A question about Islam...

Argue for and against religions and philosophies which are not Christian

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Taff Lafferty
Apprentice
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun May 15, 2016 1:21 pm
Location: loughborough

A question about Islam...

Post #1

Post by Taff Lafferty »

Why does the Quran require the Hadith to explain it?
Taff Lafferty

I see you

User avatar
Taff Lafferty
Apprentice
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun May 15, 2016 1:21 pm
Location: loughborough

Re: A question about Islam...

Post #11

Post by Taff Lafferty »

[Replying to post 10 by Al-Fatihah]

Two statements by you sir.

1 It does not require it. Hadith can further expound on it.

2. The Qur'an does not need the hadith to expound on it

Two statements which is the correct answer,

1. The Quran needs the Hadith to expound it
2. The Quran doesn't need the Hadith to expound on it.
Taff Lafferty

I see you

Al-Fatihah
Student
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 5:47 am

Re: A question about Islam...

Post #12

Post by Al-Fatihah »

Taff Lafferty wrote: [Replying to post 10 by Al-Fatihah]

Two statements by you sir.

1 It does not require it. Hadith can further expound on it.

2. The Qur'an does not need the hadith to expound on it

Two statements which is the correct answer,

1. The Quran needs the Hadith to expound it
2. The Quran doesn't need the Hadith to expound on it.
Response: They both are correct.

2 statements put together.

The Qur'an does not need or require the hadiths. The hadith can further expound on it.

User avatar
Taff Lafferty
Apprentice
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun May 15, 2016 1:21 pm
Location: loughborough

Post #13

Post by Taff Lafferty »

Well your not helping my opinion of Islam, your slippier than an eel covered in vaseline.
Taff Lafferty

I see you

Al-Fatihah
Student
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 5:47 am

Post #14

Post by Al-Fatihah »

Taff Lafferty wrote: Well your not helping my opinion of Islam, your slippier than an eel covered in vaseline.
Response: I'm not accountable for your ability to comprehend.

User avatar
Taff Lafferty
Apprentice
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun May 15, 2016 1:21 pm
Location: loughborough

Post #15

Post by Taff Lafferty »

So these hadiths, what are they for?
Taff Lafferty

I see you

Al-Fatihah
Student
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 5:47 am

Post #16

Post by Al-Fatihah »

Taff Lafferty wrote: So these hadiths, what are they for?
Response: They are a documentation of the ways of the Prophet so that people can have an example to follow. For example, the Qur'an says to give to charity. The hadiths include stories of the ways the Prophet gave to charity. The Qur'an will say to be humble and kind. The hadith tells stories about how kind and humble the Prophet would behave.

As you should be able to see, the Qur'an and hadith give the same message The hadith just goes further and gives an example through the life of the Prophet.

User avatar
Taff Lafferty
Apprentice
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun May 15, 2016 1:21 pm
Location: loughborough

Post #17

Post by Taff Lafferty »

Thats not entirely correct though, the Etymology of the word undoes what you state their purpose is (report, account and narrative).

On top of that their is the split in the hadith;

al-Bukhari (died 870) included 7275 hadiths
Muslim b. al-Hajjaj (died 875) included 9200.
Abu Da'ud (died 888)
al-Tirmidhi (died 892)
al-Nasa'i (died 915)
Ibn Maja (died 886).

Then there is the split (Sunni , Shia, Ibadi), Shia only accepts four books of the Kutub al-Sittah (6 Books) Sunni is the larger sect (Traditional approx 1.5billion) and Shia roughly only make up around 10%-12% approx 170,000,000. Shia is further split into 3 Sects. The Ibadi adherents who and which both predate the other 2 sects follows shia in public?

The hadiths are an escape clause for the imperfect Quran, in my opinion, ill further explain this in the summing up, trying to clear up this so far deceptive thread.

