Oral Torah, Sacred Tradition, Ahadith

[OrtaYol]

The point - for me - is Tafsir of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) which details the specifics of The Revelation, such as the specifics Salah.

If specifics of Salah are missing from the Quran then the Quran is incomplete...no?

 

[Arif Ghamiq]

No. I do not believe that the specifics of Salah (or anything else) are "missing" from Quran - so I do not believe that The Quran is incomplete.

I do believe the specifics of Salah, as well as other things, were demonstrated by Prophet Muhammad (saww), the "Perfect Example/Excellent Pattern" as intended by Allah (33:21).

 

[OrtaYol]

Is this a wording thing?

Do you believe the specifics of Salah are contained within the Quran?

 

[Arif Ghamiq]

No this isnt a wording thing - just clarity.

I do not believe the specifics of Salah are contained in The Quran, but just because something isnt in Quran doesn't mean it's "missing" from The Quran imo.

 

[OrtaYol]

Thank you for your response Arif.

I would agree when it comes to things like my mothers lentil soup recipe or how to raise a pet giraffe.. but when it comes to matters of religion I don't understand how anyone finds this reasonable.

6:38 - We have neglected nothing in the Book (of Our decrees). Then unto their Lord they will be gathered.

6:114 - Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained?

12:111 - It is no invented story but a confirmation of the existing (Scripture) and a detailed explanation of everything, and a guidance and a mercy for folk who believe.

These verses are obviously not referring to everything in the all encompassing sense but in regards to religion. Salah are part of the religion.. I do not understand how the Quran can be regarded as complete if some aspects of our contact prayers are left out of it? I cannot think of any other situation where this logic would apply. If a primary text contains information but you need secondary texts to supplement and even add completely new information in order to understand the primary text, then the primary text cannot be complete... what am I missing here?

Also why would it be left out? It is not that much extra information, it could of easily been added in a page or two.

 

[muhammad_isa]

These verses are obviously not referring to everything in the all encompassing sense but in regards to religion. Salah are part of the religion..

Yes .. the Qur'an instructs us to remember Allah regularly.
Does it need to have a step-by-step instructions on how to do that?
It seems not. I am quite confident that Muslims know how to perform salah

Also why would it be left out?

Is it because that while Muslims argue about "the mechanics" of their religion", they miss the whole point?
..that Allah SWT is looking for sincerity and not a rule junkie.

 

[Amica2]

A common theme in (at least) the Abrahamic faiths: the dual authority of written and (initially) oral transmission.

Torah and Mishnah, and later Talmud. Both trace their authority back to the revelation at Mount Sinai.

The Gospel and the Sacred Tradition (and later, Protestant efforts to derive it purely from scripture). Inspired by the Holy Spirit, legitimized by apostolic lineage.

The Quran and the Ahadith, both traced back to the Prophet, either his revelation or his example.

Scripture and tradition have this interesting relationship, either one is meaningless without the other, and yet people have gotten seriously angry at each other about the authority and content of oral tradition. Schisms, sects, and worse.

Where do you all stand regarding the oral traditions of your faiths? And I'd love to include the Baha'i members in this discussion as well.

Thank you for this question. As a Muslim, I believe the only Divine Scripture in Islam is The Qur'an. For me personally, it is the authority on all religious matters and beliefs. Anything else, to me, is human invention. However, in practice, I am not the only-Qur'an gal either. Hadiths, as much as they are problematic, confusing and contradictory both to themselves and the Qur'an, contain certain teachings and instructions that are acceptable to me. For example, hadiths detail how to perform a formal prayer while Qur'an appears more vague about it. It probably is so because God cares more of how and why we approach prayer, rather than the manner in which is performed. God may not care if I sit on a chair to perform my prayer, but He cares if I am present, if I performed ablution, if I believe and focus on Him in prayer. He gives us certain freedoms to decide certain matters, such as how to perform funeral rituals. Qur'an doesn't detail such.

However, hadiths are flawed and many of them preach lies and contradictions. Proof of this is the fact that world's Muslims don't follow the same hadith books. Further, Qur'an preaches respect for all, while hadiths propagate hate for some animals and women. Also, hadiths support pedophilia in the blatant lie and grave slander against the Prophet of Islam when they state Aisha r.a. consummated marriage with the Prophet pbuh at the age of 9. Next, hadiths propagate abuse of human rights for minorities, calling people unclean, jailing/killing people for leaving Islam and sanctioning killing of people for no reason. ALL of which are NOT authentic Islamic teachings per Qur'an, and which contradict other hadiths themselves that are aligned with the Qur'an. Next, initial hadiths collected were in over 100,000. Out of those only 3000 remained to be used, and all 3000 are classified as true, good, weak and fake. Good luck figuring out which is which. It depends of the school of thought you follow, which country you live in, what government you have and which sect you are belonging to.

And Qur'an says it is enough for Muslims. I believe that if Muslims stuck with the Qur'an, and used hadiths just as general guidance followed only if not in contradiction to the Qur'an, Muslims would be much happier people, and the world would be a happier place.

 

[juantoo3]

Interesting points! I didn't know those details about the Patristic Fathers, or that the Hadith are considered Tafsir in themselves.

It occurred to me that in Buddhism, the commentaries are kept well separate from the Suttas, and that the Abhidamma (also ascribed to the Buddha), an early systematization of the doctrine, was maybe a similar phenomenon to oral tradition as discussed here, in that different schools had the same sutras but different Abhidarma. This was then overlaid by the development of Mahayana Sutras, which had their own commentarial traditions... similar but more complex situation.

For someone whose native language is not English, you compose your replies very eloquently.

 

[juantoo3]

Just a free-flow mental riff, but can it not be said that all religions began with an experience, and that experience led to a thought, and once we had words we spoke those thoughts to others around us, and once we had writing we began to write those thoughts down to share with others still later?

There will always be people wishing to pare back to the minimum, perhaps in some effort to get to the root source. And there will always be other people wishing to pile on interpretations (well meaning and appropriate, and not). How does one account for differences of opinion, or of cognitive dissonance, or simple misunderstanding or misapplication? In the end, does any of it really matter if it is the experience that actually means anything?

 

[2ndpillar]

From a Catholic viewpoint, the two go hand-in-hand. The Protestant rejection of Tradition was a means of rejecting the authority of Rome, rather than any criticism of Tradition as such.

For myself, I always think the Tradition gave rise to the Scripture, not the other way round.

Maybe you should define "Tradition" and "Scripture". The Protestant Luther seemed to think that the Roman Church's selling of indulgences (Tradition) was a bit much, much like the Roman church's supposed leader, Peter, asking Yeshua, what is in this for me (Matthew 19:27). Yeshua was wily in his final answer to Peter, "many who are first, shall be last". Of course, the Roman church claims Peter as foremost, the head leader/first of the Roman church. Also, Luther seemed to feel that the Roman church was none other than a harlot daughter of Babylon, according to "Revelation of Jesus Christ" (Revelation 1:1). What were the traditions of Israel before given the 10 commandments? What were they after? A "Catholic viewpoint" may be a view from darkness.

The judges/shepherds of Israel (Jewish Talmud) will be replaced due to malfeasance (Ezekiel 34). Those "shepherds" would now include the lost northern tribes, Joseph, among the Gentiles, which do not feed the sheep, but slaughter them for their fat.

 

[Thomas]

Maybe you should define "Tradition" and "Scripture". The Protestant Luther seemed to think that the Roman Church's selling of indulgences (Tradition) was a bit much ...

Check your facts. What annoyed him was money collected in the German states going to Rome. When the selling of indulgences put money in the pocket of his German bishop, he was quite happy with that.

... much like the Roman church's supposed leader, Peter, asking Yeshua, what is in this for me (Matthew 19:27).

