Statements that became part of Quran

[raheel]

Hi there,

I've been a silent reader and just now decided to post my first comment for debate.

In terms of Islam's claims regarding Quran being divine, I wonder if anyone has thought about the statements by various people (including Prophet himself) which later became part of the Quran as verses, here is one example:

Muhammad meets Zayd b. ?Amr and offers him meat that was slaughtered for the idols (Sahih Bukhari, 7.67.407, 5.58.169) 
Volume 7, Book 67, Number 407:

Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said that he met Zaid bin 'Amr b. Nufail at a place near Baldah and this had happened before Allah's Apostle received the Divine Inspiration. Allah's Apostle presented a dish of meat (that had been offered to him by the pagans) to Zaid bin 'Amr, but Zaid refused to eat of it and then said (to the pagans), "I do not eat of what you slaughter on your stone altars (Ansabs) nor do I eat except that on which Allah's Name has been mentioned on slaughtering."
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 169:

In above example, as we can see that Zayd b. ?Amr's disliking towards the the meat slaughtered by Pagan Arabs later on becomes part of the Quran and its now one the most essential part of the Muslim faith, Halal Meat as we know it.

Quran says:
5:3. Forbidden to you (for food) are carrion and blood and swine flesh, and that which has been dedicated to any other than Allah, and the strangled, and the dead through beating, and the dead through falling from a height, and that which has been killed by (the goring of) horns, and the devoured of wild beasts, except that which you make lawful (by the death stroke), and that which has been immolated to idols.

Your feedback will be appreciated.
Raheel

[Student of Allah]

Salam,

The whole issue here is contradictory.
The reason:

You quoted hadith from books written and compiled 2 centuries after Muhammad. How can you say that this can not be forged ? These hadiths were all supposed to be collected and compiled by Mr. Bukhari without any authority of the prophet or the Qur'an. Otherwise, show me from the Qur'an where these teachings are allowed

To simplify the situation for you, let me give you an analogy. Muhammad was given a message, he delivered the message. He died.
>
>
>

200 years later (approximately)

This persian man Bukhari goes around in super human speed and collects 300thousand sayings from people that never even met the prophet. In the short time, he compiles his SAHIH book containing below 10,000(7something) hadiths. Which, again is authorised not by Allah or the messenger since its 200 years after his death, not even companions of Muhammad are alive.

Now, most of the muslims, left the Qur'an and use hadith for everything. O boy, history surely repeats itself

PEACE

-------------------- Student of Allah

[raheel]

Salam,

Interesting thoughts,  may be I can ask further:

1. Whats the proof that which one was written / recorded first ?

2. I know and understand that the Quranists (often known as Pervezy Group in Pakistan) deny the validity of Hadith altogether but I'm sure you would also agree that most of the laws, practises, and rituals that people follow in Islam are actually not from Quran but from Hadith.

Peace

Salam,

The whole issue here is contradictory.
The reason:

You quoted hadith from books written and compiled 2 centuries after Muhammad. How can you say that this can not be forged ? These hadiths were all supposed to be collected and compiled by Mr. Bukhari without any authority of the prophet or the Qur'an. Otherwise, show me from the Qur'an where these teachings are allowed

To simplify the situation for you, let me give you an analogy. Muhammad was given a message, he delivered the message. He died.
>
>
>

200 years later (approximately)

This persian man Bukhari goes around in super human speed and collects 300thousand sayings from people that never even met the prophet. In the short time, he compiles his SAHIH book containing below 10,000(7something) hadiths. Which, again is authorised not by Allah or the messenger since its 200 years after his death, not even companions of Muhammad are alive.

Now, most of the muslims, left the Qur'an and use hadith for everything. O boy, history surely repeats itself

PEACE

-------------------- Student of Allah

[Student of Allah]

Salam,

1. The creators of Hadith compilation coming to the world nearly 2 centuries after Muhammad's death is the proof. It is a very common practice for people to distort stories that they hear from people. This is why , total hear say information from 5th and 8th party collected 2 century after the death of the messenger neither makes sense, nor is honest. These hadiths that you see today are like the Jewish oral laws, they were never recorded until very very very late. So, Qur'an was recorded before that.

2. Yes I do reject all those Hadiths as source of DEFINITE RELIGIOUS teachings.


PEACE

---------------- Student of Allah

[Assassino]

Salam Raheel,

The only haram meat is the flesh of swine, carrion, meat served to Gods other than Allah or meat that has been killed in a brutal way. The verse you posted says meat served to other Gods are forbidden - thats it.

"Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah , and [those animals] killed by strangling or by a violent blow or by a head-long fall or by the goring of horns, and those from which a wild animal has eaten, except what you [are able to] slaughter [before its death], and those which are sacrificed on stone altars, and [prohibited is] that you seek decision through divining arrows..." (5:3)

"Lawful to you is game from the sea and its food as provision for you and the travellers..." (5:96)

This verse doesn't differentiate between sea animals (i.e. sharks, fish, whales, squid etc) but Sahih Hadith are in direct contradiction by stating animals of prey are forbidden to eat which means sharks, octopus etc are all forbidden.

"So eat of that upon which the name of Allah has been mentioned, if you are believers in His verses." (6:118)

There is no mention of "halal slaughter" in the Quran. However the Quran says we should mention the name of God on the food we eat and it doesn't differentiate between meat and non-meaty foods. The translation I'm using is Sahih International and they had the cheek to slip in "meat" in brackets (just Google it). Of course this is deceitful and many Muslims fall for it. So in conclusion you are free to eat all meat expect meat of the above examples. Halal slaughter was invented by Imams centuries after Prophet Muhammad's death so we don't follow that.

