Is the Qur'an mainly or in part a book of Laws?Is there any aspect of the Qur'an people can add to or supplicate - or is it simply enough?
Is one person's opinion of what the Qur'an says better than anothers?
Is one person's opinion of what the Qur'an says so much better that it is as binding as the Qur'an itself?
If there is a shadow of doubt for any of the Hadith at all, and if the Qur'an is sufficient to all worldly affairs - why should muslims bother with Ahadith at all?
When - if at all - do muslims consult the Bible or Tanak?
[url=http://www.therevival.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?p=29294#29294]General Questions topic...[/url]
The Qur'an is a book of guidance. Thus some of it is laws.
There are some types of commandment from the qur'an:
1. The explicit. You cannot deny these laws. Denying these is kufr.
2. The (heavily) implied. These do not carry the same legal weight as above. Denying these is not kufr, but as they are heavily implied, denying them s a sin.
If the qur'an mentions a law of eg Torah without abbrogating it, that law still stands.
The qur'a, is to be understood and explained with Hadith. Verses were revealed at certain times for certain conditions. However you cannot add to the qur'an.
There are aspects of the qur'an open to interpretation. Anyone who interprets it will be rewarded, even if their interpretatino is wrong. In general, one who uses more Hadith ought to be better, but as always here it is the same with litterature; it is subjective.
The Qur'an is the Qur'an, and opinions are opinions. one better than another? only if one is using the qur'an, and another abusing it...
[size=18]Hadith[/size]
There are many many hadith. They are very important. We believe the prophet was Ma'sum. in other words not able ot commit a sin. Thus Hadith are very important.
As an example the qur'an orders one to pray. it does not say [i]how[/i] to pray. That is from Hadith.
However there are hadith of diferent calibre. The historical reason being that while the qur'an was being revealed, the Prophet 
banned the writing of hadith lest they be confused... they were passed on verbally.
The hadith were compiled later. There were stringent tests done by the muhaddith (the compilers) to categorise them:
1. Strong: a hadith where EVERY narrator in the chain of narration was of brilliant character, was not known to have ever lied etc..., and there was evidence lthelinks in the chain met at the time the hadith is to have been verbally passed on. These can and are used to make laws.
2. weak: A hadith that has a line of narration weaker than the above. Above every link must have a strong character as above. but there may not be documentary evidence of the two links meeting. Due to this inconsistency, these hadith are to be cherished, and used, but not for making law.
3. Rejected. A hadith that has been rejected: a hadith that has been found to have no basis, and been made up.
There are a few other categories aswell... but the above should be enough (If I have made any mistakes, ppl should point them out below.)
The other revealed books must be respected. If they have been quoted in the qur'an, and not abbrogated, the ruling stands. however because we believe they have been altered, we cannot use them for a making law.
If the contradict the qur'an, those passages are not accepted by muslims. Those laws may have been added later, or may not have, but have been abrogated by the qur'an.
Now with other books; we do not know which sections have been tampered, thus some scholars only use them for a comparative study, but not for legal issues concerning muslims...
Just post Omrows reply here:
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I disagree with a couple of things in Omrows reply.
1. Slavery.
Prisoners of war are NOT slaves.
Muslims cannot enslave.
If muslims already have slaves, they are advised to free them, but not commanded.
Islam set a minimum barrier on slavery; giving them rights etc... but since slavery no longer exists, slavery is banned. That is because muslims are not allowed to enslave.
I disagree with Omrows interpretation of wea hadith...
In the Qur'an only 25 prophets have been named.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I am free from attributing sins to the Ambiy alayhimus salaatu was salaam.
Bear witness that I am free from such comments.
Ya ALLAH Madad.
Haq Chaar Yaar
Hmm... getting some mixed answers.
Can anybody support their arguments with examples directly from the Qur'an or Ahadith for other people to look at?
The Prophets (as) are free from sins because they speak by the will of Allah and they do everythin by the will of Allah which makes them innocent from all sins:
Allah Almighty himself says in the Quran when Hazrat Adam (as) ate from the forbidden tree that:
"Adam did not commit a sin but he forgot"
From here it is clear cut that Prophets do not commit sins.
That actually follows the Christian position of Prophets - fallible just like any human but infallible in deliver God's message.
In the bible King David committed adultery, and Solomon prayed to false Gods - and they were both punished for it.
Although they weren't prophets.
Moses broke the ten commandments and was punished for it
angel and Admin is right
Prophets are sinless-
they only make mistakes -(mistake is not a sin)
and that is only for our benefit-so that we can learn from them
:? I learnt that our prophets (pbu them) did not and have not committed any sins....now I am reading opposing arguments (refer to Jihad Soliders post inshallah).... :? can someone PLEASE clear this up :? !
I received nothing I wanted
I received everything I needed.
My Prayer has been answered.
No prophet can sin. They are ALL ma'sum.
However they CAN make mistakes.
however in regards to hadith and sunnah etc, the Prophet could only do what Allah
wills.
Now these istakes are not like our mistakes... as an example Hadhrat Adam ate the fruit from paradise. He did it so that he could become CLOSER to god.
If a revelation comes after an action has been committed, that is not even a mistake, as at that time there was nothing banning the action.
RE hadhrat Musa: he did not sin. He stopped an act of aggression. It resulted in a death. (I think the act being referred to was a son of afirawn (pharoah)... but cannot remember...)
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
plz cud u explain wot u mean here^ admin?
[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/Dust.html]Dust, X-Men[/url]
What is the probability the Revival - or somebody from the Revival could bring a molvi on to answer the question?
It would be nice to have a living breathing authority consider the arguments...
I think what he meant was, well from what i have heard of the story when Hazrar Adam (as) ate from the forbideen tree was, satan kept sayin to Hazrath Adam (as) that if you eat from that tree it will take you closer to Allah (swt) so out of love for Allah (swt) and wanting that nearness to Allah (swt) he ate the fruit from that tree. (duno if thats what you were askin or thats what admin meant)
Your right...the beloved people of Allah (swt) do not sin or show any rebellion nor are they punished as others are punished.
Prophet Adam (pbuh) did not sin. Allah (swt) Himself justified his Prophets actions by stating ‘He forgot Our commandments’ (20: 115).
Sin is an intentional disobedience; forgetfulness as we know is not synonymous with sin. Prophet Adam (pbuh) committed a mistake when he ate from the forbidden tree out of intense love for his Creator. He did not intentionally disobey Allah (swt).
Prophets and Messengers are people selected by Allah (swt) Himself to deliver His message to mankind. It is pivotal that we believe that intentional disobedience cannot enter their hearts because Prophets and Messengers are innocent and infallible.
unlikely, if they did have one i wud prolly cuss him that much that he will leave the forum :twisted:
well we could have about 45465784564894546546 molivs to help us distinguish the 748148648716751754145 sects there are.
here 73 of the 548171696869166 sects listed http://www.alislam.org/library/73divisions/73-09.html and i'm still counting coz most of them aint even mentioned there, i mean they forget grave worshippers and devil worshipers :shock: :shock: :shock:
i read an article on dissolving thhe sect problems http://www.parvez-video.com/insight/islam/sects_islam/index.asp not much use tho...
dave this must really piss u off, how and even y shud u and america distinguish us from binladin and the wierdos?
What you put in the hearts of others; is what goes back into your own heart…
eh judda anyone that worships anyone or anythin other than Allah (swt) is not a muslim sect as they go against Tawheed!
This is a compelx issue, and if no1 else gives a full explanation I might see what I can come up with.
I did not read all of Jihad boys post, inshaALLAH will do so when I have time.
Prophets are infallible, they are sinless.
Now some say they commit sins/mistakes, but these sins/mistakes are not the same as our category. For the Prophets if they are presented with two perfectly halal choices, and they choose the 'inferior' halal option, then that is their ''sin''. May ALLAH forgive me and shower His mercy on me if I utter anything wrong.
So this issue I will inshaALLAH deal with at an appropraite time when I have the fursat from uni to provide the full theology, in meantime suffice to say the so-called ''sin'' is not what we would acknowledge as a sin.
Ya ALLAH Madad.
Haq Chaar Yaar
Again just goin over Hazrat Adam (as) story Allah (swt) Himself says Hazrat Adam (as) forgot, if he had sinned (mazah) then Allah (swt) would have cleary said in the Quran. People should look at the words that Allah (swt) uses, there is always a reason behind it. Sinning and forgeting 2 complete different things.
Now without comparison when we fast and we eat out of forgetfullness that is not considered a sin as we didnt do it on purpose but rather ate somethin because we forget we were fastin, it would only be considered a sin if we intentionally and fully knowing we had a fast and then ate.