| Newsgroups |
gmane.culture.religion.muslim.progressive |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
--- On Thu 12/25, < [email protected] > wrote:
From: [mailto: [email protected]]
To: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 05:30:02 +0200
Subject: ProgressiveMuslims digest, Vol 1 #329 - 6 msgs
Send ProgressiveMuslims mailing list submissions to<br> [email protected]<br><br>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br> http://willo.nitric.co.za/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/progressivemuslims<br>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br> [email protected]<br><br>You can reach the person managing the list at<br> [email protected]<br><br>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>than "Re: Contents of ProgressiveMuslims digest..."<br><br><br>Today's Topics:<br><br> 1. Re: on yuksel and the "19" folk - Bible/Hadith use. (Elisha)<br> 2. Re: on yuksel and the "19" folk - Bible/Hadith use. (Afdhere Jama)<br> 3. Re: on yuksel and the "19" folk - Bible/Hadith use. (Elisha)<br> 4. Re: on yuksel and the "19" folk - Bible/Hadith use. (A
fdhere Jama)<br> 5. Re: on yuksel and the "19" folk - Bible/Hadith use. (Elisha)<br> 6. Re: on yuksel and the "19" folk - Bible/Hadith use. (Afdhere Jama)<br><br>--__--__--<br><br>Message: 1<br>Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 07:28:28 -0800 (PST)<br>From: Elisha <[email protected]><br>Subject: Re: [Progressivemuslimsnetwork] on yuksel and the "19" folk - Bible/Hadith use.<br>To: [email protected]<br>Reply-To: [email protected]<br><br>salaam all,<br><br>I have only been following this dialogue for the past<br>few days. I also have a question, has anyone been to<br>quran.org. I found that site to be very helpful. <br>They too have a section dedicated to the number 19 and<br>"Quranic Code". It caught my eye because in the<br>Nation of Islam, 19 is taught as being sacred too -<br>which is where I first heard of this notion. I've not<br>mad
e heads and tales of it yet...though it seems<br>consistent and logical, don't know how accurate it is.<br><br><br>Secondly, I must take issue being made with the bible<br>being used to explain and translate Quran versus the<br>hadith. I do believe it is perfectly logical for one<br>to use "the bible" to interpret and explain and not<br>Hadith. While it can be argued that both are really<br>hadiths, that have been tampered with. The bible or<br>better stated the books of the bible span a 3,500 to<br>4,000 year period. They truely are remarkable<br>artifacts, this cannot be said of the hadiths of<br>Prophet Mohammed, even if authentic. There are many<br>references that the Quran makes to well known stories<br>of the Abrahamic prophets that are not really<br>expounded on. It would only make sense to refer to<br>another document that existed during those times. If<br>the books of t
he bible are used in this context, then<br>its use seems logical even at the exclusion of the<br>hadiths. In the book of Numbers, it gives a proported<br>head count of the Isrealites at the time of their<br>"Exodus" out Egypt and into Canaan (I think). This is<br>a useful artifact, whether its true or not is<br>secondary. The various hadiths simply do not function<br>in this capacity. Neither should be used as an<br>authoritative resource to determine the "single" or<br>"sole" meaning of this or that in esoteric or legal<br>matters that the Quran presents. In this specific<br>context I think neither are sufficient, but if one<br>were to be it used it would have to be the proported<br>hadiths of Mohammed (PBUH). In any case my main<br>arguement is that it is conceivable and rational from<br>a historical view to use the books of the bible and<br>not the proported hadiths of prophet
Mohammed in<br>translating Quran...my two cents. <br><br>--- Afdhere Jama <[email protected]> wrote:<br><br>---------------------------------<br><br><br><br><br><br>salam, uzma, talib, na'eem and others,<br><br>yuksel is a lawyer who lives in arizona. in the late<br>1980s, he was companion of rashad khalifa (the<br>self-declared messenger of god.) when khalifa was<br>murdered in his office in 1990 (by nutty<br>traditionalists, no doubt), yuksel (and others) broke<br>away from the "mainst
ream" khalifites (the<br>"mainstream" are now at submission.org)... claiming<br>they were becoming like the traditional muslims. <br><br>that said, he still believes rashad khalifa was "the<br>messenger of the covenant", believes in the supposed<br>miracle 19 (he is actually the one who started<br>19.org), etc. <br><br>interestingly enough, in early 1980s, he was jailed in<br>turkey because he was somehow involved with terrorist<br>groups that called for islamist rule in the country.<br>at that time, he was die-hard sunni and since he<br>believed in the complete authenticity of the hadiths,<br>which rashad khalifa proclaimed was satanic, he became<br>very much anti-khalifa, even threatened him. later, in<br>prison, he became a believer :)<br><br>i'm always up for any muslims who can think outside of<br>their boxes, but this guy remains to be a nut-- on any<br>side. whatever happened to
good 'ole middle ground?<br>isn't there a path between thinking the hadiths are<br>satanic, looking at them like they destroyed islam and<br>blaming them for all the horrible things muslims have<br>done, or complete authentic, claiming it is not<br>'tampered' with, etc? i guess people like extremism.<br><br>like na'eem mentioned, they will diss the hadiths...<br>but will cross-reference with the bible and/or other<br>historical texts. me thinks that is a bit odd. in my<br>opinion, it is a joke to cast the hadiths satanic and<br>then proclaim to believe in the authenticity of the<br>qur'an. both texts are from the same period.... by the<br>same people... :-P<br><br><br> <br><br>your brother,<br><br>afdhere<br><br>Afdhere Jama <br>Editorial Director <br>HURIYAH Publications <br>S A N F R A N C I S C O <br>[email protected] <br>http://www.huriyahmag.org <br> <br>>From: UzmaMazhar@aol
.com >Reply-To:<br>[email protected] >To:<br>[email protected] >Subject:<br>Re: [Progressivemuslimsnetwork] New Translation >Date:<br>Wed, 24 Dec 2003 09:22:24 EST > >As Salam Aleikum > ><br>> http://www.yuksel.org/e/books/rtq.htm > > >Yuksel<br>has a link '19.org' on his site that connects to<br>articles about the >Rashid Khalifa translation of the<br>Quran dealing with the miracle of 19 in the >Quran. In<br>one of his articles he says he is not a 19er but from<br>other articles >I got the impression that he believes<br>this interpretation. How does this >belief factor into<br>his new translation? > >Uzma <br><br><br>---------------------------------<br> Have fun customizing MSN Messenger learn how here! <br>_______________________________________________ProgressiveMuslims<br>mailing<br>[email protected]
://willo.nitric.co.za/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/progressivemuslims<br><br><br>__________________________________<br>Do you Yahoo!?<br>Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard<br>http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree<br><br><br>--__--__--<br><br>Message: 2<br>From: "Afdhere Jama" <[email protected]><br>To: [email protected]<br>Subject: Re: [Progressivemuslimsnetwork] on yuksel and the "19" folk - Bible/Hadith use.<br>Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 13:33:02 -0800<br>Reply-To: [email protected]<br><br><html><div style='background-color:'><P><BR><BR></P><br><P>salam, elisha,</P><br><P>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.</P><br><P>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. </P><br><P
>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.) </P><br><P>similar, the submitters/ics/khalifites/etc are not being honest when categorizing hadiths are satanic... and then turning around and using the bible.</P><br><P>by the way, quran.org is more like yuksel and friends :) however, they are more neutral between 19ers and ics (submission.org) <BR><BR></P><br><P>afdhere<BR></P><br><DIV><STRONG>Afdhere Jama </STRONG><BR>Editorial Director <BR><EM>HURIYAH Publications </EM><BR>S A N F R A N C I S C O <BR><A href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected] </A><BR><A href="http://www.huriyahmag.org ">http://www.huriyahmag.org </A><
/DIV><br><DIV> </DIV><br><DIV> </DIV>>From: Elisha <[email protected]>>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 b
eing 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 gi
ves 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. ></div><br clear=all><hr> <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMAENUS/2740??PS=">T
ake advantage of our limited-time introductory offer for dial-up Internet access.</a> </html><br><br><br>--__--__--<br><br>Message: 3<br>Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 14:09:14 -0800 (PST)<br>From: Elisha <[email protected]><br>Subject: Re: [Progressivemuslimsnetwork] on yuksel and the "19" folk - Bible/Hadith use.<br>To: [email protected]<br>Reply-To: [email protected]<br><br>salaam Afdhere, <br><br>Afdhere wrote:<br><br>"just couple centuries after muh
ammad's death. so,<br>just because one not-so-authentic source is older than<br>other not-so-authentic sources... it makes it more<br>reliable? :) come on now."<br><br>Older is not the point...being a primary document is. <br>The hadiths span 23 years at most, the books of bible<br>spans millenia - making it a useful resource to<br>identify things that the Quran speaks of. Not the<br>bible itself, but its various 66 books are each to<br>varying degrees historical artifacts in ways the<br>hadiths cannot function as. Hadiths are contemporary<br>to the Quran, the books of the bible are not. In this<br>context the bible has utility in areas the hadiths may<br>not - thats all. In fact, even if tampered with the<br>books of the bible are literally refered to in the<br>Quran (i.e. the Psalms), this is not so for hadiths<br>(not hints, I'm talking literally now). I don't know<br>about thes
e peoples' intentions. I'm just saying that<br>it is theoretically possible to use the books of the<br>bible in Quranic commentary and not the hadiths<br>without having ill-intent. <br><br>Also, the people (or person - lol) at Quran.org also<br>say that the hadiths are Satanic. You're right, I too<br>am skeptical of people who only view things in<br>dichotomies.<br><br><br><br><br>--- Afdhere Jama <[email protected]> wrote:<br><br>---------------------------------<br><br><br><br><br><br>salam, elisha,<br><br>i definitely think the bible is remarkable, but in the<br>same breath think the hadiths are remarkable. to cast<br>one 'satanic', and use the other one... seems to me<br>... rather dishonest.<br><br>you see, historically, the jewish bible have destroyed<br>twice by outside forces. jewish religious leaders had<br>to write it from memory. as for the rest of the bible,<br>the new
testament that is mainly used today... was <br>chosen by a few people at a conference just a few<br>centuries prior to muhammad's coming. similar, the<br>majority of hadiths were 'approved' by a sunni<br>caliph... just couple centuries after muhammad's<br>death. so, just because one not-so-authentic source is<br>older than other not-so-authentic sources... it makes<br>it more reliable? :) come on now. <br><br>i have no problem with people using religious sources<br>and claiming they are authentic, so long as they are<br>honest and consistent. in this sense, it makes me<br>laugh when sunnis claim their version of muslim<br>history (sunni hadiths) are more authentic than the<br>shi'ites version of history (shia hadiths.) <br><br>similar, the submitters/ics/khalifites/etc are not<br>being honest when categorizing hadiths are satanic...<br>and then turning around and using the bible.<br><
br>by the way, quran.org is more like yuksel and friends<br>:) however, they are more neutral between 19ers and<br>ics (submission.org) <br><br><br><br>afdhere<br><br>Afdhere Jama <br>Editorial Director <br>HURIYAH Publications <br>S A N F R A N C I S C O <br>[email protected] <br>http://www.huriyahmag.org <br> <br> <br>>From: Elisha >Reply-To:<br>[email protected] >To:<br>[email protected] >Subject:<br>Re: [Progressivemuslimsnetwork] on yuksel and the "19"<br>folk - Bible/Hadith use. >Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003<br>07:28:28 -0800 (PST) > >salaam all, > >I have only<br>been following this dialogue for the past >few days. I<br>also have a question, has anyone been to >quran.org. I<br>found that site to be very helpful. >They too have a<br>section dedicated to the number 19 and >"Quranic<br>Code". It caught my eye because in the >Nation of<b
r>Islam, 19 is taught as being sacred too - >which is<br>where I first heard of this notion. I've not >made<br>heads and tales of it yet...though it seems<br>>consistent and logical, don't know how accurate it<br>is. > > >Secondly, I must take issue being made with<br>the bible >being used to explain and translate Quran<br>versus the >hadith. I do believe it is perfectly<br>logical for one >to use "the bible" to interpret and<br>explain and not >Hadith. While it can be argued that<br>both are real
ly >hadiths, that have been tampered<br>with. The bible or >better stated the books of the<br>bible span a 3,500 to >4,000 year period. They truely<br>are remarkable >artifacts, this cannot be said of the<br>hadiths of >Prophet Mohammed, even if authentic. There<br>are many >references that the Quran makes to well<br>known stories >of the Abrahamic prophets that are not<br>really >expounded on. It would only make sense to<br>refer to >another document that existed during those<br>times. If >the books of the bible are used in this<br>context, then >its use seems logical even at the<br>exclusion of the >hadiths. In the book of Numbers, it<br>gives a proported >head count of the Isrealites at the<br>time of their >"Exodus" out Egypt and into Canaan (I<br>think). This is >a useful artifact, whether its true<br>or not is >secondary. The various hadiths simply do<br>not function >in this capa
city. Neither should be used<br>as an >authoritative resource to determine the<br>"single" or >"sole" meaning of this or that in<br>esoteric or legal >matters that the Quran presents. In<br>this specific >context I think neither are sufficient,<br>but if one >were to be it used it would have to be the<br>proported >hadiths of Mohammed (PBUH). In any case my<br>main >arguement is that it is conceivable and rational<br>from >a historical view to use the books of the bible<br>and >not the proported hadiths of prophet Mohammed in<br>>translating Quran...my two cents. ><br><br><br>---------------------------------<br> Take advantage of our limited-time introductory offer<br>for dial-up Internet access.<br>_______________________________________________ProgressiveMuslims<br>mailing<br>[email protected]://willo.nitric.co.za/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/progressivem
uslims<br><br><br>__________________________________<br>Do you Yahoo!?<br>Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard<br>http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree<br><br><br>--__--__--<br><br>Message: 4<br>From: "Afdhere Jama" <[email protected]><br>To: [email protected]<br>Subject: Re: [Progressivemuslimsnetwork] on yuksel and the "19" folk - Bible/Hadith use.<br>Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 14:31:31 -0800<br>Reply-To: [email protected]<br><br><html><div style='background-color:'><P><BR>salam,</P><br><P>for me, the bible are historical companion to the qur'an prior to muhammad's coming ... while the hadiths are historical companion to the qur'an during/post muhammad. the 23 year span of the hadiths are very important to the qur'an. without the hadiths, we would have no clue about stuff qur'an mentions in passing... that took place durin
g those 23 years. <BR></P>afdhere<BR><BR><BR><br><DIV><STRONG>Afdhere Jama </STRONG><BR>Editorial Director <BR><EM>HURIYAH Publications </EM><BR>S A N F R A N C I S C O <BR><A href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected] </A><BR><A href="http://www.huriyahmag.org ">http://www.huriyahmag.org </A></DIV><br><DIV> </DIV>>From: Elisha <[email protected]>>Reply-To: [email protected] >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [Progressivemuslimsnetwork] on yuksel and the "19" folk - Bible/Hadith use. >Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 14:09:14 -0800 (PST) > >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. > > > > </div><br clear=all><hr> <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMAENUS/2746??PS=">Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work and yourself. </a> </html><br><br><br>--__--__--<br><br>Message: 5<br>Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 18:47:17 -0800 (PST)<br>From: Elisha <elisha10016@yaho
o.com><br>Subject: Re: [Progressivemuslimsnetwork] on yuksel and the "19" folk - Bible/Hadith use.<br>To: [email protected]<br>Reply-To: [email protected]<br><br>salaam,<br><br>Thx Afdhere I think u bring up another interesting<br>point - one that I'm wrestling with now. <br><br>Afdhere write:<br><br>salam,<br><br>"for me, the bible are historical companion to the<br>qur'an prior to muhammad's coming" <br><br>I kinda disagree. As u know there was no bible before<br>Muhammad, so I'm assuming u mean the Gospel and Torah.<br> These were the revealed word of God according to<br>Islam. They were not hadiths of any prophet, they<br>were Al-Kitab the Book. Because they were destroyed<br>and or lost the Quran was revealed. The Quran is<br>Torah and Injeel revised as well as itself - Quran. <br>The Gospel doesn't exist today. The bible conta
ins<br>four varying accounts of the Gospel 'The Gospel<br>according Matthew', etc. That would be like four<br>varying accounts of the Quran. According to Islam the<br>Gospel (injeel) and Torah are not the hadiths of any<br>prophet they were scripture.<br><br>The real issue that I'm wrestling with is highlighted<br>by this statement you made<br><br>"the 23 year span of the hadiths are very important to<br>the qur'an. without the hadiths, we would have no clue<br>about stuff qur'an mentions in passing..." <br><br>who is the "we", that you are referring to. Would the<br>Sahaba, the prophet's comtemporaries be apart of this?<br>Or are you referring to all generations after the<br>prophet. There are whole parts of the Quran that<br>specifically address the Arab people, their are parts<br>of the Quran that chide the people for rejecting one<br>raised from among their own kith and kin.
How could<br>this ever apply to anyone who lives and breaths today?<br> Maybe those things in the Quran that need hadith to<br>be explained fully are not meant for us anyway? Just<br>a thought. To me, there are clear differences between<br>statements or even directives given under specified<br>conditions versus the broader declarative statemnts<br>about humankind, goodness, shaitan and humankind's<br>relationship to God. Maybe there are parts of the<br>Quran that are to serve as a record of God's<br>interaction with the sahaba, as an example of how God<br>works but not necessarily directives for us to follow<br>in 2003. If we need hadiths to interpret it, was it<br>really meant for us? <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br> <br><br>--- Afdhere Jama <[email protected]> wrote:<br><br>---------------------------------<br><br><br>salam,<br><br>for me,
the bible are historical companion to the<br>qur'an prior to muhammad's coming ... while the<br>hadiths are historical companion to the qur'an<br>during/post muhammad. the 23 year span of the hadiths<br>are very important to the qur'an. without the hadiths,<br>we would have no clue about stuff qur'an mentions in<br>passing... that took place during those 23 years. <br><br>afdhere<br><br><br>Afdhere Jama <br>Editorial Director <br>HURIYAH Publications <br>S A N F R A N C I S C O <br>editor@huriyah
mag.org <br>http://www.huriyahmag.org <br> <br>>From: Elisha >Reply-To:<br>[email protected] >To:<br>[email protected] >Subject:<br>Re: [Progressivemuslimsnetwork] on yuksel and the "19"<br>folk - Bible/Hadith use. >Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003<br>14:09:14 -0800 (PST) > >salaam Afdhere, > >Afdhere<br>wrote: > >"just couple centuries after muhammad's<br>death. so, >just because one not-so-authentic source<br>is older than >other not-so-authentic sources... it<br>makes it more >reliable? :) come on now." > >Older is<br>not the point...being a primary document is. >The<br>hadiths span 23 years at most, the books of bible<br>>spans millenia - making it a useful resource to<br>>identify things that the Quran speaks of. Not the<br>>bible itself, but its various 66 books are each to<br>>varying degrees historical artifacts in ways the<br>>hadiths canno
t function as. Hadiths are contemporary<br>>to the Quran, the books of the bible are not. In this<br>>context the bible has utility in areas the hadiths<br>may >not - thats all. In fact, even if tampered with<br>the >books of the bible are literally refered to in<br>the >Quran (i.e. the Psalms), this is not so for<br>hadiths >(not hints, I'm talking literally now). I<br>don't know >about these peoples' intentions. I'm just<br>saying that >it is theoretically possible to use the<br>books of the >bible in Quranic commentary and not the<br>hadiths >without having ill-intent. > >Also, the<br>people (or person - lol) at Quran.org also >say that<br>the hadiths are Satanic. You're right, I too >am<br>skeptical of people who only view things in<br>>dichotomies. > > > > <br><br><br>---------------------------------<br> Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing<br>kids, home, work and y
ourself. <br>_______________________________________________ProgressiveMuslims<br>mailing<br>[email protected]://willo.nitric.co.za/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/progressivemuslims<br><br><br>__________________________________<br>Do you Yahoo!?<br>Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard<br>http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree<br><br><br>--__--__--<br><br>Message: 6<br>From: "Afdhere Jama" <[email protected]><br>To: [email protected]<br>Subject: Re: [Progressivemuslimsnetwork] on yuksel and the "19" folk - Bible/Hadith use.<br>Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:28:36 -0800<br>Reply-To: [email protected]<br><br><html><div style='background-color:'><P><BR><BR></P><br><P>salam, elisha,</P><br><P>i'm not going to get into what bible was/wasn't available during muhammad's time/prior, etc. the companionship of
the bible to the quran -- for me -- is the detailed stories in the bible... which the qur'an mentions in passing... and/or in pieces. </P><br><P>as for the qur'an/hadith. i think what we need from the qur'an-- as muslims for our salvation-- is not needed to be interpreted through hadith... for surely anyone who believes in god, believes in the judgment in the world to come... and leads a good life... neither worries nor will grieve (qur'an, 2:62.) </P><br><P>however, there are many things mentioned in the qur'an in passing... that need to be viewed with history (in this case, the hadith, i guess.) for example, battles are reffered to in the qur'an, muhammad has been talked about (66:1, sura 33, etc)... and some of the stories are very vague... etc... </P><br><P>so, no, it is not for our salvation. if anything, for our curiousity-- the need to know 'what happened.' and hopefully to lea
rn from those things, etc. </P><br><P> </P><br><P>afdhere<BR><BR><BR></P><br><DIV><STRONG>Afdhere Jama </STRONG><BR>Editorial Director <BR><EM>HURIYAH Publications </EM><BR>S A N F R A N C I S C O <BR><A href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected] </A><BR><A href="http://www.huriyahmag.org ">http://www.huriyahmag.org </A></DIV><br><DIV> </DIV>>From: Elisha <[email protected]>>Reply-To: [email protected] >To: [email protected]
om >Subject: Re: [Progressivemuslimsnetwork] on yuksel and the "19" folk - Bible/Hadith use. >Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 18:47:17 -0800 (PST) > >salaam, > >Thx Afdhere I think u bring up another interesting >point - one that I'm wrestling with now. > >Afdhere write: > >salam, > >"for me, the bible are historical companion to the >qur'an prior to muhammad's coming" > >I kinda disagree. As u know there was no bible before >Muhammad, so I'm assuming u mean the Gospel and Torah. > These were the revealed word of God according to >Islam. They were not hadiths of any prophet, they >were Al-Kitab the Book. Because they were destroyed >and or lost the Quran was revealed. The Quran is >Torah and Injeel revised as well as itself - Quran. >The Gospel doesn't exist today. The bible contains >four varying accounts of the Gospel 'The
Gospel >according Matthew', etc. That would be like four >varying accounts of the Quran. According to Islam the >Gospel (injeel) and Torah are not the hadiths of any >prophet they were scripture. > >The real issue that I'm wrestling with is highlighted >by this statement you made > >"the 23 year span of the hadiths are very important to >the qur'an. without the hadiths, we would have no clue >about stuff qur'an mentions in passing..." > >who is the "we", that you are referring to. Would the >Sahaba, the prophet's comtemporaries be apart of this? >Or are you referring to all generations after the >prophet. There are whole parts of the Quran that >specifically address the Arab people, their are parts >of the Quran that chide the people for rejecting one >raised from among their own kith and kin. How could >this ever apply to an
yone who lives and breaths today? > Maybe those things in the Quran that need hadith to >be explained fully are not meant for us anyway? Just >a thought. To me, there are clear differences between >statements or even directives given under specified >conditions versus the broader declarative statemnts >about humankind, goodness, shaitan and humankind's >relationship to God. Maybe there are parts of the >Quran that are to serve as a record of God's >interaction with the sahaba, as an example of how God >works but not necessarily directives for us to follow >in 2003. If we need hadiths to interpret it, was it >really meant for us? </div><br clear=all><hr> <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2746??PS=">Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work and yourself. </a> </html><br><br><br><br>--__--__--<br><br>________________________
_______________________<br>ProgressiveMuslims mailing list<br>[email protected]<br>http://willo.nitric.co.za/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/progressivemuslims<br><br><br>End of ProgressiveMuslims Digest<br>
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!