The “D” Word

As Urstruly expounds the role of ahadith … here’s one to consider … where the Prophet (pbuh) said … whoever changes his religion, kill him.

This hadith should prove to infidels that Islam is the religion of peace and justice.

... Jay .... now what`s your excuse for not taking the oath??? And if you insist on using mouthwash after joining the ummah, I am sure the grand imam can make an exception in your case ...

To Romair #89
Good clarification.
To truly understand the Quran you have to understand it in its entirety. A single verse is not to be understood as complete rather as a parts to a whole. If we believe Quran came as a book of guidane to all humanity and through the times then how can we accept the words of Bukhari as final. The compilation of hadith are the works of a man who died and could not have vision of what the Quran holds for the future. The knowledge in Quran is not tied to that particular time but for times to come . It is a divine book that gives us a deeper insight everytime we read it but it only happens if we open our minds.
To quote, Professor Haluk Nurbaki, a Turkish scientist, the Qur’an is “like a rose that continuously grows petals in the womb of time.”

There seems to be a misunderstanding being propogated here that the books of Bukhari et al. actually, ``explain`` the Quran. There is another incorrect piece of misinformation being propogated here that the hadith were recorded on parchment and are stored somewhere.

Neither of this is true. Infact, Bukhari et al., themselves, do not make any such claim.

1. Bukhari, was born around 200 years after hijrat. He, himself, does not present the book as an, ``explanation`` of the Holy Quran. This is why it is impossible for people to trace back the hadith about, ``women in hell`` to the Quran. Because Bukhari himself did not use Quran as a reference. He did not, thus, explain the Quran. He added to it. Infact, his references are other human beings, i.e. I was told by so and so, who was told by so and so, who was told by so and so, all the way back to Muhammad.

Had Bukhari merely explained the Quran, it would be fine. It would just be another explanation and interpretation of something that was written, i.e. another opinion on the verses of the Quran. Which could be accepted or rejected, since it was an interpretation provided by man.

His book on hadith, ended up adding things to the religion, which have no basis in the Quran, i.e. a parallel religion came into existence.

2. The hadith are obviously not recorded on parchment and kept in a Turkish musuem. There might be a few parchments here and there. But the number of hadith in the Bukhari`s works runs well into the thousands. Over 7000. The references pointed out by Bukhari, are infact not towards parchments. They are towards other human beings, i.e. a chain of word of mouth passings that are put together over a timespan of 200-250 years, i.e. 7 to 8 generations. Bukhari was, obviously, not a first-hand witness to any of the hadith. Neither was his father. Maybe 7 generations back someone in his family tree may have been. And that is a big maybe. 7000 x 7 = approximately 50,000. So for the hadith to be the accurate truth, 50,000 events in a chain would have had to have been orally recorded perfectly accurately, without any loss of information over 200 years. This is obviously impossible.

In addition, a majority of the hadith are related back to a sahaba named Abu-hurayra. Not to Aisha. Nor to Abu Bakr etc., i.e. people who knew Muhammad intimately. But to Abu-Hurayra. How many of the people who keep quoting hadith, nowdays, know anything about this gentleman. For example, do they even know when he accpeted Islam?

3. There are far too many verses in the Quran, that point to the Quran`s completeness.

The first compiled book of hadith was authored by Bukhari. This means the book was written around 200 years after the death of Muhmmad. This brings to question the fact that what exactly were the Muslims doing in the in-between 200 years. Were they stuck with an imperfect religion, which would not be complete until Bukhari authored his book?

Verses from the Quran:

---

[6:114] Shall I seek other than GOD as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed?* Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbor any doubt.

[6:115] The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.

We have made it (the Quran) easy to understand and in your own tongue (language) may you take heed.`` 44:58

Alif. Lam. Ra. (This is) a Scripture the revelations whereof are perfected and then expounded. (It cometh) from One Wise, Informed,`` 11:1

These are the communications of Allah which We recite to you with truth; then in what announcement would they believe after Allah and His communications? 45:6

To the author,
As I mentioned elsewhere, the society is changing and we don`t know yet where the institution of marriage is headed. On your point about subcontinental women being groomed for marriage, the same applies to men as well. Once he has reached adulthood and has some income, a man is expected to marry and have kids. It`s a hangover from a predominantly agrarian society where humans went through the birth-reproduce-death cycle like an automaton, without questioning.
When a society moves to the industrial stage typically the marriage age increases, marriage and birth rates decrease. Marriage is not the epochal event that it once was. Rather, it is one event out of many. Interestingly, however, india may be bucking the trend in some respects. My own observation is that marriage remains indispensable even among the sections that may be considered to have moved to the ``industrial`` age, and in fact marriage age is steadily dropping. On the other hand, divorce rates also have increased and birth rates decreased as has happened in industrilized societies.
There is still a stigma associated with divorce, with the woman having to declare that she was `innocently divorced` or marriage `not consummated.` It is taken for granted that the responsibility for compromising falls on the woman.
Personally I know of very few divorced men or women who have remarried but not for lack of trying.

Great points, Romair.

To #60 by Jay

Pakistan was not created to usurp the rights of women rather it was created to protect the rights of all muslims not just muslim males. I am greatly preturbed by your ignorance , you say Convent schools should be shut down as if they are teaching christian values to our women. Women all over Pakistan are fighting for their rights not just convent educated women. If you have to make a point I would suggest you get your facts straight. These Convent schools are not telling supposed Muslim men to ravage and plunder and destroy their own Islamic society. The irony of this situation is that I would be happy if there was an Islamic system in place but tell me what Islam are you talking about. The quran I read does not tell men to disgrace and humiliate their women. I am proud to be a muslim yet am I proud of my muslim brethern , I think not. Islam is a religion of peace yet we make it a religion of fear. To control poor and uneducated masses religion had become a tool to subjugate people not to liberate people. So my friend do not tell me why pakistan was created as I know it was not created to make men first class citizens while women are not even third class citizens. To get a true Islamic republic of Pakistan, we first have to liberate Islam from the cluthes of the ignorant , self professed mullahs and understand the beauty of our religion as a religion of peace, equality and humanity.

Urstruly #68: First of all, it never seems to amaze me, how the same people who normally jump up and down about Islam, quickly discard the Quran, when someone debates it with them. You have followed the trend and have quickly discarded it. The reason is quite simple. Much of the material that is presented by the mullah brigade, is not in the Quran. That material is man-made. And when they are challenged, they have no basis in the Quran to prove it. Hence they start quoting human beings to prove their point.

They contradict the following verse, “This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion.`` - Qur`an 5:3 ``

This means the religion has been perfected and completed. It does not state that it will be perfected after Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari are published. It means that even if one throws out all the hadith books, the religion still remains perfected, as long as the Quran is there. After the Quran all debates (from a Muslim point of view) should be based on the Quran and interpretation of its verses. Not verses and ideas added to it. And anything that cannot be directly extrapolated from it (like your hadith) should be considered un-Islamic. Bukhari does not simply debate and explain the Quran. He adds things to it, which were never in the Quran.

“Where it is written that there are so many units (rakat) in the Namaz of a certain time, or of Eid prayer, or of funeral prayer, and so on and so forth. Since it is not written in Quran` then should we just stop praying altogether. Please interpret those verses for me where do you think it is written how to say your prayers.”

This is my whole point. And you have proven it. If the Quran doesn’t describe rigid, strict rules for prayers, then they should be left like that. People should interpret them, and act upon it. Instead of adding rigidity to it. You may pray one way and I may pray another. Unfortunately, people have added rigidity to it, based on man-made rules. And these man-made rules dominate the religion now.

The Quran is actually a very abstract book. Much of it is just statements telling others to do good, be nice, a few threats, descriptions of hell and heaven, stories etc. There are very few direct instructions. It leaves a lot open for interpretation. This is the beauty of the Quran, which has been destroyed by the maulvi brigade. This is why the mullah brigade shies away from the Quran, in its arguments. Because Quran encourages interpretation and diversity. And discourages rigidity. This obliterates the need for having a theocracy. So the mullah brigade have added man-made blasphemous layers on top of it, to keep themselves in business. Out of which you keep quoting.

There is absolutely nothing in the Quran that states that women will be a majority in hell. Yet you and Malik99 believe it. And you will probably pass on these fairytales to your next generations, including your daughters, thereby, perhaps traumatising them for life. Why do you believe it, in the first place? Simply because Bukhari said so. Not because the Quran said so. And according to Bukhari, Muhammad said it. Even though we both know it is logically impossible for thousands of hadith to have been accurately passed, word of mouth, over hundreds of years, and remain accurate. That is assuming they were said in the first place.

You cannot point me to anything in the Quran to base your arguments upon. So the logic you are using is that if the exact system of prayers in not in the Quran, and we pray in a certain manner. Hence we should also believe other things that are not in the Quran. That is like saying that if my boss did not tell me to shut the door and I shut it any ways, then it is alright to shut the window also, even if he did not tell me to do so.

When infact the correct argument would be if the Quran does not prescribe a rigid method of prayer, then we should not make it rigid. And if it does not say that women are a majority in hell, then we shouldn’t come up with such arguments, on our own. Even if Bukhari states that his friend’s grandfather’s father was told by the neighbor’s grandfather that his uncle’s great-grandfather heard Muhammad saying so.

P.S. I am still waiting for a reference to the parchment on which your hadith is kept. Can you point me to it? Is it on the web? And what is the aunthenticity of the parchment (if it exists in the first place). Why didn`t Bukhari make a reference to it in his book?

If you go to the site for Electronic Journals for the Proceedings of the Physical Society of London, you should be able to find the proof’s for Einstien’s theory, as well as references to exact journals (parchments) on which other theories were proved.

Malik99 # “Today, you go to your physics class, and trust a 30 something professor to help you understand the intricacies of this theory. Not once do you stand up in the class and demand that you want to see the ``original manuscript`` where Einstein wrote that theory.”

You are skating on very thin ice.

First of all, I don’t ask for the manuscript because I know it exists. Secondly, I don’t base my life on this theory. Thirdly, no one would believe this theory if it wasn’t proven. It was actually proved by Einstein. He did not say that, “I am presenting this theory because my grandfather was told by somebody else’s grandfather who was told by somebody else’s great grandfather that somebody said that e equals mc(2).” How many people would believe him, if he said that. The whole profession of science would be reduced to fairy tales, if it started working like this.

However, you have no problem believing Bukhari when he says, “I am presenting this theory because my grandfather was told by somebody else’s grandfather who was told by somebody else’s great grandfather that Muhammad said that women will be the majority in hell.” I have a big problem with that. I wouldn’t believe Einstein’s theory, if he said something like this. Neither would you (I hope).

I really hope you see the difference. Einstein didn’t just pull stuff out of thin air. He proved it. Bukhari just used word of mouth, passed through generations. Much of which has no basis in the Quran. He didn’t explain the Quran. He added to it.

“Let me take you on your word that Quran is so simple that even a village man should be able to understand it without an accompanying explanation. Now, you are rather educated person. So could you please explain for me what the following ayah in Surah Nisa verse 34
means?”

I am not talking about people explaining what is in the Quran. Or translating it. There is nothing wrong with that. You cannot compare a translation of a language to adding things to the Quran. If I want the Quran explained I will go to someone and discuss it. And they will come to me. However, we cannot add to it. We can start inventing things that do not exist in the Quran, to begin with. This is the category that the hadith presented by Urstruly comes from. There is absolutely nothing in the Quran that states that hell will be filled with women. It there is something there, do point me to it.

Adding things to the Quran should be considered blasphemous.

“And when you put your response to this simple ayah, I would very much appreciate if you could point out which sources did you use to come with that explanation”

The research I used is my own mind. And opinions of others that were based on the ayah, itself. And then a final opinion, formed by me, based on this research. And disregarding things that others tried to add to it, which had no basis in the verses. This is my whole point. These things should be debated and discussed, amongst Muslims. I may have one explanation, you may have another, and a woman may have a third. But they should be debated within the context of the words. What ends up happening is that someone comes in and says, “Well, most of the people in hell are going to be women,” so let’s keep that in mind when looking at the Quran. Now where in the world did they get that from? It certainly isn’t in the Quran.

Shoresahib # 76 - you write ``One has to use a translation whether our own or someone else`s because our medium of communication here is not Arabic but English. ``

These are exactly the points i wanted to bring up using my ``moot`` logic. My point being, there are some muslims who completely disregard ahadith saying that Quran is ``so simple`` that every one should be able to understand it without anyone else`s help. However, if quran is ``so simple`` then, why is it that:

- you had to take the help of a teacher to learn to read it in the first place
- once you learned to read it, you had to take the help of a teacher to understand arabic
- once you learned that, then you had to learn your own language so you can understand the translation of it

So you see, it has not been all that ``simple`` so far. But ironically, it is only when it comes to understanding the explanation and the deeper meanings of Quran, that we bring out the ``quran is so simple that we don`t any thing else`` argument.

Now, thank you for the explanation you provided of the Surah Nisa verse 34. However, it so happens that I was in the company of a well reknowned Shaikh from Kuwait who also is a well respected arabic linguist. He pointed out that the word waidriboohunna is used in arabic in at least 3 different contexts with 3 different meanings. One of the meanings is as you mentioned ``to strike``. An other meaning is ``to separate``.

``Then, why is it that we muslims narrowed it down to `strike them` and not to `get separated` ``, was his point.

Again, my point is that those folks, including respected Romair sahhib, who think that Quran is ``so simple to understand`` should have a second look at their opinion and not dismiss extensive research and thinking of those people who were not IT specialists by day and islamic scholars by night, but instead their every single hour of life was spent on understanding the meanings of Quran.

I know I am not as articulate as most folks here, but i hope i conveyed my point, somehow.

#73 zaharj
Shoot the messenger & all that. If you disagree with the message, tell us why. You`re welcome to try to change the culture.

Not that the Convent girls can not suffer the trauma of a ridiculous husband, it is the girls from the poor families who are trated like a commodity. More than the religion, is it not a part of culture?

And the treatment of a women is not too good in the Chinese & Japanese cultures as well.

Almost all the religions & scriptures treat women at a lower level. Only that other religion wallas are better off because they take the religion with a pinch of salt. Unlike us who go for each comma & full stop.

In our culture, the same timid bride, after three kids, with an older husband, becomes quite a tyrant in the house. Barring exceptions, it is our mothers who make the vital decisions. Or a decision can not be satisfactorily implemented without their consent. (good part of our culture)

The situation has improved quite a lot - thanks to the media - and with more universal education, the situation should automatically reverse.

(I am keen to hear Isphahani`s views on the subject)

nhk

...... did anyone notice how the discussion on divorce has deteriorated into a discussion of what some seventh century arab god and his protege had to say about the subject ? ........

............ as long as we keep on looking for answers to simple, everyday, mundane questions like divorce, and more complex questions like the unified theory in a book of gibberish we are destined to make fools out of ourselves .......... it never fails .......

....... the ``book`` cannot even tell us on which day to go out and slaughter a sheep - some did it yesterday and the rest of the idiots are chasing after them today .......... how silly can you get !

Echo

Thanks for the link. Indeed it is one of the best organized websites and I have consulted it frequently for the several articles that I have written.

Re: Urstruly and Malik99

Parrh Parrh Aalim Faazil Hoya
Kaddi Apney Aap noo Parrheya hi nahin

Jaa Jaa Warda Mandir Maseetaan
Kaddi Mun Apney Vich tun Wardeya ee Nahin

Ainwayn Roz Shaitaan dey naal Larda
Kaddi Nafs Apney Naal Lardeya ee nahin

Bullhey Shah Aasmaanin Uddiyaan Phardaa
Jaidha Ghar Baitha Ohnun Phardeya ee Nahin

You`ve Studied much and become Brilliant, A Scholar!
Yet, Never your own innerself you study

You enter temples and mosques in many a places
Yet, Never your own being you infiltrate

In vain, You crusade against Satan daily
Yet, Naught against your ego you struggle

Bullhey Shah, You apprehend celestial truths
Yet, Grasp the Mundane you have Not

Re: #74 Zahra
Zahra, I wish your cousins the best of luck. My sister went through a similar process, she initiated the divorce. I wont say why she chose to divorce him, but I know this she is a much happier and content person because of it. She can now focus on her career, betterment of her person, and be more independent till the time she chooses to marry again. She can do things that she couldnt do before like taking art classes, dance classes, take her daughter to ballet, Finish her Masters degree, fulfill her dream of becoming a human rights lawyer for South Asian women. Life holds so much promise for her now, and my prayers and wellwishes go out to her, your cousins and all the courageous Pakistani women out there who choose to get out of miserable marriages not only for their children`s sake but for the sake of thier personal wellbeing and sanity.

RE: Malik99
Your question to Romair is moot on logical grounds. You are asking him to explain a Quranic Ayah ``And also, if you used some translation, please also give me the reason as to WHY you trusted that man to have the most accurate translation (I am assuming that you are not well versed in Arabic so therefore will have to depend on someone`s translation)``.
One has to use a translation whether our own or someone else`s because our medium of communication here is not Arabic but English. If one uses one`s own translation, one trusts one`s own judgement and is responsible for it. The same applies to someone else`s translation that we choose to trust, in the end we are responsible for our decision.
I choose to trust Abdullah Yusuf Ali`s translation and find it easy to comprehend.
AL Quran Al Nisa Ayah 34
``Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband`s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).``

1: Men are protectors and maintainers of women because they are the stronger sex physically. The word Qawwamoona means caretakers, overseers, guardians.
2: THe Quran stipulates that it is men`s duty to provide support for thier companions.
3: Righteous women are obedient or Qatinat (devoted), Hmmm, Obedient to whom, their husbands.Hmmm, I think the Quran means that Righteous women are obedient and devoted to Allah because the next part says that these women guard themselves even when their husband is not present. So righteous women are obedient to God!
4: Those women ye fear disloyalty ( Nashooz meaning recalcitrant behavior).
5: Admonish them: 1) To counsel and caution against something to be avoided, 2) To remind of something forgotten or disregarded, as an obligation or a responsibility.
6: Leave their beds: sleep on the couch perhaps, stop conjugal activities.
7: Beat them Lightly: The word used is Wa Azzriboohun, from the word root to strike. Strike how, with how much force , the Quran doesnt say. I cant imagine that the Holy Prophet ever struck any of his wives. So, I guess to land a blow on your wife`s person is like saying Take a wife, two, three or four, but ONLY DO SO IF YOU BELIEVE YOU CAN BE EQUITABLE TO EACH OF THEM> An oxymoron! Basically saying that the command to treat the wife with kindness and Strike her cant exist together, so pick the first choice, Doofball.