Whom do you follow?
submitted 2 months 20 days 1 hour ago by: baigsaab : 48 commentsWhat strikes me most is that most people following the fashion are following it for no apparent reason, they don’t know who started it, who they’re following, and why? Followers of religion, however, are much better-placed in that the "majority of them" know whom they’re following.
Ever wondered why an Elvis fan dresses like him? How a fan of Sachin can bat like him and become a Sehwag? Why does a Manchester United fan wear a ManU jersey with Rooney’s number on it? It means that being identified as a fan of their heroes is so important to them that they’re ready to forsake their own identity for it. Most Sikhs may be identified in a thousand. Because most Sikhs apparently follow what they believe. It’s not a matter of being right or wrong, it’s a matter of conviction, of believing that your version of truth is the real thing.
Fashion is a crazy phenomenon, no one invents it. And anything can be “in” before we realize it is.
What if religious dressing becomes in vogue? What if trousers above ankle become the next best thing from Paris. What if long beard became the in-thing? What if wearing a turban or a hijab gets into mainstream fashion. What if the west adopted Islamic fashion quicker than us?
Will we follow it then?
Comments
In most parts of Afghanistan and NWFP what you dream of IS extremely fashionable
As for the rest of us, your idea of fashion hasn't happened in the last 1400 years and I ain't about to put any money on it happening in the next 1400 years either
Fashion spreads through media, print and electronic largely and generally from the upper class into the lower strata. It is often obvious where it has stemmed from. It is followed if it becomes popular among all and abandoned in quick succession if the masses don't altogether take to it. There are no rules but that of change in fashion. However for a change to remain in the mainstream the image that goes with the fashion has to be one that makes one feel good about oneself.
Above ankle trousers, a turban, hijab and a long beard, all represent an Islam that in the current day very few wish to associate with. For that too ppl have different reasons. As you have very clearly indicated in the blog it is a matter of conviction.
Have you read The Tipping Point? There's an extremely good case study of Hush puppies in that book. I recommend you reading that... Fashion "can" spread without being popular in the rich and famous.
If by upper strata you mean the affluent lot of the society then most of the times yes, it happens that way. But that's exactly what I want to point out. Muslim role models used to be different. Not the rich, not the famous, not the glamorous, but the simple, gentle, kind and honest.
If one has faith in what one believes in, why does he or she need a role model? That is my question. To do what is considered right by one should not be dependent upon the practices followed by others.
Again if a Muslim is rich, or famous and glamorous, why can't he be a role model? Because he doesn't wear a beard or dress in trousers above ankles? How does one set a criterion like that?This is the second question that I have. Hazrat Usman was a very rich man. The prophet married Hazrat Khadaja, who was a very well-off woman of those times. The Prophet Suleman possessed kingdoms. There are rich good Muslims too.
I have been reading your posts and seriously speaking admire your conviction in all you say.
The two things that the Prophet was known for before his prohethood were his honesty and integrity. He was born in the highest of clans. He afterwards made choices to lead a simple, spartan and humble life. That was His choice. He didn't tell those with money to do away with it. Neither does Allah. He is the one who bestows his blessings upon us and advises us to use money wisely and for the welfare of the society.
I actually feel that today if the educated and the rich follow the practice of working for the betterment of people instead of wearing turbans or trousers above ankles, they should be considered better Muslims than the latter. They would be better role models too.
We should be able to first determine who we define as a good Muslim before hoping to convert those around us. What do you say Baig Sahib, what is your definition of a good Muslim?
Affleunce is not discouraged in Islam! If so was the case then there wouldn't be a law of Zakat, or heritage. Hadhrat Uthman was indeed a very rich man, and he adequately contributed his part in the social fund. Wealth, however, should not be an edge, like it is today.
If someone has enough conviction, then role model isn't important. However, Role model IS important when it comes to religion. Following the prophet is extremely important so that we don't transgress, even in seeminlgy virtuous things. See what happened to Catholic Christianity. They've abandoned marriage from the clergy, abolished a natural thing, and ended up having pastors with illegal relations.
