a married person, then he is to be stoned to death.

And if you had read that article, then surely you would have seen that he said that the rape victim is not punished according to Shariah, and he said that even if she alleges rape and does not produce four witness, then she still is not punished accroding to shariah...he also said that the claims of the western media that women are being punished in Pakistan for not producing four witness to back up their rape allegations is all propaganda, as he himself was a Judge for Hudood Ordinance, first as a Judge of Federal Shariah Court and then for 17 years as a member of Shariah Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court and never came across a case where a woman has been punished by the courts as such.

So after reading all of that, how could you allege that traditional Scholars say that victims of rape should be stoned to death?

 

[Muslimwoman]

The Quran included the verse of Rajm in it, but then Allah abrogated it only in recitation but not in command.

WHAT? Who did Allah nip down and tell this to? Even the narrators of the hadiths admitted they didn't know if the Prophet stoned before or after this verse was given. So obviously Allah came down and told someone, after the Prophets death, that He had changed His mind. I feel like I am banging my head against a brick wall and it is giving me a headache. If the narrators themselves had no ide then who guessed?

The interpretation of the above verse is correct according to the ijma of the mujtahids who are masters in Arabic and it's ancillary sciences...not one mujtihd has differed on it from the time of the prophet [saw] to this time...interpretations of non-Mujtahids are erroneous and spurious.

So in the last 48 hours they all made their mind up suddenly? You yourself said in the last 48 hours that the scholars have different views on this but today they all agree I must cover my face? And suddenly we reject all translations except the one you like?

The hadiths...expound on and affirm the above interpretation. Allah makes it clear in the Quran that the Sunnah is the interpretation of the Quran, We cannot ignore the hadiths that interpret and expound on Quranic verses.

IF SOMETHING IS CLEAR IT DOES NOT NEED EXPOUNDED ON.

Is she a mujtahid? ... did she take the Sunnah [the meaning of the Quran] into consideration?. did she take the shariah law of ijma into consideration?

Try reading the damned thing before you critisise. What has sharia law got to do with the price of fish? We are talking about Arabic transaltion, the sharia law (80% manmade) doesn't come into it.

Do you mean the word 'hands' in the verse means 'three or more'? how can 'hands' mean three or more?, it may mean 'two hands' as it has an 's' at the end, but that where the meaning of the Quran [the Sunnah] comes in handy and the Sunnah clarifies for us that we cut of one hand at a time, e.g, for first theft, cut of one hand, for second theft, cut of the other, etc.

Now read the Quran in Arabic. Look up the Arabic word I gave you and the root. The word used in the Quran literally means 3 OR MORE. You cannot change Arabic to suit your argument, it means 3 or more, fullstop, cannot be changed. Now look up the word for used for cut in the verse, it is mentioned in numerous other verses and not once does it refer to removing apendages - it always refers, in other verses to cutting of of wealth, food, company etc.

However, Muslims are required to perform prayer in Arabic with few exceptions, as in case of new converts until they become able to say their prayers in Arabic, according to the Hanafi Juristic School.

You know by now that when you state "Muslims are required" you need to state the Quranic verse.
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...nglish-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaEAskTheScholar

The Prophet [saw] said: "Pray as you see me pray" [he prayed in Arabic]

Gosh now I wonder if that was because HE WAS ARABIC??????

You seem to miss the point, the fact that a scholar was pressured into changing his mind does not change the fact that people did pray in their own tongue in the time of the Prophet - or did the scholar that started an entire school of thought simply make this up?

Dont be silly , Allah has made praying Salaah in Arabic a fardh...

Prove it, give me the Quranic verse. I said it before and I will say it again, just because you are prejudice does not mean that Allah is.

Your being silly again . The muslims say "we will look at the Quran and the hadith for Allah orders Muslims to obey the Sunnah and Allah tells the Muslims in the Quran that the Sunnah is the intepretation of the Quran that He will protect. So Muslims do not dismiss or overlook the Sunnah.

So why in G-d's name do you overlook the Quran, when it is clear there is no need or obligation to beyond the Quran.

How can obeying the Sunnah be in contradiction to the Quran when Allah ordes us in the Quran to obey the Sunnah?

ARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH. HE ORDERS US TO FOLLOW THE QURAN FIRST, DO YOU KNOW WHAT FIRST MEANS? IT MEANS BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE. He tells us to look at the Sunnah IF we are unsure about something, not just because the word of G-d doesn't meet with local customs. I swear I know dead people that understand that one yet time and time again it goes straight over your head.

His [saw] Companions [ra] wrote them down and memmorised them, just like they wrote down the Quranic verses and memmorised them.

So how did they all forget the verse about rajm? Unless Allah wanted them to?

The Sunnah can never go against the Quran because Allah orders us in the Quran to obey the Sunnah. What may seem conclusive from the Quran... [such as the punishment for zina verses], is acutally expounded on by the Sunnah, so that is why we should never draw our conclusions from the Quran alone...as Allah makes it clear in the Quran that the Sunnah interprets and expounds on the Quran and that we have to follow/obey the Sunnah.

May Allah forgive you. You are actually clinically insane aren't you? Did anyone ever explain to you that the Quran is the word of Allah? Look up in the Quran how many times Allah tells us that He makes the book clear for the understanding of mankind. Yet you have decided that Allah is a bit clueless and you can't believe what He says, without checking it against monkey and goats (I notwe you still don't mention them).

Well it has been interesting talking to you, now I understand why non Muslims believe Muslims are brainwashed because clearly you are.

 

[Abdullah]

Salaam

I got the interpretation of what constitues hijab, mixed up with the view that it is fardh in the above post?.

There is a consensus on hijab being fardh.

There is a difference on wether the covering of the face is included in the obligation or not.

It is good to see that you have given up on trying to convert me sis , because as I told you, the LM's are just wasting their time as the Muslims have concrete Quranic and Sunnah evidence, along with sound intellectual, logical and common sense arguments that clearly and unequivically shows them that their religion is true and Liberal modernism is full of kufr

It's been nice giving you dawah sis

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

Salaam

I got the interpretation of what constitues hijab, mixed up with the view that it is fardh in the above post?.

There is a consensus on hijab being fardh.

There is a difference on wether the covering of the face is included in the obligation or not.

It is good to see that you have given up on trying to convert me sis , because as I told you, the LM's are just wasting their time as the Muslims have concrete Quranic and Sunnah evidence, along with sound intellectual, logical and common sense arguments that clearly and unequivically shows them that their religion is true and Liberal modernism is full of kufr

It's been nice giving you dawah sis

Salaam

Brother Abdullah

I was never trying to convert you to anything, I am trying to make sense in my head of some of the issues I do not understand in Islam. The LM's at least speak to me in a way I understand, yet many times I disagree with them - I am more traditional than that. However, I am not as traditional as you and I find it so frustrating to speak to people who cannot discuss and look at these issues but can only quote. If that is how you choose to live your life then good for you and I truly hope it brings you peace in this life and the next. Personally I will never agree to something I am unable to understand or I feel is against Allah's intentions given to us in the Quran.

I still worry for you and hope as age catches up with you that you see that not everything is so black and white and that Allah and our Beloved Prophet (pbuh) taught us to be merciful, just and not to be prejudiced against each other.

My Allah grant you peace brother salaam

 

[Abdullah]

Salaam My dear sister Muslimwoman,

Sister, I only want what is best for you and my pointing out of your errors, some of them which are verry major to say the least, is not in order to be prejudice sister but to show you that that path is not the one that leads to heaven...it is in order to save you from harm sister and not to be prejudice towards you in anyway.

Surely sister you must agree that when a person realises that Islam is the truth and that the Quranic message is indeed from the Lord Allmighty, then he/she will want to make sure that he/she does not die as a kaafir, for it is clear in the Quran that a kaafir burns in hell for all eternity. So wouldn't you say that a true believer will be verry cautious of not adopting any beliefs or doing any acts which constitutes kufr?.

I myself am not a verry good Muslim at all and i lack in imaan and good acts verry much, but allthough I am a terrbile sinner and fear that I might end up in hell, I still sincerely [well I hope it's sincere anway] pray to Allah for Allah not to take me from this earth as a kaafir, or for Allah not to make me adopt any beliefs or do any acts which will render me a kaafir, for the thought of dying as a kaafir is the most frightening thought ever, and dying is a state of kufr is the worst thing that could ever happen to a person. For a Muslim sinner one day or another will end up in Paradise [even if he/she is punished in the hell-fire before doing so] but a kaafir never will...

Sister, I have shown you that it is the consensus of the Scholars from the time of the Prophet [saw] to this time that to reject Rajm is kufr.

To reject any Quranic verse is kufr

I have submitted a question to some Scholars and should receive the answer soon, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the answer is "the verse is absolutely clear that the hands of the thief is to be cut off, and it doesn't get any clearer or more decisive than this, there is no question at all of any Scholar from the time of the Prophet [saw] to this time not agreeing on it's interpretation, for the verse is clear even to the laymen, thus the rejection of the verry clear meaning and hukm of this verse no doubt constitues kufr and takes one out of the folds of Islam, by the absolute consensus".

I have no doubt at all that since apposing this shariah law [of hand cutting of the thief] and getting rid of what the Liberal moderinst munafiqeen regard as 'barbaric', they are lying to you and just pretending that the verse means 'three or more...' - since root meanings of some words can have more then one meaning and since Scholars have differed on the past about what meaning should be adopted, that is why the munafiqeen have chosen this line of argument to confuse their followers - because they cannot reject the verse outright, or else they would be clearly exposed as Munafiqeen even to the most gullible and ignorant of Muslims, so they are playing the card of confusing and decieving the people into thinking that there is a different intepretation to that verse.

Sister, also to mock or hate any part of the Sunnah/Islam is kufr as well...I have seen that you dont hesitate to mock, hate, insult hadiths and well established Islamic opinions that have been verifed and endorsed by the consensus...so this is another liberal moderinst attitude which is verry dangerous for a persons imaan.

To reject the Sunnah is kufr by the absolute consensus sister, and you have said that you dont even believe that part of the prophet [saw] mission was to convey the Sunnah [meaning of the Quran] and that his mission was only to convey Quranic verses. later when I asked "well why do you use hadiths to back up your views". you said that your teacher gives you authentic hadiths, when I pointe out the contradiction between the former and latter views, you said that you dont believe in the hadiths and that you just use them because other Muslims believe in them...so this is another one of your views which puts you in great danger of kufr sister.

The hadiths clearly say that consensus cannot be wrong, so that backs up the claims in which the ijma has agreed upon a certain belief/act constituing kufr, so that should worry a true believer in rejecting anything which the ijma says that constitues kufr.

When a person rejects many things on which there is substantial/concrete evidence that they constitue kufr, it makes you wonder wether the person is just a munafiqeen who is just pretending to be a Muslim...for a true believer will go nowhere near kufr...how can a person go anywhere near kufr, let alone embrace it, despite their being substantial/concrete evidence that it is kufr, when a person truly believes that Islam is the truth and a kaafir indeed burns in hell for all eternity and death could come any second?.

So sister, if you are a munafiq who is working on trying to get Muslims away from their religion, then please stop for I swear by Allah Islam is the truth and munafiqs will be in the bottom of the hell-fire...save yourself.

And if you are genuninely misguided, then please use a bit of common sense and wake up to the fact that the evidences which I have provided you in the various threads in this forum, is verry clear and overwhelming, and save yourself sister, save yourself from a fire that's fuel is men and stones.

May Allah guide you and save you,

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

So wouldn't you say that a true believer will be verry cautious of not adopting any beliefs or doing any acts which constitutes kufr?

wa aleykum salaam brother Abdullah

That is exactly what I am trying to avoid, which is why I question everything, from everybody, no matter whether they are extreme traditionalist or extreme moderate or right in the middle, I still question and I pray to Allah I will always question as protection against the fire.

I myself am not a verry good Muslim at all and i lack in imaan and good acts verry much, but allthough I am a terrbile sinner and fear that I might end up in hell, I still sincerely [well I hope it's sincere anway] pray to Allah for Allah not to take me from this earth as a kaafir, or for Allah not to make me adopt any beliefs or do any acts which will render me a kaafir, for the thought of dying as a kaafir is the most frightening thought ever, and dying is a state of kufr is the worst thing that could ever happen to a person.

Ameen

Sister, I have shown you that it is the consensus of the Scholars from the time of the Prophet [saw] to this time that to reject Rajm is kufr.

Incorrect, what you have shown me is that Umar decided this is what Allah and the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) would have wanted. This is not the same thing. And I have shown you the hadiths that question the narrators and they admit they do not know if the Prophet stoned before or after the verse was revealed. We know this punishment is not in the Quran and while there is any doubt in my mind, I could never agree to this or I will have no defence on the Day of Judgement. Please try to understand, I do not care about anyone's opinion but that of Allah. On the Day of Judgement if Allah asks me why I did not believe you about rajm I feel I can defend my belief but if I follow your opinion, against the Quran and my heart then I have no defence and will surely burn.

To reject any Quranic verse is kufr

I do not reject a single Quranic verse. I may not agree with your interpretations but I never reject anything from the Quran.

thus the rejection of the verry clear meaning and hukm of this verse no doubt constitues kufr and takes one out of the folds of Islam, by the absolute consensus".

Thankyou for throwing me out of Islam, I am sure Allah is happy that you have taken over His job as Judge of the people, no doubt He is tired and needs a holiday by now.

Nobody is lying to me, I happen to agree with cutting off the hand of a thief - I know I would not steal with such a punishment to look forward to. What I argued with you about was Arabic, scholars may interpret the Arabic word for 3 or more as one hand but that is just an interpretation of Allah's will not of the Arabic. The literal translation is 3 or more. And you know my views, if it is not in the Quran then no man has the right to put it there.

since root meanings of some words can have more then one meaning and since Scholars have differed on the past about what meaning should be adopted,

You see you explain it so well, the scholars have chosen to adopt one meaning because the Arabic means 3 or more, so they have to adopt a meaning.

Sister, also to mock or hate any part of the Sunnah/Islam is kufr as well...I have seen that you dont hesitate to mock, hate, insult hadiths and well established Islamic opinions that have been verifed and endorsed by the consensus...so this is another liberal moderinst attitude which is verry dangerous for a persons imaan.

Brother you are very quick to mock anything that does not agree with your vision of Islam. You also continually use the word consensus as though it is absolute, sorry but it isn't. We both know, because the scholars tell us, that some hadiths are unauthentic, some are weak and some are from unreliable sources, so why would you be offended if I mock them. Why are you offended that I do not know which ones to trust? Do you really believe that my faith in Allah is lessened because I will not accept and I mock the hadith about the monkeys?

To reject the Sunnah is kufr by the absolute consensus sister, and you have said that you dont even believe that part of the prophet [saw] mission was to convey the Sunnah [meaning of the Quran] and that his mission was only to convey Quranic verses. later when I asked "well why do you use hadiths to back up your views". you said that your teacher gives you authentic hadiths, when I pointe out the contradiction between the former and latter views, you said that you dont believe in the hadiths and that you just use them because other Muslims believe in them...so this is another one of your views which puts you in great danger of kufr sister.

You are putting words in my mouth again and I don't like that. What are hadiths? Are they from the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) himself? NO. The Sunnah of the Prophet is the way he lived his life after receiving the revelation of the Quran. This I believe in. However, we know that hundreds of thousands of lies were told about the life of the Prophet through hadiths - how many hadiths did Bukhari reject? We know that current scholars reject many hadiths in Bukhari's books as weak or unauthentic. So what I do not believe in is the hadiths en mass. This does not mean I reject them totally, where I can be shown a hadith is authentic and in line with the Quran I will accept it. But anything that has been shown, through 1400 years, to contain many lies is not something I will accept over the Quran.

So sister, if you are a munafiq who is working on trying to get Muslims away from their religion, then please stop for I swear by Allah Islam is the truth and munafiqs will be in the bottom of the hell-fire...save yourself.

Abdullah stop judging people, you are a person, you make mistakes, you commit sins, you are not the judge of anyone. I also suggest you get help for the paranoid episodes, what do you mean working on trying to get Muslims away from their religion? I haven't the slightest interest in your religious beliefs or anyone else's, on the Day of Judgement I will stand alone, I will answer only to Allah, as will you. Your scholars will not be beside you to answer for you, you must answer for yourself, your own thoughts and actions. For me this is enough to worry about without bothering what other people believe in. You may believe in 100 gods and choose to wear your underwear on your head - your problem not mine.

You strongly believe that you are on the right path and that is fine for you but do not expect everyone to have the exact same belief as you. You reject anything said by anyone that is not in your 'club'. There are Muslim scholars who do not agree with everything you say, they are good Muslims, they study hard, they devote their lives to studying Islam but because they do not agree with you in everything you insult them.

I love Islam, I chose Islam and I believe I am a good Muslim, I work everyday to be the best Muslim I know how, I learn the Quran, I study and I try to put into practice what I learn. Just because I do not accept everything you say does not make me a spy or a traitor or an unbeliever. It is time you woke up and realised that not everyone is the same, not everyone has the same views and not everyone except your club are going to hell fire, in fact there is the possibility that your club may go to the fire for ignoring the word of Allah and allowing their ego's to overrule what Allah has told us.

Salaam[/quote]

 

[Muslimwoman]

As this is one of your favourite sites for quotes I thought you might be interested in this:

A hadith was originally an oral tradition relevant to the actions and customs of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Starting with the first Fitna of the 7th century, those receiving the hadith started to question the sources of the saying [1]. This resulted in a list of transmitters, for example "A told me that B told him that Muhammad said". This list of the chain of testimony by which a hadith was transmitted is called an Isnad. The text itself came to be known as Matn.

The hadith were eventually recorded in written form, had their Isnad evaluated and were gathered into large collections mostly during the reign of Umar II (bin Abdul Aziz, grandson of Umar bin Khattab(RAA)2nd Caliph) during 8th century, something that solidified in the 9th century. These works are still today referred to in matters of Islamic law and History.

The hadith are prone to error and often misinterpreted. They are meant to be a secondary source of Islam with the primary source being the Quran

The histories and hadith collections we possess today were written down at the start of the Abbasid period, more than one hundred years after the death of Muhammad.

The scholars of the Abbasid period were faced with a huge corpus of miscellaneous traditions, some of them flatly contradicting each other. Many of these traditions supported differing views on a variety of controversial matters. Scholars had to decide which hadith were to be trusted as authentic narrations and which had been invented for various political or theological purposes

Hadith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Abdullah]

Salaam my dear sister Muslimwoman

The wikipedia site is not one of my favourites sis, but it sometimes can have reliable information on there, so I use any information that is reliable, or that points out a basic point that I'm making. Any people are free to put stuff up on the wikipedia site and anyone can edit it, so that is why not all stuff are reliable.

The wikipedia site is run by zionists? [well Jews at least] and I have seen that sometimes there is a biased slant on some articles that is put up about Islam.

Reliable source of information is the mainstream Muslims, otherwise known as the Ahle Sunnah Wal Jamaah. And i have shown from these sources that the Sunnah is reliably protected by Allah [swt] and thus, the traditional hadith classfication of the ahle Sunnah, can be trusted.

Although there are many 'weak' classified hadiths amongst the traditional compilations, yet the Mujtahidouns and the Mufti's do take the authenticity strength of the hadiths into consideration when they use them for rulings, thus the views of all the four madhabs can be trusted to be correct, as it is concretely proven that the Sunnah, which is the meaning of the Quran, will be protected alongside the text of the Quran, and that the generality of the ummah are divinely protected from having a corrupt interpretation of Islam.

Salaam

 

[Abdullah]

Sister,

You pointed out eariler that there are some hadiths in which the prophet [saw] prohibbited hadiths [other than the verses of the Quran] to be written down, well here are them hadiths in it's correct context:

It is true that in the beginning the Holy Prophet (

) had forbidden some of his companions from writing anything other than the verses of the Holy Qur’ân. However, this prohibition was not because the ahâdîth had no authoritative value, but because the Holy Prophet (

) had in the same breath ordered them to narrate his ahâdîth orally. The full text of the relevant hadîth is as follows:

Do not write (what you hear) from me, and whoever has written something (he heard) from me, he should erase it. Narrate to others (what you hear) from me; and whoever deliberately attributes a lie to me, he should prepare his seat in the Fire.” [Sahih Muslim]

The underlined phrase of the hadîth clarifies that prohibition for writing hadîth was not on account of negating its authority. The actual reason was that in the beginning of the revelation of the Holy Qur’ân, the companions of the Holy Prophet (

) were not fully familiar with the Qur’ânic style, nor was the Holy Qur’ân compiled in a separate book form. In those days some companions began to write the ahâdîth along with the Qur’ânic text. Some explanations of the Holy Qur’ân given by the Holy Prophet (

) were written by some of them mixed with the Qur’ânic verses without any distinction between the two. It was therefore feared that it would lead to confuse the Qur’ânic text with the ahâdîth.

It was in this background that the Holy Prophet (

) stopped this practice and ordered that anything written other than the Holy Qur’ân should be rubbed or omitted. It should be kept in mind that in those days there was a great shortage of writing paper. Even the verses of the Holy Qur’ân used to be written on pieces of leather, on planks of wood, on animal bones and sometimes on stones. It was much difficult to compile all those things in a book form, and if the ahâdîth were also written in the like manner it would be more difficult to distinguish between the writings of the Holy Qur’ân and those of the ahâdîth. The lack of familiarity with the Qur’ânic style would also help creating confusion.

For these reasons the Holy Prophet (

) directed his companions to abstain from writing the ahâdîth and to confine their preservation to the first three ways which were equally reliable as discussed earlier.

But all this was in the earlier period of his prophethood. When the companions became fully conversant of the style of the Holy Qur’ân and writing paper became available, this transitory measure of precaution was taken back, because the danger of confusion between the Qur’ân and the hadîth no longer existed.

At this stage, the Holy Prophet (

) himself directed his companions to write down the ahâdîth. Some of his instructions in this respect are quoted below:
1. One companion from the Ansâr complained to the Holy Prophet (

) that he hears from him some ahâdîth, but he sometimes forgets them. The Holy Prophet (

) said:

“Seek help from your right hand,” and pointed out to a writing. [Jâmi’ Tirmidhi]

2. Râfi’ ibn Khadij (

), the famous companion of the Holy Prophet (

) says, “I said to the Holy Prophet (

) [that] we hear from you many things, should we write them down?” He replied:

You may write. There is no harm. [Tadrîb-ur-Râwi]

3. Sayyiduna Anas (

) reports that the Holy Prophet (

) has said:

Preserve knowledge by writing. [Jâmi’-ul-Bayân]

4. Sayyiduna Abu Râfi’ (

) sought permission from the Holy Prophet (

) to write ahâdîth. The Holy Prophet (

) permitted him to do so. [Jâmi’ Tirmidhi]

It is reported that the ahâdîth written by Abu Râfi’ (

) were copied by other companions too. Salma, a pupil of Ibn ‘Abbâs (

) says:

I saw some small wooden boards with ‘Abdullâh Ibn ‘Abbâs. He was writing on them some reports of the acts of the Holy Prophet (

) which he acquired from Abu Râfi’. [Tabaqât Ibn Sa’d]

5. ‘Abdullâh ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Âs (

) reports that the Holy Prophet (

) said to him:

Preserve knowledge.

He asked, “and how should it be preserved?” The Holy Prophet (

) replied, “by writing it.” [Mustadrik Hâkim; Jâmi’-ul-Bayân]

In another report he says, “I came to the Holy Prophet (

) and told him, ‘I want to narrate your ahâdîth. So, I want to take assistance of my handwriting besides my heart. Do you deem it fit for me?’ The Holy Prophet (

) replied, ‘If it is my hadîth you may seek help from your hand besides your heart.” [Sunan Dârimi]

6. It was for this reason that he used to write ahâdîth frequently. He himself says,

I used to write whatever I heard from the Holy Prophet (

) and wanted to learn it by heart. Some people of the Quraysh dissuaded me and said, “Do you write everything you hear from the Holy Prophet (

), while he is a human being and sometimes he may be in anger as any other human beings may be?” [Sunan Abu Dâwûd]

They meant that the Holy Prophet (

) might say something in a state of anger which he did not seriously intend. So, one should be selective in writing his ahâdîth. ‘Abdullâh ibn ‘Amr conveyed their opinion to the Holy Prophet (

). In reply, the Holy Prophet (

) pointed to his lips and said,

I swear by the One in whose hands is the soul of Muhammad: nothing comes out from these two (lips) except truth. So, do write. [Sunan Abu Dâwud; Tabaqât ibn Sa’d; Mustadrik-ul-Hâkim]

It was a clear and absolute order given by the Holy Prophet (

) to write each and every saying of his without any hesitation or doubt about its authoritative nature.

In compliance to this order, ‘Abdullâh ibn ‘Amr wrote a large number of ahâdîth and compiled them in a book form which he named, “al-Sahîfah al-Sadîqah.” Some details about this book shall be discussed later on, inshâ-Allâh.

7. During the conquest of Makkah (8 A.H.), the Holy Prophet (

) delivered a detailed sermon containing a number of Sharî’ah imperatives, including human rights. One Yemenite person from the gathering, namely, Abu Shah, requested the Holy Prophet (

) to provide him the sermon in a written form. The Holy Prophet (

) thereafter ordered his companions as follows:

Write it down for Abu Shah. [Sahîh-ul-Bukhâri]

These seven examples are more than sufficient to prove that the writing of ahâdîth was not only permitted but also ordered by the Holy Prophet (

) and that the earlier bar against writing was only for a transitory period to avoid any possible confusion between the verses of the Holy Qur’ân and the ahâdîth. After this transitory period the fear of confusion ended, the bar was lifted and the companions were persuaded to preserve ahâdîth in a written form.

The Authority of Sunnah - Chapter 3

Salaam

 

[Abdullah]

Also, there is a hadith in which it says [to the extent] that if a layman follows the opinion of a mufti, and if the mufti gets it wrong, than the laymen gets no blame, but the blame will be on the Mufti, thus this should reassure us even more, that by chance if any opinion of a Mufti/Mujtahid that we follow should be wrong, than we will not be to blame.

Just want to correct an error, in the above statement.

The hadith actually says [to the extent] that if a person takes a fatwa, that is wrong, from a person who gives it without knowledge, then the taker will not be to blame but the person giving the fatwa will. [but not sure if the same applies to a person who takes fatwas of a person who he/she knows is not qualified as a true Mufti]

This 'blamelessness' of the taker is the same if they take a fatwa from a person [Mufti] with knowledge and that fatwa happens to be wrong, but in the case of a Mufti who is sincere when giving the fatwa and gives it to the best of his knowledge...and then gets it wrong, then I'm not sure if such a Mufti will be to blame as well.

Salaam