You might find this thread interesting.

http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9602816.0

[OPF]

Let's clarify something dude,  before you go all semantics on us. Are you talking about "Islam" or الإسلام, get that right first.

[raheel]

I know, I?ve myself been a long term Quranist rejecting the validity of Hadith altogether because essentially Hadith is nothing but the best of a memory recall of someone who lived during Prophet Muhammad?s times. But we also must not forget the typical argument that is followed in the Muslim world that says:

    Not everything can be found in Quran, you?ve to consult Hadith and even Fiqah (where Quran and Hadith can not help)

We also must not forget that some of the most essential part of Islamic Rituals are also followed as per the Hadith and Sunnat and they are nowhere found in Quran as such. I?ve no problem accepting the theory that Hadith can not be trusted but then you can not even be selective about the Hadith that whatever Hadith you like will be valid and where it wouldnt make sense you would start questioning about its validity.

By the way treat this post a series of questions not an allegation.

[Student of Allah]

    Not everything can be found in Quran, you?ve to consult Hadith and even Fiqah (where Quran and Hadith can not help)

Salam,

That is so true. But, the last time I checked, the rule to verify a "hear say" information was to validate it "at least" by matching it with the Qur'an. Why do the "hadith aloners" want to validate the other way round ?

If whatever is the general practice can only be found in the public survey of some Persian scholars, who validated them in the first place ? When such hear say information reaches a genuine scholar, isnt it his job to declare that as "Innovation" ? And when many of these hear say information contradict the Qur'an, isnt it the job of that collector/scholar to reject it since the "Furqaan" speaks in contrary to that ?

Let me share something about reciting in Salat. As I was reading through Qur'an 17:110 which says:

"Say: ?Call on God or call on the Almighty; by whichever you call on, to Him are the best names.? And do not be too loud in your SALAT, nor too quiet; but seek a path in between."

So, as a student, I was following this and my sunni friends when showed this verse brought me this link which provides the opinion of the scholars on the issue ( http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/67672/asr%20loudly )

What the scholars are saying is that you are supposed to follow the messenger as he is like an example for us. So, they advice you to pray silently in day time and in parts of prayer that the prophet prayed silently according to Hadiths.

My question was/is , when these hadiths were collected and direct contradiction with 17:110 was observed, who in their right mind approved these hadiths as authentic ? And if this is the way they judge, why do they say that Qur'an is the highest authority ?

I was watching this dialogue between Dr. Zakir Naik and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. Zakir naik was presenting verses from the highest authorities of hindu scriptures which say that God is one and there can be no image of God. And his argument was, Vedas being the highest authority proves the later scriptures as wrong to be saying that "there are many gods and you can make images/idols". So, even he understood, that the highest authority should act as a Criterion to judge. But when you ask him why you recite silently in SALAT when the highest authority(Qur'an) among your scriptures command you to follow a middle tone ? He , like all other scholars, will tell you, that he does it to follow the lower authority scriptures  .... 

These people are live examples for me to learn from. Educated Hypocrites !!!

Your questions are good , for learning and discussing. Keep them coming.

PEACE
------------------------------ Student of Allah

[Wilson]

Peace.

In above example, as we can see that Zayd b. ?Amr's disliking towards the the meat slaughtered by Pagan Arabs later on becomes part of the Quran and its now one the most essential part of the Muslim faith, Halal Meat as we know it.

Narrated Abdelilah:
Allah's apostle said that he met Raheel at a place near Yathrib and this had happened before Allah's Apostle received the Divine Inspiration. Allah's Apostle presented a dish of pork to Raheel, but Raheel refused to eat of it and then said, "I do not eat pork, because it is foul."
Volume 1, Book 3, Number 12

Now it is up to you to prove that the hadith you quoted has more validity and reliability than the supermega sahih hadith I quoted.

We also must not forget that some of the most essential part of Islamic Rituals are also followed as per the Hadith and Sunnat and they are nowhere found in Quran as such. I?ve no problem accepting the theory that Hadith can not be trusted but then you can not even be selective about the Hadith that whatever Hadith you like will be valid and where it wouldnt make sense you would start questioning about its validity.

Nowhere in the reading will you find that you should do a handstand and a roll over every morning after waking up. If it's not in there, it's not in there. Now you can bring up whatever "islamic" ritual you want, but if it's not in the book, then why even bother? Shall you seek other than the god as a judge when he has sent down to you the book fully detailed?


Abdelilah

[raheel]

That is so true. But, the last time I checked, the rule to verify a "hear say" information was to validate it "at least" by matching it with the Qur'an. Why do the "hadith aloners" want to validate the other way round ?

Peace:

The people do claim that the Sahi (Bukhari and Muslim) hadith are the validated ones while the others can not be trusted. As I said before, I've no problem with your theory but I simply dont understand why then people impose their ideas on masses saying its all in Hadith and Sunnah and you'll have to accept it.

My question was/is , when these hadiths were collected and direct contradiction with 17:110 was observed, who in their right mind approved these hadiths as authentic ? And if this is the way they judge, why do they say that Qur'an is the highest authority ?

By the way, how was Quran collected ? any ideas ...