My idea of a good Muslim? A person who tries his best to emulate RasooluLLAH (S.A.W.) in every aspect of his life. Because he (S.A.W.) was the perfect human being; as a husband, a father, a son, a nephew, a lawmaker, a commander-in-chief, a judge, a warrior, and of course, a Muslim!
Following the Sunnah is following the Quran. Because, RasooluLLAH (S.A.W.) implemeted the Quran in every aspect of his life. Good should only be considered good if it's verifiable from him (S.A.W.), same goes for vice.
Affleunce is not discouraged in Islam! If so was the case then there wouldn't be a law of Zakat, or heritage. Hadhrat Uthman was indeed a very rich man, and he adequately contributed his part in the social fund. Wealth, however, should not be an edge, like it is today.
If someone has enough conviction, then role model isn't important. However, Role model IS important when it comes to religion. Following the prophet is extremely important so that we don't transgress, even in seeminlgy virtuous things. See what happened to Catholic Christianity. They've abandoned marriage from the clergy, abolished a natural thing, and ended up having pastors with illegal relations.
My idea of a good Muslim? A person who tries his best to emulate RasooluLLAH (S.A.W.) in every aspect of his life. Because he (S.A.W.) was the perfect human being; as a husband, a father, a son, a nephew, a lawmaker, a commander-in-chief, a judge, a warrior, and of course, a Muslim!
Following the Sunnah is following the Quran. Because, RasooluLLAH (S.A.W.) implemeted the Quran in every aspect of his life. Good should only be considered good if it's verifiable from him (S.A.W.), same goes for vice.
Wealth is always an edge. It was then that too. There is a need to realize the value of distribution of wealth.
I, on the other hand, feel that even if a person was unable to observe all sunnah, he or she can be a good Muslim.
Each to his own faith then! :)
How was wealth an edge back then? Hadhrat Abu Dar Ghiffari (RA) was a very poor person, yet he's one of the most influential Sahabas of his time. So was Hadhrat Abu Huraira (RA), the narrator of most Hadith.
Let me correct myself here, a good Muslim should stop completely from Haram, and Enjoy fully what's Halal... In other words, do what RasooluLLAH has told us to do, and stop from what we have been stopped from.
May I ask you what does it mean to be a good Muslim? Is it a practicing Muslim or one who keeps his religion to himself and talks nicely to everyone else, even if he or she's blatantly commiting sin?
If we talk from the point of view of social welfare, A good human being would be the one who cares for others, tries and goes out of his way to help others out of their misery. Right?
I'm sure all of us believe that this life is temporary and the life after death is the actual life. And that our condition in the afterlife is dependent upon our deeds in this life. If we believe that to be the case, doesn't it change the meaning of social welfare altogether? What makes a good human being then?
Are Halal and Haram not satisfactorily described in the Quran by Allah himself?
What was Allah's purpose of making Hazrat Muhammed (PBUH) his messenger? Messenger right? Doesn't that mean to spread what was Allah's word?
Muslim is a word used for a person who believes in the religion of Islam. The religion of Islam is in detail described in The Quran by Allah where all practices and best possible ways of living are given by Allah. At the same time, he clearly says that those who transgress shall be punished by HIM. Even to His Prophet, He said in relation to the Munafiqeen that He alone shall punish them and that the Prophet's job was only to spread His word. Again He may forgive.
We were only born sin-free. Who can claim to be so still? No insignia of Islam can prevent that. Each of us according to our own description, intellect and capacity tries to be a good human being, socially adjusted and well-liked by the others. Selfish choices made by us often result in terrible consequences which tend to make each of us realize that we have transgressed from the path that was shown to us by Allah. That path is only given as a guideline to let us know how to live safely in a society. For example, we are advised not to drink because of its consequences and the bearing of those actions upon not only us but often upon all those around us too. And so on and on and on.
Allah advises us to dress modestly. He doesn't tell a dress code. He says cover yourself, don't reveal the shape of your body. He doesn't say what in.
Let Allah be the Judge. And try to be as tolerant of these little deviations from so-called Islamic Discipline which Allah Himself is not imposing upon us.
The best of all creatures -ALLAH, would He not be more understanding and more forgiving than we are? I can't believe that no matter what you say. :)
I heard this in this morning's Quranic lesson.
009.029
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
This verse clearly mentions that RasooluLLAH (SAW) has been given the permission to declare Halal or Haram.
This is another version of it. Does it imply the same to you?
009.029 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
Do the two contradict each other? I'm not saying that RasooluLLAH (SAW) can forbid anything on his own. He did that with ALLAH's permission only, it just doesn't need to be mentioned in the Quran. There are two types of Wahi as I've read (Guys please correct me here if i'm wrong).
Wahi-e-Jali (Wahi that has been written verbatim, and is part of the Quran.)
Wahi-e-Khafi (Wahi that hasn't been written in the Quran)... the dreams of RasooluLLAH for instance were types of this Wahi, and it's on the basis of this wahi that Hadith are formed.
066.001
O Prophet! why do you forbid (yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you; you seek to please your wives; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
This Ayat refers to a certain type of honey that RasooluLLAH (SAW) had banned on himself only because of some of his wives. But it could mean that banning that for himself could lead the whole Ummah to consider it Haram. Hadhrat Yaqoob had done the same with camel's meat and the whole jewish nation made it haram on themselves. So ALLAH (SWT) explicitly declared that RasooluLLAH couldn't declare anything Haram that was declared Halal by ALLAH.
According to this Ayah, RasooluLLAH(SAW) could not ban anything that wasn't banned from ALLAH(SWT). When you reconcile the two Ayaat, we can see that anything that RasooluLLAH(SAW) has banned (and not unbanned by ALLAH), has indeed been banned by ALLAH(SWT) Himself.
I would call this bidaat. :)
Bid'at?? This is by no means Bidat. This is the first time i'm hearing RasooluLLAH's act as Bidat. Sahaba's acts are debated even they're widely believed to be straight from the sunnah.
No act of RasooluLLAH (SAW) could be called Bidat, it may be called his Ijtihaad in the absence of Wahi. This has happened on countless occasions in Seerah. ALLAH(SWT) could correct him in a Wahi, or validate it by His silence. Case in point, when RasooluLLAH(SAW) went to Medina, he chose Masjid-ul-Aqsa as Qibla, for around 16 months they offered prayers facing Masjid-al-Aqsa. And then one day during prayer, Wahi was revealed with orders to change the Qibla to Masjid-al-Haraam in Makkah. RasooluLLAH(SAW) turned during Jamaat and faced towards Makkah. This instruction is written in the Quran. But can you please find me the place in the Quran where RasooluLLAH (SAW) is directed to face Masjid-Al-Aqsa. It was indeed RasooluLLAH's (SAW) Ijtihaad verified by ALLAH later on.
We've got to be very careful of choosing our words for RasooluLLAH otherwise it's enough to invalidate our Imaan.
My Imaan doesn't get invalidated that easy. You are dreaming :p
Wasn't talking about His act as bidaat but the assumption that there are two kinds of wahi. Will get back to you on this later. Ta for the moment. Gotta run. :)
Ok... thoght otherwise, sorry. Just for your reference and the others.
049.002
O you who believe! do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet, and do not speak loud to him as you speak loud to one another, lest your deeds became null while you do not perceive.
That was for Sahaba, having more Imaan than all of combined in this age. If such a simple act as raising the voice could result in such a dreadful outcome, what would happen if we chose our words wrongly?
Respect and reverence of the Prophet and all other prophets, I do not question. Not to question everything that is attributed to Hazrat Muhammed (PBUH) is what I find unbelievable. Taking ayats out of reference is what I oppose. Blind faith is a problem with me.
Why is it hard to imagine that the sahaba erred too because despite all their Imaan they did? Goes on to prove that we are not infallible at all. Rather, we are bound to make more mistakes instead of less as compared to them. They sought forgiveness and we are expected to do the same.
Baig: "I'm not saying that RasooluLLAH (SAW) can forbid anything on his own.
He did that with ALLAH's permission only, it just doesn't need to be
mentioned in the Quran."
It does need to be mentioned in Quran. Only God has the authority to haram/halal things - Prophet can not do that on his own. God clearly has stated which things are forbidden (6:145 regarding food) and 6:151-152 regarding others. God tells us that even if someone tells that this is prohibited - do not follow that advice (6:150).
As stated earlier, Prophet can not prohibit things on his own. When he did that (as you quoted 66:01) - he was told not to do so.
Baig: "There are two types of Wahi as I've read"
There is only one wahi. Modes can be different (42:51)
Like I asked earlier, can you explain why Muslims offered Salat facing Masjid-al-Aqsa for 16 months after Hijrah? Written anywhere in the Quran?
17:1
Most glorified is the One who summoned His servant (Muhammad) during the night, from the Sacred Masjid (of Mecca) to the farthest place of prostration,* whose surroundings we have blessed, in order to show him some of our signs. He is the Hearer, the Seer.
Wikipedia:
As it was the place at which Muhammad performed the first of his commanded prayers after Isra and Mi'raj, it became the qibla ("direction") that Muslims faced for prayer.
Further references from Quran range from 2:142 to 2: 148. They go on to indicate that Al-Aqsa was the first and The Sacred Mosque the second qibla for salaah.
Oh please, at one hand you're asking us to avoid Hadith and on the other hand quoting wikipedia? Can you validate the authenticity of that???
002.143
Thus, have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves; and We appointed the Qibla to which thou wast used, only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels (From the Faith). Indeed it was (A change) momentous, except to those guided by Allah. And never would Allah Make your faith of no effect. For Allah is to all people Most surely full of kindness, Most Merciful.
It clearly says "We appointed the Qibla...". Where is this particular order mentioned in the Quran. Please give me a clear reference. No wikipedia plz.
Also notice the line "only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels"
That wikipedia reference was for you not me. :)
Yeah I read that too.The men were tested then. This is a historical explanation of an incident of those times. For me it was an indication of another thing that Allah has highlighted, was revealed to the Prophet. So ahadith refering to that get complete validation and endorsement from Quran. Allah has endorsed the step. Other ahadith do not get the same honour. Once again, I repeat that even a 1% measure of doubt is sufficient k Imaan kharaab kar de. Sirf Quran main aisi koi baat nahi. But again that would depend upon how we are interpreting it. I am its lamest student. Feel free to not take my word on any of this but do take in the new schema. Knowledge is built on challenging prior and existing knowledge, not otherwise. None of us is perfect and as we both believe Allah knows best.
And by the way, if then revelations were coming in pieces and with pauses ova a period of 23 years, now we have all of it in the form of Quran. Things that Allah imposed through the Messenger and which have been validated in Quran are more reliable.
The Messenger did not impose anything 'halal or haram' upon the ppl that Allah has not ordained or validated in Quran.
Got posted twice.
Absolutely mentioned in Quran.
Muslims offered salat towards some other place because it was a test for the believers. They used to offer prayers towards masjid haram, then the test came to change direction of qibla and then it was reverted back to Masjid Haram as the final qibla.
Yes I know what I am saying is opposite to the current understanding in which Aqsa is the first qibla.. You can check my arguments here.
66:01 refers to an incident in which RasooluLLAH (SAW) banned something "on himself", not the general Muslim population. But just because others could consider it Haram- like Bani Israel considered Camel's meat haram- RasooluLLAH was told to declare honey as halal.
Ayah 29 from Soorah Tauba, if read in arabic, uses the word "wa", which means "and"
"Harram aLLAHu wa Rasooluhu", translated in english, "Forbidden by ALLAH 'and' his Rasool". Yousaf Ali and Shakir have both done this translation, Pickthal's translation, which IOLA has given, doesn't contradict the other meaning. RasooluLLAH (SAW) was the spokesman of ALLAH(SWT) on this earth, he would say only what ALLAH(SWT) would will him to say. you can read the arabic text from here... http://www.quranflash.com ... Let me know if it is still confusing you.
Assalmoallaikum
Kindly show me where the word honey is mentioned in the translation or the Arabic word for it in the ayat. Furthermore this ayah is about the dissolution of oaths and how to seek Allah's forgiveness if something is divulged by mistake by man explained through the example of the Prophet to make us understand the way to go about such mistakes. Reading through 66:1 to 66:7 would certainly indicate that to you.
1] O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts but Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. [2] Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths (in some cases): and Allah is your Protector, and He is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom. [3] When the Prophet disclosed a matter of confidence to one of his consorts, and she then divulged it (to another), and Allah made it known to him, he confirmed part thereof and repudiated a part. Then when he told her thereof, she said, "Who told thee this?" He said, "He told me Who knows and is well-acquainted (with all things)."[4] If ye two turn in repentance to Him, your hearts are indeed so inclined; but if ye back up each other against him, truly Allah is his Protector, and Gabriel, and (every) righteous one among those who believe, and furthermore, the angels will back (him) up. [5] It may be, if he divorced you (all), that Allah will give him in exchange Consorts better than you, who submit (their wills), who believe, who are devout, who turn to Allah in repentance, who worship (in humility), who travel (for Faith) and fast, previously married or virgins. [6] O ye who believe! Save yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is Men and Stones, over which are (appointed) angels stern (and) severe, who flinch not (from executing) the Commands they receive from Allah, but do (precisely) what they are commanded.[7] (They will say), "O ye Unbelievers! Make no excuses this Day! Ye are being but requited for all that ye did!"
I find 66:3 very relevant to discuss the idea of two kinds of wahis. Here there is a reference of how Allah had made something known to the Prophet and see it is quoted in Quran. Allah disclosed it before the people. I think we should believe in only those things which are so verified in Quran- our ultimate source. Other things which are not mentioned in Quran are rather hard to be validated. So a certain margin of error exists. To make sure that our knowledge is foolproof, I believe Quran and only Quran should be considered the ultimate guide for mankind. Follow Allah's dictates and refrain from those practices that are forbidden. In ahadith, even a 1% element of doubt is troublesome and makes everything rather controversial as it is more like word-of-mouth communication and to say that it doesn't, is rather falseful and myopic of us. The whole Muslim community is divided ova ahadith and Quranic interpretation.
(Allah knows best. Heaven help me! )
The context of this Ayat is that incident... Maulan Maududi's introduction to this Soorah
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau66.html
Also note what he says here
"First, that the powers to prescribe the bounds of the lawful and the unlawful, the permissible and the forbidden, are entirely and absolutely in the hand of Allah and nothing has been delegated even to the Prophet of Allah himself, not to speak of any other man. The Prophet as such can declare something lawful or unlawful only if he receives an inspiration from Allah to do so whether that inspiration is embodied in the Qur'an, or imparted to, him secretly. However, even the Prophet is not authorized to declare anything made permissible by Allah unlawful by himself, much less to say of another man."
I have already read that from your very source. However, how come He made something lawful unlawful upon Himself then? And there is a breach of confidence by the Prophet, right?
Allah and Madoodi both haven't mentioned that incident by the way. Must be to not lay emphasis upon the example but upon the manner of dissolution of oaths.
Here's the complete commentary of Maududi- who died in 1970's
http://www.tafheem.net
http://www.tafheem.net/tafheem/surah66.html
One of the most widely accepted Tafsir of Quran is Tafsir of Ibn-Kathir, a 12th century scholar...
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1305&Itemid=122
That is totally irrelevant. As I have said earlier it doesn't matter whether it was honey or lemon or anything else. The ayats are not about that but about the dealings with the oath.
Quran itself should be sufficient to guide me. One man's interpretation doesn't necessarily become mine though for a viewpoint yes I do at times refer to Ibn-Khatir. Not nowadays though :p. At the mo I am just reading Quran with its translation to see it through my eyes and understanding alone without influences.
I believe a good human being is a person who in his infallability and tragedy to err makes a sincere effort to do his best for himself and for those around him, whether it is less or more.
If a Muslim doesn't believe in wearing a beard, he would not be a bad human being and if all Christians started wearing a beard, they wouldn't become Muslims or good human beings either.
Iola - well said! :)
"And whatever the Messenger gives you, take it, and whatever he forbids you, leave it. And fear Allah: truly Allah is severe in punishment. " [Qur'an 59:7]
It's a clear,categorical statement that following the Sunnah is absolutely obligatory upon every Muslim. Then according to a Hadith of RasooluLLAH...
"Whoever neglects my Sunnah does not belong to me" (Im looking for reference of this but it's a well known Hadith, any good scholar may give the reference)...
And in any case, Sunnah is nothing but a standard way of restraining from Haram and persuing Halal in an optimal way. Quran was revealed directly at the heart of Muhammad RasooluLLAH(S.A.W.), and he knew exactly what was meant by the guidelines sketched out in the Ayaat of the Quran. For us to claim that we might know better than him, surely requires us to reconsider our faith.
Lastly, a Muslim is not only one who "believes" in Islam, but a person who submits his will to ALLAH (SWT), Islam means surrender, submission, and also peace. In short, it's peace acquired by submitting one's will to ALLAH (SWT)...
Surely ALLAH (SWT) knows best.
Baigsaab I see that you have stooped to playing cheap games with religion.
That verse is clearly talking about war booty and not following the prophet or growing a beard! This particular verse has nothing to do with Sunnah. Don't try to use the words of the Quran out of context to prop up your convoluted theocracy
Here is the full ayat, I can't believe you did not even quote the entire ayat just a portion of it; very shameful indeed
059.007
YUSUFALI: What Allah has bestowed on His Messenger (and taken away) from the people of the townships,- belongs to Allah,- to His Messenger and to kindred and orphans, the needy and the wayfarer; In order that it may not (merely) make a circuit between the wealthy among you. So take what the Messenger assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you. And fear Allah; for Allah is strict in Punishment
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/
This is where I took it from... I should have checked the reference first...
That's an honorable admission indeed!
59:7 That which Allah giveth as spoil unto His messenger from the people of the townships, it is for Allah and His messenger and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, that it become not a commodity between the rich among you. And whatsoever the messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstain (from it). And keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is stern in reprisal.
The ayah is obviously with reference to the bounty of war and so are 59:6 and 59:8. A matter of import was being discussed there. How it can be generalized is something that I can understand. We all interpret Quran according to our own limited intellectual capacities. I shall not debate that.
Observing a practice that was done by the Prophet, if it feels good to a Muslim is something I have no problems with. However, keeping a beard or wearing a hijab are by no means sure signs of respectability or moral righteousness. Many a sinners hide behind these very things. We oft don't know whether this pious looking bearded man and that honourable woman covered in a veil are saints or sinners. To ask all men to wear a beard or trousers above ankles and all women to wear hijab would not guarantee a moral uplift as Muslims either.
That is the only reason why these things have not been decreed mandatory in Quran.
It is a matter of belief, isn't it? If one feels that doing these very things will make him a better Muslim, he or she observes the said practice and if another feels differently he or she doesn't.
We are all different individuals and we make choices as I said earlier. These choices are not based upon the current trends alone rather influences of family and education are widely the reason behind them. Hijab can come in the mainstream and one still wouldn't wear it. If today one doesn't think it gives one added respectability, the views are not going to change overnight because of it becoming an 'in' thing. Similarly if one doesn't wear capris despite it being the norm nowadays it might be because one has not found a reason good enough to show off the ankles. So if these things become the new fashion, they are not altogether going to bring a U turn in the way people think and dress up. People won't become better Muslims that way or 'would their morals get affected by these things', I wonder!!!!
Oops, Iola I just read your post sorry for duplicating what you said above
Oh that's ok. :)
Though for me it was a first time to quote a ayah. Left me a lil shocked to see it so placed out of context.
004.080
YUSUFALI: He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah: But if any turn away, We have not sent thee to watch over their (evil deeds).
PICKTHAL: Whoso obeyeth the messenger hath obeyed Allah, and whoso turneth away: We have not sent thee as a warder over them.
SHAKIR: Whoever obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys Allah, and whoever turns back, so We have not sent you as a keeper over them.
--------------
024.063
YUSUFALI: Deem not the summons of the Messenger among yourselves like the summons of one of you to another: Allah doth know those of you who slip away under shelter of some excuse: then let those beware who withstand the Messenger's order, lest some trial befall them, or a grievous penalty be inflicted on them.
PICKTHAL: Make not the calling of the messenger among you as your calling one of another. Allah knoweth those of you who steal away, hiding themselves. And let those who conspire to evade orders beware lest grief or painful punishment befall them.
SHAKIR: Do not hold the Messenger's calling (you) among you to be like your calling one to the other; Allah indeed knows those who steal away from among you, concealing themselves; therefore let those beware who go against his order lest a trial afflict them or there befall them a painful chastisement.
---------------------
004.065
YUSUFALI: But no, by the Lord, they can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction.
PICKTHAL: But nay, by thy Lord, they will not believe (in truth) until they make thee judge of what is in dispute between them and find within themselves no dislike of that which thou decidest, and submit with full submission.
SHAKIR: But no! by your Lord! they do not believe (in reality) until they make you a judge of that which has become a matter of disagreement among them, and then do not find any straitness in their hearts as to what you have decided and submit with entire submission.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBtwvOkdS88
This is also significant because Abu Aminah Bilal Philips is a revert. And he's following sunnah!
And this one:
http://us1.fmanager.net/api_v1/productDetail.php?dev-t=EDCRFV&objectId=3471
Why do you insist on quoting out of context? What point are you trying to make?
4:65, 4:80 and 24:63 were verses exclusively for the contemporaries of the prophet. 4:65 refers to the hypocrites, 4:84 Refers to those who were reluctant towards warfare even though it was a great necessity of that time and 24:63 refers to those who were in the habit of disrespecting the prophets summons.
Yes, yes, I know the book is for all mankind and not just for the contemporaries of the prophet but there were several issues that had to be addressed exclusively with the contemporaries. This can clearly be seen in 24:62 which states " when they are with him on a matter....... so when they ask for thy leave for some business of their, give leave to those of them whom thou wilt...."
Anyway these are senseless debates so no more from me on that part but please make sure you refrain from quoting out of context.
No one disagrees with you over the importance of hadith but we would rather live by the Quran and use the hadith for reference rather than the other way round
That's your right to believe i'm quoting out of context.
But my friend, please tell me, if 4:65 refers to Munafiqoon, who are they? I'm forgetting the third but two of the three things that are extremely heavy on Munafiqoon is obeying RasooluLLAH (S.A.W.) and the other is Jihad Fi sabeeliLLAH...
Anyone can be a munafiq, because it's a matter of heart, no one knows about what's going on inside the heart of anyone, sometimes not even the person himself. Fear of being a munafiq was so much in Sahaba that even Hadrat Umar (RA) asked Hadhrat Huzaifa (RA) - who was told the names of some Munafiqoon by RasooluLLAH (S.A.W.) - whether his name was in that list. Imagine the place of Umar (RA), and his fear for being a Munafiq, and imagine us, and our carelessness, as if these verses were for someone else.
If Quran is mentioning the acts of Munafiqoon, and if those acts are being done by us as well, wht are we complacent about?
On the other hand, I have decided not to discuss Quran any more here. All the best. Ta.