No, you've read that out of context. Read the whole chapter.

Of course, the Roman church claims Peter as foremost, the head leader/first of the Roman church.

Nope, you're misunderstood that, too.

+++

OK, let's cut to the chase:

You hold Peter is 'the worthless shepherd'. Where does Scripture say that? In fact, does does Scripture explicitly state the things you claim about the Church? Does this cover the Orthodox Patriarchates as well, being the self-same Church in the says of Peter. And the Anglican Communities...

... In fact, which Christian denominations regard Peter as 'the worthless shepherd'?

 

[2ndpillar]

Check your facts. What annoyed him was money collected in the German states going to Rome. When the selling of indulgences put money in the pocket of his German bishop, he was quite happy with that.

I think Martin Luther was happy when he had beer in his mug, dinner on the table, and a nun in his bed. Something like drink and be merry (have Mary), as pertains to the time of Noah, and the end time coming up.

No, you've read that out of context. Read the whole chapter.

I think the context of Matthew 19 was to keep the commandments of God, which the Roman church has substituted the commandments of Caesar and his state pope. Whereas he stated that the kingdom of heaven belonged to the children, and they should be left alone. As to become "perfect"/complete, well his suggestion was that one was to sell their property and give to the poor. That was an individual matter, whereas Peter seemed to have taken the discourse over the cliff with respect to his followers giving him their proceeds to deal with as he deemed fit. Much like the Roman church, but his future church seemed to keep their demands to 10% unless the practitioners sinned, whereas selling their house and giving the proceeds to the church would not be dismissed. Not that it would make them whole or complete, but it was to save their souls from the fires of hell/Sheol/pit/grave. Of course, the church saved no one's soul from death/grave/Sheol/hell.

Nope, you're misunderstood that, too.

I think the churches consider "Christ" as the head of the church. The Roman Pope considers himself Christ on earth. (Vicar of Christ)

As for the Church of the East, the main bastion of Constantine's bishops came from the east. Their realm would be now located mostly in the proximity of Russia and Turkey, and the Roman Caesar of Russia was known as the Tzar (Caesar). The fact that the Pope is worthless today kind of speaks as to what he has been throughout history. The fact that Caesars/dictators/emperors/rulers/presidents still come to bow before this guy only speaks to his incorporation with Caesar's (beast) reach.

 

[Thomas]

I think Martin Luther was happy ...

OK. So you accept that Luther's issue with indulgences was territorial, not theological.

I think the context of Matthew 19 was to keep the commandments of God, which the Roman church has substituted the commandments of Caesar and his state pope.

Empty words without evidence.

... whereas Peter seemed to have taken the discourse over the cliff with respect to his followers giving him their proceeds to deal with as he deemed fit...

Well this is just your anti-Catholic fantasy.

Acts 2-5 portrays a spirit of communal sharing, of individual generosity. New Testament scholars agree on this. Craig Blomberg (Distinguished Professor of the New Testament at Denver Seminary, Colorado) says in "Neither Poverty nor Riches," that Acts 2:43-47 'are dominated by highly marked imperfect tense verbs, whereas one normally expects aorists (once-for-all actions) in historical narrative. There is no once-for-all divestiture of property in view here, but periodic acts of charity as needs arose."

The NIV translation of brings out the imperfect tense by saying "From time to time, (imperfect verb meaning) those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet."

There is no command from Peter nor any of the apostles, nor is it a mandatory prescription for Christians. That some "shared all things" does not constitute a command.

The practice was known among the Jews. Josephus points out that: "It is a law among them (the Essenes), that those who come to them must let what they have be common to the whole order – insomuch, that among them all there is no appearance of poverty or excess of riches, but every one’s possessions are intermingled with every other’s possessions." (Josephus, Wars 2:122). The Essenes were very much a commune, apart from the mainstream, and thus there was the community rule. But such was not the case in the early church in Jerusalem.

The premise is founded on the Torah: "There need be no poor people among you, for in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you" (Deuteronomy 15:4). Donations by the richer for the poorer were seen in that context.

Nor, as you have suggested elsewhere, does the Catholic Church require a common sharing of property and possession.

You are free to interpret Scripture as you will, but please understand that the Prophets and Revelations has consumed forests of paper and oceans of ink with the number of interpretations of their meaning, none with any real foundation other than the interpreter's belief in their own authority – a wise man follows the Scripture in these matters: "It is not for you to know the times or moments, which the Father hath put in his own power" (Acts 1:1)

 

[2ndpillar]

OK. So you accept that Luther's issue with indulgences was territorial, not theological.

Luther was political in nature. He preached that the serfs, the little guys, counted, and shouldn't be abused, yet when it came to the serfs under the control of the German princes, he supported the princes, who in turn protected Luther from the Roman Catholic inquisition.

Empty words without evidenc

The edict of Caesar Constantine in 321 AD, was that one was to keep the "day of the Sun"/Sunday, the day of his god Sol Invictus, as the day of rest. According to the commandments of God, one was to keep the 7th day of the week as the day of rest. The Roman church catechism states that one is to keep the day of the Lord, Sunday, the 1st day of the week holy, and as the day of rest. Of course, the Lord of the Catholic church was Caesar Constantine who instituted their church. Keep in mind that the Eastern church made Constantine a saint, regardless of his murdering his wife and son. So does the Roman Catholic church keep the commandments of God, or do they keep the commandments of Caesar.

As for your reliance on the unknown author of Acts, and academia for your enlightenment, I think Matthew 11:27 and 1 John 2:27 strikes down one, and Matthew 18:16 negates the other. Acts may have been written by the associate of the false prophet Paul, Luke, and the unknown writer of Luke stated that he simply wrote down 2nd party dialogues, and actually witnessed nothing, and therefore there is no reason to build a house on his ramblings.

 

[Thomas]

The edict of Caesar Constantine in 321 AD, was that one was to keep the "day of the Sun"/Sunday, the day of his god Sol Invictus, as the day of rest.

A Roman civil law, not a religious one.

In the early church, Jewish Christians continued observe Shabbat but met together at the end of the day, on a Saturday evening which was, and remains, the start of the "First Day of the week", as Shabbat ends at sundown on Saturday.

Christians kept Sunday as a holy day because it is the day of the Resurrection on which Jesus had risen from the dead and on which the Holy Spirit had come to the apostles. Christians meeting for worship and the celebration of the Eucharist is indicated in Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2 and in Apocalypse 1:10, it is called the Lord's day.

In the Didache – written before 150AD – the injunction is given: "On the Lord's Day come together and break bread. And give thanks (offer the Eucharist), after confessing your sins that your sacrifice may be pure". St. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Magnesians (before 120AD) says Christians "no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also Our Life rose again". The Epistle of Barnabas (before 130AD): "Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day (i.e. the first of the week) with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead".

Justin Martyr (c100-165) is the first Christian writer to call the day Sunday (I Apologia, lxvii). He wrote that the Sabbath was enjoined as a temporary sign to Israel to teach it of human sinfulness, based on Galatians 3:24-25. Tertullian (202AD) speaks of Sunday rest: "We, however (just as tradition has taught us), on the day of the Lord's Resurrection ought to guard not only against kneeling, but every posture and office of solicitude, deferring even our businesses lest we give any place to the devil" ("De oratione", xxiii; "Apologeticum", xvi).

With Christians forbidden entry to the synagogue, and Christian corporate worship so clearly aligned with the Eucharist on the seventh day, Hebrew Shabbat practices primarily involved the observance of a day of rest.

Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea Maritima about 314AD, stated that for Christians: "the sabbath had been transferred to Sunday"

Sunday was another work day in the Roman Empire. On March 7, 321, however, Constantine issued a civil decree making Sunday a day of rest from labor, stating:
"All judges and city people and the craftsmen shall rest upon the venerable day of the sun. Country people, however, may freely attend to the cultivation of the fields, because it frequently happens that no other days are better adapted for planting the grain in the furrows or the vines in trenches. So that the advantage given by heavenly providence may not for the occasion of a short time perish."

Of course, the Lord of the Catholic church was Caesar Constantine ...

No, he was not. This is a popular but erroneous belief based on ignorance.

... who instituted their church.

Again, utter nonsense and anti-orthodox propaganda. The church was in existence by 50AD.

Keep in mind that the Eastern church made Constantine a saint, regardless of his murdering his wife and son.

Keep in mind the Roman Catholic church didn't.

So does the Roman Catholic church keep the commandments of God, or do they keep the commandments of Caesar.

The commandments of Christ, who is God.

Caesar never had a say.

As for your reliance on the unknown author of Acts, and academia for your enlightenment, I think Matthew 11:27 ...

Well, dear me ... I hesitate to disabuse you, but you do realise that the Gospel called 'Matthew" is based on a Church tradition?

That the author based his gospel on Mark, using 600 of his 661 verses, and that Mark – not an eye-witness – most likely based his gospel on the testimony of Peter, so to me, your low opinion of Peter puts you between a rock (if you'll excuse the pun) and a hard place.

The reason you find so many OT references in Matthew is Matthew was trying to convince skeptical Jews that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.

While you rely so heavily on what Matthew says, you miss entirely why he was saying it.

 

[2ndpillar]

Thomas wrote: < A Roman civil law, not a religious one.>

As Constantine had assumed the position of Pontifex Maximus from Julius Caesar, who had usurped the position from the leaders of the pagan church, he was both the leader of the pagans, and so called "Christian" church, for which he had convened the Council of Nicaea to set straight. He held the same position of Pontifex Maximus, as now the pope assumes, and that position makes him keeper of the gods and the calendar, a religious position.

Thomas wrote: <Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea Maritima about 314AD, stated that for Christians: "the sabbath had been transferred to Sunday">

Eusebius was Constantine's personal toady/historian, and after Constantine's vision of Sol Invictus, at the battle of Milvian Bridge, Constantine minted a coin with an image of Sol Invictus in 313 AD, and apparently, Constantine's toady, Eusebius, thought he could "make alterations" the law and the times (Daniel 7:25), which was the perogative of the 7th head of the beast, Constantine, labeled as the "anti Christ" by many followers of Martin Luther leadership.

Thomas wrote: <Again, utter nonsense and anti-orthodox propaganda. The church was in existence by 50AD.>

The Roman church, initiated by Constantine in 325 AD, was convened and imaged around the false concept of the Trinity, which represented that Yeshua was God. Built on the foundations of the false church of the false prophet Paul, based on his false notion of grace, and that Paul and his contemporary followers were to be saved from sleep/death. Paul and his contemporary followers are dead, and the Roman church and her daughters are destined to be "thrown down". (Revelation 18:21) Those who actually "keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus/Yeshua" are kept safe from the "dragon" (Revelation 12:17). Those with the mark of the beast, drink from the cup of the wrath of God (Revelation 14:10).

 

[muhammad_isa]

The Roman church, initiated by Constantine in 325 AD, was convened and imaged around the false concept of the Trinity, which represented that Yeshua was God.

Yes .. they got all the bishops together, and voted against Arians, so quelling the uprisings in Egypt about the belief that Jesus wasn't God.
Constantine was a Christian, as was his mother, but his position as emperor prevented him from admitting to the truth.
He repented when he was dying, and spent his last few days with "Arian family".

..just saying

 

[Cino]

... the Roman church and her daughters are destined to be "thrown down". (Revelation 18:21) Those who actually "keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus/Yeshua" are kept safe from the "dragon" (Revelation 12:17). Those with the mark of the beast, drink from the cup of the wrath of God (Revelation 14:10).

Is this attribution an oral tradition in your faith?

 

[Thomas]

Hi 2ndpillar –

I've noted that when I correct your errors, or ask direct questions, you ignore both and simply, doggedly plough on along your path.

So this is the last time I'll correct your errors.

As Constantine had assumed the position of Pontifex Maximus from Julius Caesar, who had usurped the position from the leaders of the pagan church...

Please check your facts.

The title Pontifex Maximus ('great priest') signified the chief high priest of the Roman College of Pontiffs, a position open to patricians, although a plebeian did assume the post in 254BC.

Julius Caesar ran for election to the post in 63AD. He was up against two more experienced senators. Caesar won, although there were accusations of bribery on all sides, which was par for the course.

So elected, not usurped.

... he (Constantine) was both the leader of the pagans, and so called "Christian" church, for which he had convened the Council of Nicaea to set straight.

This is a gross misunderstanding of the situation. The title of Pontifex Maximus applies to the Roman state religion, it had no position in regard to the Christian church. Constantine was emperor and patron, but not the leader of, the church.

He held the same position of Pontifex Maximus, as now the pope assumes, and that position makes him keeper of the gods and the calendar, a religious position.

The title was assumed by popes in the 15th century,

In the 15th century, the Renaissance stirred up new interest in its ancient history, and pontifex maximus became an honourific of Popes. In 1453, pontifex maximus became part of the papacy's official titulature of the Bishop of Rome. Pontifex was used to refer to bishops in general.

While the title pontifex maximus has for some centuries been used in inscriptions referring to the Popes, it has never been included in the official list of papal titles. The official list of titles of the Pope includes "Supreme Pontiff of the whole Church" (Summus Pontifex Ecclesiae Universalis), the fourth title, the first being "Bishop of Rome".

So, wrong again.

Thomas wrote: <Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea Maritima about 314AD, stated that for Christians: "the sabbath had been transferred to Sunday">

Well I wrote that Eusebius was one of many. If you don't like him, ignore him, but the fact still stands.

Thomas wrote: <Again, utter nonsense and anti-orthodox propaganda. The church was in existence by 50AD.>

Yes I did, and in response what follows is a catalogue of errors:

The Roman church, initiated by Constantine in 325 AD...

No, the Roman church, that is the church in Rome, was in existence by the 60s.

During the 1st century of the Church (c 30–130AD), the Roman capital was recognised as a Christian centre of exceptional importance. Clement I wrote to the Church in Corinth intervening in a major dispute, and apologising for not having taken action earlier. In 189AD, Irenaeus's "Against Heresies" states: "With (the Church of Rome), because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree ... and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition." (3:3:2).

... was convened and imaged around the false concept of the Trinity, which represented that Yeshua was God.

Rather it was convened to affirm the Sonship of Jesus, which was not disputed in terms of His being God, but turned on a precise definition of what kind of God – eternally one with the Father as the Niceans would have it, or a created God as the Arians saw it. The Holy Spirit was also affirmed as a matter of belief, but Nicea cannot really be said to be a Council of the Trinity, that came later.

A belief in Father, Son and Holy Spirit as God (one God, not three Gods) was a common belief of the church prior to Nicea. It simply wasn't then a matter of dispute. A dispute Nicea failed to settle.

Built on the foundations of the false church of the false prophet Paul, based on his false notion of grace ...

You do realise that when God called Abram out of Canaan, that was an act of Grace? That Grace establishes who the Chosen People are, the Law keeps them on the right road. Paul's reference to Grace is thoroughly Jewish. "Because Israel was a child, and I loved him: and I called my son out of Egypt" (Hosea 11:1).

... and that Paul and his contemporary followers were to be saved from sleep/death.

Sheol, again, a strong Jewish tradition.

 

[Thomas]

Yes .. they got all the bishops together, and voted against Arians, so quelling the uprisings in Egypt about the belief that Jesus wasn't God.

Close, but no cigar! Both Niceans and Arians believed Jesus was God.