On Doomed Queens and Dumb Women

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by S.O.S:

Now, Naden is Muslim and believes in Allah, Paradise and Hell-Fire, so am I. We (Naden, I, other Muslims alike) believe that what Allah (swt) has prepared for His pious and obedient servants as a reward in Heaven, is something that “no eye has ever seen it, no ear has ever heard it, no heart can contain it and no mind can encompass it..†Even though you hate the sound of it, we just love it!

Good S.O.S , you don´t have to state the obvious [ that both Naden,Azmaya and you are Muslims ],

and try to associate your stance of the reward prepared for men to their questioning stance of it, thus you´ll be doing the ' moon walk '.

 

My comment was on your words to Azmaya when she questioned the 'Prize' that is affirmed, namely the 70 houris plus the TWO beleiving women from this life prepared for Men,hence women ending up as beeing 'The Prize' itself instead of getting one as equally pious human beeing as Men.

 

Instead of answering Azmaya´s question of why Men are rewarded in such you brought absurdity.

Now, Muslim or not , Men or Women, your stance is, beside the already mentioned houris there is something that “no eye has ever seen it, no ear has ever heard it, no heart can contain it and no mind can encompass it..†in store for us.

 

And it is your presentation of this vague something i question not your faith in it´s existance.

Good S.O.S , what you´ve just presented is the impossible, what is something that no i can see, that no ear can hear, that no heart can contain, that no mind can encompass ?

How can you possiblly precieve such a thing ?

if what i HATE and you claim to LOVE is ' the impossible' then so be it otherwise i´d like you to enlight me about what is it that i HATE.

 

Castro , i think Dr Turabi has a solid islamic knowledge to pioneer such point of view, actually the first ever humanly human Islamic scholar in my books.

[xiinfaniin]

Castro, adeer waan ku salaamay. I see nothing new in facilitating the muslimaat to join the workforce of Islamic call. As you now dacwa has never been an elitist field. Needless to say dictator Muhamad of Moroco’s attempt to stay relevant will not come to fruition.

 

Naden, for a minute I was tempted to lecture about the difference (whose value ironically eludes you) between equity and equality in general, and as it relates to gender relations, in particular. But that thought eclipsed as I realized that you take no issue with the religious verdict of reserving imaamah for the Muslim men. You, in turn, need to know that I see no obstacle to the muslima’s path in serving her community in different capacities as long she shuns from seeking the position of head of Islamic state. If I got it wrong, however, and you hold no such view you can correct me, and we shall discuss it further. If I got my deductions right, on the other hand, and you are not contending to that reserved imaamah, the contradictions you spoke of about the leadership hadith begin to fade away---grow less significant, and hence unworthy of further discussion. Perhaps your neural firings were vapors of your mind, and, naturally, they easily hide from the view when subjected to real analysis . Still I liked your delivery of those thoughts, I must admit, and how eloquently you put them across .

 

As for the other hadith, as I said before, it neither exacts a binding law nor contradicts any Islamic principle. When put in context that is. As it was explained by many able scholars, it was an instructive sermon delivered to educate those gathered female companions about particular weakness of theirs. It was all about encouraging Muslim women to give more charities. Just like the hadith of cukaashah, (sabaqaka bihaa cukaasha didn’t mean he won’t be able enter the paradise; it just meant it (his entrance) won’t be in the same manner), the prophet employed concise and short phrases to answer directed questions at him. Likewise, deficiency in religion and intelligence does not literally mean women are really deficient in both. This is similar, in terms of relative shortage of religiosity, to the other hadith that encouraged less wealthy Muslims to resort more remembrance of Allah in order to compete with those blessed with more. Needlessly to say one wouldn’t, in a good heart, deduct that poorer Muslims have deficiency in religion as they can hardly compete with richer believers in the charity field. Deficiency, as you can see, looses its demeaning connotation when explained objectively and put in a proper perspective. This particular hadith (women have deficiency in intellect and religion) could be challenge of sort, I concur, especially in this day and age. But to aptly understand it demands more than firing random thoughts, I hold. It requires putting it in context and explaining it in the light of the larger Qur’anic theme. It is not unusual, however, to detect what seems to be an abviuos contradiction both in the Qur’an and in the Sunnah. The process of reconciling them lies not in expressing and reporting that dissonance--that’s just the beginning of it. A more effective approach, however, is to study in the methods used by the learned community in breaching that gap. To the uninitiated, though, that may seem a lengthy process and impossible task to assume. But ad hoc shortcuts present worse alternatives and they yield no convincing answers either. The door of Ijtihaad is not closed shut, and I could see how you may want to extract realistic answers by your own, but the work had already been done by men whose entire life was a dedication for this cause. They left valuable works behind. It is there and ours to take yaa naden .

 

Before I leave the scene---I feel that I am a little bit ahead ---let me tend to my friend JB’s broken argument and say few words to him. JB, my dear lad, you seem to have missed the main point of this argument. That gender is not an issue in Islam is a correct statement saaxiib. What it means is that before Allah’s universal justice one is not judged on a gender bases, but by his/her deeds. Gender, my good friend, just does not factor in. But that does not mean it does not exist. It does. There is the woman, and there is the man--right there, my good man. Each is conditioned in specific manner that’s unique to him/her. Each has strengths and weaknesses. Based on these divinely attributed characteristics, the tasks each could excel are not equal. Their tendencies are distinctively different. By uncomplicated deduction their responsibilities, good JB, differ. That’s where equity as a realistic approach to realize fairness while recognizing differences comes in. it’s where the notion of gender equality meets its demise and gets exposed as an empty slogan that fails to transcend its rhetorical usage. So you see, good JB, you hastily attempted to crack an indestructible argument saaxiib. Despite all your load noises it remains unscathed. Give it another try.

[Johnny B]

Good Xiin , that was a great maneuvering of sort, under a wild fireworks display if you like, but a neither rigorous nor remotely cogent , a total failure if i may say so , right infront of me it fell flat.

Good Xiin, you´ve emotionally ( deliberately ? ) embellished and benignly connoted equity when you presented it as a divinely exercise when judging human beeings, and the divinely yardstick is soley based on the individual performance in piety,.

 

It´s stunning how you immediately turn and throw that wonderful equity away to first point at a divinely attributed characteristics ( physical difference between Men and Women)) and assaign them to different (social) resposibilities and trivial tasks just to simply highlight inequality among the sexs , All this to conclude that Men and Women are not equal? that they differ?

 

Good Xiin, aren´t you judging women for beeing diffrent, weird enough a difference that is not self-inflicted , but according to you divinely. highlighting and recognizing that difference you take women to court in the name of ' realistic approach ' and dismiss gender equality as it were becouse of slight physical difference , trivial social tasks and naturally relative responsibilties to promote Men as naturally superior sex.

I´m saddened good Xiin, equality in gender as it were is an intrinsic human value.

 

Good Xiin, Equity implies beeing fair and impartial between two different (things) be it positions, ideas , sexs, etc etc , So, you see good ( sexist ) Xiin, that manly man argument as it were never took off the ground , i ´d to lift it up a lil bit to just smash it for good.

[Naden]

Good Xiin,

 

There may come a time when women and men could discuss gender equality with a commitment to truth. I sense from your posts in this thread and others that you are respectful of the work and ambition of women in society. Perhaps it is the mixing of gender equality and the authenticity of a hadith that is not to your liking and would discuss them more readily if they are separated.

 

Unfortunately, that debate may not be forthcoming any time soon. Instead, it will largely be in the court of those who belong to a club whose mission statement includes a distorted interpretation of some verses and reverent respect for misogynistic, frankly laughable, sayings. A few of its members lust after an Islamic state where right will be made right and a woman will know her place. It will be the playground for the fellow who is otherwise incapable of competing on his own merits. Barring any real influence through study, innovation or sheer hard work, he will at least have a woman who is several ‘degrees’ under him for whatever reason. Neither hadith can be taken seriously. They are dangerous and contrary to both the letter and spirit of the religion that misogynists foam at the mouth protecting. In my opinion, they are clear fabrications from their content alone, let alone their mean-spirited and hateful tones. Unless they are removed from consideration in the issue of gender equality, people will use them to inflict even more oppression on muslim women than is already present.

 

An ambitious and capable woman couldn’t be satisfied with the notion that a male-engineered lot on earth is her salvation and passport to heaven. When people speak about differences between equity and equality in gender relations, I can guess with a fair bit of accuracy where the discussion is headed. I’m not much of a mind reader but let me take a quick stab at it so perhaps I could convince you that it eludes me not:

 

Equality: Men and women are equal, God thinks they’re equal, gender equality is not an issue in Islam, equality is everywhere, we are practically gorging on it.

 

(Translation: Women and men are equal but men are more equal than women (with due reference to Mr. Orwell).

 

Equity: God made men and women different, one has a uterus and the other has um…um…a double chin? She will be judged according to her capabilities and the man according to his.

 

(Translation: Do what you need to do, woman, but don’t mess with my gender protectionist goals cloaked under Islam. I can tolerate you working your estrogen-pickled selves as hard as you want but the big chair (and a bunch of smaller ones) is mine, all mine, dammit).

 

Am I close? Way off the mark? The issue is not whether men and women are physiologically different or that civilizing legislations on marriage, divorce, and inheritance have differing rights. The issue is that there are interests of power, access and influence that must be protected at any cost, and islam is but one tool to use for this protection.

 

If I got it wrong, however, and you hold no such view you can correct me, and we shall discuss it further…………………

 

Consider yourself corrected, brother. It was a moment of temporary insanity quickly remedied by an injectable dose of ijtihad. I wouldn’t reserve a spot in the street corner for a bum; he’d have to earn it by becoming a seriously committed junkie with suspect hygiene . I don’t believe for one moment that the rasuul (csw) could have claimed psychic powers and singled out women as a group (and not hypocrites, thieves and other unpalatable members of society) for such a grim prediction without so much as a feeble reason. Rationalizations by imams and wannabes don’t count, except for comic relief.

 

The door of Ijtihaad is not closed shut, and I could see how you may want to extract realistic answers by your own, but the work had already been done by men whose entire life was a dedication for this cause........

 

Not only is it shut, good Xiin, it is sealed with a blow torch . Just look at the amount of takfiir and death fatwas hurled at people. It is clear that you don’t think that a contradiction could be present; alas, you’ve brushed the whole thing aside and placed it squarely on my ineptitude in understanding the principles of the faith. I may be an amateur student of the quran who couldn’t tell a sufi from a salafi to save her life, but I can smell lies coated in religion a mile away. Deferring to men of knowledge when things get difficult is also not an option for me, it would be akin to going to a street dealer for rehab. I believe learned men can be wrong and on this particular issue, they ARE largely wrong. Men have dedicated entire lifetimes to the belief that the earth was flat but that didn’t make them any more right.

[Nephissa]

^Nice going Naden.

 

"eye has not seen...ear has not heard...". It is unthinkable what will be there. Even our best thoughts are short. Laakini, being an obedient wife won't get me there, that much I know for sure.

[xiinfaniin]

^^Oh Bishaarooy---why Bishy?-- do you not know that i am short-handed at this juncture.

 

Fair enough, yaa naden, and I stand corrected. But I hope your vacillation is not deliberately engineered to seek sedition. If that were the case, I hope you would agree, it would make our discussion an inept dialect that serves no purposeful function. To make sure that we are working under the same religious framework let’s agree on some fundamentals in Ijtihaad as it relates to our discussion:--

 

• The Islamic science of hadith is a mature field that has well-established processes and standards to separate fabricated hadiths from authentic ones. Hadiths in the Muslim and Bukhari collection were thoroughly authenticated, and hence the validity of both its contents and chain of narration won consensus of the Muslim scholars.

• Consensus of the learned community of ummah is not to be taken lightly when considering issuing verdicts that’s contrary to a previously established interpretation.

Before we go any further lets affirm that Ijtihaad is not tantamount to a reckless freelancing in which you reserve the right to comment on jurisprudential matters and yet disregard its main pillars (i.e. previous interpretations and standards of hadith). To call authenticated hadiths ‘dangerous’ is a hostile thought. But let me halt it there and wait to see where you stand on the above action items, yaa naden.

 

JB, no contradictions there i insist. It is not surprising, however, that you spotted one and tried, with all your might, to ‘smash it for good’.

[Naden]

Good Xiin,

 

My stance on your action items matters not a wit. You spoke of being slightly ahead in an earlier post. Brother, you haven’t even played the game . What you did was raise your argument above any discussion of ‘divine directives’ (a most curious label for ahadith) and their scholarly interpretations. Might I remind you that the main question was whether these ahadith contradict Quranic principles? Your arguments, unfortunately, have not moved beyond questioning my ‘fundamental understanding of Islam’ and labelling this entire discussion ‘idle talk’ and ‘ad hoc shortcuts’.

 

You've asserted that anything in the Muslim and Bukhari is authenticated, and I gather, beyond criticism. Given this, perhaps your initial opinion was that no contradictions could exist. If so, you may have simply added it to your circuitous defense of the status quo. Just a final thought on your last post: what you refer to as ‘reckless freelancing’, I call thinking. One reads text, understands the words, learns the context and history as available and voila, comprehension and thinking. Right or wrong, a discussion can exist outside a simple comparison between schools of thought and interpretation.

[Asxabul_kahf]

Seems like you having problem with two things.

 

1. The prophet Having knowledge of the qaib.

( I ask you this, what is the quran (includes knowledge of the qaib)? a revelation right..then everything he says was a revelation as well.)

 

(suratul Najm verse 1-5)

 

I swear by the star when it goes down.

Your companion does not err, nor does he go astray

Nor does he speak out of desire

It is no less than inspiration sent down to him

He was taught by one Mighty in Power

 

The prophet more than once described the knowledge of the qaib (the grave, the judgement day, and so forth as it was revealed to him, So that never contradicted the quran. yes the knowledge of qaib is with allah, and the prophet doesnt say anything except that it was revealed to him.

 

You can find many evidences in the quran.

 

2. Scholars making ijtihad.

 

 

'Definition of Ijtihaad:

linguistically ijtihaad means: to expend efforts in order to reach some difficult matter. Technically it means: expending efforts to arrive at a Sharee'ah ruling. And the Mujtahid is the one who expends efforts for this purpose.

Conditions for Ijtihaad:

Being a mujtahid has conditions, from them:-

That he knows the Sharee'ah proofs which he needs in his ijtihaad - such as the verses and ahaadeeth pertaining to rulings.

That he knows what relates to the authenticty or weakness of a hadeeth, such as having knowledge of the isnaad and it's narrators and other than this.

That he knows the abrogated and the abrogating, and the places where there is ijmaa - such that he does not give a ruling according to something that has been abrogated, nor give a ruling that opposes the (authentically related) ijmaa.

That he knows from the proofs that which causes the rulings to vary, such as takhsees (particularisation), or taqyeed (restriction), or it's like. So he does not give a judgement which is contrary to this.

That he knows the Arabic language and usul al-fiqh, and what relates to the meanings and indications of particular wordings - such as the general, the particular, the absolute and unrestricted, the restricted, the unclarified, and the clarified, and it's like - in order that he gives rulings in accordance with what this demands.

That he has the ability to extract rulings from the evidences.

And ijtihaad may be split up, such that it may be undertaken in one particular branch of knowledge, or in one particular issue.

 

What is essential for the Mujtahid:

It is essential that the Mujtahid strives in expending his efforts to arrive at knowledge of the truth, and to give rulings in accordance to what is apparent to him. If he is correct, then he has two rewards: one for his ijtihaad, and the other for arriving at the truth - since arriving at the truth means that it is manifested and acted upon. If, however, he is mistaken, then he has a single reward, and his error is forgiven him, as he (SAW) said, "when a judge judges and strives and is correct, then he has two rewards. If he judges and strives and errs, then he has a single reward." If the ruling is not clear to him, then he must withold - and in such a case, taqleed is permissible for him, due to necessity.

Taqleed - it's definition:

Linguistically, taqleed means: Placing something around the neck, which encircles the neck. Technically it means: Following he whose sayings is not a proof (hujjah).

Exlcuded from our saying, "following he whose saying is not a proof" is: following the Prophet (SAW), following the ijmaa and also following the saying of the sahaabee - for those who consider the saying of a single sahaabee to be a proof. So following any of these is not called taqleed, since there is a proof for doing so. However this type of following is sometimes referred to as taqleed in a very metaphorical and loose sense.

 

 

The Place of Taqleed:

Taqleed is done in two cases:

1) when the muqallid is an 'aamee (a common person) who does not have the ability to aquire knowledge of the sharee'ah ruling by himself. So taqleed is obligatory upon him, due to the saying of Allaah - The Most High, "ask the people of knowledge if you do not know." So he does taqleed of one whom he considers to be a person of knowledge and piety. If there are two such people who are equal in his view, then he chooses any one of them.

 

2) The mujtahid when he encounters a new situation, for which an immediate solution is required, but it is not possible for him to research into this matter. So in this case he is permitted to perform taqleed.

 

Some stipulate as a condition for the permissibility of taqleed, that the matter is not from the fundamentals of the deen - those matters which must be held as aqueedah - since matters of aqueedah require certainty, whereas taqleed only amounts to dhann (knowledge which is not certain).

 

However the correct saying in this matter is that this is not a condition, due to the generality of his - the Most High's - saying, "ask the people of knowledge if you do not know." And this verse is in the context of affirming the Messengership - which is from the fundamentals of the deen. And also because the common person cannot acquire knowledge of the sharee'ah rulings with it's proofs by himself. So if he is unable to arrive at the truth by himself, then nothing remains for him except taqleed, due to the saying of Allaah - the most High, "fear Allaah as much as you can"

 

Types of Taqleed:

Taqleed is of two types: general and specific.

1) The general type: that a person sticks to a particular madhhab (school of thought), accepting it's concessions and non-concessions, in all matters of the deen.

 

The scholars have differed about such a state. So some amongst the late-comers have reported that this is obligatory upon him, due to his inability to perform ijtihaad. Others report it as being forbidden for him, due to its being a case of necessitating unrestricted following of other than the Prophet (SAW).

 

Shaykh al-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah said,

 

"The saying that it is obligatory, causes obedience to other than the Prophet (SAW) in every matter of command and pohibition, and this is in opposition to the ijmaa'. And the allowance of it contains what it contains."

 

 

He (RH) also said,

 

"He who sticks to a particular madhhab, and then acts in opposition to it - without making taqleed of another scholar who has given him a ruling, nor does he use an evidence as a proof which necessitates acting in opposition to his madhhab, nor does he have an acceptable Sharee'ah excuse which allows him to do what he has done - then such a person is a follower of his desires, doing what is haraam - without a Sharee'ah excuse - and this is evil and sinful.

However, if there becomes clear to him, something which necessitates preference to one saying to another - either due to detailed proofs if he knows and understands them, or because he holds one of two people to be more knowledgeable about this matter and having more piety with regards to what he says - and so he leaves the saying of that one for the saying of the other one, then this is permissible, rather, it is obligatory. And there is a text from Imaam Ahmad about this."

 

 

 

2) The particular type of taqleed is that he accepts a saying about a particular matter. This is permissible if such a person is unable to arrive at knowledge of the by ijtihaad - whether he is unable to in reality, or he is able, but with great difficulty.

 

 

Fatwaa of a Muqallid:

Allaah - the Most High - said, "Ask the people of knowledge if you do not know." And the Ahludh Dhikr are the Ahlul Ilm (the people of knowledge), whereas the muqallid is not a person of knowledge who is followed - rather he himself is a follower of someone else.

Ibn Abdul Barr (d.463) and others have said,

 

"the people are united in ijmaa that the muqallid is not counted as being from the Ahlul Ilm, and that knowledge is the realisation of guidance along with it's proof."

 

 

Ibn al-Qayyim said,

 

" And it is as Abu Umar (ibn Abdul Barr) said: Indeed, the people do not differ about the fact that knowledge is the realisation attained from proof, but without proof, it is only taqleed."

 

 

Ibn al-Qayyim then quotes,

 

"There are three sayings about the permissibility of giving fatwaa based upon taqleed:

1) It is not permissible to give fatwaa based upon taqleed, because it is not knowledge; since issuing a fatwaa without knowledge is forbidden. This is the saying of most of the Hanbalee scholars and the majority of the Shaafi'iyyah.

 

2) That it is permissible with regards to himself, but it is not permissible to give a fatwaa to others based upon taqleed.

 

3) That it is permissible when there is a need for it, and there is no mujtahid scholar. And this is the most correct of the sayings and is what is acted upon."'

 

 

 

Shaykh al-Albaanee says in his, 'The Hadeeth is a Proof in itself' after mentioning the statements of the Imaams on Taqleed as found in the introduction to 'The Prophets Prayer Described' brings a chapter heading, "Taqleed for whoever cannot search for proofs by himself" (pp94+),

 

'"Some may ask: "Not everyone has the ability to be a Person of Knowledge, as explained before?" We say: yes indeed. No one disputes this fact. Allaah said, "So ask the People of Knowledge if you do not know." (16:43) and, "ask the knowledgeable about it" (25:59). The Prophet (SAW), for those who issued fatwa without knowledge: "Could not they have asked if they did know? The cure for the confused one is to ask." However, we did not mention all of the above evidence to show who can and who cannot be a scholar. Our research is with regards to those few who are considered to be People of Knowledge....Taqleed is upon the common person and the ignorant one. The scholars, who can search for the evidence, are excluded from this group. They are the ones whose responsibility is not to do Taqleed. Rather, their responsibility is to perform Ijtihaad. The following saying by ibn Abdul Barr explains this matter further, "All these rules are for the common folk, they are the ones who have to perform Taqleed of their scholars when needed. They are not capable of understanding or comprehending evidence or knowledge. Knowledge has grades, one cannot attain the topmost grade unless he goes via the base...Scholars do not differ with regards to the common folk having to follow their scholars..." However, I believe that to generalise about the common folk by saying that they all must perform taqleed is invalid. Taqleed is to follow others without evidence. Many intelligent people can clearly understand evidence if it is presented to them. Who can deny that a common person can understand the evidence contained in the hadeeth, "Tayammum is one strike (of the hands on the dust) for the face and hands"? Even people lacking intelligence can understand this hadeeth. Therefore, the truth is that we must say that Taqleed is allowed for whosoever cannot search for or understand the evidence, ibn al-Qayyim also was of this opinion. Even scholars are forced to do Taqleed sometimes, when a scholar cannot find a text from Allaah or His Messenger, but only sayings of more knowledgeable scholars."

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Asxabul_kahf:

( I ask you this, what is the quran? a revelation right..

then everything he says was a revelation as well.

)

That syllogism doesn't follow from its premise dude. Only what was revealed to him by the Angel Gabrial were revelations. Everything else were not, otherwise they'd be in the Quran.

[xiinfaniin]

Those action items are very critical to our discussion, Nadeneey. Your vacillation, good naden, is beyond control. You have not been forthcoming in your last post. I don’t like when you speak out of the corner of your mouth, and make a limp handshake, as it were, with the truth. I would have preferred you be direct. My preference matters not though--I recognize. I tried to explain and address your thoughts about the hadiths you cited. I said they could be explained in relation with the larger Qur’anic theme. Isolating them is not a good way to understand them, I wrote. If one seriously wants to understand these prophetic sayings, one ought to respect and follow the standards of science of hadith. If you neither respect nor follow the process of authenticating hadith then yours is a reckless freelancing that lies outside of Islamic framework in interpreting traditions of the prophet. My aim was to advice, and I wasn’t trying to score. Before I let you fleet with your self-referential bid, let me leave you with the following, yaa naden.

 

To hastily and single-handedly retire authenticated hadiths is a clear sign of ignorance. Calling that a critical thinking is a compounded one; it is a double jeopardy walaal. You are neither correct in your approach nor willing to acknowledge your shortcomings. You want to discard two prophetic sayings to satisfy a mere inconvenience of yours. Alas, and you do it with a particular pride. If it contradicts with a Qur’anic principle, you reason, that hadith must go. But could it be that you are afraid of the vapors of your mind, and there isn’t any contradiction at all. Could there be a chance that this active brain, somehow, got it wrong. Probable scenarios--all of those are--you refuse to consider.

 

As for me not playing the game, I thought I did, and had the ball for a while. I could’ve even taken it home, and cause quite a scene. I know I could. But that was not my aim, as I said before. One can’t clap with a one hand, yaa naden. Discussions could be useful and come to a full fruition if their parameters are well defined. With amount of evasiveness and dodging in it, this discussion is another failed crop. So, good Xiin has called the quits, and went home safe.

[Khayr]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

Those action items are very critical to our discussion,

Naden

eey. Your vacillation, good naden, is beyond control. You have not been forthcoming in your last post. I don’t like when you speak out of the corner of your mouth, and make a limp handshake, as it were, with the truth. I would have preferred you be direct. My preference matters not though--I recognize. I tried to explain and address your thoughts about the hadiths you cited. I said they could be explained in relation with the larger Qur’anic theme. Isolating them is not a good way to understand them, I wrote. If one seriously wants to understand these prophetic sayings, one ought to respect and follow the standards of science of hadith. If you neither respect nor follow the process of authenticating hadith then yours is a reckless freelancing that lies outside of Islamic framework in interpreting traditions of the prophet. My aim was to advice, and I wasn’t trying to score. Before I let you fleet with your self-referential bid, let me leave you with the following, yaa naden.

 

To hastily and single-handedly retire authenticated hadiths is a clear sign of ignorance. Calling that a critical thinking is a compounded one; it is a double jeopardy walaal. You are neither correct in your approach nor willing to acknowledge your shortcomings. You want to discard two prophetic sayings to satisfy a mere inconvenience of yours. Alas, and you do it with a particular pride. If it contradicts with a Qur’anic principle, you reason, that hadith must go. But could it be that you are afraid of the vapors of your mind, and there isn’t any contradiction at all. Could there be a chance that this active brain, somehow, got it wrong. Probable scenarios--all of those are--you refuse to consider.

 

As for me not playing the game, I thought I did, and had the ball for a while. I could’ve even taken it home, and cause quite a scene. I know I could. But that was not my aim, as I said before. One can’t clap with a one hand, yaa naden. Discussions could be useful and come to a full fruition if their parameters are well defined. With amount of evasiveness and dodging in it, this discussion is another failed crop. So, good Xiin has called the quits, and went home safe.

Alhamdulillah, you have now come to that realization.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Khayr:

Alhamdulillah, you have now come to that realization.

Some of us have been relishing watching sapient Naden's amazonian endeavors. Undoubtedly a sight to behold. So you can get lost Kheyr, ok? No need for your cheerleading, unless you're wearing revealing outfit.

[S.O.S]

Naden writes:

 

Then, I cannot understand how the prophet would be privy to what will happen in the afterlife outside of what is revealed to him in the Quran. These are, of course, my own thoughts and fall under my limitations.

Naden,

 

Indeed, these are your own thoughts, which like so many of your thoughts, show your extreme limitations of what you’re talking about. I welcome your admittance of the fact that you “cannot understand how the prophet would be privy to what will happen in the afterlife outside of what is revealed to him in the Quranâ€, but the way forward from such ignorance is not to engage in nonsensical arguments, rather, you should ask those whom Allah (swt) granted knowledge of these matters.

 

I don’t have the time to explain here the meaning of revelation, the concept of prophethood, message-messenger relations and the deliverance thereof (i.e. Qur’an and Sunnah), but I urge you to distance yourself from all the misinformed statements you've made so far (very dangerously loosley, may I warn!).

 

JB writes:

 

And it is your presentation of this vague something i question not your faith in it´s existance.

Good S.O.S , what you’ve just presented is the impossible, what is something that no i can see, that no ear can hear, that no heart can contain, that no mind can encompass ?

JB,

 

I admire Xiinfaniin’s toleration and patience with you; I’m already bored! :rolleyes: Was it not for the chance to present my religion to you, I would most definitely not replied to you. Since, as you say, it’s not my faith that you “question†here, but my presentation of it; let me present it differently then.

 

Allah (swt) says in His Glorious Qur’an:

 

Ùَلاَ تَعْلَم٠نَÙْسٌ مَّآ Ø£ÙخْÙÙÙ‰ÙŽ Ù„ÙŽÙ‡ÙÙ… مّÙÙ† Ù‚Ùرَّة٠أَعْيÙÙ† جَزَآءً بÙمَا كَانÙواْ يَعْمَلÙونَÙ

 

Which means; “No person knows what is kept hidden for them of joy as a reward for what they used to do†(Qur’an, 32:17)

 

However, that which is “kept hidden†is kept hidden for many reasons only known to Allah. One reason is related to the practical frame of reference, which there’s none for humans to comprehend. Human mind understands things within the context of the existence in this world, all other imaginations of “existence†outside this present worldly existence is confined and condemned by the limited mind, from which, such baseless ideas have originated. For that reason, and narrated by Abu Hurairah (ra), our beloved Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) has informed us the following:

 

قَالَ الله٠تَعَالى: أَعْدَدْت٠لÙعÙبَادÙÙŠ الصَّالÙØ­Ùينَ مَا لَا عَيْنٌ رَأَتْ، وَلَا Ø£ÙØ°ÙÙ†ÙŒ سَمÙعَتْ، وَلَا خَطَرَ عَلى قَلْب٠بَشَر

 

Which means; “Allah has said, ‘I have prepared for My righteous slaves things which have never been seen by any eye, nor heard by any ear, nor imagined by any human being’ †(Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Majah)

 

Ibn Abbas (ra) said that “there’s nothing in the life of this world which is the same as what is in Paradise, except the names..†For example, there’s a river of honey in Paradise, but not the honey we know, though “the best of foods in this worldâ€, like Ali Ibn Abi-Talib said, “it comes from an insectâ€. He also said that “water is the best of drinks in this world, but is most freely availableâ€, which of course, cannot be the same water flowing from the springs such as Salsabil

 

JB writes:

 

How can you possiblly precieve such a thing ?

It’s called FAITH; you wouldn’t understand, because you haven’t got it and therefore perceive not

 

Socod_badne writes:

 

Only what was revealed to him by the Angel Gabrial were revelations. Everything else were not, otherwise they'd be in the Quran.

Try again; only this time think

 

w/s

[Castro]

Wherever one goes in search of this hadith, Sahiih Al-Bukhari (Vol. 1, Book 6, Number 301), one finds a strange song and dance about how the translation and/or context of this hadith is misunderstood, misquoted or misapplied. Did Muhammad (scw) refer to women as such or was he referring to all of humanity? Is their a linguistic issue, in fact, of the Arabic language that may explain why it comes across in the English language as the words of a mysogynist? Does context play a role in this at all?

 

Without resorting to score-keeping, name calling, your-faith-is-weak-and-you're-close-to-kufr or some other nonsensical diversion from a discussion, it would be instructive if time were taken to dig deeper (as Xiin began but left off). No one is here to jeopordize their salvation for a chance to win a forum argument. If we're unwilling, or unable, to dig deeper, let us abandon this and talk of summer vacation destinations.

 

Originally posted by S.O.S:

I don’t have the time to explain here the meaning of revelation, the concept of prophethood, message-messenger relations and the deliverance thereof (i.e. Qur’an and Sunnah), but I urge you to distance yourself from all the misinformed statements you've made so far (very dangerously loosley, may I warn!).

What, then, do you have time for SOS? Or do you come to these forums to shake your head in pity at all those whom you routinely, and effectively, label lost?

[Naden]

Good Xiin,

 

Deep knowledge of the process does not compensate for content irregularities. A mistake you’ve unfortunately made was assume that I have not read interpretations/context of these ahadith, and that I am unaware of the laws of Isnad and the stages of writing them down. You insist that some lack of respect is the reason I see these contradictions, and seem deeply offended that someone perhaps as inconsequential as me even dares to ask questions. I believe that scholars do not possess a miraculous understanding of text and they are not the custodians of the religion. They may have done the work or answered all the questions, as you have asserted, but they have not answered my questions. This thinking within an ‘Islamic framework’ solely, as I have understood it, smacks of intellectual and knowledge protectionism. The very nature of a contradiction, even if imagined, suspects that a piece does not fit within the larger picture.

 

The interpretation you’ve included in your post is not the only one out there. I’ve read at least 3 other interpretations in a number of texts and I am simply not convinced. Almost all are apologetic in their tafsiir, as though the prophet (csw) could not clearly express his thoughts about women and deficiencies and heaven and gratitude. I could be wrong in my understanding of the hadith and/or ignorant of other interpretations out there. However, guesswork and conjecture about the true intentions of the man trusted with the message do not pass the test of ‘science’ in my world. Worse yet, his predictions of who will be in heaven is a contradiction to the Quran’s admonishment that people will be judged on their piety solely and that he does not know where he himself is going, never mind menstruating, non-praying, ungrateful women. It is an injustice to the prophet (csw) to even claim that he would speak this way.

 

Surely bringing answers or disagreeing with the whole premise are better than questioning a person's intentions, trivializing their thoughts as those of hysterical feminists screaming about ‘inconveniences’, and labelling arguments with a slew of angry adjectives. I have tried not to descend to that type of debate. I am also not unwilling to admit a shortage in knowledge; quite the opposite, I have placed my limitations right in the middle of my thoughts. I do not say that I know what the prophet (csw) may have or have not said in that gathering, if there indeed was such a gathering. I do take the seminal ideas and proclamations in the Quran seriously, and I believe that the prophet (pbuh) would not have had a competing agenda with contradicting ideas. You bring up what you term as ‘self-referential thinking' as though it impedes real or productive examination of the faith and its tenets. Everyone, including scholars, absorbs knowledge and integrates it into their cognitive repertoire. Some are more critical and better able to grasp contextual influence than others. However, short of expressing revealed knowledge, untainted and to the letter, all understanding and expression is self-referential.

 

My questions maybe amateurish or even odious to you but to have engaged them or dismissed them altogether would have been better than dismissing me and accusing me of being 'reckless', 'proud', 'dodgy' or 'evasive' with my arguments. Curiously, the tone of your posts seem to indicate that your arguments are at a higher level of truth than mine. That may very well be the case as mine are certainly a work in progress, but you have not furnished any strong evidence in their support.

 

And that is it for me as well, good Xiin.