Questions for the Qur’an Only Religion That Can’t Be Swept Under A Rug.

Say, “Have you considered: if the Qur’an is from Allah and you disbelieved in it, who would be more astray than one who is in extreme dissension? We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness? Unquestionably, they are in doubt about the meeting with their Lord. Unquestionably He is, of all things, encompassing.” (Qur’an 41:52-54)

If the Qur’an is all that is needed for any person why would Allah (swt) say that he would show us signs on the horizons and within ourselves until ‘It‘ -becomes clear that ‘It’-the Qur’an is the truth?

So the question becomes how do they know that the Qur’an is complete?

For example, there is absolutely nowhere in the entirety of the Qur’an that says “this Qur’an will consist of so many chapters, verses, and letters.”    Why do they accept the Qur’an in the arrangement it is now in?  What proof does the Qur’an only religion have to suggest that surah al Fatiha should be placed first and surah an nass last?

 

Of course, someone could quote the following text: “We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it against corruption.” (Qur’an 15:9)

Yet, this is absolutely beside the point.  Everyone would agree with this statement. But the point is that “It” is not internally defined.

Ironically the adherents of the Qur’an only religion cannot even get past the first verse of the Qur’an without coming to a major decision.

“Is Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem” a verse at the beginning of Surah Al Fatiha or not?

There is absolutely no way to substantiate this claim internally.  The irony of ironies here is that rather or not the ‘bismillah’ should be included at the beginning of Surah Al Fatiha is left up to criteria outside of the Qur’an to determine!

“Indeed, it is We who have sent down to you, [O Muhammed], the Qur’an progressively.” (Qur’an 76:23)

Everyone agrees that ‘Basmalla’ is a verse inside of the Qur’an.

It is from Solomon and is (as follows): ‘In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful:” (Qur’an 27:30)

However, why are the Qur’an Only Muslims in dispute on rather or not this should occur at the beginning of every chapter or not?

You can go to one Quran Only web site and find them not including the bismillah as a verse included before every chapter here: http://www.free-minds.org/quran/PM/2

Whereas another group of Qur’an Only open disputes with those at free-minds.org.    You can see the “submitters’  here:

http://submission.org/QI#2%3A0   Notice the very bizarre 2:0. reference?

“And We have bestowed upon thee the Seven Oft-repeated (verses) and the Grand Qur’an.” (Qur’an 15:87)

This may be the only place where the Qur’an mentions a section of itself outside of another section. In other words if we are to believe this verse as revelation; it clearly states for us to look out for the ‘seven oft repeated’.

There is a very interesting observation.

a) It is interesting that the  Qur’an mentions that these verses are  ‘seven oft repeated‘.  This can only be confirmed outside of the text as we do not find these verses re-occuring in the Qur’an at all.

Who are these people? 

“And when you said to the one on whom Allah bestowed favor and you bestowed favor, “Keep your wife and fear Allah ,” while you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose. And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him. So when Zayd had no longer any need for her, We married her to you in order that there not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons when they no longer have need of them. And ever is the command of Allah accomplished..” (Qur’an 33:37)

Who is  Zayd?

Why is he mentioned in the Qur’an?

What are these verses all about?

What was it that the Blessed Messenger (saw)  concealing that Allah (swt) was about to make known?

How does Allah ‘marry someone to the Blessed Messenger (saw) ?

 

“May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined, and ruined is he. His wealth will not avail him or that which he gained. He will burn in a Fire of flame And his wife – the carrier of firewood. Around her neck is a rope of  fiber.” (Qur’an 1:1-5)

Who is Abu Lahab?

Why is he mentioned in the Qur’an?

What are these verses all about?

Who his his wife?

What did they do to deserve these descriptions of them from the Almighty?

 

Why does Allah (swt) need or even desire a to communicate his message through any medium at all?

Be it textual, oral or human.  Why not just reveal the revelation directly to each individual directly?   Surely Allah (swt) is capable of doing all things.

 

Why does the Qur’an constantly point to outside sources to verify its claims and veracity?

Some points of consideration:

“Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find mentioned in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him – it is those who will be the successful.” (Qur’an 7:157)

This verse is very explicit in that the veracity of its statement stands on rather or not the People of the Book (Ahl Kitab) actually find mention of the Blessed Messenger (saw).

The veracity of the entire  Qur’an rest in Muslims being able to prove this claim.  The proof of this claim rest in sources outside of the revelation itself.

“Say, , “Have you considered that which you invoke besides Allah ? Show me what they have created of the earth; or did they have partnership in the heavens? Bring me a scripture before this or a trace of knowledge, if you should be truthful.” (Qur’an 46:4)

“Indeed, this Qur’an relates to the Children of Israel most of that over which they disagree.”  (Qur’an 27:76)

In order to verify this claim one would have to be intimately familiar with outside sources of references; in particular have a great deal of information concerning the disputes of the Children of Israel.

10 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

10 responses to “Questions for the Qur’an Only Religion That Can’t Be Swept Under A Rug.

  1. mmmclmru

    Superb piece – but I don’t know much about the ‘Quran only’ movement. Surely they cannot be as a reader of your article might think them to be – I would assume they only reject hadith – so wouldn’t that make the last section of your article a bit unfair – if the Quran recommends the reading or study of other texts such as the portions of the Torah remaining etc, then how is this different from other forms of research or intellectualising it commands about other things like the phenomenon of nature for example. Here the Q’uran would merely be asserting that people should research sources outside the Q’uran – like the Gospels, bees, nature, human nature, evil and others. Surely the ‘Quran only’ guys do not deny that? I might just be ignorant though.

    Also, though your examples in the first part of your article are rigorous, how would you respond if someone said that they are trivial and do not concern the main message of the Quran and are in the context of possibly many other things in the Quran that are ‘unknown’ (like what do the isolated letters at the start of some Surahs mean, where is the city of pillars or columns). Further, the example of Zayd, the ayat and it’s message and ruling is understandable even without knowing who Zayd is – what do you reckon?

    You would have a much more serious problem if you say these ayats are TOTALLY incomprehensible without some ahad or even mashoor narrations that explain who these people are – because then the point of the Quran being muttawatir is defeated as it relies on single or multiple chain narrations to be comprehensible, thus legitimising the arguments of the Ahl Al Hadith. I assume that the identity of Zayd and Abu Lahab are muttawatir so as not to affect your point. But if they are not, then you have a problem.

