Quran alone Muslims.

[VixR]

They see the absurdities too clearly, and are hanging on by a thread.

Exhibit A: Our beloved resident ex-Quranist.

 

[Bidaar Wanagsan]

You misunderstood me. Imam tabari & every historian in Islam were lenient with previous history AS LONG as it didnt not contradict the 2 main sources quran & ahaadith. When it came to taarikh they based their history primarily on the quran & hadith & secondarily on the narrations from other texts so as long as they didn't contradict any basic principals in Islam. I'm telling you this is what they mention. They were very honest when recording these stories & spoke about the possibility of inaccuracies & discrepancies they'd come across. When it came to recording hadith they were extremely careful, especially knowing the famous mutawatur hadith that the prophet saw said "He who intentionally tells a lie about me let him take his seat in hell"(paraphrased).

Bro you're doing what the mu3tazila did we these hadith and that's rejecting them based on your dhaahir understanding of them. All these hadith deal with the mutashaabihaat. The salafis went to the opposite extreme of mu3tazilah and became literalists. Read what ibn hajar al asqalani says about this hadith & the ones similar in his book Fathul baari. Imam nawawi dealt with similar ahadith in his sharhul muslim for sahih muslim. All of this has been covered by the ulama. Another thing is, there's a problem with the translation kkk. For example Al istiwa is used as an adjective in the quran & hadith to describe what Allah did, it alone has 15-18 meanings, some of metaphorical meaning in arabic, some being literal, but usually the literal translation is used by saudi publications to push the salafi narrative. If my PM was opened I'd send you a lot of stuff...I don't like getting into this touchy stuff on public forums, it can confuse people

Your DMs are banned? LOL. What did you do?

Feel free to post your links here. I will read them inshallah. But look habibi, I don't worship Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani. I worship Allah subxana wa ta'aala. If hadiths are revelations from Allah to His Messenger, I have to take them as Allah gave them without changing a word. And those hadiths are clear as day. The prophet did not say they were symbolic, or allegorical, or a figure of speech, or mutashabbihat. All we can go on is is what is in the text. And it clearly says that Allah made Adam in his image, and that humans have the same face as Allah, which is why it is forbidden to hit the face. That is the clear unambiguous meaning of the prophet's words. This is what the Bible says. Not what the Quran says, which is that Allah is not like His creation. Even if the prophet was speaking figuratively, it would be grossly irresponsible for him to compare Allah to human beings, and the Messenger was not irresponsible.

You're acting like Christians who, when they are confronted with the contradictions in the Bible, say it is not a contradiction, it is symbolic language. You're not being honest with yourself.

Face the truth: hadiths are man made books, and like all man made books, they contain error and mistakes. I can list many other hadiths of this nature that contradict the Qur'an, scientific facts, and basic logic.

 

[xisaabiye]

Your DMs are banned? LOL. What did you do?

Feel free to post your links here. I will read them inshallah. But look habibi, I don't worship Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani. I worship Allah subxana wa ta'aala. If hadiths are revelations from Allah to His Messenger, I have to take them as Allah gave them without changing a word. And those hadiths are clear as day. The prophet did not say they were symbolic, or allegorical, or a figure of speech, or mutashabbihat. All we can go on is is what is in the text. And it clearly says that Allah made Adam in his image, and that humans have the same face as Allah, which is why it is forbidden to hit the face. That is the clear unambiguous meaning of the prophet's words. This is what the Bible says. Not what the Quran says, which is that Allah is not like His creation. Even if the prophet was speaking figuratively, it would be grossly irresponsible for him to compare Allah to human beings, and the Messenger was not irresponsible.

You're acting like Christians who, when they are confronted with the contradictions in the Bible, say it is not a contradiction, it is symbolic language. You're not being honest with yourself.

Face the truth: hadiths are man made books, and like all man made books, they contain error and mistakes. I can list many other hadiths of this nature that contradict the Qur'an, scientific facts, and basic logic.

Sxb im telling you this is linguistical & you are completely misunderstanding it & choose the literal english translation. A simple example in the somali langauge we say "Ilaahay haku garab galo" If I translate that into english it'll mean May God enter your shoulders of course thats not what it means. Also in somali we say "ninku wuu gacan adag yahay" the literal translation is obviously not intended, although it could make sense in another context. This is no different, & this is a foundational principal in arabic language, that you contextualize speech appropriately. The Quran says Allah has made Istiwa on the arsh(throne). The salafi & few extreme hanbali of the past went so far to maintain the literal meaning of istiwa saying Allah settled on the throne, in the words of the salafi alim Ibn Uthaymeen "Allah made istiqraar" authubillah. The actual word istiwa is used several times in different contexts in the quran & the Ulama were unanimous that this literal meaning can't apply since it goes against the quran "laysa kamithlihi shay'a". Same with the other that say Allah created Adam with His Yad, if you translate that in the literal sense it is absurd authubillah which is what salafi and a few hanaabilah like ibn taymiyyah did, but even in somali we know yad(gacan) can have multiple meanings as i previously showed. All of these tafasiir that ulama later compiled & even the hadith where the actual words are contextualized by Ibn Hajar & other scholars were based on tafsir given by Imam Ali & Ibn Abbas radyAllahu 3anhom, whom the prophet told us of their great knowledge.

Btw the mutashaabihaat is mentioned in the quran itself. Allah says people seek the true meaning of the mutashaabihaat & they do so in order to create fitna. That's why the basis of the mutashabihaat is to believe in them as they have come and relegate the true meaning to Allah azawajal or those whom he gave understanding to

[003:007] It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad) the Book. In it are Verses that are Muhkam, they are the foundations of the Book and others are Mutashaabih. So, as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is Mutashaabih, seeking Al-Fitnah (shirk and/or trials), and seeking for its hidden meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings except Allâh. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole of it (Muhkam and Mutashaabih) are from our Lord." And none receive admonition except men of understanding.

 

[xisaabiye]

They see the absurdities too clearly, and are hanging on by a thread.

Exhibit A: Our beloved resident ex-Quranist, @Amun

They, whomever "they" are have a flimsy understanding of the Quran, let alone hadith. It's good to question...in good faith that is. Most of what i've learnt was based on things I couldn't understand and questioned, alx I searched deep & found every satisfying answer which will suffice me until the coffin

 

[Jodeci]

Their hadeeth are a load of crap. How can Iman Ali (ra) say that they shouldn’t marry the ‘Negroes’ because they are an ugly creation while some of his descendants married black females (according to their very own hadeeth)?

That's why I don't trust Shia people , all the ones I've met were all notoriously racist, even the "nice" ones