The hadith is not islam!

[doodlebug 3]

For those of you who do not follow any of the hadiths, how do you know the correct way to pray?

Allah, the God says in 6:38 that HE did not leave out anything out of Qur'an. Salaat and the other rituals of Islam are not mentioned in Hadiths and Sunna as well. Pr. Mohammed followed the same Contact prayer that Pr. Abraham did yeara before.

The Quran proclaims that the Quran is complete, perfect, and fully detailed (6:19, 38, 114, 115; 50:45), and that religious regulations not specifically instituted in the Quran constitute a religion other than Islam, (submisssion).

The true believers uphold the Quran, the whole Quran, and nothing but the Quran. Quran is complete, perfect and fully detailed and should therefore be the only source of religious laws and guidance. The true obedience of prophet Muhammad is only by obeying the Quran, which is indeed a narration through the Prophet. Thus the Quran is the only true and proven Hadith from prophet Muhammad.

This principle is confirmed by the Quran's mathematical code. Verse 46 of Surat 17 proclaims that we shall uphold the Quran ALONE. The word "ALONE" occurs in the Quran 6 times: 7:70, 17:46, 39:45, 40: 12 & 84, and 60:4. All these occurrences refer to God, except 17:46. When we add the numbers of suras and verses which refer to "GOD ALONE," we get 361, 19x19. This proves that 17:46 refers to "the Quran ALONE.

Ok...so where in the Quran does it tell you how many rakats at which prayer time? I've read the Quran three times from front to back so not too much but never have I seen such specifics. I've seen in the Quran when to pray but not exactly how. What surah tells me exactly what to say at what prayer time and when to prostrate during the salat, etc? I was taught that the Quran tells me to follow what the Prophet Mohammed, pbuh, does and that by doing so his companions learned the proper way to pray.

[Henia 11]

For those of you who do not follow any of the hadiths, how do you know the correct way to pray?

Allah, the God says in 6:38 that HE did not leave out anything out of Qur'an. Salaat and the other rituals of Islam are not mentioned in Hadiths and Sunna as well. Pr. Mohammed followed the same Contact prayer that Pr. Abraham did yeara before.

The Quran proclaims that the Quran is complete, perfect, and fully detailed (6:19, 38, 114, 115; 50:45), and that religious regulations not specifically instituted in the Quran constitute a religion other than Islam, (submisssion).

The true believers uphold the Quran, the whole Quran, and nothing but the Quran. Quran is complete, perfect and fully detailed and should therefore be the only source of religious laws and guidance. The true obedience of prophet Muhammad is only by obeying the Quran, which is indeed a narration through the Prophet. Thus the Quran is the only true and proven Hadith from prophet Muhammad.

This principle is confirmed by the Quran's mathematical code. Verse 46 of Surat 17 proclaims that we shall uphold the Quran ALONE. The word "ALONE" occurs in the Quran 6 times: 7:70, 17:46, 39:45, 40: 12 & 84, and 60:4. All these occurrences refer to God, except 17:46. When we add the numbers of suras and verses which refer to "GOD ALONE," we get 361, 19x19. This proves that 17:46 refers to "the Quran ALONE.

Ok...so where in the Quran does it tell you how many rakats at which prayer time? I've read the Quran three times from front to back so not too much but never have I seen such specifics. I've seen in the Quran when to pray but not exactly how. What surah tells me exactly what to say at what prayer time and when to prostrate during the salat, etc? I was taught that the Quran tells me to follow what the Prophet Mohammed, pbuh, does and that by doing so his companions learned the proper way to pray.

I was referring to the Surat: [19:59] "After them, He substituted generations who lost the Contact Prayers (Salaat), and pursued their lusts. They will suffer the consequences." And the fact that the Qurán is very clear that Abraham is the founder of Islam (22:78) and the one who received all the rituals of Islam, most of the traditional Muslims reject this Quranic notion. Salaat as we know it today was given to Abraham who taught it to his children and they taught it to their children and so on. Prophet Muhammad was commanded to follow the Religion of Abraham. Had the religion of Abraham not known to him, we would not expect God to command him to follow it. And the Qurán conforms that salaaat was lost after some generations for the people of the book. Losing it involved changing it in every aspect. The Salat as practiced today by most of the Jews and Christians is different than what was given to their prophets. Very few Jews and Christians have maintained the inherited Salat. But if you take a close look, then you will see that Jews prostrate in congress and many Christians do make doua with their hands in the air... That is what I was referring to. I do not have enough Islamic (scholarly) knowledge to say that the Hadith are invalide or not. Allahu allem. Buuuuut I do know that the Qurán is 100% authentic.

