Changing times: Ijtihad and other questions Muslims must revisit

[VCheng]

Suddenly on 1400 years ago God thought man reached the highest level of development and intelligence and no further improvement will happen in future. So he gave his last message.

False claim. God gave the last message that was complete and flexible for all times to come, not that He has determined that "man reached the highest level of development and intelligence and no further improvement will happen in future".

 

[Dubious]

Actually we blame NOT the hybrid. But those who claim to run the 'true religion' thingy. Not saying it's good or bad, but it's what happens actually.

And in the same breath those hybrids blame you guys when will the blame game end? How are you different from them when you are doing the exact same thing as them?

Off topic - Ever had Vada Pav?

Not sure what that is

 

[Black Mamba1]

False claim. God gave the last message that was complete and flexible for all times to come, not that He has determined that "man reached the highest level of development and intelligence and no further improvement will happen in future".

This is a logical conclusion. Why "complete message" was not given earlier? Why God selected a time 1400 years ago for that. Only logical explanation is God assumed that acceptability and intelligence were "Complete" that time. And to convey that "complete" message God selected one of the most backward tribe in the world!!!!

Now few people will tell that human logic cannot explain God's will, ( in Sanskrit there is a word as "abanmanashgochar" ie beyond understanding or explanation ) , I will rest my case

 

[Dubious]

A religion which did not allow even God a freedom to think again and change/ modify His earlier decisions

Did God come to you in your dreams to complain about that? I suggest you seek a psychologist

 

[Black Mamba1]

Did God come to you in your dreams to complain about that? I suggest you seek a psychologist

OK, as you wish . That line was written in a lighter note. Please do not take that seriously

 

[VCheng]

This is a logical conclusion. Why "complete message" was not given earlier? Why God selected a time 1400 years ago for that. Only logical explanation is God assumed that acceptability and intelligence were "Complete" that time. And to convey that "complete" message God selected one of the most backward tribe in the world!!!!

Now few people will tell that human logic cannot explain God's will, ( in Sanskrit there is a word as "abanmanashgochar" ie beyond understanding or explanation ) , I will rest my case

Logic and its constructs do not apply to matters of belief. All religions are belief systems, and I merely explained to you what the Islamic belief is regarding the finality of the religion. Trying to judge it by logical standards is simply not applicable.

 

[Dubious]

@Akheilos The concept of excluding something is called NASKH. It's a very delicate and complex subject. It requires extensive reading and understanding of the subject. It was practiced in Both sects of Islam. A short intro about it. Post from another forum


Naskh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's better you consult a highly qualified scholar to get a more simplified explanation of Naskh concept

Ok I browsed through....

Imam Suyuti,

This guy was not even present during Khalifah's time!

Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (Arabic: جلال الدين السيوطي‎) (c. 1445–1505 AD)

Neither this one

Al-Bayhaqi:

Sahabah had many mushafs

Yes they did that is why Sayiddina Uthmaan burned them ....and he made one book which he took from Hafsa (Wife of Prophet Muhammad) and made sure only that was used...hence preserved the Quran as it was back then.....Otherwise shouldnt everything be questionable?

 

[Dubious]

OK, as you wish . That line was written in a lighter node. Please do not take that seriously

So was mine

Logic and its constructs do not apply to matters of belief. All religions are belief systems, and I merely explained to you what the Islamic belief is regarding the finality of the religion. Trying to judge it by logical standards is simply not applicable.

Then why does the Quran have verses saying PONDER all over?

What you did was not explanation but your POV and as usual without backing it with what human call proof!

 

[AXO4D]

It was forbade, not banned. You really need to read Saheeh Muslim traditions to get a complete over view of whole subject.

i think here forbidden and banned refer to same thing like for example

Drinking is banned on trains. - You are not allowed to drink.
Drinking is forbidden on trains. - You are not allowed to drink.
i did study a little bit of saheeh bukhari but i knew few friends who are student of knowledge they advice me to learn arabic before i study saheeh sita because you need to read commentary of hadith to understand them properly and almost 80% books on commentary are only in arabic.and has not been translated therefore i am learning arabic at the moment.

Open Book of Saheeh Muslim and Sunan Abu Dawood. Or search google you will find those books online. Mutaa was prohibited on Fateh a Makkah. But people didn't stopped doing it until Umar (RA) banned it completely on the basis that When Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) didn't do it why should you. It's all recorded in Saheeh Muslim. . Even there was a heated argument b/w Ibn e Abbas (RA) and ibn e Zubair (RA) in one of yearly Ijtima after Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) death. Ibn Abbas (RA) was ardent supporter of Mutaa while Ibn e zubair (RA) wasn't. Heated argument once again recorded in Saheeh Muslim.

I hope this time, you would pay more attention to gainiing knowledge before making a uniform opinion instead of rigid one

this is not why umer forbidden muta he forbid it because he said
Umar bin al Khattab RA said: The Prophet PBUH allowed Mutah for us for Three days and then Forbade it, By Allah If I hear that anyone does Mutah while he is Muhsan(married) Then I will have him stoned.

source: Ibn Majah.
Hadith rank: SAHIH.

like i said he didnt make ijtahad he only reinforced the decision made by prophet..

 

[Dubious]

It was forbade, not banned.

So its fine that some unknown scholar 300 yrs after the khalifah comes up with some ideas of what had happened back then (again without backing it just his words - like those of those who "adjusted" the bible) and people take it over the authority of the quran itself which it says we (ALLAH - using the Holy we) will preserve it?

I can understand such stuff as stated in your post happened for hadith....in fact I prob even know a few such incidents and many are reported as fake hadith due to such incidents.....but the Quran? Seriously-....Get me a source other than wiki ...

 

[Black Mamba1]

Logic and its constructs do not apply to matters of belief. All religions are belief systems, and I merely explained to you what the Islamic belief is regarding the finality of the religion. Trying to judge it by logical standards is simply not applicable.

Bingo!!!! I also think it for all religions including Hinduism. All religion are belief system . Religion and spiritualism are not same in many cases . An extremely religious person may not necessarily be a spiritual person.

Initially, Muslims excelled under revolutionary philosophy of Islam which made them free in many areas including thinking. My personal feeling is that they lost that thought leadership and progress due to this "finality" concept. It surrenders freedom of thinking and progress.

I may be wrong definitely

 

[VCheng]

Bingo!!!! I also think it for all religions including Hinduism. All religion are belief system . Religion and spiritualism are not same in many cases . An extremely religious person may not necessarily be a spiritual person.

Initially, Muslims excelled under revolutionary philosophy of Islam which made them free in many areas including thinking. My personal feeling is that they lost that thought leadership and progress due to this "finality" concept. It surrenders freedom of thinking and progress.

I may be wrong definitely

Religions have elements of spirituality within them, but spirituality need not have elements of religion in it.

 

[Black Mamba1]

Religions have elements of spirituality within them, but spirituality need not have elements of religion in it.

The reason behind this is that we are average people compared to the founding fathers of the religions who were extra ordinary. We confine ourselves within the rituals and not live up to the sublime spirituality of their teaching

 

[Bratva]

So its fine that some unknown scholar 300 yrs after the khalifah comes up with some ideas of what had happened back then (again without backing it just his words - like those of those who "adjusted" the bible) and people take it over the authority of the quran itself which it says we (ALLAH - using the Holy we) will preserve it?

I can understand such stuff as stated in your post happened for hadith....in fact I prob even know a few such incidents and many are reported as fake hadith due to such incidents.....but the Quran? Seriously-....Get me a source other than wiki ...

Those two Ulemas that you raised objections interpreted and defined the actions of Sahaba's and Sahabi's who were involved in Naskh.

Like I said, I'm not going to debate on naskh, it's such a complex subject that I can't comprehend it either. But there are Traditions in Saheeh Bukhari, Muslim on which ayaah's Naskh was applied and the reason for why it was applied.

 

[VCheng]

The reason behind this is that we are average people compared to the founding fathers of the religions who were extra ordinary. We confine ourselves within the rituals and not live up to the sublime spirituality of their teaching

Yes, you are correct that it takes a broad mind to rise above such pettiness.