Is allah the "proper noun" name of God?

Simonaho · Nov 20, 2006

AlHannah said:
Hey Matti are you giving us some pseudo algebra and quasi chemistry lessons here, mate?

Whatever you call it, that's the Ancient way to describe Mother-Line and Father-Line etc: Ancient Genetics described The Ancient Way. The reson for why modern human beings don't understand it is because modern human beings use too much of Mind and too little of Soul.

Liberate · Nov 20, 2006

Liberate said:
Ofcourse westernized moderate mulsims would like to tell you islam even says if
you do good works you are going to paradise, regardless of your religious
persuasion.

UmmIsa said:
Yes, there are Muslims who say this and I don't know if its because this is
their understanding of Allaah's verses (which we are not to interpret using our
own understanding) or because they don't wish to hurt anyone's feelings. But
only those who 'believe' (meaning Islaam) AND do good deeds will be granted
Paradise.

Liberate said:
At least you are honest in that respect, since you state muslims are not to
interpret the quran with their own understanding, would you care to state which
madzhab you follow? (No relevance at all to the discussion, just out of
curiousity, it's a little like getting blood from a stone to get muslims here to
state the madzhab they follow, as much of what they say contradicts what you
have just said about interpreting the quran with their own understanding, as
they more than often do just that, without the authority to do so).

UmmIsa said:
I do not follow any particular madhhaab. I follow the Qur`aan & the
authenticated Sunnah (authentic narrations only) and I understand it according
to the way the Messenger explained it to his Companions. In other words, I am a
Salafee.

Liberate said:
This is the problem I find with many westernized muslims, the quick dismissal
for authority to interprete the quran and sunnah as they personally see fit,
when islam has not given them the authority to do this. Who decides what is an
authentic hadith? You? If you are the one dismissing what is authentic or not,
how do you reconcile your earlier statement that you do not water down islam?

UmmIsa said:
When did you see me dismiss someone in authority?

Recall what you replied to my question:

Question:1- Why Does a Muslim has to Follow one particular
Imam?( Imam Hanaf, Imam malik, Imam Hambal, Imam shafaii), when
there is no rule as such, is not this the greatest biddah in muslims, which has
no base in islam, 2-also if one follows part of one imam and a part of another
imam what harm is there in that, as both say they r followers of Prophet(saws)
3-whom did the sahabh, the tabain, the tabe-tabain, follow as imam? pls answer
All the questions, sometimes you skip some of the questions.
Answer:
1. A muslim has to follow Shariah. If he is a mujtahid, ie. A
master in all the different fields of Islamic sciences then he will
follow Quran , Hadith, Ijmaa directly using his skills for deducing laws. If a
person does not possess these skills then he will have to follow one who
possesses these skills. On this there is Ijmaa (consensus) of the Ummah and is
backed up by Ayaat of the Quran and Ahadith.
2. If one picks and chooses from the mazhabs, then he will be
following his desires and no sooner does one follow his desires than he goes
astray. Only one who is well versed in Shariah, knows the implications of
picking and choosing.[/b] Each ruling is based on a broader general
principle and thus by picking and choosing one who be going against these
principles and would thus be contradicting himself. There is Ijmaa that a person
has to follow only one Mazhab.
3. Those Sahabah and tabieen who were not mujtahids would follow
those who were. This is proved in many narrations.
and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
Ml. Hussein Kadodia
FATWA DEPT.
CHECKED & APPROVED: Ml. Imraan Vawda

http://islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=9953

Liberate said:
Since you claim you follow no madzhab, do you not see that you are contradicting
what islam itself says?

UmmIsa said:
No, I do not see that I am contradicting what Islaam says. To begin with knowledge is what Allaah Says, His Messenger says and/or the Companions agreed upon. This person's statement: "There is Ijmaa that a person
has to follow only one Mazhab" has no proof to back up what he is saying. Where are the verses or hadeeth or statements from the Companions who said this is so? He did correctly say that a Muslim must follow the Sharee'ah (Qur`aan & Sunnah like I said). Allaah Says: "Certainly, We have brought to them a Book (the Qur'aan) which We have explained in detail with knowledge, - a guidance and a mercy to a people who believe." [7:52] and, "And We have not sent down the Book (the Qur`aan) to you (O Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam), except that you may explain clearly unto them those things in which they differ, and (as) a guidance and a mercy for a folk who believe." [16:64] These two verses show that knowledge springs from the Qur`aan (Allaah Himself) & the Sunnah (Muhammad, sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam)

"This person" is no ordinary layman, he is a mufti, who has studied at the feet of other muftis, to dismiss what he has to say is to indirectly insult all those who seek his advice everyday.
Considering your personal interpretation of quranic ayats, when you earlier said Yes, there are Muslims who say this and I don't know if its because this is their understanding of Allaah's verses (which we are not to interpret using our own understanding)" please explain on whose authority you interprete ayats??

UmmIsa said:
And tell me, Who are the people of authority that I am suppose to submit to??

Categorically islam states you follow your imams, you do not interpret the religion as you see fit, which is the whole purpose of the four madzhabs, to prevent people interpreting the religion as they saw fit, when they lack the years of tutelage under a mufti to do this, it is precisely what you and many westernized muslims are doing. The irony of ironies is westernized muslims who are as 'christianized' as the local indigens, are the ones claiming to have the truth and interpretation of the religion, as opposed to adherents living and breathing islam, and living under the sharia; when they are as far divorced from it as a moderate who hardly practices salat, the sad fact is you as a woman would never be given the freedom to interprete the religion, if you were in the heartlands of islam.

UmmIsa said:
Now as I said I follow Islaam the way the Companions did (I try my best to anyway).

As I said you are following the islam you see fit, islam does not allow laymen to interpret the religion, and rest assured assured it does not allow women to interprete the religion for anybody, only ignorant individuals in the West believe islam affords women the right to interpret any aspect of the religion. You are in a catch22 position.

UmmIsa said:
So did the Companions follow a madhhaab? No. Now you may say that is because
there were no madhhaabs during that time. So #1- then how could you say that
following a particular madhhaab is a requirement in Islaam. #2- whenever they
were looking for an explanation on something they would go to whomever was most
qualified and had the most knowledge in that area. They didn't go to just one or
two particular companions.

The Imaams themselves (of the 4 schools of thought) did not say that they had to
be followed.

That particular comment about not following them, does not apply to laymen, but only to jurists who are well versed in the religion, and honestly believe a 'truer' ruling is in another madzhab, and not following their desires.

UmmIsa said:
I have no problem if someone chooses to follow a madhhaab but I
have a problem when someone follows a madhhaab including any errors that it may
contain and of course there will sometimes be errors because man is imperfect.
So the Imaams themselves said if you find them saying something that goes
against an authentic hadeeth then you leave their saying for that of the
Messenger.

Again this does not apply to laymen, but to jurists well versed in the religion.

UmmIsa said:
Do I decide what is authentic or not, of course not. I am a layman (a baby) in
this Deen.

I am impressed by your honesty.

UmmIsa said:
There are scholars in all branches of the religion who research and
weed out the authentic from the inauthentic. I take what was found to be
authentic and leave what is not.

This is the problem, islam categorically states you cannot pick and choose from various madzhabs, on whose authority do you pick and choose what is authentic and leave out the rest?

UmmIsa said:
Lastly, do you know anything about Salafiyyah?

I am well aware that the salafis/wahabbists are a militant branch of islam, they do not represent mainstream islam, and do not follow any of the four madzhabs, which over 80% of islam does. This is the doctrine of Osama Bin Laden, so some of your comments that it is ok for muslims to sleep with right hand possessions, are well intune with this doctrine, but your other comments that suicide bombing is wrong, is at a stark contrast to the salafi doctrine, it eminated from Saudi, and please do not tell me that wahabbi/salafi saudi clerics don't sanction suicide bombings, because they do, but it is a game of cat and mouse, sometimes using semantics to partially condemn it, that it doesn't apply to Palestine, or various other areas because of 'oppression'..."foreign policy"...e.t.c" e.g. while the grand mufti of saudi arabia condemns suicide bombings for a western audience, saudi's minister for
islamic affairs Sheikh Saleh Al al-Sheikh, condones it:
"The suicide bombings are permitted...the victims are considered
to have died a martyr's death." http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp504.htm

UmmIsa said:
As I said a Salafee takes from Allaah & His Messenger, that means anything that we take must have a proof from those two sources or ijmaa' (consensus) which is also based upon proof.

Whose proof are you using?
Who is the judge juror and executioner on the veracity of proof? would it happen to you by any chance?
This is why salafis are considered apostates by the majority of the ummah, over 80% of islam are sunnis, of the remaining sect wahabbists/salafis make up a small minority.

UmmIsa said:
The fatwa that you gave above has listed no proofs to support what he has said. Some of what he said I agree with but some of it I do not. Also, I do not take information regarding me Deen from just anyone or anywhere.

It is obvious that the final decision to "pick and choose" lies with you, you are the judge, juror and executioner of your own madzhab, since you follow no madzhab, you are accountable to no one, but yet you state you are a "baby" in islam.

UmmIsa said:
A famous scholar of the past said, 'this knowledge is Deen so look to who you take your Deen from'.

Here is what islam has to say about following your own desires/ ignoring the advice of the four madzhabs (A long read, but I hope you are objective about it):

question

according wahabis and salafis all the sects are wrong. according to other sects, salafi and wahabis are wrong, how come? why do people divide themselves into sects?

answer...
New groups and sects originate, for example, when a person is affected by the conditions in which he lives, and due to the various objections and arguments he is faced with from opposing parties he is left in doubt and confusion. He therefore studies the works of the Sahabah and Salaf-e-Saaliheen in order to combat these objections. However, he does not follow the trend laid out by the Sahabah, but instead tries to give answers based on his own conclusions and understanding. He regards this opinion of his, which is in complete contrast to that of the Salaf-e-Saaliheen, as correct and emphasizes on his point. As a result he starts criticizing the beliefs of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaaah. At times he abandons the teachings of the Sahabah and early Ulamaa and propagates beliefs which contradict their teachings. People gradually become affected by his ideas, thus bringing a new group into existence.
In this manner another person arises and starts to answer objections according
to his speculations which contradict the teachings of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal
Jamaaah. His beliefs are also in contradiction with that of the person formerly
mentioned and he establishes a group following his conclusions. These two groups
oppose one another while opposing the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaaah. They,
therefore, attribute disbelief to all the other sects and consider it an act of
reward to usurp their wealth and property.
This is one of the many ways a new group comes into being. It is possible that a
group starts with the intention of doing good, but regards themselves as being
flawless and everyone else as incorrect, thus deviating from the straight path.
The common aspect found within these different sects is that instead of
following the Sahabah and Salaf-e-Saaliheen they rely upon their own knowledge
and intelligence. They are therefore not regarded as Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaaah,
but categorized as Ahle Bidah (innovators) or Ahlul Ahwaa (those who follow
their desires.)

Liberate · Nov 20, 2006

Continued:

2) In your question, if the word Salafi is referring to those who follow the
Sahabah and Salf-e-Saaliheen, then in that case the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaaah
i.e. the four Imams and their followers are all Salafis. They (Ahlus Sunnah Wal
Jamaaah) maintain great respect for the Sahabah and Salaf-e-Saaliheen and
follow their ways. If you are, however, referring to a specific sect, then
kindly inform us as to what views they maintain and in which aspects do they
differ with the four Imams.
If anyone wishes to live in harmony with the teachings of the Quran and Sunnah
then he/she should follow the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaaah and not oppose them in
any aspect. By making ones own research and opposing the Ahlus Sunnah Wal
Jamaaah, a new group will come into being resulting in an increase in sects.
We advise you to associate with the Ulamaa of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaaah in
your locality, rather then studying the views of other groups, and you should
participate in their gatherings and do your best in doing good actions.
and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
Mufti Muhammad Ashraf

http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=14084

THE FOUR SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT IN ISLAM (MADZHAB)
Q: "There are some people who say that Taqleed (following the
madhhab of one imam) is haram (prohibited) in shariah. They insist that only the
Quran and sunnah should be followed by a true Muslim, and it is tantamount to
the shirk that some human being is being followed in the matters of Shariah.
They also claim that all the madhahib formed such as Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki and
Hanbali schools are created one to two hundred years after the Holy Prophet
(S.A.W) and they are bidah (an invention not warranted by the Quran and Sunnah).
They also maintain that a Muslim should seek guidance directly from the Quran
and sunnah, and no intervention of any Imam is needed for the knowledge of
Shariah. Please explain how far this view is correct. (Hussain
Ahmad, London).
Answer:
This view is based upon certain misconceptions arising out of superfluous
treatment of the complex issues involved. The full clarification of these
misconceptions requires a detailed article. However, I would try to explain the
basic points as briefly as possible.
It is true that obedience, in its true sense, belongs to Allah Almighty alone.
He is the only One who deserves our obedience, and we are not supposed to obey
any one other than Him. This is the logical requirement of the doctrine of
Tawhid (belief in the Oneness of Allah). Even the obedience of the Holy
Prophet (S.A.W) has been prescribed for us only because he is the Messenger of
Allah who conveys to us the divine commandments. Otherwise he has no divine
status deserving our obedience per se. We are ordered to obey and follow him
only because Allahs pleasure has been epitomised in his sayings and acts.
We are, therefore, required to follow the Holy Quran, being the direct
commandment of Allah, and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) being an
indirect form of the divine commandments.
But the point is that the interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah is not an easy
job. It requires an intensive and extensive study of both these sacred sources
of Shariah, which cannot be undertaken by every layman. If it is made obligatory
on each and every muslim to consult the Holy Quran and the Sunnah in each and
every problem arising before him, it will burden him with a responsibility which
is almost impossible for him to discharge, because the inference of the rules of
Shariah from the Quran and sunnah requires a thorough knowledge of the Arabic
language and all the relevant material which a layman is not supposed to have.
The only solution to this problem is that a group of persons should equip
themselves with the required knowledge of Shariah, and the others should ask
them about the injunctions of Shariah in their day-to-day affairs. This is
exactly what the Holy Quran has ordained for the Muslims in the following
words:
So, a section from each group of them should go forth, so that they may acquire
the knowledge and perception in the matters of religion, and so that they may
warn their people when they return to them that they may be watchful.
This verse of the Holy Quran indicates in clear terms that a group of muslims
should devote itself for acquiring the knowledge of Shariah, and all others
should consult them in the matters of Shariah.
Now, if a person asks an authentic alim (knowledgeable person) about the
Shariah ruling in a specific matter, and acts upon his advice, can a reasonable
person accuse him of committing shirk on the ground that he has followed the
advice of a human being instead of Quran and sunnah? Certainly not. The reason
is obvious. He has not abandoned the obedience of Allah and His Messenger;
rather, he wants nothing but to obey them. However, being ignorant of their
commands, he has consulted an alim in order to know what he is required by
Allah to do. He has not taken that alim as the subject of his obedience, but he
has taken him as an interpreter of the divine commandments. Nobody can blame him
and say he is committing shirk (which means ascribing partners to God).
This is exactly what the term taqleed means. A person who has no ability to
understand the Holy Quran and Sunnah consults a muslim jurist, often termed as
Imam, and acts according to his interpretation of Shariah. He never deems him
worthy of obedience per se, but he seeks his guidance for knowing the
requirements of shariah, because he has no direct access to the Holy Quran and
sunnah or does not have adequate knowledge for inferring the rules of Shariah.
This behaviour is called taqleed of that jurist or imam. How can it be said that
taqleed is tantamount to shirk?
The qualified muslim jurists or imams have devoted their lives for the study of
the Holy Quran and sunnah and have collected the rules of Shariah; according to
their respective interpretation of shariah, in an almost codified and systematic
form. This collection of the Shariah rules according to the interpretation of a
particular jurist/scholar Imam is called the madhhab of that jurist. Thus the
madhhab of an imam is not something parallel to shariah, or something alien to
it; in fact it is a particular interpretation of Shariah and a collection of the
major Shariah rules inferred from the Holy Quran and sunnah by some authentic
jurists and arranged subject wise for the convenience of the followers of the
Shariah. So, the one who follows a particular madhhab actually follows the Holy
Quran and sunnah according to the interpretation of a particular authentic
jurist whom he believes to be the most trustworthy and the most knowledgeable in
matters of Shariah.
As for the difference of the madhahib it has emerged through the different
possible interpretations of the rules mentioned in or inferred from the Holy
Quran and sunnah. In order to understand this point properly, it will be
relevant to note that the rules mentioned in the Holy Quran and sunnah are of
two different types. Some rules are mentioned in these holy sources in such
clear and unambiguous expressions that they permit only one interpretation, and
no other interpretation is possible thereof, such as the obligation of Salah,
Zakah, fasting and Hajj, the prohibition of pork, wine, etc. With regard to this
set of rules, no difference of opinion has ever taken place. All the schools of
jurists are unanimous on their interpretation, hence there is no room for
ijtihad or taqleed in these matters, and because every layman can easily
understand them from the Holy Quran and sunnah, no intervention of a jurist or
imam is called for. But there are some rules of Shariah derived from the Holy
Quran and Sunnah where either of the following different situations may arise:
The expression used in the Holy Sources may permit more than one interpretation.
For example, while mentioning the period of iddah (waiting period) for the
divorced women, the Holy Quran has used the following expression:
And the divorced women shall wait for three periods of Qur
1. The word Qur used in this verse has two meanings lexically. It covers both
the period of menstruation and the period of purity (i.e. the tuhr). Both
meanings are possible in the verse and each of them has different legal
consequences. The question that requires juristic effort is which of the two
meanings are intended here. While answering this question, the juristic opinions
may naturally differ, and have actually differed. Imam ShafiI interprets the
word Qur as the period of tuhr (purity) while Imam Abu Hanifah interprets it
as the period of menstruation. Both of them have a number of arguments in
support of their respective views, and no one interpretation can be rejected
outright. It is in this way that the differences among certain madhahib have
emerged.
2. Sometimes there appears some sort of contradiction between two traditions of
the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) and a jurist has to reconcile them or prefer one of
them over the other. In this case also, the viewpoints of the jurists may differ
from each other.
For example, there are two sets of traditions found in the books of hadith
attributing different behaviour to the Holy Prophet while going for ruku in
prayer. The first set of ahadith mentions that he used to raise his hands before
bowing down for ruku while the other traditions mention that he did not raise
his hands except in the beginning of the Salah.
The muslim jurists, while accepting that both methods are correct, have
expressed different views about the question which of the two methods is more
advisable and rewardable. This is another cause of difference between various
madhahib.
3. There are many problems or issues which have not been mentioned in the Holy
Quran and Sunnah in specific or express terms. The solution to such problems is
sought either through analogy or through some expressions found in the Holy
Sources which have an indirect bearing on the subject. Here again the jurists
may have different approaches while they infer the required solution from the
Holy Quran and Sunnah.

Such are the basic causes of difference between the madhahib. This difference is
in no way a defect in Shariah; rather, it is a source of dynamism and
flexibility.
A muslim jurist who has all the necessary qualifications for ijtihad is
supposed, in the aforesaid situation, to exert the best of his efforts to
discover the actual intention of the Holy Quran and Sunnah. If he does this to
the best of his ability and with all his sincerity, his obligation towards Allah
is discharged, and nobody can blame him for violating the Shariah, even though
his view seems to be weaker when compared to the other ones. This is a natural
and logical phenomenon certain to be found in every legal system. The enacted
laws in every legal framework do not contain each and every minute detail of the
possible situations. The expressions used in a statute are often open to more
than one interpretation, and different courts of law, while applying such
provisions to the practical situations, often disagree in the matter of their
interpretation. One court explains the law in a particular way while the other
court takes it in a quite different sense. Nobody ever blames any one of them
for the violation of the law. Not only this, if the former court is a High
Court, all the lower courts and all the people living within the jurisdiction of
that High Court are bound to follow the interpretation laid down by it even
though their personal opinion does not conform to the approach of the superior
court. In this case, if they follow the decision of the superior Court nobody
can say that they are not following the law, or that they are holding the Court
as the Sovereign authority instead of the real legislator, because, in fact,
they are following the decision of the Court only as a trust-worthy interpreter
of law, and not as a legislator.
Exactly in the same way, the madhab of a muslim jurist is nothing but a credible
interpretation of the Shariah. Another competent jurist may disagree with this
interpretation, but he can never accuse him of the violation of Shariah, nor can
anyone blame the followers of that particular madhhab for following something
other than Shariah, or for committing shirk by following the imam of that
madhhab instead of obeying Allah and His Messenger, because, they are following
the madhhab as a credible interpretation of Shariah, and not as a law-making
authority.

ALL SCHOOLS ARE CORRECT
The next question which may arise here is what a layman should do with regard to
these different madhahib, and which one of them should be followed. Answer to
this question is very simple.
There is no difference between any of the schools regarding the beliefs and
doctrine of Islam (aqeeda) [for example the Oneness of Allah, Prophethood,
divine revelation, Judgement Day or explicit and manifest commands such as the
obligation of daily prayers, fasting, hajj, zakat and the prohibitions of pork,
alcohol, adultery, interest etc. These issues do not require the consultation of
a scholar to understand since they should be easily comprehendible to anybody
who reads the Quran or Sunnah. Other issues such as the rituals of worship, the
conditions of business transactions, or the method of conducting a wedding are
not so clear, and without proficient knowledge of Islamic rules of Ijtihad
(extracting rules and judgements based on the scripture [Quran] and the
authentic recorded manner of the Prophet [Hadith]), the average muslim will not
be certain what action to take regarding these. It is therefore the
responsibility of a Mujtahid (a scholar who is qualified to practise Ijtihad) to
clarify these to the layman.

Liberate · Nov 20, 2006

Since all of these madhahib, being sincere and competent efforts to discover the
true intention of Shariah, all of them are equally true, and a layman should
follow the madhhab (school of thought) of any one of the recognized imams whom
he believes to be more knowledgeable and more pious. Although the muslim jurists
who have undertaken the exercise of ijtihad are many in number, yet the madhahib
(plural of madhab) of the four main jurists are more comprehensive,
well-arranged and well-preserved even today, and the muslim ummah as a whole has
taken them as the most reliable interpretations of Shariah. These four madhahib
are called Hanfi, ShafiI, Maliki and Hanbali schools. All the rest of the
scholars and their schools are either not comprehensive in the sense that they
do not contain all aspects of Shariah or their rulings have not been preserved
intact in a reliable form. That is why the majority of the muslim Ummah belongs
to either of these four madhahib, and if a layman adopts any one of these
schools in the matter of interpretation of the Shariah, his obligation of
following the Shariah is discharged. This is the true picture of the term
taqleed with reference to the recognized juristic madhahib. I hope this
explanation will be able to satisfy your question and will be sufficient to
establish that taqleed has nothing to do with shirk. It is, in fact a simple
and easy way to follow the Shariah.
FOLLOWING ONE PARTICULAR IMAM IN EVERY JURISTIC ISSUE
Q: It is generally believed by the Sunni Muslims that each one of the Mudhahib
of Hanafi, ShafiI, Maliki and Hanbali, being one of the possible interpretation
of Shariah, is right and none of them can be held as something against the
Shariah. But on the same time we see that the followers of Hanafi school never
depart from the Hanafi view and never adopt the ShafiI or Maliki view in any
juristic matter. Rather, they deem it impermissible to follow another jurists
view in a particular issue. How can this behaviour be reconciled with the belief
that all the four madhahib are right? If all of them are right, there should be
no harm if the Hanafi Muslims follow ShafiI or Maliki or Hanbali views in some
particular matter.
(Hussain Ahmad, London)
Answer:
It is true that all the four madhahib are right, and following any one of them
is permissible in order to follow the Shariah. However, a layman who lacks the
ability to analyse and distinguish the arguments of each madhhab cannot be
allowed to pick and choose between different views only to satisfy his personal
desires. The reason for this approach is twofold:
Firsty, the Holy Quran in a number of verses has emphatically ordered us to
follow the Shariah, and has made it strictly prohibited to follow the personal
desires vis-a-vis the rules of Shariah. The Muslim jurists, while interpreting
the sources of Shariah never intend to satisfy their personal desires. They
actually undertake an honest effort to discover the intention of Shariah and
base their madhhab on the force of evidence, not on the search for convenience.
They do not choose an interpretation from among the various ones on the basis of
its suitability to their personal fancies. They choose it only because the
strength of proof leads them to do so.
Now, if a layman who cannot judge between the arguments of different madhahib is
allowed to choose any of the juristic views without going into the arguments
they have advanced, he will be at liberty to select only those views which seem
to him more fulfilling to his personal requirements, and this attitude will lead
him to follow the desires and not the guidance --- a practice totally
condemned by the Holy Quran.
For example, Imam Abu Hanifah is of the view that bleeding from any part of the
body breaks the wudu, while Imam ShafiI believes that the wudu is not broken
by bleeding. On the other hand, Imam ShafiI says that if a man touches a woman,
his wudu stands broken and he is bound to make a fresh wudu before offering
Salah, while Imam Abu Hanifah insists that merely touching a woman does not
break the wudu.
Now, if the policy of pick and choose is allowed without any restriction, a
layman can choose the Hanafi view in the matter of touching a woman and the
ShafiI view in the matter of bleeding. Consequently, he will deem his wudu
unbroken even when he has combined both the situations, while in that case his
wudu stands broken according to both Hanafi and ShafiI views. Similarly, a
traveller, according to the ShafiI view, can combine the two prayers of Zuhr
and Asr. But at the same time, if a traveller makes up his mind to stay in a
town for four days, he is no more regarded a traveller in the ShafiI view,
hence, he cannot avail of the concession of qasr, nor of combining two
prayers. On the other hand, combining two prayers in one time is not allowed
according to the opinion of Hanafi school, even when one is on journey. The only
concession available for him is that of qasr. But the period of travel,
according to Hanafi view is fourteen days, and a person shall continue to
perform qasr until he resolves to stay in a town for at least fourteen days.
Consequently a traveller who has entered a city to stay there for five days
cannot combine two prayers, neither according to Imam ShafiI because since by
staying for five days he cannot use the concession, nor according to Imam Abu
Hanifah, because combining two prayers is not at all allowed according to him.
But the policy of pick and choose often leads some people to adopt the ShafiI
view in the matter of combining two prayers and the Hanafi view in the matter of
the period of journey.
It is evident in these examples that the selection of different views in
different cases is not based on the force of arguments underlying them but on
the facility and convenience provided by each. Obviously this practice is
tantamount to following the desires which is totally prohibited by the Holy
Quran. If such an attitude is allowed, it will render the Shariah a plaything
in the hands of the ignorant, and no rule of the Shariah will remain immune
from distortion.
That is why the policy of pick and choose has been condemned by all the
renowned scholars of Shariah. Imam Ibn Tamiyyah, the famous muhaddib and
jurist, says in his Fatawa:
Some people follow at one time an imam who holds the marriage invalid, and at
another time they follow a jurist who holds it valid. They do so only to serve
their individual purpose and satisfy their desires. Such a practice is
impermissible according to the consensus of all the imams.
He further elaborates the point by several examples when he says:
For example if a person wants to pre-empt (obstruct) a sale he adopts the view
of those who give the right of pre-emption to a contingent neighbour, but if
they are the seller of a property, they refuse to accept the right of
pre-emption for the neighbour of the seller (on the basis of ShafiI view) . . .
and if the relevant person claims that he did not know before (that Imam ShafiI
does not give the right of pre-emption to the neighbour) and has come to know it
only then, and he wants to follow that view as from today, he will not be
allowed to do so, because such a practice opens the door for playing with the
rules of Shariah, and paves the path for deciding the halal and haram in
accordance with ones desires. (Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah Syrian ed. 2:285,286)
That was the basic cause for the policy adopted by the later jurists who made it
necessary for the common people to adopt a particular madhhab in its totality.
If one prefers the madhhab of Imam Abu Hanifah, he should adopt it in all
matters and with all its details, and if he prefers another madhhab, he should
adopt it in full in the same way and he should not pick and choose between
different views for his individual benefit. The consequence of the correctness
of all the madhahib, is that one can elect to follow any one of them, but once
he adopts a particular madhhab, he should not follow another madhhab in a
particular matter in order to satisfy his personal choice based on his desire,
not on the force of argument. Thus the policy of allegiance to a particular
madhhab was a preventive measure adopted by the jurists to prevent anarchy in
the matter of Shariah. But obviously, this policy is meant for the people who
cannot carry out ijtihad themselves, or cannot evaluate the arguments advanced
by every madhhab in support of their respective views. Such people have no
option but to follow a particular madhhab as a credible and reliable
interpretation of Shariah.
But the people equipped with necessary qualifications of ijtihad need not follow
a particular madhhab. They can derive the rules of Shariah directly from their
original sources. Similarly, the persons who are not fully qualified for the
exercise of ijtihad, yet they are so well-versed in the Islamic disciplines that
they can evaluate the different juristic views on pure academic grounds without
being motivated by their personal desires are never forbidden from preferring
one madhhab over the other in a particular matter.
There is a large number of Hanafi jurists who, despite their allegiance to Imam
Abu Hanifah, have adopted the view of some other jurist in several juristic
issues. Still, they are called Hanafi. This partial departure from the view of
Imam Abu Hanifah was based on either of the following grounds: sometimes they,
after an honest and comprehensive study of the relevant material came to the
conclusion that the view of some other Imam is more forceful. Sometimes, they
found that a view of Imam Abu Hanifah is based on pure analogy, but an authentic
Hadith expressly contradicts that view and it is most likely that the hadith was
not conveyed to Imam Abu Hanifah, otherwise he would not have adopted a view
against it. In some other cases, the jurists felt that it is the requirement of
the collective expedience of the Ummah to act upon the view of some other Imam,
which is an equally possible interpretation of Shariah, and they adopted it not
in pursuance of their personal desires, but to meet the collective needs of the
Ummah and in view of the changed circumstances prevailing in their time.
These examples are more than enough to show that the followers of a particular
madhhab have never taken it as a substitute of Shariah or as its sole version
to the exclusion of every other madhhab: In fact, they have never given a
juristic madhhab a higher place than it actually deserved within the framework
of Shariah.
Before parting with this question, I would like to clarify another point which
is extremely important in this context: It has become a modern phenomenon, that
some people having no systematic knowledge of Islamic disciplines often become
deluded by their superficial information based on self-study, and that too, in
most cases, through translations of the Holy Quran and ahadith. By virtue of
this kind of cursory study, they presume themselves to be the masters of the
Islamic learning, and start criticizing the former Muslim jurists. This attitude
is totally wrong and devoid of any justification. The inference of juristic
rules from the Holy Quran and Sunnah is a very meticulous exercise which cannot
be carried out on the basis of a superficial study.
While studying a particular juristic subject one has to collect all the relevant
material from the Holy Quran and from the ahadith found in different chapters
and different books, and has to undertake a combined study of this scattered
material. He has to examine the veracity of the relevant ahadith in the light of
the well settled principles of the science of hadith. He has to discover the
historical background and exegesis of the relevant verses and traditions. In
short, he has to resolve a number of complicated issues involved. All this
exercise requires very intensive and extensive knowledge which is seldom found
in the contemporary Ulama, who are specialists themselves in the subject, let
alone the common people who have no direct access to the original sources of
Shariah.
The upshot of the above discussion is that all the four madhahib being based on
solid grounds, it is permissible for a competent Hanafi alim to adopt another
juristic view, if he has the required knowledge and ability to go into the
merits of each madhhab on the basis of adequate academic research without
pursuing his personal desires. But the people who do not fulfil these conditions
should not dare to do so, because it can lead to a dangerous state of anarchy in
the matter of Shariah.

Mufti Taqi Uthmani
from 'Contemporary Fataawa' published by Zam Zam Publishers

http://www.victoryscent.co.uk/4madhabs_1.htm

Liberate · Nov 20, 2006

Liberate said:
This is the problem I find with many westernized muslims, the quick dismissal
for authority to interprete the quran and sunnah as they personally see fit,
when islam has not given them the authority to do this. Who decides what is an
authentic hadith? You? If you are the one dismissing what is authentic or not,
how do you reconcile your earlier statement that you do not water down islam?
For example:

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 616:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "(The Prophet) Moses was a shy person and used to cover
his body completely because of his extensive shyness. One of the children of
Israel hurt him by saying, 'He covers his body in this way only because of some
defect in his skin, either leprosy or scrotal hernia, or he has some other
defect.' Allah wished to clear Moses of what they said about him, so one day
while Moses was in seclusion, he took off his clothes and put them on a stone
and started taking a bath. When he had finished the bath, he moved towards his
clothes so as to take them, but the stone took his clothes and fled; Moses
picked up his stick and ran after the stone saying, 'O stone!
Give me my garment!' Till he reached a group of Bani Israel who saw him naked
then, and found him the best of what Allah had created, and Allah cleared him of
what they had accused him of. The stone stopped there and Moses took and put his
garment on and started hitting the stone with his stick. By Allah,
the stone still has some traces of the hitting, three, four or five marks. THIS
IS WAS WHAT ALLAH REFERS TO IN HIS SAYING:-- "O you who believe!
Be you not like those Who annoyed Moses, But Allah proved his innocence of that
which they alleged, And he was honorable In Allah's Sight." (33.69)

Liberate said:
Read the above sahih(authentic) hadith, far from contradicting the quran,
it
states this is the reason for sura 33:69, but what are you to do
with the above
hadith? Do you claim it contradicts the quran to save face, or do you reject it
because of the ridiculous story of a stone running away with someone's clothes
and having the sensory neurones to take a beating. If you reject it on whose
authority do you reject it? Have you studied under the tutelage of a mufti for
several years to deem what is authentic and unathentic? I am curious to your
response?

UmmIsa said:
Yes, I do believe it and accept it. Why because Allaah & His Messenger said so and because the hadeeth has been authenticated.

It becomes sad indeed, when you are prepared to believe any and everything to the point of overriding commonsense. Do you also believe that flies have a poison on one wing, and the anti-dote to the poison on the other wing; and dipping a bacteria ridden housefly who has fallen in your soup, will eradicate the alledged poison and antidote to the poison on the flies wings? After all this is substantiated in a sahih(authentic) Bukhari hadith:

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 537:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said "If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease."

Do you also believe women are deficient in intelligence because a sahih(authentic)Bukahri hadith says so:

Bukhari Volume 3, Book 48, Number 826:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
The Prophet said, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind."

Do you also believe women cannot pray or fast during her period, afterall it is recorded in a sahih(authentic) Bukhari hadith:

Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha
or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as
I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)."
They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse
frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more
deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could
be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is
deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of
two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He
said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman
can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the
affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."

Have you ever wondered why it is blood, without it life would not exist, would somehow nullify a woman's prayer to her Creator, simply because of something He made part of her nature?

UmmIsa said:
And I know you do not have the nerve to talk about believing in something
ridiculous when you believe that God taransformed himself to be born by a woman
and lived as a man who ate, slept, urinated, and defecated like everyone else.

I do not understand why it is muslims are obsessed that it is somehow sinful to defecate and urinate, this goes back to what God made as part of the nature of man, all this shows is islamic perceptions of righteousness is purely superficial, it is all about keeping up appearances, so if you are clean, maybe you are holy.
Islam equally believes in the virgin birth, and that Jesus is the "Word of God" if you make mockery of it, you make mockery of your own beliefs.

UmmIsa said:
Someone who is God, yet a son, yet part divine, yet perfect (yet he was human)
but still divine, and then died??? Who was running the universe when he died
since hes god? Or is he the son? Or is he god when you can't explain how he
could be the son?

Let us take an example; that you made a tape recording of your voice, would a court of law accept that tape recording as if you were there yourself making those same comments? Well this is how christianity views Jesus, i.e the Word of God, what God would have said if He was right here in our midst. The vessel i.e the tape recoder is simply the human body, but the Word is from God, a concept islam agrees with.
Islam also has a similar concept. Your religion states that the quran was created before the foundation of the earth, echoing for all eternity, let me ask you a simple question, if the quran is uncreated and eternal with God before the creation of the earth, explain to me how it is not divine? What was the relationship between this uncreated, and eternal attribute of allah and the empirical strata while Zaid, Uthmman, Abu Bakr, the Dajjal edited and amended the quran right up to the 10th century? Was the uncreated and eternal quran keeping up with these amendments?

UmmIsa said:
At least my story is backed by the Creator...what about
yours??

How is your story backed up?
Which story do you mean?
The one with a stone running away with Moses's clothes?
or the theology of the religion in general?
The albatross around islam's neck not even considering that the message is to many extent inhumane, to the point of killing and fighting those who do not believe, but there is no continuation with the God of christianity nor Judaism, whoever compiled the quran was desperate for, because without that continuity which islam does not have in theology no etymology, you do not worship the same God.

Liberate said:
Can you show me anywhere of an example in the quran where allah showed mercy,
and the nature of that mercy?

UmmIsa said:
Most importantly is His names that begins every soorah (except one), ar-Rahmaan & ar-Raheem. Both entails His mercy

This is not a practical demonstration of allah's mercy, just saying a name contains the meanings of mercy really means nothing, several times in the quran where it has a provocative message, such as urging jihad to be fought against unbelievers and to be harsh with them, because, because...allah is merciful, the concept does not bear with the actual command.

UmmIsa said:
"And (remember) Ayoob (Job), when he cried to his Lord: "Verily, distress has
seized me, and You are the Most Merciful of all those who show mercy. So We
answered his call, and We removed the distress that was on him, and We restored
his family to him (that he had lost), and the like thereof along with them, as a
mercy from Ourselves and a Reminder for all who worship Us." [21:83,84] I'm sure
you know this story since its in the Bible as well.

This is a denial of the antecedent of what the previous revelations say, and the fallacy of slothful induction, the allah of the quran is not the same as the God of the bible, there is no evidence allah is the one showing mercy here, this is plagiarized biblical material.

UmmIsa said:
(This is) a mention of the mercy of your Lord to His slave Zakariyyah
(Zachariah)." [19:2] This is when Zakariyyah prayed to Allaah to send him
someone who would take his place (progeny) after his death.

Again you cannot use this as this is plagiarized biblical material, there is no evidence that allah of the quran is the same as the God of the bible, the original (bible) gives the complete context, Zechariah was not praying for someone to take over after his death, but was praying for his wife to have a child.

UmmIsa said:
"Say: 'O 'Ibaadee (My slaves) who have transgressed against themselves (by
committing evil deeds and sins)! Despair not of the mercy of Allaah, verily
Allaah forgives all sins. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful'. [39:53] I
love this verse! This reminds the believers that we should never ever give up
and remember that Allaah is always there, waiting to forgive us.

The serious problem is you cannot find out if this is true until the afterlife, how do you know allah is indeed merciful? if allah is not the God of the bible, what makes you so sure allah has the power to forgive anything?

UmmIsa said:
"And it is He Who sends the winds as heralds of glad tidings, going before His mercy (rain), and We send down pure water from the sky" [25:48] This is self explanatory; without rain everything would die, so that is a needed mercy and something we should thank Allaah for.

Surely you realise you are scraping the barrel here, mercy as rain? In that case sunshine, clear weather might as well be a mercy. As expected you cannot show me anything in the quran that shows evidence of allah's mercy, other than plagiarised biblical stories, when the overwhelming evidence is allah of the quran and the God of the bible are not the same.

Liberate said:
All because of honey!?

UmmIsa said:
Yes, all because of honey! I see your a big conspiracy theorist aren't you? *smile*

This is not a conspiracy theory, this is a logical explanation of what the earliest hadith from Bukhari says, and it is much more rational than the later one from Muslim.

Liberate said:
...
(O Ibn Al-Khattab! Do you have any doubt These people have been given rewards of
their good deeds in this world only.) I asked the Prophet , `Please beg Allah's
forgiveness for me, O Allah's Messenger.' The Prophet swore that
he would not go
to his wives for one month, because of his severe anger towards them
[ RIGHT
HERE is where your tafsir further insults the intelligence of it's readers and
deviates from the hadith, at this stage in the hadith this is what the hadith
says:"Bukhari vol 3 648 "...The Prophet
did not go to his wives because of
the secret which Hafsa had disclosed to 'Aisha, and he said that he would not go
to his wives for one month as he was angry with them when Allah admonished him
(for his oath that he would not approach Maria..."
if they had bothered to
include this part of the hadith it would have opened a can of worms the reader
would have known they were being taken for a ride, the prophet was angry because
Hafsa had told Aisha he slept with Hafsa's maid Maria/Mariyah/Mariah
]

His wives had confronted him about it he had threatened them with
divorce, his
followers glossed over it and fabricated elaborate hadiths about honey and
citrus fruits to cover the obvious imperfection in the prophet's
character.

Liberate · Nov 20, 2006

Imagine for a second a husband tells his wife her father wants to see her and
while
she is away he sleeps with her maid, his wife comes back quickly when she finds
out her father doesn't want to see her, and finds her husband in bed with her
maid, she
naturally goes hysterical the husband begs her to be quiet and
not to tell anybody promises her it won't happen again (this is the oath Mohammed
was talking
about), she tells his other wife who in turn tells all the rest and they
make a
scene, his followers in their desperation to venerate him as
whiter than white
hush hush the incident and even go as far as to fabricate hadiths to exonerate
the prophet. To add insult to injury to Mohammed's wives he even
had his god chide him for abstaining from sleeping with Maria (
until Allah
the Exalted and Most Honored censured him.), and to carry on the
shenanigans with her, threatening his wives with divorce for
making him deny himself the right to fornicate. Al-Bukhari, [
The tafsir didn't
even give you the Bukhari hadiths so you don't check it out for
yourself ]

You'd be hard pressed to find a more logical story regarding the event, than
this absurd tale of
honey and bad breath!

UmmIsa said:
If anyone notices, you have interjected your own opinions in these ahaadeeth.

My interpolations changed nothing.

UmmIsa said:
The first hadeeth (about the honey) says exactly what I said!

That is not the first hadith about the incident but the second hadith from Sahih Muslim, that is not rational compared to the first hadith from Bukhari, recall Bukhari hadiths predate those of Muslim, the tafsir implies both hadiths relate to the same incident. Either one is a lie, as they can't both be true, and we all know lies only come after the truth.

UmmIsa said:
I have never heard of Maryam being the maidservant of Hafsah
and if you claim that she was bring your proof from hadeeth

This is immaterial, whether she was hafsa's, Aisha's, or Mohammed's maid means nothing to the allegations of fornication Bukhari 3 648 implies.

UmmIsa said:
(and not any stupid twisted crap from Sina)

Like you said "the truth is the truth whether it is accepted or rejected". Bukhari 3 648 implies obvious imperfections in your prophet's character, seeing you have no problems accepting a hadith that a stone runs away with Moses's clothes, I fail to believe you will reject a much more rational hadith of a fornicating husband.

UmmIsa said:
Maryam was what I said she was, lawful for him.

You do not see anything strange in Hafsa and Aisha confronting him, and he promising not to do it again? and reneging on his oath, only to have his god, censure him, doesn't it all seem very self serving for Mohammed, everything just happens to be for his gratification.

UmmIsa said:
I only remember reading about the Messenger thinking of divorcing his wives once and from what I remember it didn't have anything to do with this story. The story I know of was because his wives weren't treating him well

"I remember"..."I remember"..."the story I know" is not an objective way to prove someone wrong, if you are in any doubt you are free to read Bukhari 3 648 for yourself.

Liberate said:
Do you as a woman not feel a little disturbed that non-muslims can be made right
hand possessions by a mujaheddin attacking their town, killing their husbands,
for the sole reason that they are non muslims?

Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him
whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept
(Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was
necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may
peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were
unaware and
their cattle were having a drink at the water[READ
CAREFULLY, IT WAS NO LONGER
NECESSARY TO GIVE A CALL TO ISLAM BEFORE ATTACKING, JUST ATTACK THE UNBELIEVERS
AND KILL THOSE WHO FIGHT BACK, CLAIM THIS IS 'SELF DEFENSE' 14 CENTURIES
LATER]. He
killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured
Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related
to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.”
Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4292

UmmIsa said:
First off, the mujaahiddeen did not attack villages simply because they were not Muslims

This is not what the hadith implies, on what basis were they being attacked? it clearly suggests "IT WAS NO LONGER
NECESSARY TO GIVE A CALL TO ISLAM BEFORE ATTACKING" hence their only crime was not being muslims.

UmmIsa said:
And if you are speaking of so-called mujaahiddeen that are fighting in various
parts of the world today I don't support most of the things they do because they
are not doing it according to Qur`aan & Sunnah

This is where your imams come in, as you said you are only a 'baby' in islam, you have no authority to interprete the edicts of islam for muslims living i the heartlands of islam.

UmmIsa said:
As for non-Muslim women being
made right hand possessions and me supporting that, yes I do. As long as it is
done according to Islaamic law I don't have a problem with it at all.

I am disappointed a woman would see nothing wrong when her fellow sisters in humanity, are forcefully separated from their familes and loved ones, and forcefully made a concubine.

UmmIsa said:
Funny you
didn't mention that some of these women taken as right hand possessions (in the
past) decided to accept Islaam, like Safiyyah, Mother of the Believers.

Like the honey story, this story is not plausible in the slightest. For one Mohammed killed safiyah's husband, killed her father, killed her uncle, and most of her family, he then proceeded to take her to a private tent to have 'privacy' with her while the blood of her family was still warm, without even letting her mourn for one day for her murdred husband, father, uncle and several relatives he had 'privacy' with her. You will not find any woman, in any era happily going to bed with the mass murderer of her entire family, to say she "wanted to sleep" with Mohammed after he did all these things, is simply not plausible.

Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz:
Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer
there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu
Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the
lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet . He
uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he
entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we
approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of
those who have been warned.' He repeated this thrice. The people came out for
their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions
added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the
booty was collected. Dihya came and said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave
girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took
Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles!
You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes
of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said,
'Bring him along with her.' So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her,
he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas
added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her."
Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He
said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her."
Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and
at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet . (Sahih Bukhari vol 1 no
367)

Ishaq:517 When the Apostle took Safiyah on his way out of
town, she was beautified and combed, putting her in a fitting state for the
Messenger. The Apostle passed the night with her in his tent. Abu Ayyub, girt
with his sword, guarded the Apostle, going round the tent until he saw him
emerge in the morning. Abu said, ‘I was afraid for you with this woman for
you have killed her father, her husband, and her people

UmmIsa said:
There is
also an account of woman woman being sent back to her family.

Thiswouldn't happen to the 'woman' by any chance?:

Bukhari Volume 7, Book 63, Number 182:
Narrated Abu Usaid:
We went out with the Prophet to a garden called Ash-Shaut till we reached two
walls between which we sat down. The Prophet said, "Sit here," and went in (the
garden). The Jauniyya (a lady from Bani Jaun) had been brought and lodged in a
house in a date-palm garden in the home of Umaima bint An-Nu'man bin Sharahil,
and her wet nurse was with her. When the Prophet entered upon her, he said to
her, "Give me yourself (in marriage) as a gift." She said, "Can a princess give
herself in marriage to an ordinary man?" The Prophet raised his hand to pat her
so that she might become tranquil. She said, "I seek refuge with Allah from
you." He said, "You have sought refuge with One Who gives refuge. Then the
Prophet came out to us and said, "O Abu Usaid! Give her two white linen dresses
to wear and let her go back to her family." Narrated Sahl and Abu Usaid: The
Prophet married Umaima bint Sharahil, and when she was brought to him, he
stretched his hand towards her. It seemed that she disliked that, whereupon the
Prophet ordered Abu Usaid to prepare her and to provide her with two white linen
dresses. (See Hadith No. 541).

How old do you think this 'woman' is if she requires a wet nurse?

UmmIsa said:

Now how does that compare to many, many Muslim women's husbands and children
being killed in many Muslims lands and themselves raped and/or degraded simply
because they are Muslim? Do you feel alittle disturbed??

Click to expand...

Your analogy is deceptive, as none of these people doing these atrocities, are claiming that God told them to do it, none of them are an al insan, al kamil , the perfect exemplar whose behaviour transcends all time.

LittleLambofJesus · Nov 20, 2006

Originally Posted by UmmIsa
I do not follow any particular madhhaab. I follow the Qur`aan & the
authenticated Sunnah (authentic narrations only) and I understand it according
to the way the Messenger explained it to his Companions. In other words, I am a
Salafee.
And if you are speaking of so-called mujaahiddeen that are fighting in various
parts of the world today I don't support most of the things they do because they
are not doing it according to Qur`aan & Sunnah

This is where your imams come in, as you said you are only a 'baby' in islam, you have no authority to interprete the edicts of islam for muslims living i the heartlands of islam.

Seems as if our brother Paul [our "imam"] said the same thing about his followers concerning "milk" and "real food". Interesting post.

http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/kingdom/kog1.htm

Hebrews 5:12 for even owing to be teachers, because of the time, again ye have need that one teach you what [are] the elements of the beginning of the oracles of God, and ye have become having need of milk, and not of strong food,

The "DEPTHS of God" in Christ Jesus are not tolerated in the Church today. They may teach the name of Jesus. They may teach that Jesus died for you. They may teach that there is forgiveness of sins in Jesus. They may teach that Jesus ONLY is your Saviour. But is the teaching of "Christ crucified" the "DEPTHS of God"? No, it is not. Paul did teach the Corinthians about "Christ crucified" (I Cor. 1:23). Paul also admitted that this was merely the "milk and not meat [solid food]" (I Cor. 3:2).

The Corinthians had the "milk of God’s word," but this did not make them spiritual. Notice what Paul says:

"For ye [Gk: ‘ye’ means, all of you] are yet CARNAL" (Verse 3).

http://www.christianforums.com/t4203824-question-for-jews-on-new-translation.html

ummuIsa · Nov 20, 2006

Liberate said: "This person" is no ordinary layman, he is a mufti, who has studied at the feet of other muftis, to dismiss what he has to say is to indirectly insult all those who seek his advice everyday.
Considering your personal interpretation of quranic ayats, when you earlier said Yes, there are Muslims who say this and I don't know if its because this is their understanding of Allaah's verses (which we are not to interpret using our own understanding)" please explain on whose authority you interprete ayats??

Tell me, how do you know he is a scholar? How do you know he studied with anyone?? Do you know him personally? Do you know someone who knows him personally? I don't know him, never heard of him, I don't even visit that site. As I said before I follow no man except for the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam) so if anyone has anything to say (especially if he is a scholar) he must come with proof to back up what he says. Anyone can say they are a scholar or learned does that mean I am suppose to follow any and everyone. If that were the case I would follow a Soofee scholar, Shee'ah scholar, heck, I would follow the so-called fatwas of bin Ladin! Maybe thats how it works in Christianity, I don't know...

As I said I do not interpret the texts according to my opinion I take the explanations of Allaah Himself, His Messenger & the Companions.

Liberate said: Categorically islam states you follow your imams, you do not interpret the religion as you see fit, which is the whole purpose of the four madzhabs, to prevent people interpreting the religion as they saw fit, when they lack the years of tutelage under a mufti to do this, it is precisely what you and many westernized muslims are doing. The irony of ironies is westernized muslims who are as 'christianized' as the local indigens, are the ones claiming to have the truth and interpretation of the religion, as opposed to adherents living and breathing islam, and living under the sharia; when they are as far divorced from it as a moderate who hardly practices salat, the sad fact is you as a woman would never be given the freedom to interprete the religion, if you were in the heartlands of islam.

Please bring me a verse from the Qur`aan or a hadeeth that states this is what Islaam taught (that I must follow the Imaams). And what Imaams??

I would go into how Islaam is practiced in some Muslim countries but I will leave that alone as our problems are our problems and should be left between us. But again, your ignorance rears its ugly head. There were women scholars of the past, `Aa'ishah being the most noteworthy. Many svholars of the past had women teachers. And there are female scholars living today, in Muslim countires, who I have the honour and privilege of taking knowledge from, may Allaah preserve them. They give classes and lectures to women regularly. So what are saying??!

Liberate said: As I said you are following the islam you see fit, islam does not allow laymen to interpret the religion, and rest assured assured it does not allow women to interprete the religion for anybody, only ignorant individuals in the West believe islam affords women the right to interpret any aspect of the religion. You are in a catch22 position.

Again, bring your proof if you are truthful. And proof is not what so and so said. Proof is Allaah Says, His Messenger said, the Companions said.

Liberate said: That particular comment about not following them, does not apply to laymen, but only to jurists who are well versed in the religion, and honestly believe a 'truer' ruling is in another madzhab, and not following their desires.

Please tell, what is taqleed? And don't run and look it up on the internet. Either you do know or you don't.

Liberate said: This is the problem, islam categorically states you cannot pick and choose from various madzhabs, on whose authority do you pick and choose what is authentic and leave out the rest?

You keep telling me what Islaam says with out bringing proof from the sharee'ah, which Islaam is built upon. Now what is the Sahree'ah?? Sharee'ah are the laws of Islaam built upon what? Qur`aan & Sunnah. Which is what? Allaah Says & His Messenger said and ijmaa' which is still based from what Allaah said and His Messenger said. So please start showing me some verses or hadeeth to back up what you say. There is a hadeeth that says the 'proof is upon the claimant'. Present you proof. If you have no prrof then there is nothing left to say and we can move on.

Liberate said: I am well aware that the salafis/wahabbists are a militant branch of islam, they do not represent mainstream islam, and do not follow any of the four madzhabs, which over 80% of islam does. This is the doctrine of Osama Bin Laden, so some of your comments that it is ok for muslims to sleep with right hand possessions, are well intune with this doctrine, but your other comments that suicide bombing is wrong, is at a stark contrast to the salafi doctrine, it eminated from Saudi, and please do not tell me that wahabbi/salafi saudi clerics don't sanction suicide bombings, because they do, but it is a game of cat and mouse, sometimes using semantics to partially condemn it, that it doesn't apply to Palestine, or various other areas because of 'oppression'..."foreign policy"...e.t.c" e.g. while the grand mufti of saudi arabia condemns suicide bombings for a western audience, saudi's minister for
islamic affairs Sheikh Saleh Al al-Sheikh, condones it:
"The suicide bombings are permitted...the victims are considered
to have died a martyr's death."

Wow, get out!! I didn't know that! Funny, I have been a Salafee for 12 yrs. and I never heard this until 9/11 hmmm. Yes, the Salafees have problems and have splits in them like any other group, unfortunately. But being militant was never and is still not a part of Salafiyyah. As a matter of fact we are usually talked about because we say that Jihaad has to follow rules and so those who disagree don't like to hear that. Anyway, I find it amusing that non-Muslims, and even some Muslims claim that Salafee Muslims are militant, radical jihaadees when Salafee scholars have been warning against this years before 9/11 ever happened. I take from the Scholars of Saudi as well ( may Allaah have mercy upon those who have died and preserve those who are alive) and I have seen nothing radical about them at all.

And just because someone claims their Salafee, just like anything else, it must be proved with speech and actions. Just like someone who says there a Christian, Jew, etc. you would expect them to live up to the teachings of that claim correct?

And yet again, you are taking information from a non-Muslim site, one against Islaam at that. So of course they are going to claim he said such things. But lets just say he did say that (which had no reference for the quote which is like me saying Liberate said, "Islaam is the only true religion accepted by the Creator"), what does Islaam say about such things? Thats what matters and thats what Muslims must follow. As I keep saying, we are to follow what Allaah & His Messenger said not what ??? said. Yet, that train just keeps running over you...

Whose proof are you using?
Who is the judge juror and executioner on the veracity of proof? would it happen to you by any chance?
This is why salafis are considered apostates by the majority of the ummah, over 80% of islam are sunnis, of the remaining sect wahabbists/salafis make up a small minority.

And whose proof are you using?? I have never heard a non-Salafee call me a kaafir, even if they were against Salafiyyah. And Salafees are Sunnees. How could we not be Sunnees if when we follow the Sunnah (that is what Sunnee means).

I don't need anyone to authenticate an already authentic hadeeth. I don't need anyone to give tafseer of an ayaah that I already have tafseer for. You keep saying that I didn't do this and I don't know this. How do you know? How do you know if I have sat with anyone or not? And I don't need to go into what I know or how much I know because its really not important. But I know enough to give classes in a masjid and have. I have been blessed that I know people who have and still are sitting with scholars and are always there, wal hamdulillaah to answer my questions or get answers from the scholars for me. I know people who speak to the scholars (male & female) and set up conferences, telelinks and classes with them almost everyday of the week. So rest assured, when I don't know something or don't understand something, I do not hesitate to ask and I have people that I know are trustworthy and I know have knowledge and I know who they sat with, so I know from whom I'm taking my Deen from.

Liberate said: It is obvious that the final decision to "pick and choose" lies with you, you are the judge, juror and executioner of your own madzhab, since you follow no madzhab, you are accountable to no one, but yet you state you are a "baby" in islam.

See my answer above.

Liberate said: Here is what islam has to say about following your own desires/ ignoring the advice of the four madzhabs (A long read, but I hope you are objective about it):

The answer is right in the very article that you posted: ALL SCHOOLS ARE CORRECT
The next question which may arise here is what a layman should do with regard to these different madhahib, and which one of them should be followed. Answer to this question is very simple.There is no difference between any of the schools regarding the beliefs and
doctrine of Islam (aqeeda) [for example the Oneness of Allah, Prophethood, divine revelation, Judgement Day or explicit and manifest commands such as the obligation of daily prayers, fasting, hajj, zakat and the prohibitions of pork, alcohol, adultery, interest etc. These issues do not require the consultation of a scholar to understand since they should be easily comprehendible to anybody
who reads the Qur’an or Sunnah. Other issues such as the rituals of worship, the conditions of business transactions, or the method of conducting a wedding are not so clear, and without proficient knowledge of Islamic rules of Ijtihad(extracting rules and judgements based on the scripture [Qur’an] and theauthentic recorded manner of the Prophet [Hadith]), the average muslim will not be certain what action to take regarding these. It is therefore the responsibility of a Mujtahid (a scholar who is qualified to practise Ijtihad) to
clarify these to the layman.

Did he say that it had to be one of the 4 Imaams?? NO. There were more fuqaha (scholars of law) before the 4 Imaams and there were more that came after. As I said before, when I come across something I do not know or understand I take it back to the people of knowledge, just as Allaah tells us to do in the Qur`aan. And the scholar may or may not use evidence pronounced by one of the 4 Imaams. He may use ibn Taymiyyah, ibn al-Qayyim, ibn Rajab, ibn Hajar Asqalaanee, etc. The bottom line is Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaa'ah IS the Companions and then those who follow them.

Also, it would be nice and more honourable to admit if you don't know something instaed of just going to run and copy & paste the 1st thing you find.

Also, talking to you is really like talking to a wall. How could you possibly understand this Deen and you can't even comprehend the basic principle of Tawheed when everything else stems from that?? And if you honestly and truly believe that you know Islaam and esp. Salafiyyah better than I then you are sadly mistaken (not really what I wanted to say but I didn't want to be rude). And I'm not saying this to be arrogant, its just a truthful fact that I can see through your writings and where you are getting your information from.

ummuIsa · Nov 20, 2006

Liberate said: It becomes sad indeed, when you are prepared to believe any and everything to the point of overriding commonsense. Do you also believe that flies have a poison on one wing, and the anti-dote to the poison on the other wing; and dipping a bacteria ridden housefly who has fallen in your soup, will eradicate the alledged poison and antidote to the poison on the flies wings? After all this is substantiated in a sahih(authentic) Bukhari hadith

Yes, I most certainly do. As a matter of fact one of my brothers recently posted a science based article on this forum. You should read it!

Liberate said: Do you also believe women are deficient in intelligence because a sahih(authentic)Bukahri hadith says so: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: The Prophet said, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind."

First, let me correct you. It doesn't say that a woman's mind is deficient. The hadeeth quoted below is correctly worded. And yes, I do believe it and wholeheartedly accept. I also know and understand that it was not meant negatively the way it is always presented as by non-Muslims AND some of my brothers as well. Shaykh bin Baaz (rahimahullaah) has explained what is meant by these deficiencies and I will post when I am done answering you, insha`Allaah.

Liberate said: Do you also believe women cannot pray or fast during her period, afterall it is recorded in a sahih(authentic) Bukhari hadith:
Have you ever wondered why it is blood, without it life would not exist, would somehow nullify a woman's prayer to her Creator, simply because of something He made part of her nature?

yes I do and therefore don't but that doesn't mean my worship stops. I can still supplicate, read the tafseer of Qur`aan & other Islaamic books, listen to tapes, etc. So your point is...??

Because blood is an impurity, correct? Medical professionals wear attire to protect themselves from contact with it and what it may contain. Would you like someone to smear blood on you, esp. menstrual blood? Of course not, unless of course your just freaky like that *LOL* Otherwise of course not. Why? Because thats NASTY! We must be in a pure state before we can offer salaah (ritual prayer not to be confused with supplication). The same goes for the man and woman who have not purified themselves after having sexual relations.

Liberate said:

I do not understand why it is muslims are obsessed that it is somehow sinful to defecate and urinate, this goes back to what God made as part of the nature of man, all this shows is islamic perceptions of righteousness is purely superficial, it is all about keeping up appearances, so if you are clean, maybe you are holy.
Islam equally believes in the virgin birth, and that Jesus is the "Word of God" if you make mockery of it, you make mockery of your own beliefs.

You hit the nail directly on the head, "this goes back to what God made as part of the nature of man"

No, its not about keeping up with appearances its about following the commandments of Allaah, which happen to be in your Book too, OT & NT. Maybe you should try following your own Book alittle more closely before speaking against another group's piety. Besides, Muslims aren't concerned about what people think of us. You are the ones obsessed with us, not the other way around! *wink*

Liberate said:

Let us take an example; that you made a tape recording of your voice, would a court of law accept that tape recording as if you were there yourself making those same comments? Well this is how christianity views Jesus, i.e the Word of God, what God would have said if He was right here in our midst. The vessel i.e the tape recoder is simply the human body, but the Word is from God, a concept islam agrees with.

That sounds more like a Prophet (which he was) instead of the son of god/god. I've actually heard a better example. 'The doctrine of the Trinity is like an egg which is made up of 3 parts: shell, yolk, egg white. But as my dear brother who busted the priest's bubble told him But if you take one of those parts away then it is no longer an egg.' Now according to you, part of that egg died for three days and that part of the egg was not only the son but the father incarnate (which still makes no sense) so who was running the universe for those three days because without a doubt the universe would collapse without the Creator governing it. Sooo, as I said, it still doesn't make sense. Besides, I didn't ask for your example, I asked for proof. Give me a Bible verse or a quote from Jesus himself. And please don't bring that tired verse oft-quoted in John.

Liberate said: Islam also has a similar concept. Your religion states that the quran was created before the foundation of the earth, echoing for all eternity, let me ask you a simple question, if the quran is uncreated and eternal with God before the creation of the earth, explain to me how it is not divine? What was the relationship between this uncreated, and eternal attribute of allah and the empirical strata while Zaid, Uthmman, Abu Bakr, the Dajjal edited and amended the quran right up to the 10th century? Was the uncreated and eternal quran keeping up with these amendments?

The Qur`aan was never edited or changed and I know you know this (or have heard of it whether you believe it or not) so I'm not going to get into yet another brick wall debate with you. And who said that the Qur`aan is not divine. It is the uncreated Word of Allaah and Allaah's Words are a part of Him, therefore the Qur`aan is also holy.

Liberate said:

How is your story backed up? Which story do you mean? The one with a stone running away with Moses's clothes?
or the theology of the religion in general?

Both because both have verses in the Qur`aan to support it. Whether you believe it or not is up to you. Yet I don't see how you can believe the concept of the trinity yet not believe that the creator can make a rock move.

Liberate said: The albatross around islam's neck not even considering that the message is to many extent inhumane, to the point of killing and fighting those who do not believe, but there is no continuation with the God of christianity nor Judaism, whoever compiled the quran was desperate for, because without that continuity which islam does not have in theology no etymology, you do not worship the same God.

Actually the Creator in Islaam sounds alot like the Creator in the OT. So, have you ever stopped to think that maybe its the doctrine of Christianity that is astray???

I can bring MANY,MANY verses from the OT that has 'inhumane' killing. And I put inhumane because I don't belive that the Creator would order something unjust. There is Wisdom behind everything that Allaah does, even if we puny humans don't understand it. Mind you I'm not talking about senseless and reckless killing or abuse from ANY group (religious or otherwise) and as much as you want to believe that it is only Islaam that does this you and I both know (as well as everyone else) that that is not true.

Liberate said: This is a denial of the antecedent of what the previous revelations say, and the fallacy of slothful induction, the allah of the quran is not the same as the God of the bible, there is no evidence allah is the one showing mercy here, this is plagiarized biblical material

If it is not consistent with the Biblical version then how could it be plaigarized?

[quote] Liberate said: Again you cannot use this as this is plagiarized biblical material, there is no evidence that allah of the quran is the same as the God of the bible, the original (bible) gives the complete context, Zechariah was not praying for someone to take over after his death, but was praying for his wife to have a child.[/quote] But his wife was old and barren, correct? And he was surprsed when he was given the news that she was to have a child correct? So whos to say that he was actually looking for progeny by way of his wife?? AND were you there? Are you a descendant of Zakariayh and therefroe have some transcripts that have been handed down from generation to generation? NO. You believe and rely in your Book just as I do mine. I can emphatically shout that your Book is distorted and made up of lies but would that make you disbelieve in it? NO. So exactly what is your point in this thread. Please don't waste my time. If we're going to talk, lets actually make it productive.

Liberate said: The serious problem is you cannot find out if this is true until the afterlife, how do you know allah is indeed merciful? if allah is not the God of the bible, what makes you so sure allah has the power to forgive anything?

And you cannot find out until the afterlife that Jesus actually died for your sins now can you. SO yet again...what is your point?

Liberate said:

Surely you realise you are scraping the barrel here, mercy as rain? In that case sunshine, clear weather might as well be a mercy. As expected you cannot show me anything in the quran that shows evidence of allah's mercy, other than plagiarised biblical stories, when the overwhelming evidence is allah of the quran and the God of the bible are not the same.

Do you not see rain as a mercy. Wow that shows are grateful you are.

As afr as not being able to show Mercy, I have and could show more plus some from the Sunnah as I have. But why don't you all look for it yourself. But I know for me, the biggest Mercy is the fact that Allaah has guided me and continues to guide me to Islaam. And reading your posts (and a few others), subhaanAllaah, really makes me even more grateful!

And as far as the honey incident, I'm not even going to waste my time with that one because you are going to believe what you want to believe and I believe the truth. So theres really nothing left to say.

ummuIsa · Nov 20, 2006

Belittling Women with the Hadeeth : “Women are Deficient in Intellect and Deen.” Ash Shaykh Al ‘Allaamah ‘Abdul ‘Azeez ibn Baaz (رحمه الل&#1607

Question: We often hear the noble Hadeeth "Women are deficient in their intelligence and in their Deen” and some men use this Hadeeth as a form of belittlement towards the women. We desire from you O noble shaykh, clarification of the meaning of this Hadeeth?

Answer: The meaning of the Hadeeth of the Messenger of Allaah (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam):

“I have never seen anyone with a deficiency of ‘Aql (intellect) and Deen (religion) who are more overpowering to men than one of you [women].”
So it was said: “O Messenger of Allaah, what is the deficiency in her intelligence?”
He said: “Isn’t the witness of two women equal to that of one man?”
So it was said: “What is the deficiency in her Deen?”
So he said: “Isn’t it the case that if she is menstruating she doesn’t pray or fast?”

So the Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) clarified that the deficiency of her intellect was from the angle of her weak memory and that her testimony is strengthened with the testimony of another woman. This is because of the preciseness of the witness (in Islaam) and because she could forget and make an addition or deletion to the testimony. Just as Allaah says:

{And bring forth two witnesses from your own men. If there are not two men (available) then a man and two women, such as you agree for witnesses, so that if one of them (two women) errs then the other can remind her…} [2282]

As for deficiency in her Deen, then it is because during her state of menstruation and post-partum bleeding, she abandons the Salaat and fasting, and she doesn’t make up the salaat. This is from the deficiency in her Deen. But this deficiency is not blameworthy upon her. Rather it is a deficiency, which happens as a result of that which Allaah had decreed for her and this was done in a manner of leniency and easiness towards her. For if she were to fast in a state of menstruation or in a state of postpartum bleeding it would harm her. So from the Mercy of Allaah (towards women) He has legislated for her to abandon the fast at the time when she is menstruating or in a state of Nifaas, and to make up the fast afterwards. As for the salaat, then without a doubt, the state of menstruation prevents her from purification. So from the mercy of Allaah, He legislated for her to abandon her prayer and likewise in the state of Nifaas. He also legislated for her not to make it up, because in making up the (Salaat) is difficulty, because the Salaat is tremendous, and repetitious, five times throughout the night and day, and the days of menstruation can be plentiful, sometimes seven or eight days or more than that. And the Nifaas could reach 40 days. So from the mercy of Allaah upon her and from His Ihsaan (doing good) towards her is that He removed the Salaat from her whether it be the initial Salaat or the make-up. And this does not necessitate that her intelligence is deficient in everything! Nor that her Deen is deficient in everything! But indeed the Messenger (saw) clarified that the deficiency in her intelligence is from that which happens to her from the lack of precision in her memory and testimony, and that the deficiency in her Deen is from the fact that she leaves off the prayer and fasting at the time of her menses or in the state of Nifaas. Also this doesn’t necessitate that she is less than a man in everything! or the fact that the man is better in everything!

ummuIsa · Nov 20, 2006

Liberate said: This is not what the hadith implies, on what basis were they being attacked? it clearly suggests "IT WAS NO LONGER
NECESSARY TO GIVE A CALL TO ISLAM BEFORE ATTACKING" hence their only crime was not being muslims.

read ar-Raheeq al-Makhtoom by Muparakfuri (I think thats it. Look it up on line). Its like ragu, its in there (or is it prego?) Anyway, seriously, read the book and it will shed light on much of what you wrote about the Prophet's life.

Liberate said: This is where your imams come in, as you said you are only a 'baby' in islam, you have no authority to interprete the edicts of islam for muslims living i the heartlands of islam.

There are many, many fatwas on this. I sent you the sites, read them. Like I tell my kids all the time, READING IS FUNDAMENTAL. This is the very first thing Allaah Says.

Liberate said: I am disappointed a woman would see nothing wrong when her fellow sisters in humanity, are forcefully separated from their familes and loved ones, and forcefully made a concubine.

And I am constantly disappointed, although no longer surprised, in non-Muslim support of atrocities being done to innocent Muslims here and abroad. The difference is one is legal and one is not. Taking captives does go hand in hand with war, does it not?

Liberate said: Like the honey story, this story is not plausible in the slightest. For one Mohammed killed safiyah's husband, killed her father, killed her uncle, and most of her family, he then proceeded to take her to a private tent to have 'privacy' with her while the blood of her family was still warm, without even letting her mourn for one day for her murdred husband, father, uncle and several relatives he had 'privacy' with her. You will not find any woman, in any era happily going to bed with the mass murderer of her entire family, to say she "wanted to sleep" with Mohammed after he did all these things, is simply not plausible.

Not plausible why? Says who, you? Since when did you get a PhD in Hadeeth sciences? Should I start calling you shaykh Liberate?? *LOL*

#1- Yes, her husband & father was killed uh duh its a war, people die. #2- Our noble Prophet (sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam) never even touched the hand of a woman who wasn't lawful for him, let alone stay in private with one: ‘Aa’ishah said: "By Allaah, the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) only took the oath of allegiance from the women in the manner prescribed by Allaah, and the hand of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) never touched the hand of any woman. When he had taken their oath of allegiance he would say, ‘I have accepted your oath of allegiance verbally.’ ” [Muslim #1866] #3- Again to find the whole story read ar-Raheeq al-Makhtoom, its in there!

Quote:
Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz:
Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer
there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu
Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the
lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet . He
uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he
entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we
approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of
those who have been warned.' He repeated this thrice. The people came out for
their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions
added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the
booty was collected. Dihya came and said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave
girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took
Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles!
You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes
of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said,
'Bring him along with her.' So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her,
he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas
added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her."
Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He
said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her."
Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and
at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet . (Sahih Bukhari vol 1 no
367)
Quote:
Ishaq:517 When the Apostle took Safiyah on his way out of
town, she was beautified and combed, putting her in a fitting state for the
Messenger. The Apostle passed the night with her in his tent. Abu Ayyub, girt
with his sword, guarded the Apostle, going round the tent until he saw him
emerge in the morning. Abu said, ‘I was afraid for you with this woman for
you have killed her father, her husband, and her people
Quote:
Originally Posted by UmmIsa
There is
also an account of woman woman being sent back to her family.

Liberate said: Thiswouldn't happen to the 'woman' by any chance?

I don't know about the narration that you have quoted by Ishaaq so I have to look into that further before I can comment (unlike you who rarely keeps his mouth closed!) *smile*

Quote:
Bukhari Volume 7, Book 63, Number 182:
Narrated Abu Usaid:
We went out with the Prophet to a garden called Ash-Shaut till we reached two
walls between which we sat down. The Prophet said, "Sit here," and went in (the
garden). The Jauniyya (a lady from Bani Jaun) had been brought and lodged in a
house in a date-palm garden in the home of Umaima bint An-Nu'man bin Sharahil,
and her wet nurse was with her. When the Prophet entered upon her, he said to
her, "Give me yourself (in marriage) as a gift." She said, "Can a princess give
herself in marriage to an ordinary man?" The Prophet raised his hand to pat her
so that she might become tranquil. She said, "I seek refuge with Allah from
you." He said, "You have sought refuge with One Who gives refuge. Then the
Prophet came out to us and said, "O Abu Usaid! Give her two white linen dresses
to wear and let her go back to her family." Narrated Sahl and Abu Usaid: The
Prophet married Umaima bint Sharahil, and when she was brought to him, he
stretched his hand towards her. It seemed that she disliked that, whereupon the
Prophet ordered Abu Usaid to prepare her and to provide her with two white linen
dresses. (See Hadith No. 541).

Liberate said: How old do you think this 'woman' is if she requires a wet nurse?

Click to expand...

`Arab women frequently used wet nurses back then (I don't know why). So instead of nursing their children theirselves they would have someone else, usually a bedouin do it. The woman is not being nursed, if that was what you were thinking. *sigh*

As far as the hadeeth itself, I have never read it or heard it mentioned so I will have to look into that further before I comment, insha'Allaah.

Liberate said: Your analogy is deceptive, as none of these people doing these atrocities, are claiming that God told them to do it

Click to expand...

That makes it even worse. So there doing it for their own purposes and desires and to forward their own personal agendas. And a religious man like you think thats okay huh?? *I'm left scratching my head at that one*

Islam_mulia · Nov 20, 2006

The Discussion Has Diverted From The Original Post. Can The Moderators Pls Ensure We Are Back On Track?

Angel4Truth · Nov 23, 2006

Thread is closed for staff review

Edit to update : After review , its been determined that thread will remain closed due to excessive rules violations - please remember the following :

[rule1.2] [rule2.1] [rule2.7] [rule2.8]

Thank you for your understanding.

Is allah the "proper noun" name of God?

Simonaho

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency