Show Posts
21
Sunni/Shia Religion / The traditional Qur'an VS The Qur'an
« on: December 21, 2011, 02:25:49 AM »
Salamun Alaikum,
I would take it as a fact that most of the members here already felt/known what I am about to say in this thread.
I was having a discussion with sunni-muslims on reciting in Salat. The topic is to reason why 17:110 goes against the traditional way to recite in Salat. Most people on the forum were either telling me to take it blindly or throwing personal attacks on me. But as usual, there are nice people in every community. Let me give you a summary of what I said there and what was the most strongest refutation to that:
============================================================
What I SAID:
============================================================
The reason that MOST people state is that this is derived from "Sunnah of the prophet". Let me requote the ayaat and try to reason why that is difficult for me to believe:
Say, "Call upon Allah or call upon the Most Merciful. Whichever you call - to Him belong the best names." And do not recite loudly in your prayer(Salatika) or quietly but seek between that a way. [Qur'an 17:110]
The Author of Qur'an (which I know as my and your God) explicitly told this to the Prophet. The Prophet uttered these words . How can he practice/teach to practice something straight forward opposite to it ?? Notice that I am not DERIVING MY OWN RULING. I am trying to resolve this issue so that I can derive GOD's ruling.
Qur'an commands us to obey the messenger, but it does not command the messenger to disobey Allah !!! And that is exactly what I am asking.
Let me give you an analogy, suppose this is an ayaat:
Let us assume that the prophet used to drink 3 glass of waters.
"Do not drink Cold water , or hot water, drink only normal water."
How can prophet reveal this wisdom from his own mouth and then go around drinking 2 glass of normal water and 1 glass of hot water ? Will you not say that this is not correct, the prophet can never do this.
That is what I find bothering about this topic.
=================================================================
Their Response A
=================================================================
Student of Allah, there are a lot of conditions to be understood first before interpreting an ayah, or hadeeth.
This includes, but not limited to:
- when it was revealed
- who it was revealed to (specific, or general)
- is the command of the ayah still valid, or was it replaced by any other command
- are there any explanation of the ayah from Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
- how did the Sahabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) understand it, and act upon it
- are there any consensus on the issue among the 'ulama
- any some other criteria.
When all of these are considered, only then one can go ahead in being confident in the derivation of a ruling, or the understanding of an ayah. If they still make mistake, they will inshaAllaah still get reward.
Without considering these issues, one is going to fall into error, and they will have to be accountable for their mistakes on the day of judgement.
Wallaahu A'lam.
================================================================================
Their Response B
================================================================================
The Scholars say in Tafseer that Allah the Almighty was addressing the voiced Salah not the unvoiced Salah in the verse 110 of Suratul Isra.
Quote for Ma'ariful Quran:
Ruling
The etiquette of recitation in Salah as given in verse 110 is that it
should not be in a voice raised very high, nor should it be in a voice so
lowered that those standing behind in the congregation cannot hear it.
This injunction, as obvious, is particular with prayers wherein the recitation
is voiced. As for the prayers of Zuhr and 'Asr, the recitation therein
is totally unvoiced as proved from uninterrupted Sunnah.
===========================================================
Their Response C
===========================================================
Student, Unfortunately you seem lost, the verse you quoted is in actual fact based upon certain circumstances in Makkah at the time of Rasulullah , Ibn 'Abbas explained the cause of revelation of the verse you posted:
صحيح مسلم
http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/d...id=1&startno=0
677 باب التوسط في القراءة في الصلاة الجهرية بين الجهر والإسرار إذا خاف من الجهر مفسدة
446 حدثنا أبو جعفر محمد بن الصباح وعمرو الناقد جميعا عن هشيم قال ابن الصباح حدثنا هشيم أخبرنا أبو بشر عن سعيد بن جبير عن ابن عباس في قوله عز وجل ولا تجهر بصلاتك ولا تخافت بها قال نزلت ورسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم متوار بمكة فكان إذا صلى بأصحابه رفع صوته بالقرآن فإذا سمع ذلك المشركون سبوا القرآن ومن أنزله ومن جاء به فقال الله تعالى لنبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا تجهر بصلاتك فيسمع المشركون قراءتك ولا تخافت بها عن أصحابك أسمعهم القرآن ولا تجهر ذلك الجهر وابتغ بين ذلك سبيلا يقول بين الجهر والمخافتة
I (and others) advise you don't make haste judgements or comments based upon your superficial understanding. If you read the above hadith from Sahih Muslim then you will realise how defunct your argument really is.
Allah revealed that verse for a reason.
If you read Tafseer Ibn Katheer, he quotes another narration from al-Dahhak from Ibn 'Abbas stating:
تفسير ابن كثير
http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/d..._no=49&ID=1073
أخرجاه في الصحيحين من حديث أبي بشر جعفر بن إياس به ، وكذا روى الضحاك عن ابن عباس ، وزاد : فلما هاجر إلى المدينة ، سقط ذلك ، يفعل أي ذلك شاء
Which Insha-Allah should close any further arguments.
==================================================================
Unfortunately, these people are not making anything up. This is the traditional approach to Qur'an.
May be I am wrong, but for me, the moment you add any text inbetween the text of Qur'an, you are not reading Qur'an . So, if these public survey known as "hadiths" and the tafsir provided by scholars are to be read along with the text to understand it, I hang at that point...................... then my brain has to reboot.
The bare minimum interms of necessity is that we need a guarantee of God for any such "hadith/tafsirs". How can you say that God guards the Qur'an and at the same time say that "hadith" explains it but itself is not guarded by God
If hadiths are not guarded by God and used to interpret Qur'an, why is God guarding the Qur'an even a sensible thing to do What is the point of guarding it ? Qur'an does not contain ANY WISDOM if you say that we need hadiths to explain it. If anything, hadiths need preservation because they explain the Qur'an. If without hadith, the Qur'an remains unexplained, then hadith is the most valuable source of Islam. I dont really understand why God would preserve the equation but not what the symbols mean. Unless ofcourse if the equation is self explanatory.
What further complicates the issue is "the GPS stamping of the ayaats". Take any ayaat that has a ruling, you can immediately change it by fabricating a hadith which has a story for this ayaat which makes it EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE ayaat.
We simply do not read the same book when we say that we have been studying the Qur'an. As a quran alone person, I read Qur'an. What the traditionalist does is something like this:
The ayaat (made up ayaat , not from Qur'an):
"O you who believe, do not drink the urine of camels. Anyone who drinks the urine willingly shall be slapped 101 times beneath both ears".
From my perspective, I get the following things out of it:
1. Command to not drink the urine of camels.
2. Law of slapping 101 times beneath ear if anyone does drink it knowing it is not to for drinking.
From the traditionalist perspective:
"O you who believe( the believing man), do not drink the urine of camels. Anyone who drinks the urine (only in month of ramadan) willingly shall be slapped 101 times beneath both ears".
1. If a MAN drinks the urine, it is punishable and a sin.
2. The sunnah as stated in tafsirs tells us that the official punishment is to strangle them to death, and if its ramadan, you will simply slap 101 times as the ayaat prescribes.
So, in the light of what I am saying, just what the hell makes the Qur'an worth preserving if all it contains is misleading ayaats, wrong punishments, wrong rules, and is incomplete by itself? If that is the case, I must bare witness that I have read better documents which are more complete,detailed and up to date.
May be I am wrong, but what I understood when anyone talks about preserving text is nothing like it. My idea was that the CONTENT should NOT BE CHANGED. That is what makes someone PRESERVE. If you inject hadiths,tafsirs,etc into it and make a cow out of a computer, what was the innitial point of preserving it ?
Sorry that I am talking without any structure in this thread. My point was to make it clear that when a traditionalist comes to talk to you, or when you go to talk to him/her about Qur'an, you guys are talking about 2 books from 2 different worlds. There is no common ground. You can not have a common ground with them if their Qur'an is 100 times bigger than your Qur'an.
Do you agree ? or disagree ? Freely criticize my view.
PEACE
------------ Student of Allah
I would take it as a fact that most of the members here already felt/known what I am about to say in this thread.
I was having a discussion with sunni-muslims on reciting in Salat. The topic is to reason why 17:110 goes against the traditional way to recite in Salat. Most people on the forum were either telling me to take it blindly or throwing personal attacks on me. But as usual, there are nice people in every community. Let me give you a summary of what I said there and what was the most strongest refutation to that:
============================================================
What I SAID:
============================================================
The reason that MOST people state is that this is derived from "Sunnah of the prophet". Let me requote the ayaat and try to reason why that is difficult for me to believe:
Say, "Call upon Allah or call upon the Most Merciful. Whichever you call - to Him belong the best names." And do not recite loudly in your prayer(Salatika) or quietly but seek between that a way. [Qur'an 17:110]
The Author of Qur'an (which I know as my and your God) explicitly told this to the Prophet. The Prophet uttered these words . How can he practice/teach to practice something straight forward opposite to it ?? Notice that I am not DERIVING MY OWN RULING. I am trying to resolve this issue so that I can derive GOD's ruling.
Qur'an commands us to obey the messenger, but it does not command the messenger to disobey Allah !!! And that is exactly what I am asking.
Let me give you an analogy, suppose this is an ayaat:
Let us assume that the prophet used to drink 3 glass of waters.
"Do not drink Cold water , or hot water, drink only normal water."
How can prophet reveal this wisdom from his own mouth and then go around drinking 2 glass of normal water and 1 glass of hot water ? Will you not say that this is not correct, the prophet can never do this.
That is what I find bothering about this topic.
=================================================================
Their Response A
=================================================================
Student of Allah, there are a lot of conditions to be understood first before interpreting an ayah, or hadeeth.
This includes, but not limited to:
- when it was revealed
- who it was revealed to (specific, or general)
- is the command of the ayah still valid, or was it replaced by any other command
- are there any explanation of the ayah from Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
- how did the Sahabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) understand it, and act upon it
- are there any consensus on the issue among the 'ulama
- any some other criteria.
When all of these are considered, only then one can go ahead in being confident in the derivation of a ruling, or the understanding of an ayah. If they still make mistake, they will inshaAllaah still get reward.
Without considering these issues, one is going to fall into error, and they will have to be accountable for their mistakes on the day of judgement.
Wallaahu A'lam.
================================================================================
Their Response B
================================================================================
The Scholars say in Tafseer that Allah the Almighty was addressing the voiced Salah not the unvoiced Salah in the verse 110 of Suratul Isra.
Quote for Ma'ariful Quran:
Ruling
The etiquette of recitation in Salah as given in verse 110 is that it
should not be in a voice raised very high, nor should it be in a voice so
lowered that those standing behind in the congregation cannot hear it.
This injunction, as obvious, is particular with prayers wherein the recitation
is voiced. As for the prayers of Zuhr and 'Asr, the recitation therein
is totally unvoiced as proved from uninterrupted Sunnah.
===========================================================
Their Response C
===========================================================
Student, Unfortunately you seem lost, the verse you quoted is in actual fact based upon certain circumstances in Makkah at the time of Rasulullah , Ibn 'Abbas explained the cause of revelation of the verse you posted:
صحيح مسلم
http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/d...id=1&startno=0
677 باب التوسط في القراءة في الصلاة الجهرية بين الجهر والإسرار إذا خاف من الجهر مفسدة
446 حدثنا أبو جعفر محمد بن الصباح وعمرو الناقد جميعا عن هشيم قال ابن الصباح حدثنا هشيم أخبرنا أبو بشر عن سعيد بن جبير عن ابن عباس في قوله عز وجل ولا تجهر بصلاتك ولا تخافت بها قال نزلت ورسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم متوار بمكة فكان إذا صلى بأصحابه رفع صوته بالقرآن فإذا سمع ذلك المشركون سبوا القرآن ومن أنزله ومن جاء به فقال الله تعالى لنبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا تجهر بصلاتك فيسمع المشركون قراءتك ولا تخافت بها عن أصحابك أسمعهم القرآن ولا تجهر ذلك الجهر وابتغ بين ذلك سبيلا يقول بين الجهر والمخافتة
I (and others) advise you don't make haste judgements or comments based upon your superficial understanding. If you read the above hadith from Sahih Muslim then you will realise how defunct your argument really is.
Allah revealed that verse for a reason.
If you read Tafseer Ibn Katheer, he quotes another narration from al-Dahhak from Ibn 'Abbas stating:
تفسير ابن كثير
http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/d..._no=49&ID=1073
أخرجاه في الصحيحين من حديث أبي بشر جعفر بن إياس به ، وكذا روى الضحاك عن ابن عباس ، وزاد : فلما هاجر إلى المدينة ، سقط ذلك ، يفعل أي ذلك شاء
Which Insha-Allah should close any further arguments.
==================================================================
Unfortunately, these people are not making anything up. This is the traditional approach to Qur'an.
May be I am wrong, but for me, the moment you add any text inbetween the text of Qur'an, you are not reading Qur'an . So, if these public survey known as "hadiths" and the tafsir provided by scholars are to be read along with the text to understand it, I hang at that point...................... then my brain has to reboot.
The bare minimum interms of necessity is that we need a guarantee of God for any such "hadith/tafsirs". How can you say that God guards the Qur'an and at the same time say that "hadith" explains it but itself is not guarded by God
If hadiths are not guarded by God and used to interpret Qur'an, why is God guarding the Qur'an even a sensible thing to do What is the point of guarding it ? Qur'an does not contain ANY WISDOM if you say that we need hadiths to explain it. If anything, hadiths need preservation because they explain the Qur'an. If without hadith, the Qur'an remains unexplained, then hadith is the most valuable source of Islam. I dont really understand why God would preserve the equation but not what the symbols mean. Unless ofcourse if the equation is self explanatory.What further complicates the issue is "the GPS stamping of the ayaats". Take any ayaat that has a ruling, you can immediately change it by fabricating a hadith which has a story for this ayaat which makes it EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE ayaat.
We simply do not read the same book when we say that we have been studying the Qur'an. As a quran alone person, I read Qur'an. What the traditionalist does is something like this:
The ayaat (made up ayaat , not from Qur'an):
"O you who believe, do not drink the urine of camels. Anyone who drinks the urine willingly shall be slapped 101 times beneath both ears".
From my perspective, I get the following things out of it:
1. Command to not drink the urine of camels.
2. Law of slapping 101 times beneath ear if anyone does drink it knowing it is not to for drinking.
From the traditionalist perspective:
"O you who believe( the believing man), do not drink the urine of camels. Anyone who drinks the urine (only in month of ramadan) willingly shall be slapped 101 times beneath both ears".
1. If a MAN drinks the urine, it is punishable and a sin.
2. The sunnah as stated in tafsirs tells us that the official punishment is to strangle them to death, and if its ramadan, you will simply slap 101 times as the ayaat prescribes.
So, in the light of what I am saying, just what the hell makes the Qur'an worth preserving if all it contains is misleading ayaats, wrong punishments, wrong rules, and is incomplete by itself
? If that is the case, I must bare witness that I have read better documents which are more complete,detailed and up to date. May be I am wrong, but what I understood when anyone talks about preserving text is nothing like it. My idea was that the CONTENT should NOT BE CHANGED. That is what makes someone PRESERVE. If you inject hadiths,tafsirs,etc into it and make a cow out of a computer, what was the innitial point of preserving it ?
Sorry that I am talking without any structure in this thread. My point was to make it clear that when a traditionalist comes to talk to you, or when you go to talk to him/her about Qur'an, you guys are talking about 2 books from 2 different worlds. There is no common ground. You can not have a common ground with them if their Qur'an is 100 times bigger than your Qur'an.
Do you agree ? or disagree ? Freely criticize my view.
PEACE
------------ Student of Allah
