A R C H I V E S
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
| Mohammad Shaikh ? |
|---|
| tq |
| 11/28/03 at 10:23:08 |
| Assalamo elikuim Has anyone heard of Mohammad Shaikh ? He is the founder International Islamic Propagation Center . Yesterday I met somebody who listens to his lectures. That person said that we dont need hadith since they are fabricated and stories but only Quran without any references just word to word translation. We(me and my husband ) had a long discussion with him. Couple of things I remember were THere is no Ahle-Kitab: That is Quran was the only book which was sent by Allah (swt). Quran has been since the begining. When I showed him in Quran where it talks about Injel and Torah been revealed before Quran , he said that INjeel and Torah which means law are attribute of Quran not separate books since many ayats in Quran it says Al Kitab that is just one book. And he quoted many ayat and when I pointed out that there is a mention of Injeel, Torah he simply said that look at its meaning as also Quran is called Furqan and we know that Furqan is not another book but another name for Quran. Also why would Allah sent different message to people before us ? therefore it is only Quran which was sent by Allah first to Prophet Mosa, then to Prophet Isa and then to Propet Muhammad. Also Quran is a book al-kitab which means that it something which written not some thing which was revealed . Salah is in Quran no need for Hadith When I said that we need the Prophet swa since Quran is the book of law and for its explanation we need ahadith, he said no we dont and people say salah is not mention in the Quran but it is. I said yes rukoo and sujdoo is but in what sequence and how many rakats? for that we follwo Prophet and he said no we dont and he quoted two ayats , I am just parapharasing the translation. ONe was that Ibrahim as is the Imam of the leader and another one was some thing like that muslim should take from the musalah at maqam-e- Ibrahim. I think they were in SUra Bakara. What he was basically saying that in Quran Allah tells that follow the way Prophet Ibrahim was praying at Kaba so in Kaba the way people are praying is the way. When I said that it is the way Prophet taught he said no it has always been there like this. There were other things also but main was that where in Quran it mentions Muhammad as it is not Muhammad bin Abdullah. It can be any Muhammad. Also any body who tells the ayahs is Rasool since the meaning of Rasool is the one who tells the Quran. and that Quran is in present tense and who ever reads it with just meaning. Also he said that who ever reads Quran and understand it, it is as it is revealed to him. He said in Arabic Nazool and understand is same. SO if I read Quran and understand it then it is as if it has been revealed to me and if I tell it to others then I am the messenger. His basic thing was that done believe in any stories( like when Angel Jabriel asked Prophet to read adn Prophet said that I cannot , he said dont you think ALlah wouild know this - therefore it is all stories, also after the first ayah was revealed and Prophte went to Hazrat Khadija's uncle who was jew to confirm it, he said that this story is made up by jews so that they can say that we told your prophet what to do etc.) I knew what he was saying was wrong but wish I had the knowledge to show it to him because whenever I was say8ing something he was saying just show this to me with Ayah . He was reading the ayah and he was translating htem himself. When i showed him in translation that it says Injeel and Torah he said that his translation is wrong since the are not translatiing the words. He said that if you take out all the stories which we have been brainwashed with since childhood and just read Quran and its translation then we will understand that it . Has anyone heard of this group before and how to answer them . Wasalam tq |
| Re: Mohammad Shaikh ? |
|---|
| MIT |
| 11/28/03 at 12:29:58 |
| as-salaamu alaikum If you go to http://www.dartmouth.edu/~alnur/ISLAM/HADITH/AUTH_SUNNAH/ select Chapter 1, there is a section called 'Two types of revelation.' That should be quite useful. I might add that the entire book is worth reading. |
| NS |
| Re: Mohammad Shaikh ? |
|---|
| veiled |
| 11/28/03 at 23:36:27 |
| Assalam alaikum I think I have heard of this group(if I'm not wrong its from pk)but had no idea that they propagate such nonsense like.......... there is no need to follow ahadith. so many times its wriiten in the quran that follow Allah and his Rasool.........well following Rasool means to follow his sunnah.Isnt it? I humbly suggest that you dont pay heed to any of the things they mentioned to you.May Allah guide us to the right path.ameen. |
| Re: Mohammad Shaikh ? |
|---|
| se7en |
| 12/02/03 at 04:33:32 |
| as salaamu alaykum wa rahmatullah, yeahhh.. unfortunately these people have been around for a while now. it is very scary because once people start to strip the hadeeth away from Islam, the Qur'an is next.. People who reject the hadeeth sometimes say that they are not authentic in their transmission, because it's based on a "this person heard that person" type chain of narration.. this is actually a really inaccurate assumption about how the hadeeth have been transmitted. I've mentioned this in a couple other posts in detail, but there is actually a science known as [i]Ilm al Rijaal[/i] (lit. 'the science of men', biographical studies) in which individuals who were known to transmit hadeeth were rated in terms of their credibility, their scholarly ability (memory, acuity, level of knowledge, etc), and their moral uprightness. there are many ratings, the highest being [i]thiqatun thiqa[/i], in which they receive the highest marks in all the dimensions studied, to the worst of the worst from whom no hadeeth are accepted. I think we can think of this as similar to what's done in our court system in the US today - what makes a person a credible witness or an expert in the field? It has to do with their reputation, their work, and how they are known to the scholarly community, and depending on their reputation, their words carry a particular weight. The hadeeth were transmitted in circles of knowledge, so we are talking about a pool of scholars who were known to each other and who were familiar with each others work, teachings, scholarly ability and memory. Texts narrated by a person unknown to the scholarly community were assigned a lower level of authenticity, even if they was found to be valid. There were other checks of validity as well, such as whether all the 'links' in the chain match up chronologically and geographically. So we are not talking about random people claiming the prophet [saw] said or did something. There was actually a really rigorous system set up, that the narrators of hadeeth were all subject to. There's also a method of determining the authenticity of the text of the hadeeth itself. There's a check on the actual words of the text used - is there a foreign word included, or is it grammatically incorrect? Was it reported to have been said at a time that does not fit appropriately in the Seerah? Does it coincide with the prophet [saw]'s general teachings? This is literally a science, that many scholars devoted their lives to. (btw, if I remember correctly, if a hadeeth was found to be weak, even if it was sound in terms of its teachings, it was not used as a source of legislation, but only as a support for other more authentic texts of the Qur'an/hadeeth.. this totally illustrates how intelligently the hadeeth were taken into consideration by the ulama, and weighed and analyzed with a lot of wisdom and discernment.) Also I think we are dealing with a little bit of ethnocentrism here.. The Arabs, as well as all pre-modern people, relied heavily on oral tradition. In our minds the words 'oral tradition' conjure images of people around a fire telling myths and folk lore. In actuality, the Arabs were extremely sophisticated in terms of language and were considered masters of linguistics and poetry. Without depending upon writing systems, there was a development of prodigious memory skills. They memorized literally *thousands* of verses of poetry. Any student of knowledge was expected to memorize what was transmitted to them by the teacher; and before any teacher taught from a work or book, it was expected that they memorized it in its entirety. Writing did have its part in the scholarly tradition, but it was supplemental to the idea of [i]hifdh[/i] - memorization and preservation of the information in memory and in heart. Also contrary to popular belief, the hadeeth *were* actually written within a few years after the prophet [saw]'s death, and there are even some texts that indicate that they were written during the lifetime of the prophet [saw] (though this is an issue of scholarly contention). I think we are colored by the western academic measurement of authenticity - simply because something is written does not *necessitate* that it is authentic. but what we find in the hadith literature is that many texts were *both* written and memorized. another thing -- there are many hadeeth that are [i]mutawatir[/i] - narrations that have, at each level of the chain of transmission, such a huge number of narrators that it is statistically impossible for it to have been fabricated. This level of transmission is actually the same level of authenticity as the Qu'ran itself. It is considered [i]Qati'[/i] - definitive - and if anyone rejects them they are considered outside the bounds of Islam. To sum up: the sciences of hadeeth and hadeeth criticism are actually a lot more sophisticated, scientific and rigorous than many people assume. Usually people's rejection of the hadeeth stems from their dislike of the message they impart. We need to keep in mind that the validity or authenticity of something is *independent* of our personal feelings about it, and we shouldn't let our personal, cultural, or political perspectives become the lens by which we (mis)interpret religion. Also, just to respond to some of the points you mentioned ... [quote] THere is no Ahle-Kitab: That is Quran was the only book which was sent by Allah (SubHana Wa Ta`ala). Quran has been since the begining. When I showed him in Quran where it talks about Injel and Torah been revealed before Quran , he said that INjeel and Torah which means law are attribute of Quran not separate books since many ayats in Quran it says Al Kitab that is just one book. And he quoted many ayat and when I pointed out that there is a mention of Injeel, Torah he simply said that look at its meaning as also Quran is called Furqan and we know that Furqan is not another book but another name for Quran. Also why would Allah sent different message to people before us ? therefore it is only Quran which was sent by Allah first to Prophet Mosa, then to Prophet Isa and then to Propet Muhammad. Also Quran is a book al-kitab which means that it something which written not some thing which was revealed . [/quote] This is actually a really complex scholarly debate that goes back to the time of the Mu'tazila, an early philosophical movement influenced by Hellinistic thought. The question of whether the Qur'an is eternal or not and the issues related to this are really beyond our scope, and I think for the most part should just be avoided altogether. I had the opportunity to sit in a class with Dr. Sherman Jackson when this question was brought up - and if anyone could answer this question, it's Dr. Jackson - and he said basically, stay away from this kind of stuff, because it is has very little relevance to us, and we are definitely not equipped in the areas necessary to even understand the debate properly. What we know is that the Qur'an is the last revealed book from Allah, azza wajal, sent as a guidance for humanity and it will be preserved until the Day of Judgement. We also know that there were indeed differences in the message the prophets brought - not in the vertical relationship - there was no difference in the message they brought about God, His unity, and our duty as human beings to worship and love Him - but there were differences in the horizontal relationship -- in the laws relating to business, diet, dress, marriage, etc. The laws that were incumbent on the people of Prophet Moses were different than those of Prophet Jesus, and so forth (peace be upon them all), and were the most appropriate for their time, place and context. As the last prophet, Muhammad [saw], came with a more universal message that was not specific to one people but applicable to all of humanity, as can be seen in our ummah today :) [quote]Salah is in Quran no need for Hadith When I said that we need the Prophet swa since Quran is the book of law and for its explanation we need ahadith, he said no we dont and people say salah is not mention in the Quran but it is. I said yes rukoo and sujdoo is but in what sequence and how many rakats? for that we follwo Prophet and he said no we dont and he quoted two ayats , I am just parapharasing the translation. ONe was that Ibrahim as is the Imam of the leader and another one was some thing like that muslim should take from the musalah at maqam-e- Ibrahim. I think they were in SUra Bakara. What he was basically saying that in Quran Allah tells that follow the way Prophet Ibrahim was praying at Kaba so in Kaba the way people are praying is the way. When I said that it is the way Prophet taught he said no it has always been there like this. [/quote] Hmm.. he is assuming that the prayer of Ibraheem alayhis salam was preserved at the Ka'bah. If that were the case, why didn't the Muslims pray five times a day *before* Israa wal Mi'raaj? Why did Jibreel (alayhis salam) teach Muhammad [saw] the movements for prayer if it was something already established and known? We know that before the revelation to Muhammad [saw], the Ka'aba was actually turned into a place for pagan worship, that had idols and stuff inside.. if the way Ibraheem (as) worshipped and believed was preserved, what was the function of another prophet? What we know is that over time, his teachings became corrupted and there was a need for another prophet to purify the teachings, and return people to tawheed and worship of Allah alone. We know that there were some people who were hunafaa - who stayed true to the teachings of Ibraheem (as) and never worshipped idols - but they had no formal method of worship as far as I know, Allahu a'lam. [quote]There were other things also but main was that where in Quran it mentions Muhammad as it is not Muhammad bin Abdullah. It can be any Muhammad. Also any body who tells the ayahs is Rasool since the meaning of Rasool is the one who tells the Quran. and that Quran is in present tense and who ever reads it with just meaning. Also he said that who ever reads Quran and understand it, it is as it is revealed to him. He said in Arabic Nazool and understand is same. SO if I read Quran and understand it then it is as if it has been revealed to me and if I tell it to others then I am the messenger. [/quote] This sounds just a little crazy to me. Rationally speaking, if all of us could interpret the Qur'an equally, what was the function of a prophet in the first place? Was he not sent to teach us *how* to interpret and implement the teachings of the Qur'an? I'm a history major.. if I read a book on neuroscience, would I be able to understand and interpret it correctly, versus a med student who knows the author and sits in his classes? I don't think so.. in the same way, I think it's kind of arrogant for a person to assume that they can interpret the Qur'an equally with the one [saw] who knew the Author, Himself. anyway.. this is not very organized.. I hope it's helped, insha'Allah. and tq, masha'Allah I'm so proud that you didn't just let him say these things, and asked him questions and asked him to explain himself. Allahu a'lam.. may Allah increase us in love for Him, and love for His beloved Muhammad [saw], and grant us the love of those who love Him. wasalaamu alaykum wa rahmatullah :-) |
| 12/02/03 at 05:42:07 |
| se7en |
| Re: Mohammad Shaikh ? |
|---|
| se7en |
| 12/02/03 at 06:51:14 |
| as salaamu alaykum, since we're talking about the Arab's mastery with language and poetry.. I find it so amazing that they could compose poetry, just as we compose sentences in our normal conversations! something interesting I read recently: [color=black] The Suffering of Uthman ibn Madh'oun: When Uthman saw the pain and torture his brothers in faith were subjected to while he moved about freely under the protection of al Waleed ibn Mughirah, he said, 'by Allah it is a great defect within me to have the protection of one of these idolators' and then went to al Walid and relieved him of his promise of protection, saying 'after today, I would not like to seek anyone's protection besides Allah.' He then addressed the idolators in a manner that made the hostile and aggressive, and Lubayd ibn Rabi'ah punched him in the eye, turning it black and blue. al Walid, who was looking on, said 'by God, oh nephew of mine, your eye was not in need of this! you were under strong protection!' Uthman replied: Nay, by Allah, my good eye can receive the same treatment for Allah's pleasure. I am under the protection of One who is more powerful than you, oh Walid. Then he chanted these lines of poetry: [i] If my eye, for my Lord's pleasure was struck by a disbelievers hands he who has strayed from guidance then the Beneficent has compensated for it and whoever He is is pleased with o people, is of the fortunate though you say I have erred, and am foolish to follow the way of the messenger I seek only Allah and the truth of this path regardless of attack or oppression. [/i] [/color] wasalaamu alaykum wa rahmatullah |
| 12/02/03 at 06:53:36 |
| se7en |
| Re: Mohammad Shaikh ? |
|---|
| tq |
| 12/02/03 at 08:49:53 |
| Assalamo elikuim Jazak Allah khair for the replies. Last Friday me and my husband took him to our Imam at the masjid. Mashallah our Imam is very knowledgeable. Our Imam talked to him gently and tried to explain to him through Quran that what he is saying is not right. After couple of hours the meeting ended since it was very late in the night. But our friend coming out of the meeting said that he has no confusion in what he believes and that it is us and the Imam who should learn. When I pointed out (despite my husband's indicating not to :) ) that since Arabic is not our language and that the Imam corrected his three mistakes of just simple Arabic, that he should atleast learn Arabic to understand Quran. He said no where in Quran it says that a person needs to learn Arabic adn that Quran is Hudal Naas i.e. Hadiyat for all mankind so therefore who will read it will understand its message and that they dont need Hadith and other scholar for that. Well it ended there but in a way I was glad taht we met that person because I learned a lot in all this. Wasalam tq PS: thanks Seven your post is very informative :) |
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board |