Donate To Discover The Truth
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
The Message and the Messenger
Dr. Ahmad Shafaat:
The question of the place of the Sunnah/Hadith in the work of the Prophet requires that we closely examine the nature of that work. What does it mean to say muhammad ar-rasul allah (Muhammad is the messenger of God)? Clearly a messenger’s work is to convey a message. But how was this message received and conveyed? Was it received and conveyed only through the Qur’an or did the Hadith also play a part? Also, how far is the messenger himself involved in the conveying of the message? In other words, what is the relationship between the message and the messenger? In this chapter we examine such questions in the light of the Qur’an.
The messenger not just a delivery man
The view of the Qur’an-only Muslims would require us to think that the Prophet performed his prophetic work by simply delivering the Qur’an. Once the revelation of particular verses ended he was like an ordinary Muslim till the next set of verses were revealed. We will now show that the Qur’an does not support this highly mechanical view of the role of the Prophet. In this connection let us first examine the evidence that the Qur’an-only Muslims present in support of their position, of course, from the Qur’an itself. We consider some of the verses that seem to be most favorable to their position:
-
The messenger is obliged only to convey (the message) (5:99, see also 3:20, 5:92, 13:40, 16:35, 82, 24:54, 29:18, 36:17, 42:48, 64:12).
This statement is interpreted by the Qur’an-only people to mean that the messenger’s function was only to deliver the Qur’an and nothing else. The statement, however, does not say that conveying (the message) is simply reciting the Qur’an. The context shows the meaning to be that the Prophet is not responsible for the belief or unbelief of the people or for their obedience or disobedience to the message. His obligation is to simply convey the message. The verse is not meant to exclude some methods of conveying the message in favor of simply reciting the Qur’an.. In fact, if we use the Qur’an to explain the Qur’an we should consider also the following verse, where it is said regarding some people with very weak or hypocritical faith:
Let them be, but admonish them and say to them a word that effectively reaches their hearts (qawl baligh) (4:63).
Here admonishing and saying qawl baligh cannot be understood as reciting the Qur’an. Yet it is clearly a part of conveying the message.
But even if we identify balagh with reciting the Qur’an, the style of the Qur’anic language does not necessarily oblige us to limit the Prophet’s divinely appointed functions to that one function. For when the Qur’an makes statements like “nothing but …” they should not be taken in an absolute and literal sense but some common sense should be used in interpreting them. For example, in 98:5 it is said that the people of the book were not commanded but to serve God exclusively and wholeheartedly and to establish regular prayer and charity. If taken literally this would conflict with the well-established fact, also attested by the Qur’an, that there were many other commandments that were given to the Jews and Christians. But if interpreted in the light of common sense, the verse means that the basic religious truth behind what the people of the book were commanded consists of these three principles. The rest is either an elaboration of these or is of secondary importance. Similarly, when it is said that the messenger was responsible for nothing but balagh, this need not be understood literally to mean that the Prophet’s function was simply to deliver the Qur’an like a postman. It should rather be understood to mean that the Qur’an was the main instrument through which he performed his divine mission.(Source: Dr Ahmad Shfaat http://www.islamicperspectives.com/HadithProject2.htm)
Muhammed Taqi Usmani explains this subject more in detail:
The Status of the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam)
So, the first pertinent question in the subject is: What status does a prophet occupy when he is sent to the people? Has he no higher a status than that or a message-carrier or a postman who, after delivering the letter, has no concern with it whatsoever? The answer is certainly in the negative. The prophets are not sent merely to deliver the word of Allâh. They are also required to explain the divine Book, to interpret it, to expound it, to demonstrate the ways of its application and to present a practical example of its contents. Their duty is not restricted to reciting the words of the Book, rather they are supposed to teach it and to train people to run their lives in accordance with its requirements. The Holy Qur’ân leaves no doubt concerning this point by saying:
Allâh has surely blessed the believers with His favor when He raised in their midst a Messenger from among themselves, who recites to them His verses and makes them pure and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom, while they were, earlier in open error. (3:164)
He (Allâh) is the One who raised up, among the unlettered, a Messenger from among themselves who recites the verses of Allâh, and makes them pure, and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom. (62:2)
The same functions were attributed to the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) in the prayer of Sayyidna Ibrahim (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) when, according to the Holy Qur’ân, he prayed:
Our Lord, raise in their midst a messenger from among themselves who recites to them Your verses and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom and purifies them… (2:129)
These are the terms of reference given to the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) which include four distinct functions and the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) has been entrusted with all of them:
(1) Recitation of the Verses of Allâh.
(2) Teaching the Book of Allâh.
(3) Teaching the Wisdom.
(4) Making the people pure.
Thus, the Holy Qur’ân leaves no ambiguities in the fact that the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) is not supposed to merely recite the verses and then leave it to the people to interpret and apply them in whatever manner they like. Instead, he is sent to “teach” the Book. Then, since teaching the Book is not enough, he is also required to teach “Wisdom” which is something additional to the “Book.” Still, this is not enough, therefore the Holy Prophet () has also to “make the people pure,” meaning thereby that the theoretical teaching of the Book and the “Wisdom” must be followed by a practical training to enable the people to apply the Book and the Wisdom in the way Allâh requires them to apply.
These verses of the Holy Qur’ân describe the following functions of the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam):
(a) He is the authority in the way the Holy Book [the Qur’ân] has to be recited.
(b) He has the final word in the interpretation of the Book.
(c) He is the only source at which the wisdom based on divine guidance can be learned.
(d) He is entrusted with the practical training of the people to bring his teachings into practice.
These functions of the Holy Prophet () can never be carried out unless his teachings, both oral and practical, are held to be authoritative for his followers, and the Muslims who are given under his training are made bound to obey and follow him. The functions (b) and (c), namely, the teaching of the Book and Wisdom require that his sayings should be binding on the followers, while the function (d), the practical training, requires that his acts should be an example for the Ummah, and the Ummah should be bound to follow it.
It is not merely a logical inference from the verses of the Holy Qur’ân quoted above, but it is also mentioned in express terms by the Holy Qur’ân in a large number of verses which give the Muslims a mandatory command to obey and follow him. While doing so, the Holy Qur’ân has used two different terms, namely the “itaa’ah” (to obey) and “ittibaa’” (to follow). The first term refers to the orders and sayings of the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) while the second relates to his acts and practice. By ordering the Muslims both to “obey” and to “follow” the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam), the Holy Qur’ân has given an authority to both his sayings and acts. (Source: Muhammed Taqi Usmani Chapter 1 http://www.central-mosque.com/fiqh/asunnah1.htm)
The Scope of the Prophetic Authority
The verses of the Qur’ân quoted in the previous chapter, and the natural conclusions derived therefrom, are sufficient to prove the authority of the “Sunnah” of the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam). Its being a source of Islâmic law stands proved on that score. Yet the Holy Qur’ân has not only stressed upon the “obedience of the Messenger” as a general rule or principle. It has also highlighted the different shades of authority in order to explain the scope of his obedience, and the various spheres where it is to be applied.
Therefore, we propose in this chapter to deal with each of these spheres separately, and to explain what the Holy Qur’ân requires of us in respect of each of them.
The Prophet’s (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) Authority to Make Laws
A number of verses in the Holy Qur’ân establish the authority of the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) as a legislator or a law-maker. Some of those are reproduced below:
And My mercy embraces all things. So I shall prescribe it for those who fear Allâh and pay zakâh (obligatory alms) and those who have faith in Our signs; those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet whom they find written down in the Torah and the Injîl, and who bids them to the Fair and forbids them the Unfair, and makes lawful for them the good things, and makes unlawful for them the impure things, and relieves them of their burdens and of the shackles that were upon them. So, those who believe in him, and honour him, and help him, and follow the light that has been sent down with him- they are the ones who acquire success. (7:156-157)
The emphasized words in this verse signify that one of the functions of the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) is “to make lawful the good things and make unlawful the impure things.” This function has been separated from “bidding the Fair and forbidding the Unfair,” because the latter relates to the preaching of what has already been established as Fair, and warning against what is established as Unfair, while the former embodies the making of lawful and unlawful, that is, the enforcing of new laws regarding the permissibility or prohibition of things. This function of prescribing new religious laws and rules is attributed here not to the Holy Qur’ân, but to the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam). It, therefore, cannot be argued that the “making lawful or unlawful” means the declaration of what is laid down in the Holy Qur’ân only, because the declaration of a law is totally different from making it.
Besides, the declaration of the established rules has been referred to in the earlier sentence separately, that is, “bids them to the Fair and forbids for them the Unfair.” The reference in the next sentence, therefore, is only to “making” new laws.
The verse also emphasizes “to believe” in the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam). In the present context, it clearly means to believe in all his functions mentioned in the verse including to make something “lawful” or “unlawful.”
The verse, moreover, directs to follow the light that has been sent down with him. Here again, instead of “following the Holy Qur’ân,” “following the light” has been ordered, so as to include all the imperatives sent down to the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam), either through the Holy Book or through the unrecited revelation, reflecting in his own orders and acts.
Looked at from whatever angle, this verse is a clear proof of the fact that the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) had an authority based, of course, on the unrecited revelation, to make new laws in addition to those mentioned in the Holy Qur’ân.
The Holy Qur’ân says:
Fight those who do not believe in Allâh and the Hereafter and do not hold unlawful what Allâh and His Messenger have made unlawful. (9:29)
The underlined words signify that it is necessary to “hold unlawful what Allâh and His Messenger made unlawful,” and that the authority making something unlawful is not restricted to Allâh Almighty. The Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) can also, by the will of Allâh, exercise this authority. The difference between the authority of Allâh and that of the Messenger is, no doubt, significant. The former is wholly independent, intrinsic and self-existent, while the authority of the latter is derived from and dependent on the revelation from Allâh. Yet, the fact remains that the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) has this authority and it is necessary for believers to submit to it alongwith their submission to the authority of Allâh.
The Holy Qur’ân says:
No believer, neither man nor woman, has a right, when Allâh and His Messenger decide a matter, to have a choice in their matter in issue. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger has gone astray into manifest error. (33:36)
Here, the decisions of Allâh and the Messenger (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) both have been declared binding on the believers.
It is worth mentioning that the word “and” occuring between “Allâh” and “His Messenger” carries both conjunctive and disjunctive meanings. It cannot be held to give conjunctive sense only, because in that case it will exclude the decision of Allâh unless it is combined with the decision of the messenger- a construction too fallacious to be imagined in the divine expression.
The only reasonable construction, therefore, is to take the word “and” in both conjunctive and disjunctive meanings. The sense is that whenever Allâh or His Messenger (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam), any one or both of them, decide a matter, the believers have no choice except to submit to their decisions.
It is thus clear that the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) has the legal authority to deliver decisions in the collective and individual affairs of the believers who are bound to surrender to those decisions.
The Holy Qur’ân says:
Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids you, refrain from it. (59:7)
Although the context of this verse relates to the distribution of the spoils of war, yet it is the well-known principle of the interpretation of the Holy Qur’ân that, notwithstanding the particular event in which a verse is revealed, if the words used are general, they are to be construed in their general sense; they cannot be restricted to that particular event.
Keeping in view this principle, which is never disputed, the verse gives a general rule about the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) that whatever order he gives is binding on the believers and whatever thing he forbids stands prohibited for them. The Holy Qur’ân thus has conferred a legal authority to the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) to give orders, to make laws and to enforce prohibitions.
It will be interesting here to cite a wise answer of ‘Abdullâh ibn Mas’ûd (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam), the blessed companion of the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam), which he gave to a woman.
A woman from the tribe of Asad came to ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ûd (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) and said, “I have come to know that you hold such and such things as prohibited. I have gone through the whole Book of Allâh, but never found any such prohibition in it.”
‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ûd (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) replied, “Had you read the Book you would have found it. Allâh Almighty says: “Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids you, refrain from it.” (59:7). (Ibn Mâjah)
By this answer ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ûd pointed out that this verse is so comprehensive that it embodies all the orders and prohibitions of the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) and since the questioned prohibitions are enforced by the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) they form part of this verse, though indirectly.
The Holy Qur’ân says:
But no, by your Lord, they shall not be (deemed to be) believers unless they accept you as judge in their disputes, then find in their hearts no adverse feeling against what you decided, but surrender to it in complete submission. (4:65)
The authority of the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) established in this verse seems apparently to be an authority to adjudicate in the disputes brought before him. But after due consideration in the construction used here, this authority appears to be more than that of a judge. A judge, no doubt, has an authority to deliver his judgments, but the submission to his judgments is not a condition for being a Muslim. If somebody does not accept the judgment of a duly authorized judge, it can be a gross misconduct on his part, and a great sin, for which he may be punished, but he cannot be excluded from the pale of Islâm on this score alone. He cannot be held as disbeliever.
On the contrary, the verse vehemently insists that the person who does not accept the verdicts of the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) cannot be held to be a believer. This forceful assertion indicates that the authority of the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) is not merely that of a customary judge. The denial of his judgments amounts to disbelief. It implies that the verdicts of the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) referred to here are not the normal verdicts given in the process of a trial. They are the laws laid down by him on the basis of the revelation, recited or unrecited, that he receives from Allâh. So, the denial of these laws is, in fact, the denial of the divine orders which excludes the denier from the pale of Islâm.
Looked at from this point of view, this verse gives the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) not only the authority of a judge, but also confers upon him the authority to make laws, as binding on the Muslims as the divine laws.
The Holy Qur’ân says:
They say, “we believe in Allâh and the Messenger, and we obey.” Then, after that, a group of them turn away. And they are not believers. And when they are called to Allâh and His Messenger that he may judge between them, suddenly a group of them turn back. But if they had a right, they come to him submissively! Is it that there is sickness in their hearts? Or are they in doubt? Or do they fear that Allâh may be unjust towards them, and His Messenger? Nay, but they are the unjust. All that the believers say when they are called to Allâh and His Messenger that he (the Messenger) may judge between them, is that they say, “We hear and we obey.” And they are those who acquire success. And whoever obeys Allâh and His Messenger and fears Allâh and observes His Awe, such are those who are the winners. (24:47-52)
These verses, too, hold that, in order to be a Muslim, the condition is to surrender to the verdicts of the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam). Those who do not turn towards him in their disputes inspite of being called to him cannot, according to the Holy Qur’ân, be treated as believers. It carries the same principle as mentioned in the preceding verse: It is the basic ingredient of the belief in Allâh and His Messenger that the authority of the Messenger should be accepted whole-heartedly. He must be consulted in disputes and obeyed. His verdicts must be followed in total submission, and the laws enunciated by him must be held as binding.
The Holy Prophet’s (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) Authority to Interpret the Holy Qur’ân
The second type of authority given to the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) is the authority to interpret and explain the Holy Book. He is the final authority in the interpretation of the Holy Qur’ân. The Holy Qur’ân says:
And We sent down towards you the Advice (i.e. the Qur’ân) so that you may explain to the people what has been sent down to them, and so that they may ponder. (16:44)
It is unequivocally established here that the basic function of the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) is to explain the Holy Book and to interpret the revelation sent down to him. It is obvious that the Arabs of Makkah, who were directly addressed by the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) did not need any translation of the Qur’ânic text. The Holy Qur’ân was revealed in their own mother tongue. Despite that they were mostly illiterate, they had a command on their language and literature. Their beautiful poetry, their eloquent speeches and their impressive dialogues are the basic sources of richness in the Arabic literature. They needed no one to teach them the literal meaning of the Qur’ânic text. That they understood the textual meaning is beyond any doubt.
It is thus obvious that the explanation entrusted to the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) was something more than the literal meaning of the Book. It was an explanation of what Allâh Almighty intended, including all the implications involved and the details needed. These details are also received by the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) through the unrecited revelation. As discussed earlier, the Holy Qur’ân has clearly said,
Then, it is on Us to explain it. (75:19)
This verse is self-explanatory on the subject. Allâh Almighty has Himself assured the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) that He shall explain the Book to him. So, whatever explanation the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) gives to the Book is based on the explanation of Allâh Himself. So, his interpretation of the Holy Qur’ân overrides all the possible interpretations. Hence, he is the final authority in the exegesis and interpretation of the Holy Qur’ân. His word is the last word in this behalf. ( Source: Muhammed Taqi Usmani http://www.central-mosque.com/fiqh/asunnah1.htm)
Discover The Truth 
You said admonishing cannot be understood as reciting the Quran. This is incorrect. We know that the Quran admonishes. The Prophet would admonish and speak a far reaching word (4:63) by reciting the Quran.
6:19 And this Qur’an was revealed to me that I may warn you thereby and whomever it reaches.
18:1-2 Praise is to Allah, who has sent down upon His Servant the Book and has not made therein any deviance. [He has made it] straight, to warn of severe punishment from Him and to give good tidings to the believers who do righteous deeds that they will have a good reward
19:97 So, [O Muhammad], We have only made Qur’an easy in the Arabic language that you may give good tidings thereby to the righteous and warn thereby a hostile people.
42:7 And thus We have revealed to you an Arabic Qur’an that you may warn the Mother of Cities and those around it and warn of the Day of Assembly, about which there is no doubt. A party will be in Paradise and a party in the Blaze.
6:19, Where does it state only Qoraan or that he didn’t expain it?
18:1-2, Again, where does it imply what you mean?
19:97, Again, where does it state warning is limited by reciting it?
42:7, Again, where is it that says only Qoran, and the prophet didn’t explain it? Where does it say he only recited it?
Another thing to point out, lets word play, it says we have made the Qoran in arabic, an Arabic Qoran, so he may warn the mother of cities and those around. Soo, it is sent in arabic, so it is only for arabs, and its also only for the prophet, because it says so HE may warn them, not you or me. And he’s talking about those only around mother of cities and those around. The ayah that says he’s sent for all mankind contradicts those, so the Qor’aan is in contradiction. As it is all clear, there is no interpretation needed, there is no need to explain that they are not in contradiction, because it’s all fully explains. And this explains that it contradicts itself, and that this book is not meant for us. It was not meant to be translated, nowhere does it command that it should’ve been translated.
The word ‘and’ in Arabic is not necessarily used in the same way as it is in English.
Example 1
21:48 And We had already given Moses and Aaron the criterion AND a light AND a reminder for the righteous
In the above verse, the word ‘and’ is used, not to describe three different things given to Moses and Aaron, but to give three different descriptions of one thing given to Moses and Aaron.
So,
the criterion = a light = a reminder for the righteous
Example 2
27:1 These are the verses of the Quran AND a clear Book.
In the above verse, it is obvious that ‘the Quran’ and ‘a clear Book’ are the same thing, not two different things.
So,
the Quran = a clear Book
The same applies to 62:2
So,
1) the Book = the wisdom
2) reciting verses = teaching (the Book and the wisdom) = purifying people
The same applies to 3:32
So,
Obeying Allah = Obeying the messenger
This is supported by 4:80 (“He who obeys the messenger has obeyed Allah”)
All the above is compatible with 5:99. Therefore, 5:99 does not contradict 62:2 or 3:32.
What nonsense.
It’s funny how a7adeeth rejectors claim we shouldn’t take any other 7adeeth than the Qoraan, but they come here tell their own 7adeeth. To say the book was fully explained, what are you explaining here then? You don’t accept scholars, claim everyone can understand it, but here you take the scholarship and tell others how it should be understood? Saying one ayah is in connection with other, though it’s stated nowhere in the Qoraan.
Where in the Qoraan does it say that ” WA (and) ” is used conjunctive everwhere? Where does it state that rule?
It is indeed not necessarily used in the same as it is in english, but that also means it can be used that way. So it can be both way, now what is it that decides that? Is it only that one ayah 21:48 (which can be taken many other ways too) that sets the standard for the usage of ” WA ” in the Qoraan? So then that means, until 21:48 and 27:1 was revealed it was not known that ” WA ” was being used conjunctive?
21:48, nowhere does this ayah state that we should only follow the Qoraan and not the prophet’s explanation of it, and also nowhere does it state that the prophet did not need to explain it, that he only had to recite it. Show me where it mentions only Qoran? Also, there is no INDICATION that the usage of AND in this ayah TIES with other ayaat, is there? If so, show me where. Show me where that Allah s.w.a. has stated that it is so.
27:1, now, where does this ayah mention only Qoraan? It is talking about that the verses of Qoraan which is a mubien book. Now, where is it that only Qoraan? Where does it say mubien means only Qoraan that contains all? Where does it say Qoraan contains everything, where is that meaning of mubien explained? Now again, there is no indication that this ayah is in tie with other ayaat. There is no proof for that. Nor did the prophet get all those ayaat all together, which means he couldn’t have known the full meaning of them without getting the other according to your false logic. So how’d they understand those without other ayaat? And secondly, where is the meaning of mubien stated? You can take it any meaning except ”only Qoraan it’s all full explained in Qoraan” meaning, because the nature of Qoraan doesn’t accept that argument because there are too many things that can’t be explained, that are vague/blury, that can mean many things at a time, and none of you can show a standard for that. Because Qoraan doesn’t explain the methodology on how to understand/interpretate things literally (We know that methodology though, the prophet). This ayah is talking about Qoraan, being a mubien book, and mubien has many meanings, AN EXPLAINED BOOK (but no where does it explain to what degree it’s explained and what way), a book that CLEARLY separates right from wrong (no where is stated that it’s only Qoraan that does that andthat it’s all limited by the Qoraan), a book that from which it is obvious that it is from Allah s.w.a, a book that is clearly comming from Allah.(no where does it state that we should not obey the prophet)
Simply accept that you qoraniyyoon are interpretating them the way you choose to. You cannot claim you let Qoraan do the talking, because the book is open to many different understandings and because qoraniyyoon have many different sects all claiming they simply only follow the qoraan but differ in many things. But according to your fully explaining logic, fully detailed logic, interpretating shouldn’t even have room in the Qoraan. You shouldn’t even need look up from other soeraat for ayaat that support your claim, claiming they are in tie (no evidence to it from the Qoraan they are tied). It should all be open and clear, easy to understand on the first view with no doubts. And according to your logic, you are not allowed to share you own words/views (a7adeeth) here, because then you’ll be the reason people are not obeying 45:6.
It may be ” obvious ” that in 27:1 Qoraan and the mubien book are same things, but what is mubien? Where does Qoraan explain that. If someone would want, he could take it another way too and take the word ‘Qor’aan’ literally, and say it means the recitation. Make of the ayah ” These are the verses of the recitation and a clear Book ”. And then claim the clear book = lawh al-ma7foez, and the recitation is part of lawh-ma7foez, lawh al-ma7foez containing everything about anything, so a clear book. So yeah, the clear book = lawh al-ma7foez, and the recitation, well what’s being recitated to the prophet, but no where does it state it’s being limited the Qoraan being recited, it could well be something else besides the Qoraan as book.
