Slavery in Islam

[Muslimwoman]

Here is an explanation of why there can be no doubt at all about the authenticity of mutawatir hadiths:

(1) Mutawâtir: It is a hadîth narrated in each era, from the days of the Holy Prophet (

) up to this day by such a large number of narrators that it is impossible to reasonably accept that all of them have colluded to tell a lie.
This kind is further classified into two sub-divisions:

Not very long along a few billion people believed the world was flat, they would swear to it. People were tortured and executed for saying it was round. Did that make the world flat?

(a) Mutawâtir in words: It is a hadîth whose words are narrated by such a large number as is required for a mutawâtir, in a manner that all the narrators are unanimous in reporting it with the same words without any substantial discrepancy.

Would you like me to post a few reams of hadiths that are totally contradictory and yet mass transmitted? Are you also aware that they didn't have tv, internet and books 1400 years ago? So if your neighbout told you the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) used to paint his donkey pink, you would tell your neighbour, he would tell his etc. Does that mean the Prophet did paint his donkey pink?

Whoever intentionally attributes a lie against me, should prepare his seat in the Fire.

Would the people above think they were transmitting a lie? Or would they believe it because it was transmitted to them in what they believe is honesty?

This is a mutawâtir hadîth of the first kind, because it has a minimum of seventy-four narrators. In other words, seventy-four companions of the Holy Prophet (

) have reported this hadîth at different occasions, all with the same words.

Can you please tell me how to identify which these are? And then how to determine whether they are factually true?

On the other hand, it is also reported by such a large number of narrators that the Holy Prophet (

) has enjoined us to perform two rak’ât in Fajr, four rak’ât in Zuhr, ‘Asr and ‘Isha, and three rak’ât in the Maghrib prayer, yet the narrations of all the reporters who reported the number of rak’ât are not in the same words. Their words are different. Even the events reported by them are different. But the common feature of all the reports is the same. This common feature, namely, the exact number of rak’ât, is said to be mutawâtir in meaning.

This I can accept because it makes sense, it is in keeping with the life of the Prophet and the numbers remaining the same gives substance to their claim.

As for the mutawâtir, nobody can question its authenticity. The fact narrated by a mutawâtir chain is always accepted as an absolute truth even if pertaining to our daily life. Any statement based on a mutawâtir narration must be accepted by everyone without any hesitation. I have never seen the city of Moscow, but the fact that Moscow is a large city and is the capital of U.S.S.R. is an absolute truth which cannot be denied. This fact is proved, to me, by a large number of narrators who have seen the city. This is a continuously narrated, or a mutawâtir, fact which cannot be denied or questioned.

Yes Moscow is there and you don't have to see it to believe it. However the world is in fact round, not flat.

In the same way the mutawâtir reports about the sunnah of the Holy Prophet (

) are to be held as absolutely true without any iota of doubt in their authenticity. The authenticity of the Holy Qur’ân being the same Book as that revealed to the Holy Prophet (

) is of the same nature. Thus, the mutawâtir ahâdîth, whether they be mutawâtir in words or in meaning, are as authentic as the Holy Qur’ân, and there is no difference between the two in as far as the reliability of their source of narration is concerned.

So I am supposed to believe, with the same strength and conviction, in the Quran and the fact that a goat abrogated some of the verses and monkeys commit adultery? The day I go barking mad and hell freezes over that might just happen.

Salaam

 

[Abdullah]

This is from the islamonline link that you provided. Please can you highlight for me where it says to cover the head or the word hijab perhaps because clearly my eyesight is failing again.

“And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms.” (An-Nur: 31)

“O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, that so they may be recognized and not annoyed.” (Al-Ahzab: 59)

You know already I have no argument with wearing the hijab, I love wearing mine but what I object to is men putting words where words do not belong.

Salamualikum wr wb

What is meant by 'hijab', in Islamic termonology is the hijab in the broader sense [and not just the head-dress], which is loose unnatractive clothing that covers all of the body of the women from head to toe, with there only being a difference amongst Scholars of wether the face and hands is included in the 'obligation' or not.

1. The proper definition of Hijaab can be understood from the following verse of the noble Qur’aan, ‘O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies. That would be better that they should be known so as not to be annoyed.’ Imaam Qurtubi has mentioned the explanation of ‘cloaks’ given by Abdullah ibn Mas’ood [Radhiallaahu anhu] in his famous Tafseer ‘Al-Jaami li bayanil Qur’aan’. Abdullah ibn Mas’ood [Radhiallaahu anhu] states that the cloaks should be tied or wound in such a way that only one eye remains exposed or another method would be to tie the upper portion on the brow just above the eyes and another portion above the nose just below the eyes, leaving only the two eyes exposed. (vol.14 pg.232; Darul hadith-Cairo). It is not permissible for a young man to expose her face in the presence of non-Mahram men. (Shaami vol.1 pg.406; HM Saeed)

Ask-Imam.com [11810] Hijab, Hizbut Tahreer & Photograph

Now these verses are a good example of how the modernists [that are teaching you] like to not go beyond the litteral/apperant meaning of the translated words of the Quran, when it suits their agenda. They will try to say to you that "Allah only tells women to cover their breasts [bosoms ]" and not the whole body, but when it comes to verses that they dont like the litteral meannig of, such as the verse in which it says that men are the maintainers of women, and "...hit them [lightly] etc., then they will go to extraordinary lengths [in interpretation] and come up with a twisted meaning of the verse, that doesn't even remotely match the litteral/apperant meaning.

Salaam

 

[Abdullah]

[/b][/b][/font][/color]

So not believing in something that they admit they cannot provide adequate evidence for is a sin - says who?

Is sahih [rigorously authenticated] hadith not adequate evidence enough?

On the Sunnipath link that I gave the other day, about Rajm, it says there that rajm is based on [amongst other evidences] two mutawatir hadith.

I may be wrong but so far I believe every link you have given me has referred to the evidence in the Quran and Sunnah but none have actually given a detailed, or even rough, list of the evidence they use for this. You know I will not just take the word of someone, I like to see proof.

Salaam

InshAllah I will provide evidence in a post below

 

[Abdullah]

What is probably/possibly meant by '74 Sahabas [ra] narrated a Mutawatir hadith", is that, 74 of them [ra], heard it directly from the prophet [saw] at different times [or may be some of them heard it at the same time]. It probably does not mean that, the hadith got passed on from one Sahabah [ra] to another untill it reached 74 of them, because in this sense, the hadith would have gradually reached the general Sahabas, as knowledge is something to share and spread and not just to be restricted to 74 of them.

So if assume the latter meaning of waht is meant, then we have to say that every single hadith is mutawatir, as every single hadith probably reached not only 74 Sahabas, but tens of thousands of them. So thus we can conlude that what is probably meant is that, 74 of them [ra] heard it directly? from the Prophet [saw].

And your argument that, "the world wasn't flat", is just ludricous. are you here to discuss seriously or are you here only to jest. These are the words of the messenger of Allah [saw] we are talking about, and not some assumption of ignorant people.

 

[Abdullah]

Here are the evidences for Rajm:

The issue of rajm or stoning for adultery is established and proven from the authentic traditions and practices of the Final Messenger(s.a.w.). The scholars of Islam are unanimous that stoning a married person(male or female) for adultery is the prescribed Hadd(penal punishment) of the Shariah. This is established by the Sunnah(prophetic traditions) and these traditions are in the rank of tawaatur ( it’s narrations cannot be denied due to it’s appearance in all three generations by numerous narrators). It is also proven by the consensus of the scholars which is the third source of Islamic Law. Ibn Masud(r.a.) reports: “The blood of a Muslim person is not permissible except in one of three situations; the adulterer who is married, one who has killed unjustly, and the apostate.”(Bukhari and Muslim) This hadeeth is also reported with different wording by Uthmaan, Ayesha, Abu Hurairah, Jaabir and Ammaar bin Yaasir(may Allah be pleased with all of them). Then there is the incident reported by Abu Hurairah(r.a.) and Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani(r.a.) regarding a workman who committed adultery with another woman. The Messenger of Allah(s.a.w.) instructed a man from the tribe of Aslam: “Go in the morning to this (particular) lady; so if she confesses, then stone her.” (Bukhari ,Muslim, Muatta, Musnad Ahmad, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, An-Nasaai)

Buraida (r.a.) also reports the story of Maaiz (r.a.) which appears in various narrations. So he confessed to committing adultery and the Prophet Muhammad(s.a.w.) ordered for him to be stoned.(Muslim, AbuDawud) This incident is also reported by Abu Hurairah in Musnad Ahmad, Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi and Abu Dawood. In fact the list of references is too long to mention here. Furthermore Buraida(r.a.) also reports the incident of Gaamidiyyah(r.a.) who confessed to adultery. The Final Messenger(s.a.w.) only accepted her confession on her third approach, and ordered that she be stoned after the child had been weaned. She dutifully returned after such a long period to be stoned.(Muslim, Musnad Ahmad, Abu Dawud). Adultery is considered the third most heinous crime after associating partners in worship with the Sole Creator, and after killing an innocent person. For this reason the Magnificent Quran states: “And go not near to zina(unlawful sexual intercourse).Certainly, it is a Fahishah(a shameful transgression), and an evil way.”(that leads to hell unless Allah forgives him\her.)Quran-Chap.17-Verse:32

Rajm

Ibn Mardawayh reported that Hudhayfah said:

Umar said to me 'How many verses are contained in the chapter of al-Ahzab?' I said, '72 or 73 verses.' He said it was almost as long as the chapter of the Cow, which contains 287 verses, and in it there was the verse of stoning.[4]

Ayesha [ra]:

The verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times were revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my bed. When the Messenger of Allah (SAWW.) expired and we were preoccupied with his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper.[5]

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 805:

Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah Al-Ansari:

A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah's Apostle and Informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and bore witness four times against himself. Allah's Apostle ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married Person.

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 803:

Narrated Ash-Sha'bi:

from 'Ali when the latter stoned a lady to death on a Friday. 'Ali said, "I have stoned her according to the tradition of Allah's Apostle."

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 806:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

A man came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque, and he called him, saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse.'" The Prophet turned his face to the other side, but that man repeated his statement four times, and after he bore witness against himself four times, the Prophet called him, saying, "Are you mad?" The man said, "No." The Prophet said, "Are you married?" The man said, "Yes." Then the Prophet said, 'Take him away and stone him to death." Jabir bin 'Abdullah said: I was among the ones who participated in stoning him and we stoned him at the Musalla. When the stones troubled him, he fled, but we over took him at Al-Harra and stoned him to death.

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 807:

Narrated 'Aisha:

Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas and 'Abd bin Zam'a quarrelled with each other (regarding a child). The Prophet said, "The boy is for you, O 'Abd bin Zam'a, for the boy is for (the owner) of the bed. O Sauda ! Screen yourself from the boy." The sub-narrator, Al-Laith added (that the Prophet also said), "And the stone is for the person who commits an illegal sexual intercourse."

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 809:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Apostle on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya." 'Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Allah's Apostle, tell them to bring the Torah." The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, "Lift up your hand." Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah's Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn 'Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess.

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 813:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

When Ma'iz bin Malik came to the Prophet (in order to confess), the Prophet said to him, "Probably you have only kissed (the lady), or winked, or looked at her?" He said, "No, O Allah's Apostle!" The Prophet said, using no euphemism, "Did you have sexual intercourse with her?" The narrator added: At that, (i.e. after his confession) the Prophet ordered that he be stoned (to death).

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 815:

Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid:

While we were with the Prophet , a man stood up and said (to the Prophet ), "I beseech you by Allah, that you should judge us according to Allah's Laws." Then the man's opponent who was wiser than him, got up saying (to Allah's Apostle) "Judge us according to Allah's Law and kindly allow me (to speak)." The Prophet said, "'Speak." He said, "My son was a laborer working for this man and he committed an illegal sexual intercourse with his wife, and I gave one-hundred sheep and a slave as a ransom for my son's sin. Then I asked a learned man about this case and he informed me that my son should receive one hundred lashes and be exiled for one year, and the man's wife should be stoned to death." The Prophet said, "By Him in Whose Hand my soul is, I will judge you according to the Laws of Allah. Your one-hundred sheep and the slave are to be returned to you, and your son has to receive one-hundred lashes and be exiled for one year. O Unais! Go to the wife of this man, and if she confesses, then stone her to death." Unais went to her and she confessed. He then stoned her to death.

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him."

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

I used to teach (the Qur'an to) some people of the Muhajirln (emigrants), among whom there was 'Abdur Rahman bin 'Auf. While I was in his house at Mina, and he was with 'Umar bin Al-Khattab during 'Umar's last Hajj, Abdur-Rahman came to me and said, "Would that you had seen the man who came today to the Chief of the Believers ('Umar), saying, 'O Chief of the Believers! pthis estabslihes that this hadith refers to the time after the death of the Prophet saw]...


In the meantime, 'Umar sat on the pulpit and when the callmakers for the prayer had finished their call, 'Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said, "Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say. I do not know; perhaps it portends my death, so whoever understands and remembers it, must narrate it to the others wherever his mount takes him, but if somebody is afraid that he does not understand it, then it is unlawful for him to tell lies about me. Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male & female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession

USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts

 

[Muslimwoman]

the cloaks should be tied or wound in such a way that only one eye remains exposed or another method would be to tie the upper portion on the brow just above the eyes and another portion above the nose just below the eyes, leaving only the two eyes exposed.

wa aleykum salaam

Thankyou for the lesson on what hijab means, and here was I all this time thinking that covering my hair and wearing my bikini in the street was ok.

WHAT? How in the name of Allah do these crazy men get the idea that the Quran suggests any such thing? Please explain to me how you go from drawing your cloak around your bosoms (ie not showing your assets) to only having one bloody eye showing. It is insanity, it is completely impractical and totally man made.

Now these verses are a good example of how the modernists [that are teaching you] like to not go beyond the litteral/apperant meaning of the translated words of the Quran, when it suits their agenda.

Give up with the "that are teaching you" comments. I have a brain, I can read and my opinions are my own. I have one teacher and he is of a traditional school. Just because I do not agree with you or these crazy men you like to read and follow, does not mean I am being taught and led astray by modernists.

I think you will find the modernists are not going beyond the literal meaning. It is the crazy chap you quoted that is going way beyond the literal meaning. The day any crazy man tells me to tie a cloak around myself so that only one eye is showing is the day I become an apostate and I mean that most sincerely.

They will try to say to you that "Allah only tells women to cover their breasts [bosoms ]" and not the whole body,

I am perfectly aware, from reading the verses that I am required to cover my whole body. However this does not mean that I must cover my hair and certainly does not mean that I must cover my face. If Allah had wanted us to fall over in the street He would have said and cover your hair and faces. Oh but then of course you believe I have no business going in the street, I should remain locked in the inner rooms of my house and lick the puss from husbands skin (not that he has any).

but when it comes to verses that they dont like the litteral meannig of, such as the verse in which it says that men are the maintainers of women, and "...hit them [lightly] etc., then they will go to extraordinary lengths [in interpretation] and come up with a twisted meaning of the verse, that doesn't even remotely match the litteral/apperant meaning.

I am happy to accept that should I begin flirting with men then my husband should as a last resort beat me lightly. In the same way that if he was flirting with girls in the street I would, as a last resort, beat him lightly. This is what the verse refers to and if I was flirting I would expect harsh treatment from my husband, as he should expect it from me if he did the same - adultery is a sin and my husband should do everything he can to stop me from committing such a sin, as I should with him.

 

[Muslimwoman]

What is probably/possibly

This is not the first time you have said this. May I ask how you are happy to follow people on matters concerning how to live your life, when you clearly do not know how they draw their conclusions? This seems to be the difference between us, you will follow blindly (and it is blindly if you have no knowledge how they draw their conclusions) and I ask for the equation so that I can decide for myself wether to follow these people.

So if assume the latter meaning of waht is meant, then we have to say that every single hadith is mutawatir, as every single hadith probably reached not only 74 Sahabas, but tens of thousands of them. So thus we can conlude that what is probably meant is that, 74 of them [ra] heard it directly? from the Prophet [saw].

So if you are saying probably/possibly above then you are assuming, what you are in fact saying is you have no idea but you just trust what these men say?

And your argument that, "the world wasn't flat", is just ludricous. are you here to discuss seriously or are you here only to jest. These are the words of the messenger of Allah [saw] we are talking about, and not some assumption of ignorant people.

Now I am being ludicrous because I put forward a historical fact? All great scientists, scholars, etc used to truly believe the world was flat but that did not make it true. You think this is more ludicrous than a goat eating a verse of the Quran (which is protected by Allah)?

What I am questioning is whether we are in fact discussing the words of the messenger of Allah. That is the whole point of the discussion. The prohibition of women from mosques had nothing to do with the words of the messenger of Allah, yet you speak of it like it is the word of Allah himself because it seems to me that if a traditional scholar says something it is as good, for you, as the word of Allah Himself.

 

[Muslimwoman]

Zina and Rajm by Ibrahim B. Syed, Ph. D. President Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc.
Punishment for Adultery in Islam 3
Under Islamic law, the punishment for adultery is 100 lashes (of moderate intensity). This punishment will be carried out only in that state where Islamic laws are promulgated. No individual is authorized to execute the penalty. In addition, the punishment is executed only in case of accused being caught by the law. Even in that case, if it is proved beyond doubt that the accused had truly repented over his sin before being caught, the punishment is to be condoned.Allah accepts the repentance of those who do evil in ignorance and repent soon afterwards; to them will Allah turn in mercy; for Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom. (al-Tirmidhi, 3540). It was narrated from Abu Dharr that the Prophet (pbuh) said that Allah says, "… O My slaves, you commit sin night and day, and I forgive all sins, so ask Me for forgiveness…" (Muslim, 2577)
Of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil until death faces one of them and he says ‘Now have I repented indeed’; nor of those who die rejecting faith; for them have we prepared a punishment most grievous”.(4:17-18)

It was asked of Imam Ibne Timiyah if a man was entitled to the punishment of unlawful sex and he atoned for the sin before the imposition of punishment, would the punishment be condoned by his atonement. He replied; “If one resolves to leave unlawful sex, theft or drinking before the case is produced before the Imam, then it is proper that the punishment will be condoned like it is condoned for the Maharibeen (the wagers of war against Allah and the Apostle and the seditionist) if they repent before coming under the grip of law”. (Majmoo’-ul-Fatawa Sheikh-ul-Islam). Says Ibne Qayyim: “If this is true that Allah does not punish anyone who repents, then it is also true that no punishment should be implemented on a repentant. Allah has made clear that even the Maharibeen are forgiven if they repent before coming under grip. It is despite of the fact that their crime is extremely atrocious. Obviously the lesser offences will in the first place be pardoned if there is true repentance already.” (A’alaam-ul-Muqi’een quoted in Haqeeqat-e-Raj’m P.217).
The sinner, if repentant, is not required to voluntarily report his sin to law. Instead, he should ask forgiveness of Allah and resolve to stay away from the sin in future. (Bulughul Maraam; Kitabul Hudood; Ibne Haj’r Asqalani)

“Said Anas Bin Malik, ‘I was present beside the Prophet (Pbuh) when a man came and said; ‘O Prophet of Allah I have committed a punishable sin, so enact the punishment’. The Prophet (Pbuh) did not ask him any question till it was time for Salaat. After he had offered the prayer with the Prophet (Pbuh), he again approached him and said; “O Prophet of Allah I have committed a punishable sin, so judge me by the book of Allah”. The Prophet (Pbuh) asked him, ‘ Have you not offered prayer with me’? He replied, ‘Yes’. Then the Prophet (Pbuh) said, ‘Allah has pardoned your sin and your punishment.” (Bukhari).

The Prophet (Pbuh) did not even ask him what crime or sin he had committed. This is because the purpose of punishment in Islamic system is to punish the consistent and habitual criminal so that others should learn a lesson from this severe punishment and do not dare to follow in his/her footsteps. Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar said: It may be understood from this case-when he confessed to having committed Zina-that it is mustahabb for the one who falls into a similar sin to repent to Allah and conceal his sin and not mention it to anyone, as Abu Bakr (RA) and Umar (RA) said to the confessor. Al-Shaaf'I (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "If a person commits a sin and Allah conceals it for him, I prefer for him to conceal it too and to repent," (Fath al-Baari, 12/1124, 125)

The Punishment for Adultery is 100 Lashes 4
The penalty for adultery is not stoning to death unless the convict is a hardened and habitual sinner who is a perpetual disturber of peace of the society. Qur’an clearly spells out the related law; “The woman and the man guilty of unlawful sex (adultery or fornication), flog each of them with a hundred stripes; let not compassion move you in their case in a matter prescribed by Allah if ye believe in Allah and the Last day; and let a party of the believers witness their punishment”. (24:2)
Few Islamic laws have been so misunderstood as the penalty of illicit sexual intercourse. It is generally believed by a majority including some renowned scholars that the above punishment is only for the unmarried offenders. It is therefore expedient that this issue be discussed in detail.
There are clear indications in Qur’an that punishment of 100 lashes is for all adult and sane persons making illicit sexual intercourse, be they married or unmarried, men or women. Verse 24:8 should not be cut from the context.
When we read ahead of the above verse (24:2), it becomes more manifest, if only the context of consecutive verses is not overlooked. Following is the translation of first eight verses of the Surah;
1. A Surah which we have sent down and which we have ordained; in it have we sent down clear signs in order that ye may receive admonition.
2. The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication flog each of them with a hundred stripes; let not compassion move you in their case in a matter prescribed by Allah if ye believe in Allah and the last day; and let a party of the believers witness their punishment.
3. Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry any but a woman similarly guilty or an unbeliever nor let any but such a man or an unbeliever marry such a woman; to the believers such a thing is forbidden.
4. And those who launch a charge against chaste women and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegation) flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after; for such men are wicked transgressors.
5. Save those who afterward repent and make amends. (For such) lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful.
6. As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves; if they bear witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that they are solemnly telling the truth;
7. And the fifth (oath) (should be) that they solemnly invoke the curse of Allah on themselves if they tell a lie.
8. But it would avert the punishment from the wife if she bears witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that (her husband) is telling a lie;
9. And the fifth (oath) should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of Allah on herself if (her accuser) is telling the truth. (24:1-9)
Now which punishment is being referred to in the verse No.8 above? Reading from the first verse onwards makes it obvious that it is the same, which has been described in verse No.2, i.e. one hundred lashes. Many Fiqh scholars assume that the punishment mentioned in verse 8 is the woman’s confinement or stoning to death. From the context, it is obvious that there is no room for any assumption at all. The renowned scholar Ibne Qayyim, in his famous work ‘Zaadul Ma’ad has stressed upon this. He writes; ‘The punishment condoned for that woman through Li’aan (The procedure of oath described in the verses 24: 6-9 above), is the same which is mentioned in this order of Allah - and let a party of the believers witness their punishment (that is flogging)’. Note that the woman in verse 8 is a married woman accused of adultery by her husband. It further proves that Qur’an prescribes a punishment of flogging for both, adulterer and fornicator irrespective of their marriage status.

Flogging replaced the confinement till death. Let us now come to Surah ‘Nisa’ (Ch. 4) of Qur’an, which also discusses the punishment of lewdness. Verse 15 of this Surah 4, reads; "As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation). " (4:15)
A majority of commentators agree that earlier, when a married woman was guilty of illicit sex, she was to be permanently confined to her house till the revelation of a new ordinance. The new ordinance came in the revelation of 24:2. Up to this point there is near unanimity. The confusion arises when the new legislation (24:2) recommends flogging but they insist that this will apply only to the unmarried. Strangely enough, the order was awaited in respect of married women.
There are indications in the above verse (4:15) itself that the ordeal of the erring married women shall be eased in the new law. There are three subtle points in the above verse that should not be missed.
1. The Arabic text for ‘or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation)’ in this verse is auyaj’alalla-hu lahunna sabila. In normally spoken Arabic, this phrase will be taken as a consolation and a future promise for easing their ordeal. Elsewhere also, at a number of places, the word ‘sabil’ (Literal meaning; a way) is used in the sense of ‘a way out’ for example the following verse; “And no protectors have they to help them other than Allah; and for any whom Allah leaves to stray there is no way (out).” (42:46)
It is evident that stoning to death is not the “ way out of confinement in home.”

 

[Muslimwoman]

2. The Arabic equivalent of ‘your women’ in the text of this verse is ‘Nisa’ikum’ which is normally used in Arabic as well as in Qur’an to mean ‘your wives’. In fact in all the verses in Qur’an where the words ‘Nisa’ukum’/Nisa’ikum’ and ‘Nisa’ihim’ (literal meaning; your women and their women) have occurred, they mean ‘your wives’ and ‘their wives’. For example; “Permitted to you on the night of the fasts is the approach to your women”. (2:187)

It is obvious that by women, here it means wives. Similarly in the verse 4:15 above, the style of Qur’anic language indicates that wives or married women are being discussed and a way out was promised for them to end their predicament of confinement. Therefore the promised way out, vide 24:2 (100 lashes) is primarily for married women and hence the punishment of adultery is not stoning to death. Maulana Sagheer Ahsan, the Sheikhul Hadith of Jameatul Falah Bilaria Ganj Azamgarh, quoting his mentor Maulana Aktar Ahsan Islahi, a great scholar, writes; “After a particular order for wives, the Qur’an had said, ‘or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation)’. It means a new legislation was promised. In the light of this (assurance), the verse of lashes was revealed. How is it possible that the main promise was for married women and the legislation should come for the unmarried, with no mention altogether of married women”!? (P, 229; Haqeeqat-e-Raj’m by Mohammed. Inayatullah Asad Subhani).
3. Reflect again on the following words of the relevant verse; “confine them to the houses until death taken them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation)”. (4:15)
The new legislation would be meaningless if it comes in the form of death sentence. She was already confined to the house until death.
The death sentence cannot be halved 5
Yet another clear cut proof of the punishment of unlawful sex being 100 lashes irrespective of marital status of the sinner, comes from verse 4:25, which reads; “If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess; and Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another; wed them with the leave of their owners and give them their dowers according to what is reasonable; they should be chaste not lustful nor taking paramours; when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame their punishment is half that for free women...” (4:25)


There is no half punishment of stoning to death. It is clear in the above verse that the punishment of free believing women for adultery or fornication is that which could be halved in case of same sin committed by the war captives after their marriage. Allama Rasheed Raza in his famous Qur’an commentary ‘Almanar’, writes; “As for free women, the apparent words of the verses manifest that she will be inflicted with a hundred lashes, be she married or unmarried. The words of the verse are general. Were there no traditions, one would have a right to say about the verse that by free sinning women here means free married women. It is because in this verse married maid captives are compared with married free women. (P.49, Haqeeqat-e-Raj’m). The Arabic word ‘Muhsanaat’, used in the verse can represent only married status. Unless it is apparent or specifically mentioned the word can not exclusively refer to the unmarried women. Maulana Inayatullah Subhani, in his book Haqeeqat-e- Raj’m, has quoted in detail the scholars of language and dictionary to prove this.
Furthermore, Allah (SWT), says:
"The adulterer marries not but an adulteress or a mushrikah (female polytheist) and the adulteress none marries her except an adulterer or a mushrik (male polytheist). Such a thing is forbidden to the believers."(Qur'an, 24:3)
If the adulterer and adulteress were stoned to death, then how is it possible for an adulterer to marry an adulteress or vice versa?
Bukhari did not record the cases of stoning under ‘Hudood’ 6
Now we observe that no tradition citing stoning to death is put by Imam Bukhari under the section ‘Kitabul-Hudood’ (the book of penal code), in his Sahih Bukahri. He has put the incidents of stoning to death under another section ‘Kitabu Maharibeen Min Ahlil Kufri warraddah’ which means the book about those who wage a war against Allah and the Prophet (Pbuh).
Unmarried were Stoned to death 7
One of the most famous cases was that of Maa’iz Aslami.
“Reported Naeem Bin Huzal: Maa’iz Bin Maalik was an orphan under the guardianship of my father. He had sex with a maid of our neighborhood” (Abu Dawood). “Maa’iz told Huzal, “ I had relations with a woman named Muhairah. I was after her till today and I made sex with her which I intended”. (Tabqat Ibne Sadd)
Another ahadith reports Maa’iz Bin Maalik having sex with another maid. “Naeem Bin Huzal reports that his father, Huzal had employed Maa’iz Bin Maalik. There was a maid in their house who was a divorcee and she used to feed the sheep. Maa’iz had sex with her”. (Musnad Ahmad)
Two facts filter out of the above citations. One, Maa’iz was not a casual sinner but a habitual offender. Two, he was not a married man but a bachelor. The word orphan, in Arabic, is applicable to a person till he or she is married.
Following is another famous incident in which an unmarried woman was stoned to death. “Imam Sha’fi has recorded that a woman of Hamdan tribe was brought before Hazrat Imam Ali (Radhi Allahu Anhu). She was pregnant. Her name was Sharaha and she had committed ‘Zina’. Hazrat Imam Ali (RA) enquired of her, ‘May be the man had raped you’. She said, no. Ali asked, ‘Possibly, you were fast asleep and the man rode over you in your sleep’. She replied, ‘No’. Ali interrogated, ‘Maybe you have a husband who is an accomplice of our enemies and you are hiding him’. She replied in the negative. Hazrat Ali sent her to the prison and after the baby was born she was stoned to death’. (Musnaf Abdur Razaaq quoted in Haqeeqat-e-Raj’m P.191-92).
It is clear from the woman’s answers that she was unmarried. We also know that she would not have been subjected to such a punishment even if she were married, had she been a chance sinner.
Stoning to death for other crimes 8
There also are incidents when the criminals were stoned to death for some other heinous crimes. AJew murdered a virgin of Ansaar tribe. After stripping her of her jewellery, he threw the body into a well. He had also smashed her head. The man was caught and produced before the Prophet (Pbuh), who ordered that the criminal be stoned to death”. (Muslim)

Following is a typical case to prove that habitual thieves were also eliminated to cleanse the society.

A thief stole four times and he lost both hands and two feet as punishment by the Prophet (pbuh). When he was brought for the fifth time, the Prophet ordered him to be killed. Says Jabir, ‘then we carried him and killed him and threw him into a well and threw stones from above’. (Abu Dawood). Nisai, referring to the same event, corroborates that the man was killed by stoning. “ We killed him by stoning. Then we threw him into a well. Then we threw stones over him”. (Nisai).

 

[Muslimwoman]

Married sexual offenders were flogged 9
We know that not only sexual savages but unreformable thieves and dacoits were also stoned to death. On the other hand, there are many incidents when married sexual offenders were punished with flogging. “Hashsham bin Urvah, quoting his father reports; A woman from Yemen came to Madinah with the Hajj pilgrims. The caravan stayed in Harrah. When they departed they left the woman behind and a man came to Hazrat Umar (RA) and informed him that the woman had committed adultery. Umar (RA) called her and enquired about her. She said that she became an orphan in the childhood. She was a destitute and possessed nothing. There was nobody to take care of her.
Urvah also said that the woman was married. Umar (RA) sent a man to call back the caravan. The people confirmed the statement of the woman. Umar (RA) ordered to inflict her with 100 lashes. He then gave her clothes and conveyance and asked the people of the caravan to take her with them. (Musnaf Abdur Razzaq quoted in Haqeeqat-e-Raj’m P.107)
Speech of Ma’az bin Jabal 10
A Sahabi, Hazrat Ma’az Bin Jabal delivered a speech before the Roman army; “If your king is Hercules, our king is Allah who has created us. Our Emir is from among us. Till such time he will follow the book of our religion and the Sunnah of our Prophet (Pbuh), we will honor him. And if at any time he acted otherwise, we shall dislodge him. If he steals we shall chop his hand and if he commits adultery, we shall flog him..” (P. 106; Haqeeqat-e-Raj’m). The Emir referred to in the above speech was the second caliph Hazrat Umar (RA), who was a married man and a companion of Prophet (Pbuh). Ma’az Bin Jabal mentioned only flogging in respect of punishment for adultery.
Opinion of some renowned scholars 11
Quoting from Haqeeqat-e-Raj’m, written by Maulana Inayatullah Subhani, a Ph.D. in Qur’an studies from Riyadh, following are a few instances:
* “Because the dictum of Allah is that in the case of the woman and the man guilty of Zina (adultery or fornication), ‘flog each of them with a hundred stripes’, it includes all types of Zaanis (adulterers and fornicators)”. (Imam Qurtubi; Al- Jaame’ Li-Ahkaamil Qur’an)
* “The founder of Ikhwan-ul-Muslimun, Imam Hasan Al-Banna had attracted the attention of the ruler of Egypt towards some reforms to fashion the Egyptian society into Islamic mould. Among other very important things, which he mentioned, was; The open and veiled prostitution should be eradicated. Illicit sex must be reckoned an extremely abhorrent crime, whatever the circumstances and whoever commits it should be flogged” (P.194; Majmu’a Rasaail-ul-Imam Al-Shaheed Hasan Al-Banna).
* “The dictum of Allah about the woman or man who makes illicit sex to flog each of them with a hundred stripes, implies with clarity that the punishment of unlawful sex is 100 lashes, no less no more”. (P, 35; Ilm-e-Usool-ul-Fiqh; Sheikh Abdul Wahab Khalaaf)
*”Late Imam Zahra had sent a delegation to Libyan president Col. Gaddafi with this message. If you are sincere in your intention of implementing Islamic Shariah in your country, then our blessings and good wishes are with you. However, remember that the punishment of unlawful sex in Islam is not stoning to death but 100 lashes. Do not implement any such thing in your enthusiasm that the world gets an opportunity to laugh on Islam”. (P.286; Haqeeqat-e-Raj’m)
Misinterpretation and Misunderstanding
The widespread misunderstanding even among scholars is due to misinterpretation of some traditions and the wrong order of our priorities. Our priorities were clearly spelled out by the Qur’an and the Prophet (Pbuh). We should be guided by only Qur’an in the first place. If the order of Qur’an is not very clear, then we should refer to the Sunnah for the exposition. Lastly, if doubts persist, the Tafaqquh or Fiqh should be resorted to. Reversal of this order of priorities has caused the misunderstandings and the differences in a number of problems. It is not that the Sunnah in any case can be contradictory to Qur’an but the possibility of error in reaching the Sunnah to us through the traditions cannot be ruled out while the Qur’an is safe and preserved to every letter. In case of the present problem, there are a number of contradictory traditions. When we try to interpret Qur’an in their light we are bound to be stuck with something that does not appeal to the common sense. Conversely, we have in this case explicit directions of Qur’an, which should be used to verify the authenticity of the traditions.

Conclusion
The above discussion is probably sufficient to prove that
· The punishment for adultery or fornication in Islam is administering 100 lashes.
· Stoning to death is announced only in case of proclaimed offenders or those who are beyond reform, upon whose extinction the society heaves a sigh of relief.
· Other situations may also be quoted from the traditions where an offender does not seem to be a habitual criminal but it is better to assume in those cases that full facts may not have reached us.

There is no option
There are two options before us
* The obvious and unambiguous order of Qur’an is available to us in this case but we must interpret it to accommodate mutually contradictory traditions.
* We should interpret the contradictions in the light of clear order of the Qur’an and leave out those traditions, which do not conform, to it.
Given only these two options, there is no option at all. One has to accept the Qur'an.



So what happened to absolute consenses?

 

[Abdullah]

Irfi [the so called 'Islamic Research foundation', should be more like 'The Islamic Distortion Foundation' ] is a modernist organisation. They will manipulate hadiths and Quranic verses to indoctrinate unsuspecting people with their liberal modernist distortions.

Now sister, you have not so far denied that the prophet [saw's] words, that the largest mass/group of the ummah are on the correct path, and that all other groups are astray, is correct. You have expressed that the largest group will be unaniomus in all it's views and not have differences of opinions.

So will you accept that those opinions that the overwhelimng vast majority of the umaah [spanning all madhabs], dont differ on, are correct? If you do, then I'll give you some views that the five madhabs, including the Wahhabi's agree on, and which the modernists differ on, so then maybe your consience and intellect will tell you that the overwhelimng vast majority has to be right on those issue, and the modernists must have it wrong.

Before I show you those opinions sister, let me just remind you that not only the hadiths have clarified that the largest group of muslims/traditional Muslims will be on the right path, but so has the Quran in a sense, and by that, I am reffering to the Quranic verse that says not to break up into factions. Does this verse not show that any group that splits from the consensus and forms their own faction are astray?:

Here are the opinions on which the five [including the Wahhabi's] schools of thought have consensus on and if I know for sure that the Shia's agree with any of these opinions, I'll say so inshAllah:

Women cannot offer salaat during their menses.

Rajm is the prescribed punishment for adultery

Cuting the hand of the thief is the prescribed punishment for the crime of theft.

Hijab [that covers all of the body, with their only being a difference of opinion on wether the hands and face is included in the 'obligation' or not] is fardh.

Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslims [including the men of ahle Kithab]

Salaat has to be performed in Arabic.

The prophet [saw] Prophecised about the end of times signs.

Jesus pbuh will indeed come back before the last day.
.......................................................................................................

Now the modernists dont agree/differ with the the above views.

So who do you think is right, the general ummah or the modernists?

And here is an article that Irfi has put on it's website, apperantly endorsing it, and the views no doubt constitute blasphemy:

JESUS CHRIST: DEAR OR ALIVE?

The article says that Jesus [pbuh] did not have a miracle birth [without a father], when the Quran itself verry cleary indicates that the mother of Jesus [pbuh] Maryam, had a virgin birth.

The article also says that Jesus [pbuh] died and is not coming back to earth and that whoever insists on believing that Jesus [pbuh] is alive in the heavens, and is coming back towards the end of the world, is commiting kufr and has gone out of the pale of Islam, thereby basically pronouncing takfir on the Ummah of Muhammad [saw]?.

The article also implies that Allah has constrained Himself within the laws of nature that He has established.

It also says that a miracle has to be seen to be believed, implying that as we havn't seen the miracle of Jesus' [pbuh], then we shouldn't believe in it. [although it is verry clearly establish from the Quran] [I wonder what he will say about all the other miracles of the Prophets that Allah decribes in the Quran ]
.....................................................................................................

Surah III, vs. 45: Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the one of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God.�
Vs. 47: She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: God createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a Plan, He but saith to it, "Be", and it is!�

The likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is. (Aal `Imran 3:59)

Surah Maryam:

27. Then she brought him (the baby) to her people, carrying him. They said: "O Mary! Indeed you have brought a thing Fariya (an unheard mighty thing).
28. "O sister of Harun (Aaron)! Your father was not a man who used to commit adultery, nor your mother was an unchaste woman."
29. Then she pointed to him. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?"
30. "He ['Iesa (Jesus)] said: Verily! I am a slave of Allah, He has given me the Scripture and made me a Prophet;"
................................................................................................

So you take your knowledge from such a site that endorses a blaspemeous article that rejects clear established meanings from the Quran, and by inference, pronounces takfir on the Umaah of Muhammad [saw]?

 

[Abdullah]

Edit: There is a 'disclaimer' notice at the end of the articles page, so I'd like to edit the 'Irfi endorses it' comments accordingly, ...but it does say that the author of the above article is a member of Irfi...

 

[Muslimwoman]

Edit: There is a 'disclaimer' notice at the end of the articles page, so I'd like to edit the 'Irfi endorses it' comments accordingly, ...but it does say that the author of the above article is a member of Irfi...

I think we can safely take the article I posted as the view of the Irfi, as it was written by the President and quotes a number of well known scholars opinions. The article you have posted is by a member. I am not a member, however if I were I could write any old rubbish I care to and post it on the site.

This is my concern Abdullah, you will not question anything the scholars say. I may, and have done numerous times, question them and come to the conclusion that they are correct, however I question first. Sometimes I conclude they are using issues as political tools and so I reject their assertions. You on the other hand simply accept everything they say.

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

Now sister, you have not so far denied that the prophet [saw's] words, that the largest mass/group of the ummah are on the correct path, and that all other groups are astray, is correct. You have expressed that the largest group will be unaniomus in all it's views and not have differences of opinions.

No I have not denied, yet I also have not agreed. I never accept anything en mass, I look at each issue as it arises. A majority of the time I agree and accept the scholars interpretations but sometimes I disagree completely.

So will you accept that those opinions that the overwhelimng vast majority of the umaah [spanning all madhabs], dont differ on, are correct?

Again, I will agree or disagree with each individual issue as I see fit.

Before I show you those opinions sister, let me just remind you that not only the hadiths have clarified that the largest group of muslims/traditional Muslims will be on the right path, but so has the Quran in a sense, and by that, I am reffering to the Quranic verse that says not to break up into factions. Does this verse not show that any group that splits from the consensus and forms their own faction are astray?:

Firstly you know that I question the validity of a number of hadiths. Secondly to suggest that the Quran says something "in a sense" is silly, Allah does not tell us things "in a sense" He is very clear. Now read this verse, so do you also claim that we should not split from the Jews and Christians?

042.013YUSUFALI: The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah - the which We have sent by inspiration to thee - and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: Namely, that ye should remain steadfast in religion, and make no divisions therein: to those who worship other things than Allah, hard is the (way) to which thou callest them. Allah chooses to Himself those whom He pleases, and guides to Himself those who turn (to Him).

So what you are saying is that the four schools are also astray because no matter how many pretty words you put around them and state they are a consensus and they agree that even when they don't agree they are all right, there are many issues they do not agree on, which by definition makes each of them a faction. Do you not agree that it was Allah's desire for the ummah to remain a single entity and that only human political desire and differences in interpretations have brought about these factions? The scholars have painted themselves into a corner and the only way out is for everyone to agree to go back to the Quran and actually obtain a consensus of the ummah (not just the scholars) on the meanings.

Here are the opinions on which the five [including the Wahhabi's] schools of thought have consensus on and if I know for sure that the Shia's agree with any of these opinions, I'll say so inshAllah:

So we have a total of 8 issues the schools agree on, out of how many thousands of issues?

Women cannot offer salaat during their menses.

Agree

Rajm is the prescribed punishment for adultery

Disagree, the punishment is clearly stated in the Quran and I take the word of Allah above that of any man.

Cuting the hand of the thief is the prescribed punishment for the crime of theft.

Disagree, how can you cut 3 or more hands off a person? The Arabic word aydiyahuma translates literally as '3 or more' and this is the punishment in the Quran, not cut off the left hand. Again, an interpretation handed down through generations.

Hijab [that covers all of the body, with their only being a difference of opinion on wether the hands and face is included in the 'obligation' or not] is fardh.

Give me the Quranic verse that states women must wear hijab and it means this. I agree that Muslim women are required to dress and behave modestly.

Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslims [including the men of ahle Kithab]

Agree

Salaat has to be performed in Arabic.

Disagree because:

Once, there was a sharp debate between two experts in Islamic law, Imam Abu Hanifa (a Persian) and Imam Shafii (an Arab and Quraysh). Imam Shafii argued that reading surah al-Fatihah in Arabic during prayer is obligatory and shalat is not valid without it. While Abu Hanifa allowed reading surah al-Fatihah in Persian or other languages, Imam Abu Hanifa did not care whether mushally (the one who prays) speaks Arabic or not.

Personally I say my obligatiory prayers in Arabic because I am able to do so. When I make Du'a I do so in english as this is my natural tongue and I can therefore concentrate on prayer rather than trying to speak another language.

Remember Abdullah, people may be prejudiced but Allah is not.

The prophet [saw] Prophecised about the end of times signs.

Completely disagree with your interpretation. The Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was a human and had no visions of the future. What he did do was pass on the words of Allah, it was He who told of the end of times signs, through the Prophet.

Jesus pbuh will indeed come back before the last day.

Agree, however there is only one verse that refers to the return of Jesus depending on which translation you read, so where did Yusufali get the word Jesus from, or did Pickthal and Shakir forget to put it in?

043.061YUSUFALI: And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): therefore have no doubt about the (Hour), but follow ye Me: this is a Straight Way.
PICKTHAL: And lo! verily there is knowledge of the Hour. So doubt ye not concerning it, but follow Me. This is the right path.
SHAKIR: And most surely it is a knowledge of the hour, therefore have no doubt about it and follow me: this is the right path.

So who do you think is right, the general ummah or the modernists?

As you can see on some issues I agree with the traditionalists and on some I agree with the modernists. That is what it is to have your own mind.

So you take your knowledge from such a site that endorses a blaspemeous article that rejects clear established meanings from the Quran, and by inference, pronounces takfir on the Umaah of Muhammad [saw]?

I look at knowledge from any means, it does not mean that I follow those people or indeed any people. I have my own mind and make my own choices, or is it that which bothers you so much? You posted pieces from a site that clearly states rape victims should be stoned to death - do I assume that defines your belief or attitude?

Of course brother I should just listen to you and follow men that put hadiths above clear verses of the Quran. I don't think so.

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

Really Abdullah, I find it astonishing and very closed minded that everything I quote from anyone that does not adhere to your views and interpretations is distorting or blaspheming, yet you happily mentaly trot along after people who would deny the word of Allah (ie the punishment for adultery) over some old rot to do with a goat eating the protected word of Allah.

You youself stated that the Quran is protected by Allah but will in no way even contemplate the idea that if indeed a goat ate this verse that only Allah could allow this and therefore did it for a reason.

 

[Abdullah]

So we have a total of 8 issues the schools agree on, out of how many thousands of issues?

The four Schools agree on the majority of their rulings

I just gave you 8 which I know the modernists differ on .

Disagree, the punishment is clearly stated in the Quran and I take the word of Allah above that of any man.

But you wont take the word of Allah to follow and obey the Messenger [saw] will you?

Disagree, how can you cut 3 or more hands off a person? The Arabic word aydiyahuma translates literally as '3 or more' and this is the punishment in the Quran, not cut off the left hand. Again, an interpretation handed down through generations.

This is something which must be opposed, according to the LM's isn't it sis? .

Give me the Quranic verse that states women must wear hijab and it means this. I agree that Muslim women are required to dress and behave modestly

Theres no point in giving you it, for this is something which must be opposed as well... , so you wont accept it ...

Once, there was a sharp debate between two experts in Islamic law, Imam Abu Hanifa (a Persian) and Imam Shafii (an Arab and Quraysh). Imam Shafii argued that reading surah al-Fatihah in Arabic during prayer is obligatory and shalat is not valid without it. While Abu Hanifa allowed reading surah al-Fatihah in Persian or other languages, Imam Abu Hanifa did not care whether mushally (the one who prays) speaks Arabic or not.

I know that the LM would not concede on that one... It's too an important part of their agenda

It is the ijma of the Ummah that salaat has to be prayed in Arabic. some Muslims say that newcomers into Islam who's mother tongue is not Arabic, are allowed to pray in any language untill they've learnt the Arabic prayer, but am not sure if the Scholars of the ahle Sunnah endorse this opinion. Hanafi's say that people who havn't learnt the Arabic prayer can say SubHanAllah, AlHamdulillah or Allahuakbar at least three times in each posture of salaat, untill they've learnt the recitations of Salaat.

Dua is allowed in any language, but salaat is allowed only in Arabic...

Completely disagree with your interpretation. The Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was a human and had no visions of the future. What he did do was pass on the words of Allah, it was He who told of the end of times signs, through the Prophet.

'Clash of cultures and mindset' comes to mind . When we say "The Prophet [saw] prophecised the the end of times signs", then your understanding of it is exactly what we mean

I look at knowledge from any means, it does not mean that I follow those people or indeed any people.

wow what a coincidence that your views and the views of the liberal modernists just happen to be the same ... And my comments that you were following them, was out of a sense of giving you the 'benifit of the doubt'. the word 'Following' was to denote that you are an unsuspecting and genuinely mislead sister that has fallen for their teachings, or who is being manipulated and brainwashed by them, and not that you were one of the Munafiqeen yourself who's agenda it is to make muslims turn back from their religion . I still give you the benifit of the doubt ...

But why do you not follow the prophet Muhammad [saw] when Allah has ordered you to follow him in the Quran? ... can following the Prophet [saw] really be a bad thing when Allah Himself has ordered us to do so?

or is it that which bothers you so much?

The only thing that worries me and makes me sad is to see a sister head towards the hell-fire ... May Allah guide you to the straight path and save you my dear sister.

And did they really say that rape victims should be stoned to death? can you show me exactly where they said it?

Of course brother I should just listen to you and follow men that put hadiths above clear verses of the Quran. I don't think so.

The verses which order us to follow/obey the Sunnah are verry clear indeed

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

The four Schools agree on the majority of their rulings

Stuff and nonesense, they disagree on a majority of issues.

But you wont take the word of Allah to follow and obey the Messenger [saw] will you?

Are you mad? Allah did not tell us to first follow the Messenger, then look to Allah for answers. We are clearly instructed to look FIRST to the Quran, if we find no clear indication there we then look to the Prophet. Let us take adultery, the hadiths about the Prophet stoning people actually ask the narrators whether this was before or after the revelation of the verse giving the punishment for adultery and the narrators admit they do not know. Allah has clearly given the punishment so who the hell do people think they are to ignore that and look elsewhere for answers?

Theres no point in giving you it, for this is something which must be opposed as well... , so you wont accept it ...

A more honest answer would have been "there isn't one". No I would not accept your interpretation of the verse pertaining to dress because it does not state that I must cover my entire body in ugly clothes and only have one eye showing.

I know that the LM would not concede on that one... It's too an important part of their agenda

Oh get a life Abdullah. If you are going to refer every comment I make back to LM's then I will simply not bother discussing with you, it is a waste of my time.

Dua is allowed in any language, but salaat is allowed only in Arabic...

Hey that is a great attitude to have toward our Supreme Lord "we will make people pray to you in gobbledygook rather than in sincere submission". If Allah had wanted the whole world to speak Arabic, guess which language we would all speak?

'Clash of cultures and mindset' comes to mind . When we say "The Prophet [saw] prophecised the the end of times signs", then your understanding of it is exactly what we mean

So state that and stop trying to twist things. All things come from Allah, even the words and deeds of our Beloved Prophet, who never claimed to be anything other than a human male bringing a message from Allah Himself. It is high time the traditionalists stopped worshipping a Prophet and got back to worshipping and respecting Allah.

But why do you not follow the prophet Muhammad [saw] when Allah has ordered you to follow him in the Quran? ... can following the Prophet [saw] really be a bad thing when Allah Himself has ordered us to do so?

Because Allah has ordered me to follow Him first, He sent his message through a messanger and did not order me to worship the messanger. Allah instructs us to look FIRST to the Quran - the word of G-d and then to use the life of our Beloved Prophet as an example. So guess what I do? I follow Allah to the best of my ability, when I feel confused I look to the life of our Beloved Prophet and I accept from the Prophet anything that does not go against the Quran. Of course I strongly believe that anything in our records of the life of the Prophet that goes against the Quran is tainted by man because the Prophet would never go against the word of Allah. Now, you may be happy to follow men, even against your common sense, and that is a choice for you but I follow Allah and the message He gave us through the Prophet.

The only thing that worries me and makes me sad is to see a sister head towards the hell-fire ... May Allah guide you to the straight path and save you my dear sister.

Same right back at you. I see you heading down a dangerous path, away from Allah and toward man made and corrupt idol worship of our Beloved Prophet. May Allah guide you to the straight path and save you from hell fire brother.

And did they really say that rape victims should be stoned to death? can you show me exactly where they said it?

No problem, I shall do another post for this one.

The verses which order us to follow/obey the Sunnah are verry clear indeed

Right without any of your sarcastic "no because you will not accept it" quote me one verse of the Quran that says we should follow the Sunnah before the Quran. If you can do that and it says so clearly then I promise to change my views, my beliefs and follow your path.

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

Does Zina bil Jabr Invoke Hadd?
Speaking first, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi said that zina bi jabr should be dealt with under the law of hiraabah (maleficence in land) as expounded by verse 5:33. He explained that rape is a multiple crime involving adultery as well as harassment and molestation and Prophet (pbuh) himself defferentiated between both on number of occassions. Dr Hashmi said that evidence in cases of zina and zina bil jabr are different. The ayah that noble women should come out of their houses covered was specifically revealed so that they should not be a subject of sexual harrassment. He gave examples of Maliki Jurists like Qadi Iya'd and Qadi Ibn Arabi (the jurist and not the sufi) who believed that rape should be dealt with under the law of hiraabah. Mufti Muneeb disagreed and said that zina bil jabr if proved invokes rajm (stonning to death). Abdul Malik said that there is no need to do ijtihad when Quran is clear.

Non Skeptical Essays: June 2006

For those that do not know zina bil jabr means rape. Some of these 'men' claim that whilst rape is a crime it also means that a woman who is violently and brutally raped is committing adultery. If you carry on reading you will see that adultery is accepted as "free will". Abdullah, how does a rape victim have free will?

So Abdullah, Abdul Malik stated that the Quran is clear. So provide for me the verse of the Quran which clearly states that rape victims have committed adultery and must be stoned to death. Okay let's try an easier one, provide for me the clear verse of the Quran that states anyone committing adultery is to be stoned to death. Now come on, Adbul Malik stated the Quran is quite clear so there must be verses that state this.

Just in case you think Mufti Muneeb is just talking about the rapist I included the link so you can see that he is also talking about the rape victim. Before you start your "he is from the wrong school, wrong sect, blah blah blah, I have included his credentials which I got from the Sunni Log.

Professor Mufti Muneeb -ur-Rehman
Born on February 08, 1945, Prof. Mufti Muneeb-ur-Rehman completed his Masters in Islamic Studies. Besides doing Bachelors in Law and Education, he also received education in Arabic Languages. He holds various positions which mainly include;
President - Tanzim ul Madaris Al Arbia Pakistan; President, Darul-Uloom Naeemia, Karachi; Chairman, Central Roet-e-Hilal Committee, Pakistan; Professor, Jinnah University for Women, Karachi. (with his attitude, that's a bloody joke)
Prof. Muneeb-ur-Rehman serves as a member board of studies Federal Government Urdu University and Board of Intermediate Education, Karachi. He has also served as a member board of studies, Faculty of Islamic Learning, and Arabic Department at the Karachi University. He also has more than 30 years experience of teaching Tafseer, Hadith, Fiqah, Arabic Literature and other Islamic subjects to graduate and post-graduate levels. Prof. Muneeb-ur-Rehman has also authored a number of books including Tafheem -ul-Masail, Qanoon-e-Shariat, Usool-e-Fiqah Islam, and so many others.
Prof. Muneeb -ur-Rehman was a member of the Pakistani delegation which visited the UK in February – March 2006 to gain firsthand knowledge as to how Madrassas and Islamic schools operate within a state-regulated system in the UK. He has also attended a number of international conferences in the USA, UK, Norway, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and so many other countries.

024.002
YUSUFALI: The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.
PICKTHAL: The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment.

Can we agree that adultery can only be committed by a married person otherwise it is known as fornication?

I have been looking carefully at the site you gave me the link to a couple of days ago and found the following by a senior Jurist in Pakistan for 27 years. He is actually discussing the Hudood law but Whilst I found his comments most interesting, they are also highly contradictory. Here’s the link so you can see the whole thing:

http://www.central-mosque.com/fiqh/prow2006.htm

The Holy Quran prescribes the punishment of adultery in Surah Noor as follows:

The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. (24:2)

In this injunction the word zina is absolute, including both zina bil-raza (adultery) and zina bil jabar (rape). In fact, it is common sense that rape is a more serious offense than what is done with free will (i.e. adultery). Thus, as this is the punishment prescribed for adultery with free will, the punishment for rape would be even more severe.

This injunction is inclusive of the woman who commits adultery, yet further along in the same surah (Noor) those woman who have been raped are exempted from any punishment ( Abdullah I wonder why Mufti Muneeb doesn't know this????) Therefore the Holy Quran says:

2. The stated Hadd of 100 stripes is to be inflicted on an unmarried offender. (Abdullah where does it say on an umarried offender in the Quran?) From the Sunnah Mutawatar it is further proven that a married person is to suffer Rajm, i.e., lapidating in the instance of his committing Zina. The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam did, and in this case did not differentiate between Zina bil Jabr (rape) and Zina bir-Radha (adultery with mutual consent).

It is thus proven from the Holy Qur’an, the Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger sallallahu alaihi wa sallam, the verdicts of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and the noble Companions radiallahu anhum that the punishments to be inflicted for both Zina bir-Radha (adultery) and Zina bil Jabr (rape) are the same. It cannot be said that the Hadd mentioned in the Holy Qur’an and the sacred Ahadith is to be inflicted in case of Zina bir-Radh alone; and not in case of Zina bil Jabr

So he clearly says that the punishment for rape would be more severe than the punishment for adultery. How do you get more severe than stoning to death? He also states that a woman is not to be punished for rape and then says the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) did not make a distinction (therefore saying that the Prophet used to stone rape victims).

Also how does he make the huge leap from the Quran stating that the punishment for adultery (which can only mean sexual conduct outside a marriage by a Married person) to this only refers to unmarried persons? How does an unmarried person commit adultery?

He makes a very valid case and I am not trying to criticize his comments, however I see this as a prime example of why we should question decisions and not just say “they know more than us”. To contradict yourself so easily, to me, gives rise to questions.

Also in the Quran the punishments for a slave are half that of a believing man or woman. So, how do you half stone anyone to death? What do you do wait until they are unconscious and rush them to hospital to save their life?

Now look at the following. I think we can both agree that Dr Hashmi knows rather more than both of us put together how these laws are derived. Please look at the bit in bold. So now we have hundreds of women in jail in Pakistan waiting to be murdered by stoning for the crime of being raped!!!!!! Based on 81 pieces of ‘evidence’ that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Quran or Sunnah and the remaining 20 coming solely from the Sunnah being erroneous and you say I must follow these people without question?

Dr Hashmi and Mufti Muneeb were alloted 5 minutes each to make their respectives stands clear to the house. The first speaker Dr Hashmi said that the contentions of ordinance being within the injunctions of Quran and Sunnah are grossly erroneous. 81 out of its 101 clauses are not related in any way to Quran and Sunnah. These procedural clauses are subject to change by judiciary and legislature any time. The rest which are presented as hudud have been incoherently picked up from Quran & Sunnah without reflecting upon the nature of crime and criminal. As a result hundreds of women were kept in jails for years waiting for hadd to be implemented. There is a deterioration in the state of law and order as enactment of the law itself gives loopholes to misuse it. The resentment compiled over years ultimately led different groups of society to talk against the Islamic law in general.

When you get time please have a read of this, it is rather long but makes the case for the hudood law to remain. When you have read it please can you answer these questions – if hundreds of women in UK or Japan or Sweden or Kuwait or South Africa or Egytp etc, were being murdered because of ‘misunderstanding’ of the laws then do you feel the people would demand that the laws be reinterpreted in a way that stays within the Quran and Sunnah but stops this murder of innocent women? Do you not also agree that it is incumbent upon the jurists and scholars to do this, instead of saying “not our fault”? Also, if hundreds of innocent men, the victims of crime, were being murdered do you not feel that the scholars would act rather quickly to stop this?

www.hudoodordinance.com/hudoodbk.pdf

 

[Muslimwoman]

Does Zina bil Jabr Invoke Hadd?
Speaking first, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi said that zina bi jabr should be dealt with under the law of hiraabah (maleficence in land) as expounded by verse 5:33. He explained that rape is a multiple crime involving adultery as well as harassment and molestation and Prophet (pbuh) himself defferentiated between both on number of occassions. Dr Hashmi said that evidence in cases of zina and zina bil jabr are different. The ayah that noble women should come out of their houses covered was specifically revealed so that they should not be a subject of sexual harrassment. He gave examples of Maliki Jurists like Qadi Iya'd and Qadi Ibn Arabi (the jurist and not the sufi) who believed that rape should be dealt with under the law of hiraabah. Mufti Muneeb disagreed and said that zina bil jabr if proved invokes rajm (stonning to death). Abdul Malik said that there is no need to do ijtihad when Quran is clear.

Non Skeptical Essays: June 2006

For those that do not know zina bil jabr means rape. Some of these 'men' claim that whilst rape is a crime it also means that a woman who is violently and brutally raped is committing adultery. If you carry on reading you will see that adultery is accepted as "free will". Abdullah, how does a rape victim have free will?

So Abdullah, Abdul Malik stated that the Quran is clear. So provide for me the verse of the Quran which clearly states that rape victims have committed adultery and must be stoned to death. Okay let's try an easier one, provide for me the clear verse of the Quran that states anyone committing adultery is to be stoned to death. Now come on, Adbul Malik stated the Quran is quite clear so there must be verses that state this.

Just in case you think Mufti Muneeb is just talking about the rapist I included the link so you can see that he is also talking about the rape victim. Before you start your "he is from the wrong school, wrong sect, blah blah blah, I have included his credentials which I got from the Sunni Log.

Professor Mufti Muneeb -ur-Rehman
Born on February 08, 1945, Prof. Mufti Muneeb-ur-Rehman completed his Masters in Islamic Studies. Besides doing Bachelors in Law and Education, he also received education in Arabic Languages. He holds various positions which mainly include;
President - Tanzim ul Madaris Al Arbia Pakistan; President, Darul-Uloom Naeemia, Karachi; Chairman, Central Roet-e-Hilal Committee, Pakistan; Professor, Jinnah University for Women, Karachi. (with his attitude, that's a bloody joke)
Prof. Muneeb-ur-Rehman serves as a member board of studies Federal Government Urdu University and Board of Intermediate Education, Karachi. He has also served as a member board of studies, Faculty of Islamic Learning, and Arabic Department at the Karachi University. He also has more than 30 years experience of teaching Tafseer, Hadith, Fiqah, Arabic Literature and other Islamic subjects to graduate and post-graduate levels. Prof. Muneeb-ur-Rehman has also authored a number of books including Tafheem -ul-Masail, Qanoon-e-Shariat, Usool-e-Fiqah Islam, and so many others.
Prof. Muneeb -ur-Rehman was a member of the Pakistani delegation which visited the UK in February – March 2006 to gain firsthand knowledge as to how Madrassas and Islamic schools operate within a state-regulated system in the UK. He has also attended a number of international conferences in the USA, UK, Norway, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and so many other countries.

024.002
YUSUFALI: The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.
PICKTHAL: The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment.

Can we agree that adultery can only be committed by a married person otherwise it is known as fornication?

I have been looking carefully at the site you gave me the link to a couple of days ago and found the following by a senior Jurist in Pakistan for 27 years. He is actually discussing the Hudood law but Whilst I found his comments most interesting, they are also highly contradictory. Here’s the link so you can see the whole thing:

http://www.central-mosque.com/fiqh/prow2006.htm

The Holy Quran prescribes the punishment of adultery in Surah Noor as follows:

The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. (24:2)

In this injunction the word zina is absolute, including both zina bil-raza (adultery) and zina bil jabar (rape). In fact, it is common sense that rape is a more serious offense than what is done with free will (i.e. adultery). Thus, as this is the punishment prescribed for adultery with free will, the punishment for rape would be even more severe.

This injunction is inclusive of the woman who commits adultery, yet further along in the same surah (Noor) those woman who have been raped are exempted from any punishment ( Abdullah I wonder why Mufti Muneeb doesn't know this????) Therefore the Holy Quran says:

2. The stated Hadd of 100 stripes is to be inflicted on an unmarried offender. (Abdullah where does it say on an umarried offender in the Quran?) From the Sunnah Mutawatar it is further proven that a married person is to suffer Rajm, i.e., lapidating in the instance of his committing Zina. The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam did, and in this case did not differentiate between Zina bil Jabr (rape) and Zina bir-Radha (adultery with mutual consent).

It is thus proven from the Holy Qur’an, the Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger sallallahu alaihi wa sallam, the verdicts of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and the noble Companions radiallahu anhum that the punishments to be inflicted for both Zina bir-Radha (adultery) and Zina bil Jabr (rape) are the same. It cannot be said that the Hadd mentioned in the Holy Qur’an and the sacred Ahadith is to be inflicted in case of Zina bir-Radh alone; and not in case of Zina bil Jabr

So he clearly says that the punishment for rape would be more severe than the punishment for adultery. How do you get more severe than stoning to death? He also states that a woman is not to be punished for rape and then says the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) did not make a distinction (therefore saying that the Prophet used to stone rape victims).

Also how does he make the huge leap from the Quran stating that the punishment for adultery (which can only mean sexual conduct outside a marriage by a Married person) to this only refers to unmarried persons? How does an unmarried person commit adultery?

He makes a very valid case and I am not trying to criticize his comments, however I see this as a prime example of why we should question decisions and not just say “they know more than us”. To contradict yourself so easily, to me, gives rise to questions.

Also in the Quran the punishments for a slave are half that of a believing man or woman. So, how do you half stone anyone to death? What do you do wait until they are unconscious and rush them to hospital to save their life?

Now look at the following. I think we can both agree that Dr Hashmi knows rather more than both of us put together how these laws are derived. Please look at the bit in bold. So now we have hundreds of women in jail in Pakistan waiting to be murdered by stoning for the crime of being raped!!!!!! Based on 81 pieces of ‘evidence’ that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Quran or Sunnah and the remaining 20 coming solely from the Sunnah being erroneous and you say I must follow these people without question?

Dr Hashmi and Mufti Muneeb were alloted 5 minutes each to make their respectives stands clear to the house. The first speaker Dr Hashmi said that the contentions of ordinance being within the injunctions of Quran and Sunnah are grossly erroneous. 81 out of its 101 clauses are not related in any way to Quran and Sunnah. These procedural clauses are subject to change by judiciary and legislature any time. The rest which are presented as hudud have been incoherently picked up from Quran & Sunnah without reflecting upon the nature of crime and criminal. As a result hundreds of women were kept in jails for years waiting for hadd to be implemented. There is a deterioration in the state of law and order as enactment of the law itself gives loopholes to misuse it. The resentment compiled over years ultimately led different groups of society to talk against the Islamic law in general.

When you get time please have a read of this, it is rather long but makes the case for the hudood law to remain. When you have read it please can you answer these questions – if hundreds of women in UK or Japan or Sweden or Kuwait or South Africa or Egytp etc, were being murdered because of ‘misunderstanding’ of the laws then do you feel the people would demand that the laws be reinterpreted in a way that stays within the Quran and Sunnah but stops this murder of innocent women? Do you not also agree that it is incumbent upon the jurists and scholars to do this, instead of saying “not our fault”? Also, if hundreds of innocent men, the victims of crime, were being murdered do you not feel that the scholars would act rather quickly to stop this?

www.hudoodordinance.com/hudoodbk.pdf

 

[Abdullah]

Stuff and nonesense, they disagree on a majority of issues.

"These four schools share most of their rulings, but differ on the particular hadiths they accept as authentic and the weight they give to analogy or reason (qiyas) in deciding difficulties".

Fiqh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All four agree on the basic belief system of Islam, and on the majority of their rulings, and they do not constitute separate sects, denominations or groups within Islam. They also agree on the basic begginnings of their methodology: That the primary sources of Islamic rulings are the Quran and Sunnah... There differences come over minute and difficult issues, many of which are not possible to resolve. For example: how to reconcile apperant contradictions between two texts, which there is more than one acceptable interpretation of an Arabic word, or when there is an issue [esspecially contemporary issues] which not text in the Quran and Sunnah explicitly adresses....

Understanding Madhabs: A Beginner's Guide & FAQ

Are you mad? Allah did not tell us to first follow the Messenger, then look to Allah for answers. We are clearly instructed to look FIRST to the Quran, if we find no clear indication there we then look to the Prophet. Let us take adultery, the hadiths about the Prophet stoning people actually ask the narrators whether this was before or after the revelation of the verse giving the punishment for adultery and the narrators admit they do not know. Allah has clearly given the punishment so who the hell do people think they are to ignore that and look elsewhere for answers?

The mujtahidouns of jursiprudence do take the Quran first as their primary source from where rulings are derived, and they take the Sunnah as their second source. So what they do first is see if other Quranic verses interpret the Quranic verses in question, and then they turn to the Sunnah

A more honest answer would have been "there isn't one". No I would not accept your interpretation of the verse pertaining to dress because it does not state that I must cover my entire body in ugly clothes and only have one eye showing.

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts, etc.) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like palms of hands or one eye or both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer dress like veil, gloves, head-cover, apron, etc.), and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms, etc.) and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands fathers, their sons, their husbands sons, their brothers or their brothers sons, or their sisters sons, or their (Muslim) women (i.e. their sisters in Islam), or the (female) slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And all of you beg Allah to forgive you all, O believers, that you may be successful. (Chapter #24, Verse #31)

...not to mention the endless Hadeeths involving this matter .

It takes a Mujtahid/Muffasir to understand the Quranic words correctly, for they have a deep insight into the Arabic language, so they not only see the 'apperant translated meaning when it's translated into english', but it's true core meaning as well, and the words in the brackets which interprets the word 'Juyubihinna', are from this deep understanding of root and indepth meaning of the Arabic words of the Quran.

So do you want to argue against the experts of the Arabic language by saying, "well according to the apperant meaning of the word as it has been translated into english, you cannot be conclusively sure that, that it means to cover the whole body with only one or two eyes showing, so I'm going to go by the apperant Abdullah Yusf Ali's translated meaning, and not going to accept your indepth understanding of the meaning of the word in it's orignal Arabic". Hmm thats a verry intelligent argument isn't it

Oh get a life Abdullah. If you are going to refer every comment I make back to LM's then I will simply not bother discussing with you, it is a waste of my time.

The cutting of the hands of the thief is verry clearly mentioned in the Holy Quran sister...The LM's cannot concede on this one, because to get rid of what they consider to be 'barbaric' is a one of their major aims, thus they will lie to you and confuse you with a manipulated and disotrted 'interpretation' of theirs in telling you that the traditionalists have got it wrong.

Allah Most High says:

“As to the thief, male of female, cut off his or her hands. A punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime” (Surah al-Ma’idah, 38).

It couldn't be more clearer sister.

Hey that is a great attitude to have toward our Supreme Lord "we will make people pray to you in gobbledygook rather than in sincere submission". If Allah had wanted the whole world to speak Arabic, guess which language we would all speak?

Only a few surahs need to be learnt for salaat and the rest of the recitations in it are not much iether, and it is easy to learn it and learn their meanings as well. The overwhelimng vast majority of muslims in the world are non-Arabic speakers and they all learn how to read Salaat in Arabic, and they are easily learning the meanings of what they read as well, so if the rest of the non-Arabic speaking Muslims dont have a problem with learning and offering salaat in Arabic, why should a few western converts have a probelm with it?

Allah does not make fardh what is too difficult for mankind to abide by, and the fact that learning to say Salaat in Arabic [or to understand the meaning of what one is saying in the Arabic recitations of Salaat] is not hard at all, goes to show that there is no injustice at all in Allah making Arabic recitations in salaat a fardh [obligation] for all mankind

Allah wants us to recite the QURAN in Salaat and only the Arabic recitation of the Quran is the Quran and a translation of the recitation is just that, a translation of it, and not the actual Quran itself.

The arabic language cannot be translated word for word, exact concept for concept, in any other language, thus if we pray salaat in any other language then in arabic, we will not be saying and meaning exactly the same words which the Prophet [saw] said in Salaat, thus we will not be saying or meaning exactly waht is meant to be said and meant in Salaat, that is one reason why even the non-Quranic recitations in the Salaat has to be said in Arabic.

Another wisdom behind why Salaat has to be said in Arabic, is that when a people leaves the orignal language of a religion/imperative religious practices, and adopts translations in it's place, then this is how gradually a religion and it's practices gets gradually corrupted and distorted, as 'translations' can easily faciliate the orignal teachings/meanings to shift from it's orignal teachings/meanings, wether it is done by 'flexibilty' that translation allows, or wether it is done with the deliberate intention to distort. Thus sticking to the orignal language of a religion blocks the paths to the religion getting gradually distorted.

So state that and stop trying to twist things. All things come from Allah, even the words and deeds of our Beloved Prophet, who never claimed to be anything other than a human male bringing a message from Allah Himself. It is high time the traditionalists stopped worshipping a Prophet and got back to worshipping and respecting Allah.

That is correct, so the Sunnah is from Allah Himself, so why shouldn't we follow the Sunnah AS THE SECOND SOURCE OF SHARIAH [in importance to the Quran] as Allah directs us in the Quran to do so?

And obeying/following the Sunnah is not worshipping the Prophet [saw]. Heres the evidence:

And whoever obeys the Messenger, thereby obeys Allâh. (4:80)
See

Because Allah has ordered me to follow Him first,

Fine, Allah wants the Quran to be taken as the first source of Shariah, but He wants us to take the Sunnah as the second source. take a look:

Say: Obey Allâh and the Messenger, but if they turn their backs, Allâh loves not the disbelievers. (3:32)

And obey Allâh and the Messenger so that you may be blessed. (3:132)

Say, if you love Allâh, follow me and Allâh will love you and forgive you your sins. (3:31)

Believe, then, in Allâh and His Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, who believes in Allâh and His words, and follow him so that you may be on the right path. (7:158)

Same right back at you. I see you heading down a dangerous path, away from Allah and toward man made and corrupt idol worship of our Beloved Prophet. May Allah guide you to the straight path and save you from hell fire brother.

Obeying and following the Sunnah is ordered by Allah in the Quran, and Allah makes it clear that the obeidence of the messenger [saw] is the obedience of Allah, so therefore, it is not idol worship but it is the worship of Allah.

Right without any of your sarcastic "no because you will not accept it" quote me one verse of the Quran that says we should follow the Sunnah before the Quran. If you can do that and it says so clearly then I promise to change my views, my beliefs and follow your path.

The Quran says to obey Allah [i.e, the Quran...] and to follow/obey the Messenger [saw] [i.e. the Sunnah].

Salaam