[doodlebug 3]

Ok...but this thread is saying that we don't need hadiths at all, and my point is that without hadiths, albeit authentic proven ones, one would not know by just reading the Quran how to pray correctly.

I agree that the hadiths can get out of hand since some follow any of them without checking their authenticity but Allah sent our Prophet Mohammed, pbuh, to be an example to us.

"And verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the last day and remembereth Allah much." [Al-Ahzab 31]

"Obey Allah and obey the Messenger." [An-Nisa 59]

"Whatever the Messenger giveth you take it and whatever he forbiddeth abstain from it." [Al-Hashr: 7]

[Henia 11]

Ok...but this thread is saying that we don't need hadiths at all, and my point is that without hadiths, albeit authentic proven ones, one would not know by just reading the Quran how to pray correctly.

I agree that the hadiths can get out of hand since some follow any of them without checking their authenticity but Allah sent our Prophet Mohammed, pbuh, to be an example to us.

"And verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the last day and remembereth Allah much." [Al-Ahzab 31]

"Obey Allah and obey the Messenger." [An-Nisa 59]

"Whatever the Messenger giveth you take it and whatever he forbiddeth abstain from it." [Al-Hashr: 7]

Right, but I am not the OP nor did I agree (or disagree) with him. I do not think *any* of us have the authority or knowledge to. But you are right, we all should check and re-check and check some more.

[♥JP♥ 5]

Listen up Kez whats your deal here? No one has an issue here. If you dont undertand Mena topics why dont you go back crawling where you came from. We are having a discussion. If you dont have any input on or dont have any regard for what we are talking about your the one that is out of place here. You shoud go crawling from where you came from not my husband!!!! UFFFPT Close the door on your way out.

Can you two please get seperate accounts? It's getting pretty hard to keep track of who is who.

Adiel stated in his first post who he was. And you can tell by his posting self.

They have been jumping back and forth all day and I'm not the only one making this request. I also don't think its an unreasonable request.

[Henia 11]

Listen up Kez whats your deal here? No one has an issue here. If you dont undertand Mena topics why dont you go back crawling where you came from. We are having a discussion. If you dont have any input on or dont have any regard for what we are talking about your the one that is out of place here. You shoud go crawling from where you came from not my husband!!!! UFFFPT Close the door on your way out.

Can you two please get seperate accounts? It's getting pretty hard to keep track of who is who.

Adiel stated in his first post who he was. And you can tell by his posting self.

They have been jumping back and forth all day and I'm not the only one making this request. I also don't think its an unreasonable request.

True. Very true. Aaaand I meant to write STYLE not SELF in that above post. I guess I was having a DEE Dee dee moment. LOL

[Nasturtium 500]

I've seen the same mathematical "proofs" being used to "proove" the Bible actually, also including probablilities. But my question is on what basis do people know the Bible is corrupted? I am playing Devil's Advocate here. One cannot use the Qu'ran as your basis, as anyone can write anything and claim somehting else is corrupted and then point to that as truth.

(PS I also motion for seperate accounts It's free and easy to set up, and saves confusion.)

[doodlebug 3]

I've seen the same mathematical "proofs" being used to "proove" the Bible actually, also including probablilities. But my question is on what basis do people know the Bible is corrupted? I am playing Devil's Advocate here. One cannot use the Qu'ran as your basis, as anyone can write anything and claim somehting else is corrupted and then point to that as truth.

(PS I also motion for seperate accounts It's free and easy to set up, and saves confusion.)

Well for me the proof of corruption is in comparing the four Gospels to each other. I don't have my notes here since I'm at work but if you just look up the Gospel of Q (I think that's what it's called) you'll get information on how the four seem to contradict themselves in many many areas including the biggest of all which is the crucifixion and the resurrection. If you put all of the items that don't contradict each other together you get the Gospel of Q and what that reads is very enlightening (at least it was to me anyways).

Plus just look at the history of the making of the bible. It all boils down to the Council of Nicea and politics. Who were these men to say that the Gospel of Mary Magdelene or the Gospel of Jesus even was not good enough to be included?

That's just my 2 cents worth though.

[Nasturtium 500]

Council of Nicea is a different point though... as it does not imply corruption but selection-- if you look at it that way I also tend to not judge a religion by "hidden" or "discounted" books, as whatever is considered heresy is usually for a reason, especially if it was considered heresy since it's time of inception. Otherwise we would be discussing many Sufi writings that were and are discounted in Islam, in addition to discussing the Shia/Sunni splits on things which can be quite similar or different depending on what you examine. Of course I am also a relativist, and tend to judge a religion or set of beliefs on its own standards.

The Gospel of Q site begins with the following assertions and thus builds its hypothesis from this:

"There is a widespread belief among post-Christians, liberal Christians, some mainline Christians, and secularists that the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke:

*Were not named "Matthew" and "Luke."

*Were not eye witnesses to Jesus' ministry in Palestine.

*Relied on a growing oral tradition of the early Christian movements concerning Jesus' teachings.

*Copied much of their material from a pre-existing document." (http://www.religioustolerance.org/gosp_q.htm).

There are relatively few differences involved in the accounts, but one notable one pointed to is the geneology of Jesus. This comes from a misunderstanding of Hebrew and geneology. One is actually Mary, the other is Joseph. In Jewish geneology, women are not mentioned. So if you wish to make the geneology of a woman, you leave out the definate article (so it's not "The Joseph" but rather "Joseph" and move backwards from tehre. This is how you indicate it is a woman. And as an aside, it also shows that since Joseph comes from Jeconiah, who was cursed and his progeny were not allowed to inherit the throne of David (Jeremiah 22:24-30), while Mary comes from Nathan who is allowed to inherit by virtue of not being in the line of Jeconiah. It is of note as well this can be done or not done in greek, and contains the same implication ("The Genealogies of Jesus."Henry A. Sanders. Journal of Biblical Literature > Vol. 32, No. 3 (Sep., 1913), pp. 184-193; "Mary's Difference: Gender and Patriarchy in the Birth Narratives." Janice Capel Anderson. The Journal of Religion > Vol. 67, No. 2, Women and Religion (Apr., 1987), pp. 183-202; etc-- I could site more but there were over 350 articales on this in my first search.)

At any rate, it doesn't start with a null hypothesis.

Examining differences between "eyewitness" accounts of the ressurection and crucifiction (as they are supposed to be) always comes up with seeming contradictions. It doesn't point to corruption per se, but memory flaw and original differences. Try reading accounts of the Battle of Gettysburg, and you get the same problems.

Corruption of a text means it was changed, and in this case, the implication and outright assertion is that it changed the meaning of the text and was deliberately done so. That is what I am curious about. I see a lot of assertion (especially based on what ammounts to conjecture-- "lots of people think" kinds of statement, or "it says here in the Qu'ran," neither of which are actual proofs or supports, but rather conjecture and assertion. It's basically based on a "because he said so" kind of thing. I can write any kind of book that says anything and then try to use it as proof as well-- so a religious text doesn't really do much for proof.

I think it's fine to believe whatever someone wants to believe though! Don't get me wrong, I just don't (personally) accept arguments without scholarly support. So it is just a personal pet peeve to see a lot of "we all know it was corrupted" when there would have to be a null to apply that against in order to come up with that statement.. and the null cannot be a book written hundreds to thousands of years afterwards-- it would have to be an original for comparison. In the same way it would also not be someone's thoughts either, as I have encountered plenty of people who believe very fervantly that there was no moon landing or holocaust, and they can produce plenty of writings to "proove" it, although none of them take into account any of the people who still very much remember these things and also any scholarly work at all.

BTW Doodle, glad to see you back! Did i ever mention that? I had to show my Dh your kids in teh trunk pic, and he loved it!

[peezey 0]

Council of Nicea is a different point though... as it does not imply corruption but selection-- if you look at it that way I also tend to not judge a religion by "hidden" or "discounted" books, as whatever is considered heresy is usually for a reason, especially if it was considered heresy since it's time of inception. Otherwise we would be discussing many Sufi writings that were and are discounted in Islam, in addition to discussing the Shia/Sunni splits on things which can be quite similar or different depending on what you examine. Of course I am also a relativist, and tend to judge a religion or set of beliefs on its own standards.

These things are not comparative to hidden or discounted Biblical works. The qur'an IS the book of Islam, and other texts are just other texts. There is no argument about this, even among sufi and shia. There was no council sitting to agree on all texts of Islam to determine what's in or out. The Qur'an is it. The rest can be and have been controversial, but never does the book of Islam change. Nothing was picked/chosen to be included such as was done with the OT & NT.

[Nasturtium 500]

PS-- my favorite two assertions (I have heard) to date are:

1. The Bible is right over the Qu'ran because it was originally written in Latin, language of heaven. (which is of course wrong on several accounts )

2. The Quran is right because many people have memorized it over the years, and no one has memorized the Bible. This is actually on Answering-Christianity.com, which is a really fun site (as is answering-islam.com). I am so glad that person took the time to interview all humans who have ever lived since the Bible, and found out that no one memorized it?! But also, if that is proof that something is the word of God, then I am fairly sure the preamble of the Consitution is really easy to remember, and lots of us had to remember it, so that, the Pledge of allegience, and a number of other things (Beatles' songs?) are also the word of God.

[Nasturtium 500]

These things are not comparative to hidden or discounted Biblical works. The qur'an IS the book of Islam, and other texts are just other texts. There is no argument about this, even among sufi and shia. There was no council sitting to agree on all texts of Islam to determine what's in or out. The Qur'an is it. The rest can be and have been controversial, but never does the book of Islam change. Nothing was picked/chosen to be included such as was done with the OT & NT.

Yay! This makes sense. But it still doesn't equal corruption, but selection (IMO.)

[peezey 0]

Let me just say the things Henia has posted here are copied from submission.org and that site is PURE #######.

How Jews Pray

Qur'an

This site supports Daniel Pipes, a MAJOR MUSLIM BASHER, AND the site believes in the teachings of Rachid Khalifa. He invented his own fake religion and his followers believe he is a messenger of God.

Here he is claiming Mohammed was not the last messenger of God.

Find discussion points elsewhere, this site is garbage.

[Nasturtium 500]

Let me just say the things Henia has posted here are copied from submission.org and that site is PURE #######.

How Jews Pray

Qur'an

This site supports Daniel Pipes, a MAJOR MUSLIM BASHER, AND the site believes in the teachings of Rachid Khalifa. He invented his own fake religion and his followers believe he is a messenger of God.

Here he is claiming Mohammed was not the last messenger of God.

Find discussion points elsewhere, this site is garbage.

So basically submission.org fronts as an Islamic site but isn't? Interesting.

[doodlebug 3]

Corruption of a text means it was changed, and in this case, the implication and outright assertion is that it changed the meaning of the text and was deliberately done so. That is what I am curious about. I see a lot of assertion (especially based on what ammounts to conjecture-- "lots of people think" kinds of statement, or "it says here in the Qu'ran," neither of which are actual proofs or supports, but rather conjecture and assertion. It's basically based on a "because he said so" kind of thing. I can write any kind of book that says anything and then try to use it as proof as well-- so a religious text doesn't really do much for proof.

But that is what I meant by putting in the Council of Nicea in there though. I'm far from a scholar so I really don't have the background to argue all the points but from what I have read and studied, the bible was constructed in a very political fashion, notsomuch depending on what people TRULY thought was heresy or not but what politically may have been damaging to those in power.

At any rate another argument for corruption can be found just by looking at the many many many versions of the bible that are out there. I have no idea how many to date but each one has a different translation which gives a different meaning.

Examining differences between "eyewitness" accounts of the ressurection and crucifiction (as they are supposed to be) always comes up with seeming contradictions. It doesn't point to corruption per se, but memory flaw and original differences. Try reading accounts of the Battle of Gettysburg, and you get the same problems.

The thing is none of the authors of the 4 gospels WERE eyewitnesses to the crucifixion, so it's not just I saw this but he saw that...no one actually "saw" anything that wrote about it. Some may argue that John was there but I haven't been convinced yet as to who the author of the Gospel of John really is so until I'm convinced on that point I stand by what I believe to be true.

That site that you quoted from is ok but there is much more information on the gospel of Q. The book that I read was Beyond Mere Christianity, by Brandon Toropov. In it he states:

"The Gospel of Mark, most scholars believe, is the oldest existant Gospel. Intriguingly, Matthew and Luke depend on Mark for much, but not all, of their material. (The Gospel of John does not depend on any other Gospel in a textual sense; it is independent in a way that the other three Gospels are not. It is also compiled later. )

When we remove the influence of Mark and look at what Matthew and Luke still have in common, we find dozens of obviously parallel verses in Matthew and Luke - verses that often give us nearly verbatim expressions of the same saying.

Many scholars feel these parallel verses constitute clear evidence of a sayings gospel that supplies Matthew and Luke with a substantial amount of their content. These parallel verses, known as the Q verses, appear to reflect a lost manuscript that is almost certainly older than even Mark's Gospel."

A lot of the verses that are in the gospel of Q pretty much mirror what is said in the Quran.