Now I don’t claim that we understand it this way and this is right, but it could well be taken ANY way you want. See how astray one can go? That is what you guys do with the other ayaat. Taking them out of their context without any standard proven methodology, evidence, doing it the way you like to.
About 62:2, it is what you make of it. Nowhere does Qoraan say ” WA ” is conjunctive there. It is you taking it in the way so that it supports your own claim, but you cannot say it is a fact, because you cannot prove the ” WA ” is conjunctive in that ayah, that all mean the same. There is no proof this ayah is in tie with the other ayaat your pointed out from the Qoraan. And there is also no proof that in 21:48 all have the same meaning, because no where does Qoraan say they all mean the same, it could be well different words describing one thing with different meanings. They could, but they also could not. There are different opinions on that. And if it did, there is no indication it is in tie with 62:2. There is no proof that wa has to mean the same wa as in the other ayaat. The logic of you makes it ” required ” for those ayaat all to be revealed together IF they are all tied together. Otherwise understanding them would not be possible, because one needs the other to be able to get the ‘real’ meaning of it (according to you). So, the question stands, who decides what understanding is right and what not? I can come here and say, why are you using 21:48 as your claim that ” WA ” in arabic comes conjunctive there, so it has to be everywhere. Then I’ll say, in 2:2 and many MANY other ayaat ” WA ” comes obviously disjunctive, or are you going to come and claim now that ” yuminuuna bilgaybi ” WA ” yuqeemunassalaati ” WA ” mimmaa razaqnaahum yuqinuun ” all are the same thing? (You wont ofc) Lets do it your way. Yes they are indeed all the same things, they are all obeying Allah, Obeying Allah = praying = believing in the unseen = giving spending your rizq, so there is only 1 meaning of it, obeying Allah, its all the same. Lol. Now that logic doesn’t work does it? It’s all the same thing yes, obeying him, but all have different meanings and actions. You can say, in 21:48 it’s obviously describing one thing with different names/words, here it does not so this is false, then I’ll say what is your proof that in 21:48 all those things mean the same? They could all well have different meanings describing that one thing. I can talk about ONE person and say different things about him, then indeed that person is all those things, but that doesn’t mean the things I say about him are all and have ONE meaning. He is a man and a strong and smart and tall man, so man = strong = smart = tall, so its all the same, its man, no different meaning. That is just like christians says God = Jesus/Son = Holy spirit so it’s all the same, though they all have different meanings on their own, how can they be the same? – This is my man, I sent him so you all listen to him and he will teach you and explain to you and he’ll take care of you. – Oh so now, him teaching and explaining and taking care = listening to him, so teaching and explaining and taking care = listening? Listening = teaching = explaining = taking care, so its all the same, nothing different has to be done? Lol. It’s all the same thing yeah, all listening to him, but that doesn’t PROVE in no way, that is no NO WAY of LOGIC meaning that it’s all the same one action that they all have the same meaning literally, that he cannot teach and explain, only tell them, it’s in the END indeed all the same, you END UP listening to HIS actions by doing what he is told to do, what he tells you. Seriously how you qoraniyyoon love to play with words. This is a car and its red and its big and its fast, so car = red = big = fast, so its aall the same. Lol. Yeah, geniuses you guys are. To say reciting = teaching book = teaching wisdom = purifying so it’s all the same, it’s reciting? Oh lol, so Allah s.w.a. didn’t know to put this in a proper way using one word, but making it harder for us? Using different words with different meanings that require different ACTIONS, words that don’t even come from the same roots, he did this because he meant one thing? Oh yeah, master degree logic this is. ” Hey dude, listen to me and go to home and eat and sleep. ” Hey, why are you going home man? Who told you to eat? Where do I state that you have to sleep? I told you to listen to me, listening to me = going to home = eating = sleeping, it’s all the same man! It’s all listening to me, it’s nothing different from each other. ” Yeah.. right, sub7anAllah, what a lost sect you qoraniyyoon are. Throwing every logic common sense every sense aside. What you all do just to be able to prove your falsehood.
”I will read it for you and teach you how to understand and how to explain and how to apply it. ”So, reading = teaching how to understand = teach how to explain = applying, so I did not teach or explain and to apply it. No no man I did not, I simply read it for you. I cannot do more. Because it’s all the same.
So agian, Reciting = teaching book = teaching wisdom = purifying. Yeah, right. Allah s.w.a. probably forgot to use one word, instead he accidentally used different words requiring different actions, but somehow they end up the same. Like God = Son = Holy spirit, yeah right.. three different beings, but somehow they are the same, uhu. And like obeying Allah = Obeying messenger, so obeying messenger = obeying Allah, so it’s the same, if you obey the one you obey the other, there is no difference between Allah and messenger (Allah in shirk with his self? astagfirullaah) is what this would mean, but ofcourse then Qoraniyyoon start to interpretate it, then taking it literally is wrong (according to what? who knows), and say no obeying messenger = obeying Qoraan = accepting the words of qoraan the mssenger recites (though no where in the Qoraan does it state it is so), so the messenger didnt say anything except the Qoraan (for which there is no proof too no where in 21:45 does it say revelation is limited by Qoraan), so they say. Saying that in some mosque Allah and his messengers name are next to each other that is shirk shirk shirk shirk shirk !!!!! you mushriqun putting Allah’s name with the messenger next to each other!!!!! Oh dude, Allah does that in the Qoraan saying obey me and the messenger? Saying when Allah and his messenger decide? Saying if allah and his messenger? Many places Allah and his messenger? That shirk too? Oh and are we going to apply that lame rule of qoraan and clear book = qoraan = clear book, so its the same, so allah = messenger, messenger = allah, so its the same? messenger = god and god = messenger? Applying the trinity method on some ayaat bcs that way it fits your belief, and other ayaat you refuse that method and that logic because then you cannot explain it? (method and logic, method = logic, logic = method, so logic is the same thing as method there is no difference oh yeah)
For some reason that a = b = c = d = e so in the and it’s all A made me remember the 19 theory. This + that + that + this + that + him + = her = me = you and then / 19 = X so in the end its all 19 = code of Qoraan = prove qoraan is preserved = message of allah = rashad khalifa messenger of allah bla bla.
Now, nowhere is there an indication nor a rule that 3:32 is in tie with 4:80, thus it cannot be used to support that claim. They are two different ayahs in two different soerahs, they are not connected, there is no evidence. And to say it’s all compatible with 5:99, well that is like saying this app is compatible with windows, but hey, someone else can tweak it a bit and it could be well with compatible with mac and android and other things hey wouldn’t it? Or I could as well say, what is your proof it’s compatible? Who says they are in tie? Which ayah? (This is how qoraniyyoon try to work things out if they can’t find another way out or they just simply ignore). To use 5:99 to support that only thing he had to do is recite = in contradiction in 62:2 no matter in what way you put it. Allah s.w.a. clearly used different verbs there, different set of commands/actions, and you come and give them one meaning? According to what? See. You say it’s compatible with A, I say no it’s not, it’s compatible with B. You are tweaking it your own way, and I am my way. Dare to explain to me why A is right and B is not? Who decides that. You don’t have proof that the way I take is wrong according to the Qoraan, nowhere does it say don’t take it this way, does it? But hey, I have proof the companions and their followers of the prophet did take it this way. Oh and, you cannot claim those books were written 200 years after the prophets dead, because
1. No where does it state in the Qoraan when he prophet died, so you don’t know when he died. Thus you cannot make that something has been done xx years after his dead.
2. No where does it state in the Qoraan when those books were written.
So, to claim they were written 200 years after, you’d have to know when he died, but according to your argument, when he died is written in those same sources that are written 200 years later when he died, so you have no source at all, because you say the sources that are written 200 years later are corrupt cannot be trusted, so there is no evidence to base it on. There is also no evidence to claim the Qoraan has been preserved, written correctly. There is no evidence it has been written in the time of the prophet also. Because all are in those ” books that were written 200 years later ”.
5:99, very simple. The prophet brings them the message of Allah s.w.a, he cannot force them to listen to belief. He tells them, if they want to believe they are welcome, he can teach them the message, explain them, if they don’t want, then what can he do?
Now according to you, So, I tell you as the messenger of the amr of the country where you live in, ” I only can tell you to start working if you want to survive ” I cannot force you can I, if you won’t, in the end you’ll be punished because you haven’t paid your bills. But if you want to, and come to me and say I want to work, so then I will say according to your logic, I cannot help you I can only tell you to work? Lol. What a logic.. Obviously I’ll say, alright, welcome, I’ll show you how to work, where to do it, the right method of it.
So, if I invite you to my house bcs you dont have one and its raining outside and then you say okay I will come, and you come (oh wait saying okay i will come = you coming, so its all the same comming = saying to come (!) ), but I don’t open my door for you and say I can only tell you to come? Though its me inviting you and its my home and I have been given the power to open the door, but I cannot, because inviting = being my home = having the power to open the door, so its all inviting, its the same. Seriously, from now on I will apply this logic everywhere on the Qoraan, It’ll make things way easier, you don’t have any indication from the Qoraan I cannot do this. So, believing = salaah = zakaah, so It’s all believing, so only thing there is needed to do is believing. Believing = obeying allah = obeying messenger = salaah = zakaah = fasting = djihaad, so it’s all obeying Allah, and obeying = believing, so only thing we can do is believe. Well okay, I ain’t serious anymore I know, but it’s a fun method.
But, obviously the ” illalbalaagh ” there means, the prophet can call them to the truth, but he cannot force them, its up to them if they want or not. But if they want to, the prophet will welcome them and help them, explain them understand the message and live it. Don’t forget the Qoraan is written in such a language that destroyed all the poetry in it’s time, I don’t see any of you taking poetries literally, do I? Then what is it that keeps you from understanding the Qoraan in the right language it has come in? go study some arabic balaaghah. None of those ayah imply what you make of it, and you know that yourself very good too, that you are giving them your own color to choice.
I know it’s hard to accept, especially in belief, that you might be wrong, that throwing away arrogance and accepting that you were all wrong is hard, but I did it and you can too, as once I was a qoraniyyoon/7adeeth rejector for nearly 4 years. But seriously.. throwing all common sense and logic and standard rules away just to be able to prove your argument? I really feel all sorry. Al7amdoelillah I am happy that I have left it, I just see my self reflection in you all. I cannot believe I was this arrogant, this blind, this ignorant. The Qoraan, the history, past events, what has been passed on, all the sects that have ever existed, even the lost ones, all talk against you, there is nothing to base your argument on, not even the Qoraan because it’s open for many different ways, you can’t even base your belief on the arabic language, because that also what shaped and recorded by the same sunni scholars. The corrupt lying ones. You cannot base it on anything, as you cannot even prove the Qoraan has been preserved. As you cannot even prove Qoraan has been written right. Because it was the people of that time who shaped the arabic language, arabic alphabet. When the Qoraan was written down in the time of the prophet, it didnt look like today, it didn’t have 7arakaat, letters ba, ta, sa, djim, ha, gha, zaay, ra, seen, sheen, 3ayn ghayn etc didn’t have dots, so you couldn’t distinguish them from each other. Even the mushafs written in teh first 30-50 years were/are not the same. It was possible to read them in many different ways, different meanings. They’ve all been added later on. And this, is according to books that have been written 200 years later (according to your baseless claim). So, you don’t have any information at all where the book Qoraan came from, how it came in shape, where how and who did it, in which methodology. You sir, you only have a book in your hand that you claim is the truth and the light, but for you it’s past is dark and unknown. It’s an unknown book, unknown who wrote it, who passed it on, unknown where and when it came from. Because you have nothing to prove it’s past is light and the truth also. You are empty handed with a book, that you’ve took from an corrupted ummah.
You removed two of my posts because I mention Allah in the Quran alone
17:46 And We have placed over their hearts coverings, lest they understand it, and in their ears deafness. And when you mention your Lord in the Qur’an alone, they turn back in aversion.
Stop accusing me of things, I did NOT remove any of your posts.
Again, an ayah taken out of context. Allah s.w.a. is there clearly talking about, that they turn back in aversion because he mentions only ONE GOD in the Qoraan, that there is only ONE GOD. He is talking about TAWHEED, HE MENTIONS TAWHEED IN THE QORAAN SO THEY DONT LISTEN TO IT BECAUSE THEY WERE MUSHRIKEEN. IT doesn’t say they should only follow the Qoraan. How you play with ayaat in order to prove your own lies!
Look at how this person took the ayah;
”And We have placed over their hearts coverings, lest they understand it, and in their ears deafness. And when you mention your Lord in (!!!!!)the Qur’an alone(!!!!!), they turn back in aversion.”
Lets take a look at the original ayah;
”And We have placed over their hearts coverings, lest they understand it, and in their ears deafness. And when you mention your (!!!)Lord alone(!!!) in the Qur’an, they turn back in aversion.”
Look at the original arabic ayah if you know arabic, or ask any arabic scholar, the ” wa7dahu ” in the Qoraan is talking about Allah s.w.a. the dameer goes back to him, its talking about taw7eed. Check any tafseer, if you dont want, check ANY translations, doesn’t matter which language, all will say the same without exception. There is nothing about following the Qoraan alone in this ayah. How can someone claim he/she knows where and when ” WA ” is used as conjunctive or not, if that person cannot even understand this basic ayah, if he/she doesn’t know basic arabic grammer rules, and give it a meaning in the right way?