The Quran is supposed to be the words of Allah, delivered through his final prophet Muhammed Abn ʿAbdull�h and written down verbatim, yet we have these six scholars all stating they are incorrect and need explaining, Muslims say they explain or expound? What really is the answer?

Lets now look further into the statement by Muslims that the Quran is an unadulterated document, this may be literally true you may think but its the understanding by six perverse books and the men who wrote them, perverse by the fact they are divisive as its man interfering with their interpretation. Their interpretation of Allah words apparently given verbatim to his prophet Muhammed.

The Quran written by an Ummi (unlettered, unable to read and write.) Yet some Hadiths profess he had command quote;

“By Allah, Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him and his pure family) used to read and write in 72, or he said 73, languages. He was called Ummi because he was from Mecca. Mecca is one of the mother towns, and this is why Allah the Most Exalted has said: ‘So that you (Muhammad) may warn the mother of villages (i.e. Mecca) and whoever is around it’.� (Ma’ani al-Akhbar, By al-Saduq, p. 53)."

But the common perception is he was unlettered but wrotr this book verbatim from the the words from Allah given to him.

So either he can read or write or he couldn't, if yes then already the Quran is corrupted by Muhammed's command of text and language or he couldn't read or write so when it was recorded for him and collected together after his death 632AD, The Hadiths add to the Quran in direct violation of Muhammed words from Allah.

"Ibn Jareer al-Tabari said in his Tafseer, 14/8:
Allaah is saying, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (Reminder), i.e. the Qur’aan, and We will guard the Qur’aan against anything false being added to it that is not part of it, or anything that is part of it being taken away, whether that has to do with rulings, hudood punishments or matters having to do with inheritance."

This is why this thread became complicated because any answer is in contradiction to another, this one religion representation is a black flag within Islam and is also the cause of most of the Arabian wars. Any challenge is deemed unacceptable in most society, but its hard to discuss this as its so complicated and delivery vocally is confusing and is normally be shouted down.
Taff Lafferty

I see you

Al-Fatihah
Student
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 5:47 am

Post #18

Post by Al-Fatihah »

Taff Lafferty wrote: Thats not entirely correct though, the Etymology of the word undoes what you state their purpose is (report, account and narrative).

On top of that their is the split in the hadith;

al-Bukhari (died 870) included 7275 hadiths
Muslim b. al-Hajjaj (died 875) included 9200.
Abu Da'ud (died 888)
al-Tirmidhi (died 892)
al-Nasa'i (died 915)
Ibn Maja (died 886).

Then there is the split (Sunni , Shia, Ibadi), Shia only accepts four books of the Kutub al-Sittah (6 Books) Sunni is the larger sect (Traditional approx 1.5billion) and Shia roughly only make up around 10%-12% approx 170,000,000. Shia is further split into 3 Sects. The Ibadi adherents who and which both predate the other 2 sects follows shia in public?

The hadiths are an escape clause for the imperfect Quran, in my opinion, ill further explain this in the summing up, trying to clear up this so far deceptive thread.

The Quran is supposed to be the words of Allah, delivered through his final prophet Muhammed Abn ʿAbdull�h and written down verbatim, yet we have these six scholars all stating they are incorrect and need explaining, Muslims say they explain or expound? What really is the answer?

Lets now look further into the statement by Muslims that the Quran is an unadulterated document, this may be literally true you may think but its the understanding by six perverse books and the men who wrote them, perverse by the fact they are divisive as its man interfering with their interpretation. Their interpretation of Allah words apparently given verbatim to his prophet Muhammed.

The Quran written by an Ummi (unlettered, unable to read and write.) Yet some Hadiths profess he had command quote;

“By Allah, Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him and his pure family) used to read and write in 72, or he said 73, languages. He was called Ummi because he was from Mecca. Mecca is one of the mother towns, and this is why Allah the Most Exalted has said: ‘So that you (Muhammad) may warn the mother of villages (i.e. Mecca) and whoever is around it’.� (Ma’ani al-Akhbar, By al-Saduq, p. 53)."

