Why Muslims Must Follow the Sunna As Well As the Quran

So what is the opposite equivalent?

Rather than call someone by their given name what do you call a brother in Islam?

(I've missed seeing you use bro, brah, or brother when speaking to men in this forum)
 
wil said:
So what is the opposite equivalent?

Rather than call someone by their given name what do you call a brother in Islam?

(I've missed seeing you use bro, brah, or brother when speaking to men in this forum)
Click to expand...

aaah thats because you havn't seen enuff of me!!!; you wanna come along to ummah forum, islamicboard etc etc where i'm shooting these words from the hip every day!!; na mean brah? :cool:

it depends how your feeling really; mostly i'm in my gangsta mode u see :D, so bro and sis is what i usually use, but very rarely, especially when ive just done a prayer and feeling rather proffesional :), i use brother, sister, or even better, dear brother dear sister! ;)
 
Abdullah, brother, can you show me the verse where a new interpretation of Qur'an is promised?
I find that the more you very reflect and study the Book, the more you understand it's teaching. Sometimes, new things are revealed as in a light bulb moment. And this is how I see it. When Almighty says that at the end of days the truth will be revealed at the horizon, I am interpreting it as the Truth of His Word, the Qur'an. And it has been proven many times and continues so. While Hadiths may contain bits of truth, the Qur'an had the whole of it.
 
And the Bible may be not valid, but hardcore conservatives still use it through Hadiths. Allah SWT would not declare something questionable in His Word and then "reveal" separately that suddenly it is OK to refer to. I am talking about Hadiths that are in line with the Bible NOT Qur'an. Such action would make it difficult for anyone seeking truth to believe Qur'an anymore. Rather, logically, people are passing things as if from Allah which He has not said we should do.
 
Amica2 said:
Abdullah, brother, can you show me the verse where a new interpretation of Qur'an is promised?
I find that the more you very reflect and study the Book, the more you understand it's teaching. Sometimes, new things are revealed as in a light bulb moment. And this is how I see it. When Almighty says that at the end of days the truth will be revealed at the horizon, I am interpreting it as the Truth of His Word, the Qur'an. And it has been proven many times and continues so. While Hadiths may contain bits of truth, the Qur'an had the whole of it.
Click to expand...

yes thats right the Quran has whole of it as sunnah is an extension of the Quran [as explained in OP]

if Quran is left for leymen to interpret then there will be million different interpretations dont you see sis?; people will be following their desires deliberately or inadvertantly, politicans will be interpreting according to their boss, mr president etc etc so really we all have to follow the Prophetic interpretation:

Sis, see the 'two kinds of interpretations'; chapter:

http://ccm-inc.org/oldsite/iqra/articles/authsun/chap1.html

and here is a verse that refers to Prophets interpetation:

In the early days of his Prophethood, when the Holy Prophet (
chap1.49.gif
) received the verses of the Holy Qur’ân revealed to him, he used to recite the same simultaneously, lest he should forget them. It was a strenuous exercise for him, because he felt it was much too difficult to listen to the revelation, to understand it correctly, and to learn it by heart, all at the same time. Allâh Almighty relieved him from this burden when He revealed the following verses of the Holy Qur’ân:

chap1.22.jpg


Move not your tongue with it in order to hasten it. It is on Us to gather it (in your heart) and to recite it. So, when We read it, follow its reading. Then it is on Us to explain it. (75:16-19)

In the last sentence, Allâh Almighty has promised the Holy Prophet (
chap1.49.gif
) to explain the verses of the Holy Qur’ân to him. It is evident that this explanation is something separate from the Holy Qur’ân itself. It is not the Holy Qur’ân. It is its explanation or its exegesis. Therefore, it should necessarily be in some other form, distinct from the words of the Holy Book. And this is exactly what is meant by the “unrecited revelation.” But the two kinds of revelation, though different in their form, are both revealed to the Holy Prophet (
chap1.49.gif
); both are from Allâh; and both are to be believed and obeyed by the Muslims.

and one that says his role is to explain the Quran to us:

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)
 
Amica2 said:
And the Bible may be not valid, but hardcore conservatives still use it through Hadiths. Allah SWT would not declare something questionable in His Word and then "reveal" separately that suddenly it is OK to refer to. I am talking about Hadiths that are in line with the Bible NOT Qur'an. Such action would make it difficult for anyone seeking truth to believe Qur'an anymore. Rather, logically, people are passing things as if from Allah which He has not said we should do.
Click to expand...
Original bible is from Allah sis so it is only accepted for some of islamic teachings to be in accordance with it no contradiction in that

islam is the fastest growing religion on earth sister in terms of conversion; in other forums i come across a few converts almost every weak!, so trust me it is not making believing the quran difficult at all

if you consider carefully the evidences given by traditional scholars for stoning etc etc and how it is according to the quran you will see it all makes sense; it is your understanding at fault sister and not the quran or hadith; i can even give you a basic example of how it makes sense; lets take this stoning one for this is something hadith sceptics say contradicts quran:

.Allah says in Quran to follow the illegal sex punishment unless he reveals new instructions right?, and then Allah revelaed that new instruction in the hadith; the hadith is just as authoratative as the Quran as Quran says follow hadith. The lashings punsihment mentioned in the Quran is for fornication and stoning os for adultry so there is no contradiction there

now if you think still scholars could have made a mistake as that different instruction could have been the lashings verse, in that case let me tell you the stoning hadiths are the most authentic type; same as the authenticity of Quran, mutawatir, so there can be no doubt Prophet [saw] indeed authorized the stoning
 
Really? You believe stoning for adultery and lashing for fornication is proper and acceptable?

Is this for both parties involved?

And in the case if rape?
 
wil said:
Really? You believe stoning for adultery and lashing for fornication is proper and acceptable?

Is this for both parties involved?

And in the case if rape?
Click to expand...
yes ofcourse wil, dont u see that all muslims accept this other than the bush's camp! :D [jk]

in the case of rape, if it is done with weopon involved then it turns into case of terrorism [spreading terror] and death sentence is applicabl, if not, then same punishment as adultery [if raper was married] or fornication
 
No I don't see that, most Muslims I know (I guess I am in Bush's camp whatever that means) think stoning is barbaric.

But again, if a woman is forcibly raped overpowered without a weapon, she is to be stoned or lashed....for her "crime/sin"?

And for all the rest if those of course?

And this applies to men as well??
 
wil said:
No I don't see that, most Muslims I know (I guess I am in Bush's camp whatever that means) think stoning is barbaric.

But again, if a woman is forcibly raped overpowered without a weapon, she is to be stoned or lashed....for her "crime/sin"?

And for all the rest if those of course?

And this applies to men as well??
Click to expand...
Why would you think a raped woman would be punished? It was not her intent to be raped... so why would she be stoned/lashed? Maybe you are confusing Quran with Bible again, as actions done to a person unwillingly are never referred to as carrying sin. Such as being shot with pig blood bullets, drowned in alcohol (as in someone else pouring it down your throat forcefully while you aren't trying to get any), or having a woman suddenly jump out naked, these are just pipe dreams of the uneducated that the sin would fall on the victim. you must have intent to commit a sin.

and as for...
wil said:
Really? You believe stoning for adultery and lashing for fornication is proper and acceptable?

Is this for both parties involved?
Click to expand...
Yes, in a Islamic society where the population agrees to live under Shariah, I find it more than acceptable. Both "crimes" are avoidable and for the most part both are more harmful than beneficial to society.

And yes for all parties willingly involved the punishment would be rendered. now... to make it less corruptable, Divorce is allowed (and quite easy), The laws regarding witnesses are pretty extensive and difficult, and there must be at least 4 witnesses (of good character)...

http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/1453/how-many-witnesses-are-required-to-prove-adultery

pretty good explanation
 
wil said:
No I don't see that, most Muslims I know (I guess I am in Bush's camp whatever that means) think stoning is barbaric.

But again, if a woman is forcibly raped overpowered without a weapon, she is to be stoned or lashed....for her "crime/sin"?

And for all the rest if those of course?

And this applies to men as well??
Click to expand...
lol well take it from me wil :); all sunni's and even shias [thats 99.9 percent of muslims] accept stoning! :D; the liberals like Amica are not 'most muslims' ;)

the woman is never punished for rape; this is a lie by western media; basically when a woman is caught to have fornicated, she says she was raped to save herself from punishment; 99.9 percent of the time [an islamic sharia judge who dealt with such cases said this himself] she is let off without punishment giving her the benifit of the doubt, but when consensual involvement on her part is overwhelmingly established she is punished and western media upholds her claim that she was raped and says she got punished for being raped; see how those evil bas***** mislead u all? :D:D:D:D

the man however is always punished
 
Last edited:
wil said:
stoning is barbaric.
Click to expand...
punishment for adultery is very severe in hereafter hence a much lighter punishment [the stoning] purges one of this sin; also the gruesome nature of it is a strong deterrent, so 'barbaric' is not always bad in a religious context! ;)

but this punishment can hardly be implemented as four witness are needed to have seen the act of penetration ..., hence in 500 years of Ottoman rule only one person was stoned!, so this punishment is in general just a deterrent
 
wil said:
So this didn't happen?

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/02/...rape-victims-to-death-for-committing-adultery
Click to expand...
not gonna waste my time opening... just gonna say probably not...

Second one... (Steve... seems I'm losing permission to quote this line)
tribal court... also, wil, are we talking about religion, or people... because you still love to use examples of people ordering/doing things that aren't and usually couldn't possibly be part of the religion. Use of a cell phone? then Posting Nude Pictures as protest... at best the nude picture one is an outcry to stop absolute corruption from entering. I get the whole western mentality that women should be proud of their bodies and display it openly is revered here in the states and Europe. But let's be honest, how many women are really looking forward to walking around nude. Most have too much shame for such ridiculousness. "no man should stare" is an idiotic idea that seems to forget that we are all animals and men will look and stare at female bodies. so although maybe someone stretches the law to cover these type things with "barbaric" practices, it largely just serves as a deterrent.

wil said:
Nor this

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn.../afghanistan-taliban-woman-stoning/index.html
Click to expand...


"Taliban-controlled" imagine that, a group who is known and been quite loudly rejected by a vast majority of Muslims does something terrible. How about go back and read what Abdullah wrote,
Abdullah said:
when consensual involvement on her part is overwhelmingly established she is punished
Click to expand...


And quit going back to the same old argument. It is no longer productive to keep reaching to the same place over and over to try to prove to us our lack of knowledge about what WE believe compared to what SOME people so. If you want one of us to say it... YES THERE ARE STUPID PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT DO THINGS CLAIMING IT IS IN THE RELIGION, YET IT IS NOT. THIS EXISTS EVEN IN MUSLIM CIRCLES... ALSO IN EVERY CIRCLE, ATHEISTS INCLUDED...
 
BigJoeNobody said:
"no man should stare" is an idiotic idea that seems to forget that we are all animals and men will look and stare at female bodies.
Click to expand...
I find this to be extremely questionable logic. What are you trying to say with this statement?
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
I find this to be extremely questionable logic. What are you trying to say with this statement?
Click to expand...
expecting an even marginal portion of men to not look at a woman, especially disrobed is stupid. Our instinct is to be attracted and therefore look. This is just Nature of Man, regardless of context of religion. Even if we are going to try absolute freedom, If a woman has the right to walk around naked why wouldn't men have the right to stare, or comment? This, IMO, is an example of something where absolute freedom needs to be in check. Hence why we have decency laws (which are slowly being eroded with time).
 
BigJoeNobody said:
expecting an even marginal portion of men to not look at a woman, especially disrobed is stupid. Our instinct is to be attracted and therefore look. This is just Nature of Man, regardless of context of religion. Even if we are going to try absolute freedom, If a woman has the right to walk around naked why wouldn't men have the right to stare, or comment? This, IMO, is an example of something where absolute freedom needs to be in check. Hence why we have decency laws (which are slowly being eroded with time).
Click to expand...

So by that logic, human nature dictates that we will do what we want when we want and are thus not really accountable to anything?
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
So by that logic, human nature dictates that we will do what we want when we want and are thus not really accountable to anything?
Click to expand...
I think you are stretching to get something to disagree. My statement was there has to be laws, that are followed, for society to function. Although the aforementioned circumstance where the girl was posting Nude pictures being stoned is harsh and by my opinion the wrong punishment, it is worth noting that the harsh penalty has made it to where this 1 incident happened rather than the 1,000s of like occurrences here in the US where the punishment is light to non-existent. So much so that it is now being pushed that nudism should be perfectly allowed and in turn men shouldn't be attracted to such actions, much less take unnecessary looks.

We are accountable for ludeness and inappropriate actions. But I don't see a point in punishing a man for looking at a woman who is nude (in this life) if she so put it out there. It is not only his responsibility to remove his gaze, but rather a shared responsibility with the woman who shouldn't be in a manner to attract said attention. Society only works when parties share responsibility to remove unwanted actions. If a woman dresses modestly (at least to the social standards of the area) then men would have no reason to inappropriately stare, so if they do, it is on them. This doesn't by any measure allow heinous crimes such as rape or sexual assault, regardless of women's openness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top