    Also, say we had a mysterious character called ‘Abu Lahab’ in the Quran – you would require a seperate proof that this could not be a mysterious person whose identity we do not know or some esoteric device. God does seem to use such things (again, the isolated letters, who is Al Khidr etc).

    I think there is a slight misprint in the Abu Lahab ayat, it’s chapter 111 I think – if we take Asad’s translation, it is a bit less favourable to your case (I know Abu Lahab is mentioned by name in Arabic):

    ”DOOMED are the hands of him of the glowing countenance: and doomed is he! What will his wealth avail him, and all that he has gained? [In the life to come] he shall have to endure a fire fiercely glowing; together with his wife, that carrier of evil tales, [who bears] around her neck a rope of twisted strands!”

    People could understand this perfectly well. And is the identity of his wife also Muttawatir? Unlikely, but she is mentioned too…

    And again, none of the examples you gave touch on particularly core issues in Islam, though as I said, they are rigourous.

    It seems to me that today we have a lot more ‘hadith only’ as opposed to ‘Quran only’ Muslims. And who is more likely to be led astray?

    If you quote these examples at people who reject all hadith, they will rebut you by saying that they are trivial compared to the errors in creed and practice that can affect a person who unconditionally accepts hadith – how would you respond?

    • Bismillah,
      in response to mmmclmru

      You said:
      “Superb piece – but I don’t know much about the ‘Quran only’ movement. Surely they cannot be as a reader of your article might think them to be – I would assume they only reject hadith – so wouldn’t that make the last section of your article a bit unfair – if the Quran recommends the reading or study of other texts such as the portions of the Torah remaining etc, then how is this different from other forms of research or intellectualising it commands about other things like the phenomenon of nature for example. Here the Q’uran would merely be asserting that people should research sources outside the Q’uran – like the Gospels, bees, nature, human nature, evil and others. Surely the ‘Quran only’ guys do not deny that? I might just be ignorant though.”

      My response:
      There is a difference between asking humanity to reflect upon the creation and asking humanity to do research or ‘intellectualizing’. I am sure no ‘Qur’an only guys’ deny that either. Yet, this is quite different than explicit text within the Qur’an pointing to outside information which can be falsifiable. This is exactly what the Holy Qur’an has done in 7:157 by asserting the claim that it has done. The Ahl Hadith did not do this. The Holy Qur’an did.

      You said:
      “Also, though your examples in the first part of your article are rigorous, how would you respond if someone said that they are trivial and do not concern the main message of the Quran and are in the context of possibly many other things in the Quran that are ‘unknown’ (like what do the isolated letters at the start of some Surahs mean, where is the city of pillars or columns). Further, the example of Zayd, the ayat and it’s message and ruling is understandable even without knowing who Zayd is – what do you reckon?”

      My response:
      Anyone who would be dismissive of such pointed arguments with a response such as ‘they are trivial’ is the response expected by someone caught with ‘their pants down’ and completely unprepared for such line of questions. As far as their statement “and do not concern the main message of the Quran” they are giving a very powerful platform to Christians.

      The truth is that if the Sola Qur’an (Qur’an Only) camp wants to be taken seriously they have to understand the Holy Qur’an was not revealed in a vacuum. There are many other such arguments against the (Qur’an Only) camp which are devastating and surgical.

      As far as the passage in relationship to Zayd the question still remain. What was it that the Blessed Messenger (saw) was concealing that Allah (swt) was about to make known? How does Allah (swt) ‘marry someone to the Blessed messenger (saw)?

      You said:
      “You would have a much more serious problem if you say these ayats are TOTALLY incomprehensible without some ahad or even mashoor narrations that explain who these people are – because then the point of the Quran being muttawatir is defeated as it relies on single or multiple chain narrations to be comprehensible, thus legitimising the arguments of the Ahl Al Hadith.”

      My response:
      I believe there is something I may not have been clear to you or other readers about. There is a difference between the Holy Qur’an being mutawattir in attestation and mutawattir in meaning. Prima Qur’an position is that the Qur’an is mutawattir in attestation; this is in regards to its contents coming down to us as they are. However, as regards to mutawattir in meaning I have no issue with accepting many verses would be totally incomprehensible without some mashoor or even ahad narrations.

      Again the position of Prima Qur’an is not that we suspect the traditionalist of devilry at every turn. If that was the case we would also have to throw Abu Hanifa (raheemullah), Jafar As Sadiq (raheemullah), Iban Abbas( raheemullah) all under the bus. The big difference between us and the traditionalist is that we don’t bend over backwards with stretches of the imagination and semantic gymnastics to reconcile various reports with the Holy Qur’an. Just as you pointed out in your article ‘blackmailed by Bukhari’ concerning the goats.

      You have to understand we are not hadith rejectors. We just apply my restraints upon the ahadith than others do. In some respects (Prima Quran) could theoretically even accept more hadith than the (Ahl Hadith). Why is that? You see the books of rijal many people are dismissed simply due to their affiliation with a particular sectarian or theological association. That was the harshest ‘jahr’ or critique against them. So being that we are not sectarian we could dismiss such things outright. Unless it is blatantly obvious that someone is making a claim in the ‘matn’ that is politically, theologically motivated etc..

      So theoretically many hadith people today consider ‘daif’ based upon narrators in the chain, we could grade as ‘hassan’ and many that are graded ‘hassan’ we could grade as ‘sahih’.

      You may also find the following interesting: https://primaquran.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/nouman-ali-khans-poor-analogy-of-hadith-being-preserved-like-the-holy-quran/

      You may also find this interesting: https://primaquran.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/understanding-the-quran-without-asbab-an-nuzul-occasion-of-revelation/

      You said: “I assume that the identity of Zayd and Abu Lahab are muttawatir so as not to affect your point. But if they are not, then you have a problem.”

      My response:
      Again see the point above. There is a difference between the Holy Qur’an being mutawattir in attestation and mutawattir in meaning

      You said:
      “Also, say we had a mysterious character called ‘Abu Lahab’ in the Quran – you would require a seperate proof that this could not be a mysterious person whose identity we do not know or some esoteric device.”

      My response:
      You would do very well to repeat what you just said to yourself a few time and give it some thought. How does that statement help the (Quran Only) Muslims? Again you just asked who ‘Abu Lahab’

      You said:
      “God does seem to use such things (again, the isolated letters, who is Al Khidr etc).”

      My response:
      This does not do well to help the (Qur’an Only) Muslims. I guess we would have to ask what it means when the Holy Qur’an says that it is mubeen –clear. Is it clear simply because one person has an idea of what it ‘could’ mean?

      You said:
      “You may I think there is a slight misprint in the Abu Lahab ayat, it’s chapter 111 I think – if we take Asad’s translation, it is a bit less favourable to your case (I know Abu Lahab is mentioned by name in Arabic):”DOOMED are the hands of him of the glowing countenance: and doomed is he! What will his wealth avail him, and all that he has gained? [In the life to come] he shall have to endure a fire fiercely glowing; together with his wife, that carrier of evil tales, [who bears] around her neck a rope of twisted strands! People could understand this perfectly well. And is the identity of his wife also Muttawatir? Unlikely, but she is mentioned too…”

      My response:
      I didn’t quite get the point about Asad’s translation. None the less the verse says, “together with his wife.” Also if you re-read carefully I did ask “Who is his wife? What did they do to deserve these descriptions of them from the Almighty?

      You said:
      “And again, none of the examples you gave touch on particularly core issues in Islam, though as I said, they are rigourous.”

      My response:
      I am going to be very forward with you. The compilation of the Holy Qur’an as well as its transmission is a core issue of Islam. One in which you did not touch at all. The readers may find that curious; I did to. Thank you for complimenting me on being rigorous; unfortunately I cannot extend the same to you. In the comment under the article: https://primaquran.wordpress.com/2013/08/10/abu-hurayrah-a-closer-look/

      Your comment was:
      “Good article, but you could have mentioned that Ibrahim Nakhai, teacher of Abu Hanifa did not accept any hadith from Abu Hurayra. At all.”
      I guess I could mention that; but seeing I was provided no source or references I couldn’t. So with due respect a little more rigor from yourself would be of benefit to us all.

      Lastly your comment:
      “It seems to me that today we have a lot more ‘hadith only’ as opposed to ‘Quran only’ Muslims. And who is more likely to be led astray?”

      My response: Allahu ‘Alim. I am not willing to play that chance game.

      You said:
      “If you quote these examples at people who reject all hadith, they will rebut you by saying that they are trivial compared to the errors in creed and practice that can affect a person who unconditionally accepts hadith – how would you respond?”

      My response:
      I would love for any (Quran Only) Muslim or a (self proclaimed Hanafi) such as your good self to actually engage with the first part of this entry. To say that the compilation and transmission of the Holy Qur’an is a trivial matter seems intellectually lazy at best.

      • mmmclmru

        What a shocker. Taking both of your replies together, I don’t think I have ever had a more unnecessarily accusatory and combative reply to a compliment in my life!

        So you like being ‘forward’ eh? Well, despite your obvious learning and intelligence, sadly, like nearly all Muslim intellectuals one comes across, you too are not really quite ‘all there’ either.

        I don’t really know what you are on about in the first part of your reply: if you have ‘devastating a surgical’ cases against the Q’uran only guys good – I don’t approve of them either. But you should present these devastating proofs then and not what you did, which, as I told you, though rigorous, can be seen as trivial. I think you were ‘set’ off’ by my use of that word, though your final reply to Brother Omer that you are here to ‘take on everyone’ is probably more useful in understanding your bizarre tirade. Or perhaps it’s as Nietzsche said, fight not with monsters eh?

        In any case, I tried hard to make it clear that I was just hoping to gain knowledge by asking how someone like you, who is well versed in both Quran itself, Quran only guys and their arguments, would respond if they said that the identity of Zaid or Abu Lahab was not anywhere near the main message of Islam and thus trivial as an example of the insufficiency of Quran only methodology, especially as they can bring hadith which would be problematic to the core issues (such as children going to Hell, Satanic Verses hadith of the cranes etc) and thus said that opening the gates to allow speculative evidence, some of which could destroy ones Iman, was too risky for the sake of explaining RELATIVELY minor issues like the identity of Abu Lahab etc. [It could also become an issue if we start admitting hadith because they explain an ayat and are sahih or whatever but then reject other hadith which are sahih to the same level but that we don’t like, like about stoning or whatever. So we may need a new usool of hadith where hadith ‘useful’ in explaining the Quran were allowed through but others were let go, which could be inconsistent unless we articulated a new usool]. I even couched my comment in a heartfelt compliment about how good the article was and said that is was rigorous to make sure I didn’t ‘set you off’ (and because it really was good and rigorous). But no use.

        In fact your reply, as opposed to the fabulous original article, is emotional and very poor – it’s not my fault you did not choose the ‘surgical’ or ‘devastating’ replies to Quran only guys (maybe they are in another article and this is a follow up, I don’t know). As for:

        “and do not concern the main message of the Quran” they are giving a very powerful platform to Christians.”

        Okay, how? This is just a statement. And is not giving a platform to Christians an ‘usool’ in Islam or do we have to present coherent arguments rather than just saying ‘this would give Christians or whoever a platform/opportunity to attack us thus it cannot be true’?

        You are simply incomprehensible on the issue of evidence outside the Quran – and your definition of ‘intellectualising’ is irrelevant. Whether the Quran refers to the Bees or the Torah or man’s own soul it is referring to outside evidence. My point was to ask whether the ‘Quran only’ guys truly deny this and if so wouldn’t that be totally strange. Instead, you were conducting self defence exercises and using me as an emotional tampon for your outburst rather than educating or informing me.

        You state the position of ‘Prima Quran’ as being that the Quran is Muttawatir in attestation and not in meaning and that ”as regards to mutawattir in meaning I have no issue with accepting many verses would be totally incomprehensible without some mashoor or even ahad narrations.” So 1) what is the point of being muttawatiur in attestation if it is incomprehensible without ahad and therefore uncertain narrations – just to show that it is THE Quran? 2) how then is it ‘clear and comprehensible’, shouldn’t it rather say ‘clear and comprehensible’, as long as you have the necessary biographical and historical data to hand, which BTW is of varying and often dubious providence’. I am not saying that IS the case, I am merely asking how someone like you would address this. I know full well that everyone has his own understanding of the Quran and we cannot exhaust it’s meanings, and that the meanings of some things are not muttawatir. But having some ayats incomprehensible without certain narrations generates serious issues and does indeed make for one ahad meaning to some ayats of the Quran and makes the arguments of Ahl Al hadith more compelling. You seem to think this is not a problem, fine, but perhaps you should have illustrated why.

        You did not address this at all and merely stated your position, but what I was trying to ask (perhaps I was unclear) was that if supporting information is needed to not only to verify the Quran but even understand it in the first place, then why did God not also preserve this in the same manner and does this not give a good leg to Ahl Al hadith to stand on.

        ”I guess we would have to ask what it means when the Holy Qur’an says that it is mubeen –clear. Is it clear simply because one person has an idea of what it ‘could’ mean?”

        OK, so is it any clearer because you have probabilistic ahad narrations explaining it? This does not help.

        ”I am going to be very forward with you. The compilation of the Holy Qur’an as well as its transmission is a core issue of Islam. One in which you did not touch at all. The readers may find that curious; I did to.”

        Indeed, you have been ‘forward’ to a fault. I and practically every lay Muslim knows that the compilation and transmission of the Quran is a core issue. But why do I need to touch on it? What is the purpose of this tangent? You failed to explain why you think that either my comment or your article is about the Qurans compilation and transmission? I thought your article and my questions were about to what extent the Quran requires supporting information and how strange are the beliefs of Quranists.

        (recall that nearly all of what I said was a question, from the potential point of view of what a Quranist might have said, a benign literary device, made explicit, but which nonetheless seems to have enraged you to the point of engaging in ad hominems such as ‘self proclaimed Hanafi’ [is there any other kind? Isn’t Islam ‘self proclaimed’ too? What is errant about the concept of ‘self proclamation’?])

        So what are you on about here? Like the statement about Christians, and much of what you wrote, this is a digression and you do not make your case. perhaps you have one, but despite being a gifted writer, you are in your reply supremely incomprehensible – please show your reply to some other person, perhaps a non-Muslim without a horse in this race and ask them what they make of it in terms of clarity.

        I never accused you of being a hadith rejecter, so I don’t know why you wasted two paragraphs on 1) denying this 2) naming people like Abu Hanifa who transmit hadith. Another digression – stick to the point.

        ”Thank you for complimenting me on being rigorous; unfortunately I cannot extend the same to you. In the comment under the article: https://primaquran.wordpress.com/2013/08/10/abu-hurayrah-a-closer-look/
        Your comment was:
        “Good article, but you could have mentioned that Ibrahim Nakhai, teacher of Abu Hanifa did not accept any hadith from Abu Hurayra. At all.”
        I guess I could mention that; but seeing I was provided no source or references I couldn’t. So with due respect a little more rigor from yourself would be of benefit to us all.”

        This makes me wonder about your reading comprehension – but since it is obvious that you are a gifted communicator in the written form, it rather makes me worry about your manners and sanity: I compliment you for being rigorous and you go off topic to a comment from an unrelated article to put me down. Bizarre. I ask how you would respond to someone who said that though rigorous, your particular examples do not touch on core issues of Islam since undoubtedly the identity of Zayd and Abu
        Lahab are not the main messages of Islam, and your response is to say you will be ‘forward’, talk about Quran compilation and preservation and transmission (which you failed to mention in your original article nor explain the relevance of this in your reply) and then accuse me of being non-rigorous.

        Lets say I AM non-rigorous, how is that relevant to your reply and what is the purpose expending a paragraph to demonstrate that? That’s total ad hominem. You would be better advised to spend electrons on showing how my questions (which were not even necessarily my beliefs) were non-rigorous by replying to them rather than resorting to cheapness like this. Okay, so I am non rigorous. I am an idiot. I am stupid. I don’t provide references. Does that get you off? Good. Yet it does not mean you can avoid addressing the actual questions, and even an idiot deserves a reply, not a trigonometry class worth of tangents.

        You seemingly brought up private communications in an attempt to use ad hominem in your reply below, I was trying my best to chase up the references for you, I am not a scholar nor academic and I in fact told you the books I read this in and when you asked for page numbers etc I said I would try my best to track them down as these are books I looked at many years ago. So I am very let down by your character – I had taken you as a nobel person who has the courage to speak the truth but this kind of behaviour is simply low-class whoever it comes from.

        Your second reply apes the first with large portions of posturing and irrelevance. You then come onto this:

        ”The point being is that you do not need to adduce additional evidence from outside of your book if you wanted to make IT (your book) ALONE, self sufficient for evidence. Otherwise to say your book is self sufficient is circular gobbledygook. So when someone says self sufficient, self sufficient in what?”

        But this is what I was asking you – what do these Quranists mean by this self sufficiency? Surely they cannot be so unhinged as to disregard ALL external evidence? You would have been better served by addressing this and enlightening me on what this self sufficiency is in your replies than whigghing out

        ”The fact is any book that makes claim which can be demonstrably falsifiable is evidently not self sufficient. It it’s veracity is dependent upon external evidence.”

        Falsifiability and self sufficiency are related yet separate and only potentially concepts. This statement is a somewhat dilettantish attempt at philosophising and again, see above: rather than wasting virtual ink on this, it would have better if you spent less time in veiled insults like the one that follows and more on actually explaining what your and the Quranists view on this self sufficiency actually IS. I am none the wiser.

        All I have learnt from this inarticulate tirade of yours is that Quranists seem to deny all outside evidence, from ahad to human nature to the Bible and whatever, and that you think that the Quran is muttawatir in transmission, as does every other Sunni Muslim, and that it is potentially incomprehensible in parts without ahad hadith. You have failed to address the philosophical and practical problems that potentially go with both views and have instead wasted your time alienating and insulting your reader in an effort to show what a true crusading lone wolf you are.

        ‘I’m quite surprised as a self proclaimed Mutazalite that you do not see the theological implications of saying that anything other than Allah (swt) is self sufficient?’

        I never claimed to be a Mu’tazziltie – I can only assume you are showing your classlessness by referring to private correspondence in public – the height of bad manners – but feel free to reproduce it if it will help you establish this falsehood. Also, I neither gave my understanding of self sufficiency nor tried to compare anything to Allah – you are quite depraved in your desire to impugn enormities to people.

        I will continue to benefit from the excellent articles on this site, one of if not the only of it’s kind – but as I think any objective reader can see, it was a gross error to engage the author and I will be forced to refrain from doing so in the future – which is a real pity because when people cannot ask questions or even compliment the teacher for fear of rants, ad hominems and redacted and false accounts of personal communications, they come to realise that such a teacher is a useful but uncouth person and they cannot really get behind him.

  2. mmmclmru

    Also, Abu Lahab’s wife is condemned to Hell: is it necessary to know her biography to appreciate this ayat and thus why she as well as her more famous husband are going to Hell?

    Surely her biography is not muttawatir? And having that kind of supporting information to hand while reading the Quran is problematic since it is ‘easy to understand and remember’. If you say to a Quranist; ‘you don’t know who this girl with the rope around her neck is’, he could reply ‘how then do you know who it is?’. You would then presumably bring an ahad hadith, to which he could say, ‘well, you don’t know who she is for sure either’ (unless you assert that an ahad hadith is certain knowledge or close enough to it). So you are both in the same boat – you each have no certain proof as to her identity, but I agree you have more chance of a sensible guess, but the issue of specifying a certain text with a speculative narration would again overshadow you.

    It seems to me that it is more dangerous to demand that supporting information be present while reading the Quran than the converse proposition.

    Also, they can counter by saying that for most of the ayats you do not have explanations from hadith nor even the reason and circumstances for revelation.

    Couldn’t the ‘Quran only’ guys do exactly the same to you and show you numerous ayats where we could not provide any explanation from hadith? Or even only an inappropriate one?

    And it does seem a bit like the quran referring people to outside sources does not violate their claims unless they are really mental. It would just be the same as me saying ‘well, if you don’t belive e, then ask a priest’ or ‘if you don’t want to take y word for it, ask a Physicist’. which does not invalidate the self sufficicieny of my book: I would merely be adducing additional evidence from outside the book (which is necessary since making peoiple belive the book when they intially do not would usually require this). It is like me saying ‘Light is composed of different wavelenghts. Anyone who doubts it can carry out an experiment with a prism and see for themsleves’. I have not made my book any less valid (I know you do not mean this but the position of the Quranists seems way to bizzare from what you migh be suggesting).

    • Bismillah,
      in response to:
      mmmclmru

      Many of the questions you proposed were already addressed in my response to your first quest.
      If you go ‘About Prima Qur’an’ it states our position there.

      “And obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then Our Messenger is responsible only for conveying the message clearly. (Holy Quran 64:12)

      I hope that it is not lost upon anyone reading this that you cannot ‘clarify’ an already clear message. Now if the (Quran Only) want to play semantic gymnastics with the text is on them.

      Because I have a pretty good idea how they think, let me just ‘cook up’ a plausible explanation for you and the readers of these comments.

      Imagine now I am a (Quran Only) Muslim. I am now telling people that the above passage means that the Blessed Messenger (saw) must speak with a clear voice. No mumbling, no whispering and so forth.

      You could see them coming up with such machinations.
      There are two quick points that refute this.

      1) Which begs the question. Why would Allah (swt) choose someone who wasn’t clear in speech to begin with?

      2) In the case of Moses (as) he was not clear and thus Allah (swt) gave him Harun (as) as an assistant; and so we know that Muhammed (saw) was eloquent in speech.

      Also again I refer you to the articles written above concerning ‘Asbab An Nuzul’ and the response to ‘Nouman Ali Khan’.

      You will see that I am well aware that ‘asbab an nuzul’ does not explain everything about the Holy Qur’an.

      Also as I pointed out to you above the position of Prima Qur’an is that there is a difference between the Holy Qur’an being mutawattir in attestation and mutawattir in meaning.

      In fact in the time of the Blessed Messenger (saw) when he (saw) was receiving the message it was not mutawattir in attestation but only ahad in meaning. That would be the meaning that , He (saw) gave to his audience.

      You said:
      “Couldn’t the ‘Quran only’ guys do exactly the same to you and show you numerous ayats where we could not provide any explanation from hadith? Or even only an inappropriate one?”

      My response:

      It would not be necessary for them to since Allah (swt) says:

      “It is He who has sent down to you, the Book; in it are verses precise – they are the foundation of the Book – and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation, they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation. And no one knows its interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, “We believe in it. All is from our Lord.” And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.” (Holy Qur’an 3:7)

      So that would be a needless discussion. In fact it is hoped that both the (Para Quran -Ahl Hadith, Sunni, Shia) Muslims who take sources along side the Holy Qur’an as well as the (Sola Quran-Quran Only) Muslims would all do well to reflect upon those verses.

      Especially if either side is saying everything in the Holy Qur’an is clear, known and explained. In fact verse 64:12 has to be understood in this restriction as well. Wallahu ‘Alim.

      You said:
      “And it does seem a bit like the quran referring people to outside sources does not violate their claims unless they are really mental. It would just be the same as me saying ‘well, if you don’t belive e, then ask a priest’ or ‘if you don’t want to take y word for it, ask a Physicist’. which does not invalidate the self sufficicieny of my book: I would merely be adducing additional evidence from outside the book (which is necessary since making peoiple belive the book when they intially do not would usually require this)”

      My response:
      The point being is that you do not need to adduce additional evidence from outside of your book if you wanted to make IT (your book) ALONE, self sufficient for evidence. Otherwise to say your book is self sufficient is circular gobbledygook. So when someone says self sufficient, self sufficient in what?

      The fact is any book that makes claim which can be demonstrably falsifiable is evidently not self sufficient. It it’s veracity is dependent upon external evidence.

      I’m quite surprised as a self proclaimed Mutazalite that you do not see the theological implications of saying that anything other than Allah (swt) is self sufficient?

  3. Omer

    I agree with mmmclmru with the following because of the word “demand”

    “It seems to me that it is more dangerous to demand that supporting information be present while reading the Quran than the converse proposition.”

    But if the salafists and almost all the traditionalists (maybe, theoretically Hanafis are not supposed to demand it but practically speaking they do due to their influence by other Muslim schools of thought, mostly by Shafis and Salafis) stop “demanding” the hadith and thus just use it like supportive (but not essential) information that might be historical, then this problem of the shackling of Allah’s Qur’an to the human endeavor of hadith would dissipate.

    • Bismillah,

      Thank you beloved brother,Omer.

      Hopefully the above exchanges with mmmclmru will be helpful.

      In fact it would be interesting for mmmclmru to tell us what is Hanafi usuli methodology? Recommended books? Which teachers today are alive that are teaching proper Hanafi methodology? Either it is alive or dead?

      Forgive me both of you if anything I say seems heavy handed. But I do know that some people find this blog interesting for one thing only. Because it fuels them with arguments to use against rival Muslim groups, sects and theology etc..

      They will cheer and edge me on on certain articles and others draw some concern from them. None of this is lost on me.

      I know there are (Qur’an Only) Muslims who appreciate my entries that show problems with the hadith.

      There are (Shia Muslims) who love to see my articles that critique (Sunni Muslims)

      There are (Sunni Muslims) who love it when I show where the (Shia Muslims, and their Imams) were misguided.

      So to all those reading this I want to be abundantly clear.

      The truth of the matter is Allah -willing. I AM HERE TO TAKE THEM ALL ON! (Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah, Ahl hadith, the 12ers,Shia, the Qadiani, Ahmadiyyah, The Qur’an Only) the whole kit and caboodle! Allah-willing.

      As such I reaffirm my loyalty to Islam. I love all the above mentioned groups and to me they are ALL Muslims (heretic or not). To me to see what is happening to the Muslims and the Muslim world is nothing short of disheartening.

      It is hoped that through such entries/articles and exchanges, that we will all become more humble.

      Prima Qur’an is not some creed or doctrine one has to defend. It is a methodology developed by a man (myself) with the grace of Allah (swt). As such it will be a work in progress. It’s ‘usul’ won’t be written in stone tablets that draw students that defend it at all cost. But its ‘usul’ will be on going and developing by the grace of Allah (swt).

      To Allah (swt) alone belongs the victory.

  4. Assalam Oalaykom Akhi

    ====================

    Bismi Allah Al Rahman Al Raheem

    Lahwa Al Hadith/ vain hadith

    Allah has sent down the best Hadith

    Sunnat Allah

    Hadith Rejecters are using these verses in every occasion

    “But there are, among men, those who purchase lahwa alhadith/vain hadith without knowledge or meaning to Mislead/Muslims from the Path of Allah and throw ridicule on the Path for such there will be a Humiliating Penalty.”
    Qur’an 31:6

    They Quote the Verse translated except the word Hadith .

    The real Translation

    And of mankind is he who purchases idle talks (i.e.music, singing, etc.) to mislead (men) from the Path of Allah without knowledge, and takes it (the Path of Allah, the Verses of the Quran) by way of mockery. For such there will be a humiliating torment (in the Hell-fire).
    http://quran.com/31/6

    I checked all the Available translations,
    http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/31/6/default.htm

    I found that only Hadith Rejecters who translate it that way.

    Example:

    Shabbir Ahmed a known munafiQ

    But among people, there are those who invest their time in HADITH which is unfounded, so as to lead those without knowledge away from the Path of Allah, making mockery of it (the Qur’an). For such there is shameful punishment in store.

    Dr. Kamal Omar

    And of mankind is that who purchases Lahw-alhadees (absurd and senseless hadees) in order that he may mislead (people) against the Way of Allah without knowledge, and regards this (Prescribed Path of Allah) as a mockery. Those people: for them awaits a humiliating punishment .

    [The Monotheist Group] (2013 Edition) , Ect

    Tafsir Ibn Kathir of the verse
    “ Ibn Mas`ud commented about the Ayah: This — by Allah — refers to singing.”
    Qatadah said: “By Allah, he may not spend money on it, but his purchasing it means he likes it, and the more misguided he is, the more he likes it and the more he prefers falsehood to the truth and harmful things over beneficial things.”
    It was said that what is meant by the words
    (purchases idle talks) is buying singing servant girls. Ibn Jarir said that it means all speech that hinders people from seeing the signs of Allah and following His path.
    http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1795

    Scholars Agreed that the best Tafsir for this verse is :

    والأصح في المراد بقوله ومن الناس من يشتري لهو الحديث أنه النضر بن الحارث فإنه كان يسافر في تجارة إلى بلاد فارس فيتلقى أكاذيب الأخبار عن أبطالهم في الحروب المملوءة أكذوبات فيقصها على قريش في أسمارهم ويقول : إن كان محمد يحدثكم بأحاديث عاد وثمود فأنا أحدثكم بأحاديث رستم وإسفنديار وبهرام . ومن المفسرين من قال : إن النضر كان يشتري من بلاد فارس كتب أخبار ملوكهم فيحدث بها قريشا ، أي بواسطة من يترجمها لهم . ويشمل لفظ الناس أهل سامره الذين ينصتون لما يقصه عليهم كما يقتضيه قوله تعالى إثره أولئك لهم عذاب مهين .

    An-Nadr bin Al-Harith visited Persia and learned the stories of some Persian kings, such as Rustum and Isphandiyar. When he went back to Makkah, He found that the Prophet was sent from Allah and reciting the Qur’an to the people. Whenever the Prophet would leave an audience in which An-Nadr was sitting, An-Nadr began narrating to them the stories that he learned in Persia, proclaiming afterwards, “Who, by Allah, has better tales to narrate, I or Muhammad” When Allah allowed the Muslims to capture An-Nadr in Badr, the Messenger of Allah commanded that his head be cut off before him, and that was done

    [Tafsir Ibn Kathir, on Quran 8:31]

    http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1549&Itemid=63

    this An-Nadr bin Al-Harith visited Persia and bought (ishtara) some books and stories and brought them to Mecca to oppose the Quran .
    he was the one who said this (31. And when Our Ayat are recited to them, they say: “We have heard (the Qur’an); if we wish we can say the like of this. This is nothing but the tales of the ancients.”)

    Al-Sa’di (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: this includes all manner of haraam speech, all idle talk and falsehood, and all nonsense that encourages kufr and disobedience; the words of those who say things to refute the truth and argue in support of falsehood to defeat the truth; and backbiting, slander, lies, insults and curses; the singing and musical instruments of the Shaytaan; and musical instruments which are of no spiritual or worldly benefit.
    (Tafseer al-Sa’di, 6/150)

    Check this for more Clarification:

    http://islamqa.info/en/5000

    =================
    ==================

    if U wanna quote that verse in that way , translate a part an leaving a part , and didn’t translate the Word depending on the context .

    Then we should do the same for All the words Hadith in the Quran /

    Al Barakat Illah , Lets Expose and refute this lie once for All

    This is just a few examples

    ———————–
    يَوْمَئِذٍ يَوَدُّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا وَعَصَوُا الرَّسُولَ لَوْ تُسَوَّىٰ بِهِمُ الْأَرْضُ وَلَا يَكْتُمُونَ اللَّهَ حَدِيثًا

    That Day, those who disbelieved and disobeyed the Messenger will wish they could be covered by the earth. And they will not conceal from Allah a [single] HADITH .
    Surat An-Nisā’
    http://quran.com/4/42

    ———————–

    أَيْنَمَا تَكُونُوا يُدْرِككُّمُ الْمَوْتُ وَلَوْ كُنتُمْ فِي بُرُوجٍ مُّشَيَّدَةٍ وَإِن تُصِبْهُمْ حَسَنَةٌ يَقُولُوا هَٰذِهِ مِنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ وَإِن تُصِبْهُمْ سَيِّئَةٌ يَقُولُوا هَٰذِهِ مِنْ عِندِكَ قُلْ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ فَمَالِ هَٰؤُلَاءِ الْقَوْمِ لَا يَكَادُونَ يَفْقَهُونَ حَدِيثًا
    Wherever you may be, death will overtake you, even if you should be within towers of lofty construction. But if good comes to them, they say, “This is from Allah “; and if evil befalls them, they say, “This is from you.” Say, “All [things] are from Allah .” So what is [the matter] with those people that they can hardly understand any HADITH ?
    Surat An-Nisā’
    http://quran.com/4/78

    ———————–

    لَقَدْ كَانَ فِي قَصَصِهِمْ عِبْرَةٌ لِّأُولِي الْأَلْبَابِ مَا كَانَ حَدِيثًا يُفْتَرَىٰ وَلَٰكِن تَصْدِيقَ الَّذِي بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَتَفْصِيلَ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةً لِّقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ

    There was certainly in their stories a lesson for those of understanding. Never was the HADITH a narration invented, but a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation of all things and guidance and mercy for a people who believe.

    Surat Yūsuf

    http://quran.com/12/111

    ———————–

    فَلَعَلَّكَ بَاخِعٌ نَّفْسَكَ عَلَىٰ آثَارِهِمْ إِن لَّمْ يُؤْمِنُوا بِهَٰذَا الْحَدِيثِ أَسَفًا

    Then perhaps you would kill yourself through grief over them, [O Muhammad], if they do not believe in this HADITH , [and] out of sorrow.

    Surat Al-Kahf
    http://quran.com/18/6

    ———————–

    وَهَلْ أَتَاكَ حَدِيثُ مُوسَىٰ
    And has the HADITH of Moses reached you? –
    Surat Ţāhā

    http://quran.com/20/9

    ———————–

    ثُمَّ أَرْسَلْنَا رُسُلَنَا تَتْرَىٰ كُلَّ مَا جَاءَ أُمَّةً رَّسُولُهَا كَذَّبُوهُ فَأَتْبَعْنَا بَعْضَهُم بَعْضًا وَجَعَلْنَاهُمْ أَحَادِيثَ فَبُعْدًا لِّقَوْمٍ لَّا يُؤْمِنُونَ
    Then We sent Our messengers in succession. Every time there came to a nation its messenger, they denied him, so We made them follow one another [to destruction], and We made them AHADITHs . So away with a people who do not believe.
    Surat Al-Mu’minūn
    http://quran.com/23/44

    ———————–

    يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَدْخُلُوا بُيُوتَ النَّبِيِّ إِلَّا أَن يُؤْذَنَ لَكُمْ إِلَىٰ طَعَامٍ غَيْرَ نَاظِرِينَ إِنَاهُ وَلَٰكِنْ إِذَا دُعِيتُمْ فَادْخُلُوا فَإِذَا طَعِمْتُمْ فَانتَشِرُوا وَلَا مُسْتَأْنِسِينَ لِحَدِيثٍ

    O you who have believed, do not enter the houses of the Prophet except when you are permitted for a meal, without awaiting its readiness. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten, disperse without seeking to remain for HADITH .

    Surat Al-‘Aĥzāb

    http://quran.com/33/53

    ———————–

    فَقَالُوا رَبَّنَا بَاعِدْ بَيْنَ أَسْفَارِنَا وَظَلَمُوا أَنفُسَهُمْ فَجَعَلْنَاهُمْ أَحَادِيثَ

    But [insolently] they said, “Our Lord, lengthen the distance between our journeys,” and wronged themselves, so We made them AHADITHs and dispersed them in total dispersion.
    Surat Saba’
    http://quran.com/34/19

    ———————–

    اللَّهُ نَزَّلَ أَحْسَنَ الْحَدِيثِ كِتَابًا مُّتَشَابِهًا مَّثَانِيَ تَقْشَعِرُّ مِنْهُ جُلُودُ الَّذِينَ يَخْشَوْنَ رَبَّهُمْ ثُمَّ تَلِينُ جُلُودُهُمْ وَقُلُوبُهُمْ إِلَىٰ ذِكْرِ اللَّهِ

    Allah has sent down the best HADITH : a consistent Book wherein is reiteration. The skins shiver therefrom of those who fear their Lord; then their skins and their hearts relax at the remembrance of Allah .

    Surat Az-Zumar
    http://quran.com/39/23

    ———————–

    هَلْ أَتَاكَ حَدِيثُ ضَيْفِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الْمُكْرَمِينَ

    Has there reached you the HADITH of the honored guests of Abraham? –
    Surat Adh-Dhāriyāt

    http://quran.com/51/24

    ———————–

    فَلْيَأْتُوا بِحَدِيثٍ مِّثْلِهِ إِن كَانُوا صَادِقِينَ

    Or do they say, “He has made it up”? Rather, they do not believe.
    Then let them produce a HADITH like it, if they should be truthful.

    Surat Aţ-Ţūr
    http://quran.com/52/33-34

    ———————–

    أَفَمِنْ هَٰذَا الْحَدِيثِ تَعْجَبُونَ

    Then at this HADITH do you wonder?

    And you laugh and do not weep

    While you are proudly sporting?

    So prostrate to Allah and worship [Him].
    Surat An-Najm

    http://quran.com/53/59-62

    ———————–

    أَفَبِهَٰذَا الْحَدِيثِ أَنتُم مُّدْهِنُونَ

    Is it such a HADITH that you (disbelievers) deny?
    Surat Al-Wāqi`ah

    http://quran.com/56/81

    ———————–

    وَإِذْ أَسَرَّ النَّبِيُّ إِلَىٰ بَعْضِ أَزْوَاجِهِ حَدِيثًا

    And [remember] when the Prophet confided to one of his wives a HADITH ; and when she informed [another] of it and Allah showed it to him, he made known part of it and ignored a part. And when he informed her about it, she said, “Who told you this?” He said, “I was informed by the Knowing, the Acquainted.”

    Surat At-Taĥrīm
    http://quran.com/66/3

    ———————–

    ذَرْنِي وَمَن يُكَذِّبُ بِهَٰذَا الْحَدِيثِ

    So leave Me, [O Muhammad], with [the matter of] whoever denies the HADITH. We will progressively lead them [to punishment] from where they do not know.

    Surat Al-Qalam

    http://quran.com/68/44

    ———————–

    هَلْ أَتَاكَ حَدِيثُ الْجُنُودِ

    Has there reached you the HADITH of the soldiers –
    [Those of] Pharaoh and Thamud?

    Surat Al-Burūj

    http://quran.com/85/17-18

    ———————–

    هَلْ أَتَاكَ حَدِيثُ الْغَاشِيَةِ

    Has there reached you the HADITH of the Overwhelming [event]?
    Surat Al-Ghāshiyah

    http://quran.com/88/1

    ———————–

    ===================

    Sunat Allah , the Sunnah of Allah !!!
    ==================

    This Morons keep surprising us

    They say Muhammad has no Sunnah , only Allah has

    Again lets Get the word Sunnata from the Quran and see

    سُنَّةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلُ وَلَن تَجِدَ لِسُنَّةِ اللَّهِ تَبْدِيلًا

    Sunnah of Allah which has occurred before. And never will you find in the Sunnah of Allah any change.

    Surat Al-Fatĥ

    http://quran.com/48/23

    ———————–

    سُنَّةَ اللَّهِ فِي الَّذِينَ خَلَوْا مِن قَبْلُ وَكَانَ أَمْرُ اللَّهِ قَدَرًا مَّقْدُورًا
    There is not to be upon the Prophet any discomfort concerning that which Allah has imposed upon him. [This is] the Sunnah of Allah with those [prophets] who have passed on before. And ever is the command of Allah a destiny decreed.

    Surat Al-‘Aĥzāb
    http://quran.com/33/38

    ———————–

    إِلَّا أَن تَأْتِيَهُمْ سُنَّةُ الْأَوَّلِينَ أَوْ يَأْتِيَهُمُ الْعَذَابُ قُبُلًا
    And nothing has prevented the people from believing when guidance came to them and from asking forgiveness of their Lord except that there [must] befall them the Sunnah of the former peoples or that the punishment should come [directly] before them.

    Surat Al-Kahf
    http://quran.com/18/55

    ———————–

    سُنَّةَ مَن قَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا قَبْلَكَ مِن رُّسُلِنَا وَلَا تَجِدُ لِسُنَّتِنَا تَحْوِيلًا

    The Sunnah for those We had sent before you of Our messengers; and you will not find in Our Sunnah any alteration.

    Surat Al-‘Isrā’

    http://quran.com/17/77

    ———————–

    لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِهِ وَقَدْ خَلَتْ سُنَّةُ الْأَوَّلِينَ
    They will not believe in it, while there has already occurred the Sunnah of the former peoples.

    Surat Al-Ĥijr

    http://quran.com/15/13

    ====================
    =====================
    we cant translate Quran word by word , we translate the meaning
    And u cannot translate without any knowledge of the Arabic language.

    I will give one Example:

    Surat Şād verse 16

    Waqaloo rabbana AAajjil lana qittana qabla yawmi alhisab

    In Arabic the Word Qitt has two different meaning
    The popular is a Cat

    So the verse will be translated as

    And they say, “Our Lord, hasten for us our CAT before the Day of Account”

    Nonsense !!!!!!

    With the context

    They say: “Our Lord! Hasten to us Qittana (i.e. our Record of good and bad deeds so that we see it) before the Day of Reckoning!”

    http://quran.com/38/16

    Do u know what Allah Said about this techniques?

    Do u know Who used to Do this?

    “Among the Jews are those who distort words from their [proper] usages and say, “We hear and disobey” and “Hear but be not heard” and “Ra’ina,” twisting their tongues and defaming the religion.”

    Surat An-Nisā’
    http://quran.com/4/46

    “And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, “This is from Allah ,” but it is not from Allah . And they speak untruth about Allah while they know.”

    Surat ‘Āli `Imrān

    http://quran.com/3/78

    And those who disbelieved are allies of one another.

    Surat Al-‘Anfāl
    http://quran.com/8/73

    The hypocrite men and hypocrite women are of one another. They enjoin what is wrong and forbid what is right and close their hands. They have forgotten Allah , so He has forgotten them [accordingly]. Indeed, the hypocrites – it is they who are the defiantly disobedient.

    Surat At-Tawbah

    http://quran.com/9/67

    The believing men and believing women are allies of one another.
    They enjoin what is right
    and forbid what is wrong
    and establish prayer
    and give zakah
    and obey Allah and His Messenger.
    Those – Allah will have mercy upon them. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.

    Surat At-Tawbah

    http://quran.com/9/71

    —————-

    The best talk (speech) is Allah’s Book ‘Qur’an), and the best way is the way of Muhammad Sala Allahu Alyhi Wasalam

    Wa SSalam O’laykom Wa Rahmatullah taala Wa barakatuh

    By Sunnah Is Revelation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s