But the common perception is he was unlettered but wrotr this book verbatim from the the words from Allah given to him.

So either he can read or write or he couldn't, if yes then already the Quran is corrupted by Muhammed's command of text and language or he couldn't read or write so when it was recorded for him and collected together after his death 632AD, The Hadiths add to the Quran in direct violation of Muhammed words from Allah.

"Ibn Jareer al-Tabari said in his Tafseer, 14/8:
Allaah is saying, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (Reminder), i.e. the Qur’aan, and We will guard the Qur’aan against anything false being added to it that is not part of it, or anything that is part of it being taken away, whether that has to do with rulings, hudood punishments or matters having to do with inheritance."

This is why this thread became complicated because any answer is in contradiction to another, this one religion representation is a black flag within Islam and is also the cause of most of the Arabian wars. Any challenge is deemed unacceptable in most society, but its hard to discuss this as its so complicated and delivery vocally is confusing and is normally be shouted down.
Response: There is nothing in the etymology of the word that goes against anything I have stated, supported by your own inability to show otherwise. As nothing in the Qur'an or Sunnah says or shows that the hadith does not expound on the Qur'an and the fact that hadiths are a narration of the life of Muhammad, while the Qur'an never goes into the life of Muhammad is clear proof that the hadiths expound the Qur'an.

As for the rest, the hadiths are classified according to its authenticity and reliability. Bukhari is the most reliable collection, followed by Muslim. This alone refutes your argument because you are making an argument based on hadith that are NOT the most authentic.

So for your argument to be correct requires you yourself to prove that the hadith collection or hadiths you quote are actually reliable or the most reliable, yet you have failed to do so. Any time you quote or refer to a scholar, you must show proof that they are reliable and truthful. Again, you have not. On top of that, you used the fallacy of appealing to authority by implying something to be correct because 6 scholars said so. Saying so is not proof that it is so, and those same scholars say that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah and Muhammad is a true prophet. A belief which you deny, thus contradicting your own logic by using the claims of scholars as if they are reliable, only to deny them as unreliable at the same time.

Simply put, your logic for your argument is invalid.

Moving forward, it seems apparent that your original line of questioning was only to set up an actual argument of contention. So perhaps in your next post, you can clearly state exactly what your contention is so that it is better for me to address you.

Thanks.

User avatar
Taff Lafferty
Apprentice
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun May 15, 2016 1:21 pm
Location: loughborough

Post #19

Post by Taff Lafferty »

I will leave the posts as they are, and let others decide, One comment

"The Hadiths are a narration of the life of Muhammad"

They are not they are a 200 hundred year reflection on folklore of Muhammed,
Taff Lafferty

I see you

User avatar
sawthelight
Scholar
Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:56 pm

Re: A question about Islam...

Post #20

Post by sawthelight »

Taff Lafferty wrote:
Al-Fatihah wrote:
Taff Lafferty wrote:
Al-Fatihah wrote:
Taff Lafferty wrote: Why does the Quran require the Hadith to explain it?
Response: It does not require it. Hadith can further expound on it.
You changed your mind?
Response: Not at all.
In one post you state it does in another it don't.....?
Basically Al-Fati is saying you don't need the hadith but it can be used. My take on it is, if you don't need it, then don't use it. Otherwise you do need it and you do require it.

It's like saying I don't need a computer to make debates online but I can do so without one. That itself is a preposterous statement to make unless I can telepathically type words on this site using with my mind alone instead. Otherwise, to make a debate online on this debatingchristianity.com website I will need a computer regardless. As evident from many muslim scholars and laymen, who use the hadith to interpret their quran, shows they in fact DO need the hadith to explain the quran. If they don't need it, why use it?

I know. She is a slippery one. She has very verbose arguments that end up no where.
Last edited by sawthelight on Fri Jan 06, 2017 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply