Re: on yuksel and the "19" folk - Bible/Hadith use.

salaam Afdhere, 

Afdhere wrote:

"just couple centuries after muhammad's death. so,
just because one not-so-authentic source is older than
other not-so-authentic sources... it makes it more
reliable? :) come on now."

Older is not the point...being a primary document is. 
The hadiths span 23 years at most, the books of bible
spans millenia - making it a useful resource to
identify things that the Quran speaks of.  Not the
bible itself, but its various 66 books are each to
varying degrees historical artifacts in ways the
hadiths cannot function as.  Hadiths are contemporary
to the Quran, the books of the bible are not.  In this
context the bible has utility in areas the hadiths may
not - thats all.  In fact, even if tampered with the
books of the bible are literally refered to in the
Quran (i.e. the Psalms), this is not so for hadiths
(not hints, I'm talking literally now).  I don't know
about these peoples' intentions.  I'm just saying that
it is theoretically possible to use the books of the
bible in Quranic commentary and not the hadiths
without having ill-intent.  

Also, the people (or person - lol) at Quran.org also
say that the hadiths are Satanic.  You're right, I too
am skeptical of people who only view things in
dichotomies.




--- Afdhere Jama <[email protected]> wrote:

---------------------------------





salam, elisha,

i definitely think the bible is remarkable, but in the
same breath think the hadiths are remarkable. to cast
one 'satanic', and use the other one... seems to me
... rather dishonest.

you see, historically, the jewish bible have destroyed
twice by outside forces. jewish religious leaders had
to write it from memory. as for the rest of the bible,
the new testament that is mainly used today... was 
chosen by a few people at a conference just a few
centuries prior to muhammad's coming. similar, the
majority of hadiths were 'approved' by a sunni
caliph... just couple centuries after muhammad's
death. so, just because one not-so-authentic source is
older than other not-so-authentic sources... it makes
it more reliable? :) come on now. 

i have no problem with people using religious sources
and claiming they are authentic, so long as they are
honest and consistent. in this sense, it makes me
laugh when sunnis claim their version of muslim
history (sunni hadiths) are more authentic than the
shi'ites version of history (shia hadiths.) 

similar, the submitters/ics/khalifites/etc are not
being honest when categorizing hadiths are satanic...
and then turning around and using the bible.

by the way, quran.org is more like yuksel and friends
:) however, they are more neutral between 19ers and
ics (submission.org) 



afdhere

Afdhere Jama 
Editorial Director 
HURIYAH Publications 
S A N F R A N C I S C O 
[email protected] 
http://www.huriyahmag.org 
 
 
>From: Elisha >Reply-To:
[email protected] >To:
[email protected] >Subject:
Re: [Progressivemuslimsnetwork] on yuksel and the "19"
folk - Bible/Hadith use. >Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003
07:28:28 -0800 (PST) > >salaam all, > >I have only
been following this dialogue for the past >few days. I
also have a question, has anyone been to >quran.org. I
found that site to be very helpful. >They too have a
section dedicated to the number 19 and >"Quranic
Code". It caught my eye because in the >Nation of
Islam, 19 is taught as being sacred too - >which is
where I first heard of this notion. I've not >made
heads and tales of it yet...though it seems
>consistent and logical, don't know how accurate it
is. > > >Secondly, I must take issue being made with
the bible >being used to explain and translate Quran
versus the >hadith. I do believe it is perfectly
logical for one >to use "the bible" to interpret and
explain and not >Hadith. While it can be argued that
both are really >hadiths, that have been tampered
with. The bible or >better stated the books of the
bible span a 3,500 to >4,000 year period. They truely
are remarkable >artifacts, this cannot be said of the
hadiths of >Prophet Mohammed, even if authentic. There
are many >references that the Quran makes to well
known stories >of the Abrahamic prophets that are not
really >expounded on. It would only make sense to
refer to >another document that existed during those
times. If >the books of the bible are used in this
context, then >its use seems logical even at the
exclusion of the >hadiths. In the book of Numbers, it
gives a proported >head count of the Isrealites at the
time of their >"Exodus" out Egypt and into Canaan (I
think). This is >a useful artifact, whether its true
or not is >secondary. The various hadiths simply do
not function >in this capacity. Neither should be used
as an >authoritative resource to determine the
"single" or >"sole" meaning of this or that in
esoteric or legal >matters that the Quran presents. In
this specific >context I think neither are sufficient,
but if one >were to be it used it would have to be the
proported >hadiths of Mohammed (PBUH). In any case my
main >arguement is that it is conceivable and rational
from >a historical view to use the books of the bible
and >not the proported hadiths of prophet Mohammed in
>translating Quran...my two cents. >


---------------------------------
 Take advantage of our limited-time introductory offer
for dial-up Internet access.
_______________________________________________ProgressiveMuslims
mailing
[email protected]://willo.nitric.co.za/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/progressivemuslims


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree