Joseph wrote:I'm having difficulty with your thread esp. after consenting to the basics which Muslims believe are necessary for reading Quran.
I am sorry but I dont know where you are getting this from Joseph.
Muslims read and understand the Quran in the following.
1) Understanding the Quran in its historical context:
Thus, first looking at the claims that no word in the Quran are the words of Muhammad but the direct commands and words transmitted to Muhammad from Allah through The Holy Spirit Angel Gabriel.
May be his Lord, if he divorces you, will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgin." sura 66:5
transliteration: AAasa rabbuhu in tallaqakunna an yubdilahu azwajan khayran minkunna muslimatin mu/minatin qanitatin ta-ibatin AAabidatin sa-ihatin thayyibatin waabkaran
arabic :
ุนูุณูู ุฑูุจููู ุฅููู ุทููููููููููู ุฃููู ููุจูุฏููููู ุฃูุฒูููุฌูุง ุฎูููุฑูุง ู
ูููููููู ู
ูุณูููู
ูุชู ู
ูุคูู
ูููุชู ููููุชูุชู ุชูุฆูุจูุชู ุนูุจูุฏูุชู ุณูุฆูุญูุงุชู ุซููููุจูุชู ููุฃูุจูููุงุฑูุง
and knowing what you like to do with translations, this is what the neutral online translation says using the rules of arabic : "His Lord
might... "
Have a look at the above sura and tell me why allah would refer to himself as "his lord?" Was allah only the lord of Mohammed or was he the lord of all the muslims? Why would allah refer to himself in the third person? And why utilise the uncertainty of
"May be?" It is an insult to believe that God would utter such a thing. Why would God use the phrase "May be?" To a rational individual this is Mohammed talking and has nothing to do with God. First of all God does not issue threats to massage a man's ego to put women in their place. Isn't it obvious by now allah/mohammed/jibreel are one and the same, using threats to get what he wants, in this case (sura 66) excusing his extra marital affairs.
This places the reader of the Quran as the third person witnessing the claims of transmission to Muhammad ie. Listening to a conversation being convey from A to B in which the reader is C, as the Quran was revealed dealing with the conditions and situations of the people at that time.
In shorter words. You have to approach the Quran first as to how it was revealed
What do you mean here, how it was revealed was a series of epileptic fits never witnessed in any prophet in the 3,000 + yrs span of judaism and christianity, however demon possession, and occultic phenomena regularly witness such behaviour as ringing bells, heart palpitations, sweating on cold days e.t.c.
. This does not consent to believe in it first, but to approach with a sound mind and heart.
I find it improbable anyone who is aware of how the koran was revealed, the historical context that led to it's creation can seriously believe anyone with an objective view can see that this is from God.
Joseph wrote:Somehow I get the impression by you admitting oral reports are unreliable then problem goes away, couple things wrong here. Necessary to admit of which is already established and the problem remains. Stating you quote only the agreeable traditions is irrelevant to question concerning relationship of the assumed uncreated and the created. More accurate illustration of that relationship is, Quran and Sunna.
:roll: You sound like my professor making no sense to an objectional approach. Sorry Joseph you lost me here bold.
I guess if the boot was on the other foot, you would be saying "you have terrible reading comprehension" at this stage. Quran is interpreted with hadith, ignore hadith quran cannot stand, instead you have 114 verses with no chronology or historical context whatsoever, a jumbled up mess, which is precisely what you believe in when you chose to ignore hadiths. The hadiths show islam to be nothing more than Mohammed's vivid imagination at best and demonic inspired at worst.
Joseph wrote:However, unless you're confirming Liberate's contention of personal brand of Islam, you can no more reject, as false, one contradicting or ludicrous tradition than single Quranic word. How then convenient and expedient for collapsing argument, Islam is suddenly 'Quran only' and to lay blame on Liberate and Newseed. Since you know which reports contradicts the Quran, provide the reference containing the false traditions. Show us your proof if you are truthful, so we may determine whether or not the higher Quran and Sunna depends on the questionable. Or is the challenge just divine prerogative of Muslims.
It seems Joseph you have not incountered what we brand as a TRADITIONAL muslim as opposed to those muslims who are ORTHADOX. You maybe getting these two mixed up with each other. But anyhow I would like to post the following post about how Hadeeth are accepted in the ORTHADOX manner.
Yet, on the other hand, you argue against the same idea in Islam, where there are supposed to be around 70 sects, and tons of hadiths, of which you reject so many, or perhaps even all...
We only accept hadiths that do not contradict Quran or contradict them selves unless the thing is overruled by the majority of hadiths but yet must not contradict Quran. This is how a hadith is accepted after tracing its chain of narration to be sahih.
Once it is Sahih then it is to be tested by the Quran and other sahih hadith for conflicts.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 546:
What is the first portent of the Hour? What will be the first meal taken by the people of Paradise? Why does a child resemble its father, and why does it resemble its maternal uncle"
This is Mohammed's response:
"The first portent of the Hour will be a fire that will bring together the people from the east to the west; the first meal of the people of Paradise will be Extra-lobe (caudate lobe) of fish-liver. As for the resemblance of the child to its parents: If a man has sexual intercourse with his wife and gets discharge first, the child will resemble the father, and if the woman gets discharge first, the child will resemble her."
By telling us that there is documentation that the jews tested Mohammed he is indirectly saying he believes this hadith, he is then indirectly saying he believes fish-liver will be eaten in paradise, and the reason why a child resembles the father is because of emission from him first or the mother because of emission from her first, this is nothing more than would be expected from a superstitious mind albeit with a vivid imagination, not from God. But will he now claim this hadith is a fabrication?
Would you care to show us where this hadith contradicts the koran, itself or other hadiths?
Are you sure you are objectively looking for conflicts with the koran and other hadiths or conflicts with your conscience.
Hadiths are not revelation and they are not the divine word of Allah but are commentary to the Quran (Sahih) that gives us insite on why a verse was revealed and show us how the Prophet practiced the aayaats of the Quran.
As you noticed I never use hadith to debate unless a hadith is presented to us by you all first.
Ofcourse you forget islamic 'states' use these hadiths for implementation of shariah law and to affect every aspect of a muslim's life, they do not treat it simply as insight into why a verse was revealed. It is obvious by now you are not a sunni muslim, or a shia, does your group have an official doctrine? or are you a nominal muslim making it up as you go along?