Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
fallow

Every Hadith Has A Counter-hadith?

Recommended Posts

ive never heard that a Muslim canot play the piano. that person who said that is wrong. if we cant play the piano then why do Muslims have cell phones that they themselves program to ring at different melodies???? even scholars!!!that ststement my friend is crap!!!!!!!

 

NOW in the QURAN Allah says that he gives knowledge to whom ever HE pleases. So theres no such thing as a unqalified MUSLIM,we are studing the QURAN and we seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave. And if Allah gives knowledge to whom ever He pleases then some one who doesnt even read arabic can be blessed with knowledge to see things in the QURAN that certian scholars cannot. Now a kalifa which is not just one person, can make laws by following the QURAN, and if he follows the QURAN and he knows that Allah can bless anybody with knowledge then if hes wrong he will be able to correct his mistakes. HOW many lies have congress told, how many cover ups, never admitting to their wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
ive never heard that a Muslim canot play the piano. that person who said that is wrong. if we cant play the piano then why do Muslims have cell phones that they themselves program to ring at different melodies???? even scholars!!!that ststement my friend is crap!!!!!!!

 

LOL - I never thought I'd ever be telling a Muslim about Islam. But. Many - some people say most - scholars regard musical instruments (other than the duff) as haram.

 

This is what Sunnipath says: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_qa.sunnipath(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1786&CATE=142"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_qa.sunnipath(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/issue_view.asp?HD=...86&CATE=142[/url]

 

In the light of the evidences that will be mentioned later, the following are unlawful in Shariah:

 

a) Musical instruments that are exclusively designed for entertainment and dancing, and create charm, pleasure and bliss on their own (even without the singing), such as the drum, violin, guitar, fiddle, flute, lute, mandolin, harmonium, piano, string, etc… are impermissible to use under any circumstance.

 

There is a consensus of the whole Ummah on this. Since the first century, the Companions (sahaba), their followers (tabi’een), jurists (fuqaha) and the scholars have been generally unanimous on this ruling.

Edited by fallow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ive never heard that a Muslim canot play the piano. that person who said that is wrong. if we cant play the piano then why do Muslims have cell phones that they themselves program to ring at different melodies???? even scholars!!!that ststement my friend is crap!!!!!!!

Q

NOW in the QURAN Allah says that he gives knowledge to whom ever HE pleases. So theres no such thing as a unqalified MUSLIM,we are studing the QURAN and we seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave. And if Allah gives knowledge to whom ever He pleases then some one who doesnt even read arabic can be blessed with knowledge to see things in the QURAN that certian scholars cannot. Now a kalifa which is not just one person, can make laws by following the QURAN, and if he follows the QURAN and he knows that Allah can bless anybody with knowledge then if hes wrong he will be able to correct his mistakes. HOW many lies have congress told, how many cover ups, never admitting to their wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ive read it and i disagree

 

You know better than the learned clerics? Are you sure!

 

You said splitting the moon was to be taken as metaphor. So what criteria do you choose metaphor from reality, what criteria do you use to interpret the Koran and Hadith and what makes you so certain that your criteria is so much more sound than that of the learned clerics?

 

PS: Do you understand classical Arabic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(And, to be a bit mischievous, I am certain that a hadith could be found warning the Ummah to trust not in the majority for verily they be as a flock of sheep.)

Doubt it, but there might be one about following the wrong flock of sheep, one that likes to deal in sheep-drugs, free-sheep-sex and sheep blasphemhy.

 

I was actually postulating a genuine hadith about the dangers of following the herd - I bet (say $1?) there is one.

 

We don't gamble, remember :sl:

 

The whole thing about scholars smacks of aristocracy and priesthood. Scholars can also be influenced by things like culture, which can impede in their ability to look at Islam has something other than the one 1400 years ago, or the one in Bangladesh or Lebanon or wherever he comes from. Even in this forum, I think we should be allowed to express our own interpretations, as twowordsali has said. But then again, twowordsasli is wrong in a few ways. First of all, "There will be among my ummah people who will regard as permissible adultery, silk, alcohol and musical instruments." is from a hadith. Secondly, he said (can't find it right now) something about stringed instruments being from the devil (or something). Of course, does this make it haram or makruh (I think that's the word).

 

But there are few things you should realize fallow. These may have been mentioned in a long post by redeem, but short attention span. First of all, context. If something is a bit vague, the hadith normally has the context at the top, for example (this isn't a real one, just one I made up to show you how it looks like): "The Prophet (PBUH) was asked by one of his companions whether it was just to play musical instruments at his daughters wedding..." and so on. Second is the time, a bit like the context, but more when it came chronologically. That's why in the Quran, there are no contradictions, only abrogations. A second ruling may replace the first, for example in the Quran only praying drunk was not allowed, but eventually it was not getting drunk at all.

 

Hope this helped fallow :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Second is the time, a bit like the context, but more when it came chronologically. That's why in the Quran, there are no contradictions, only abrogations. A second ruling may replace the first, for example in the Quran only praying drunk was not allowed, but eventually it was not getting drunk at all.

 

That's good, but doesn't it make a bit of a mess of "infallible and unchanging"?

 

And what might be (or "is', if there are alreadyrules) the process for making laws and deciding cases in a caliphate? Does everyone agree to accept a majority of scholars? Or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole be all and end allness of Islam happened after the Final Sermon, where no new laws were made. After that it all became set.

 

Well, it's not different from what happens in Western Society hedon. Judges make the laws based on the precepts of common law and precedent. Scholars probably get together, have a chat and make fatwahs and such. But really, the job of the caliphate is just to do stuff like organize the state, plan roads and infrastructure, aid the economy, health care and law and security. Just like any welfare state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole be all and end allness of Islam happened after the Final Sermon, where no new laws were made. After that it all became set.

 

Well, it's not different from what happens in Western Society hedon. Judges make the laws based on the precepts of common law and precedent. Scholars probably get together, have a chat and make fatwahs and such. But really, the job of the caliphate is just to do stuff like organize the state, plan roads and infrastructure, aid the economy, health care and law and security. Just like any welfare state.

 

You can't really say "Western society" like that: there are differing legal systems around the world. Is the Chinese legal system "western", for example? Is the Fench system the same as the Greek? I assume that when you do say "Western society" you mean British-derived legal systems.

 

But I'm genuinely curious about the legal system in the caliphate. It's a huge part of the state's job to make, promulgate and enforce laws. How does it work in a caliphate? Do the chatting scholars have to decide (and by what processs do they decide?) every time that the issue arises that playing the piano is permissable, so the Beethoven concert can go ahead? Or will the laws be written in books so people can decide in advance whether it's worthwile buying season-tickets?

 

My main concern is that while the Koran might claim to have easily understood laws for absolutely every aspect of human life, getting Muslims here on earth to agree what those laws actually are seems to be impossible. If the caliphate isn't to be in a state of continuous litigation and stalled cases awaiting yet another chat among scholars, it will need to have some sort of written laws which are generally accepted as being the laws. Is this possible, do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, all this talk about the west has messed with my mind. I meant derivatives of the British common law system.

 

Of course it will be written in books. Like common law, there is precedent, and unless something happens culturally, or a new discovery of a hadith or verse or something, it will pretty much be the same. And because the caliphate's decision rules over all of Islam, not just those living in the nation, it becomes a new law. Hadith in fact are created often in response to a scenario, rather than the Quran which is mainly stuff that Allah says.

 

The Quran hasn't discussed the action needed for every scenario, but it has discussed the most important. In fact, the Quran is mainly stories and what Allahs rulings were on past events, like the story of Moses (by story I don't mean fairytale). For example, there is no mention of sport. But Allah said if something is not prohibited, it is allowed. So the quran is more like a blacklist than a white one. And you're constantly confusing the social ethics the scholars discuss and the laws that judges rule upon. The social ones are ot help make society better, and to help people get into heaven. These are most often not punishable by the state. Laws when broken however are. Rape and murder goes into the laws section. Piano playing goes into social ethics. Often they overlap, but thats how it goes. What you're considering, a state with a set of laws that is unchangeable and can not be added to, is impossible. The closest thing is the constitution, but there are other laws too. When stem cell research came into existence, we didn't have a "Article A (B2) 1912 states thou shalt not research stem cells, bub" or something like that. Laws must be created in response to events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that made sense :sl: If you are confused about some of the stuff I said (I know I am), then don't hesitate to ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, makes sense and raises questions - good combination.

 

But Allah said if something is not prohibited, it is allowed. So the quran is more like a blacklist than a white one.

 

Weeeeeell - fine in theory but I doubt that there are very many things at all that couldn't be prohibited if a scholar put his mind to it.

 

And you're constantly confusing the social ethics the scholars discuss and the laws that judges rule upon. The social ones are ot help make society better, and to help people get into heaven. These are most often not punishable by the state.

 

Doesn't reality say otherwise? Aren't the Saudi (and Acehnese, now) religious police punishing people for breaches of social ethics? This coes back to my questions - HOW does a caliphate decide on its laws? Why is the Saudi or Taliban model not going to be adopted? A Taliban-run caliphate would surely regard piano-playing as criminal.

 

What you're considering, a state with a set of laws that is unchangeable and can not be added to, is impossible.

 

I agree, but then I'm not the one who claims to have an infallible book containing all knowledge.

 

Laws must be created in response to events.

 

I can imagine a powerful reply with lots of quotes from hadiths telling you that that's verging on blasphemy, but I agree with you. That's why (I repeat) I'm interested in just HOW a caliphate's legal system works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weeeeeell - fine in theory but I doubt that there are very many things at all that couldn't be prohibited if a scholar put his mind to it.

That's a very good point. Often, a scholars perception of Islam may be influenced by his parents, the school in which he learnt (often a madras) and the culture in which he was raised, and therefore instead of learning social conduct from hadith, his social conduction changes hadith into what he wants. This is only a theory though, so I'm not accusing anyone of doing this.

Doesn't reality say otherwise? Aren't the Saudi (and Acehnese, now) religious police punishing people for breaches of social ethics?

Sometimes social ethics and law become one. Because, say, being promiscuous is seen as affecting society as a whole, and therefore should be punishable by law as well.

This coes back to my questions - HOW does a caliphate decide on its laws? Why is the Saudi or Taliban model not going to be adopted? A Taliban-run caliphate would surely regard piano-playing as criminal.

As far as I know, most people in this forum do not consider the Saudi government to be Islamic (I remember a post relating to this). For one, it is a monarchy. Also, just because something is an Islamic government does not make it a Caliphate. There has to be a general consensus among mullahs and such what is a caliphate.

I agree, but then I'm not the one who claims to have an infallible book containing all knowledge.

It contains everything to guide us on the right path.

I can imagine a powerful reply with lots of quotes from hadiths telling you that that's verging on blasphemy, but I agree with you. That's why (I repeat) I'm interested in just HOW a caliphate's legal system works.

I highly doubt it. We all know that thieves have their hands cut, right? Well, when there was a great famine, one of the 4 great caliphs decided to suspend the law for a while because if the law was still in place there'd be a lot of handless people around. The Quran does not have a clear answer to everything, but rather, a template of sorts to show us what we should do in certain situations. For example, it says life is sacred. With that knowledge, we must decide whether or not stem cell research is acceptable when it leads to saving someone elses life.

 

Also, how do you work the whole quote system? When I clicked reply, there were no quote boxes, and so I figured u mustve used the quote toggling thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fallow,

 

All Muslim scholars agree on the basic tenets of Islam, such as the five pillars of Islam and the six pillars of faith. However, I take it that you are talking about the practical aspects, and not the spiritual. Let me tell you a little thing to clear up your view: In the spiritual (in worship), everything is forbidden, except that which has been made OK for us. In the practical (in the worldly affairs), everything is permissible, except that which has been made forbidden for us.

 

This means that there will be varying interpretation when it comes to practical matters. Most mainstream practical/legal issues are agreed on by the majority of the scholars. But there are some non-mainstream issues which all scholars agree straddle the border between Islam and non-Islam. Some scholars will place them outside the bounds of Islam, and some scholars will place them inside the bounds of Islam. Such issues exist in every legal system in the world, whether it be religious or secular. Every legal system has a set basis which is unchanging, and the Islamic legal system (the Shari'ah) has this as well. Laws are often codified from precedent, and when a new case arises for which there is no precedent, then the process of deciding the case is the same as in any Western legal system: the constitution is refered to (in this case, this would include Quran and Hadith), previous incidents and cases which may be related to this one are also recalled. After all his been taken into consideration, the case is decided. I don't know what this process is called in secular law (I'm sure it has a legal term), but in Islamic jurisprudence it is called Ijtihaad.

 

When you ask people on this forum on a particular issue, it is like asking people who are not lawyers about a legal case. You would not ask a non-lawyer to help you in your case, so the same should be applied here... You should not ask a non-scholar to help you in this case.

 

However, regardless of the differences of opinion, each and every scholar respects the opinion of the other (as long as it falls within certain broad baseline guidelines of Islam). It is the same how one American judge considers another judge to be a patriotic American citizen, even if they disagree on certain issues. Of course, the opinion of the judge must lie within the baseline guidelines of what it means to be American (for example, it can't deny the constitution or the sovereignty of the USA, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×