Kyuu said:
nil8r153 said:
No, saheeh ahadeeth are not debatable except in the books of modernists and quranists, I hope you don't belong to either camp.
So the numerous ahadeeth that establish the hadd for ridda are ahad? and in your books ahad now means the hadeeth is debatable? What a tremendous error.
"text without historical context is meaningless" ahh ok, there is context, but that is neither here nor there. There is an asl that the circumstances of revelation do not limit the ruling. Modernists attempt to bring up the "historical context" to wash away anything their intellect has trouble accepting, when in reality it does nothing to change the ruling. This is an issue upon which there is ijma', don't twist and turn to try and appease the haters.
|
Kindly avoid jumping to childish conclusions.
I'm not a Quranist. I'm closer to an apostate. Not your typical emotionally unstable apostate who bashes his former religion because "it's the cool thing to do". I'd rather not associate myself with apostates because I can't help but respect Muhammad and his cousin Ali as inspirational leaders.
I don't care about what your Ijma' says when their methods are logically poor. About 90% of the narrations found in the Hadith collections (Sihah) are singular. Singular narrations (Ahad Hadith), in the language of logic, are essentially a collection of truths, half-truths, rumors, and lies. With all due respect to the simple Muslims who think their ancestor scholars are infallible mini-deities that cannot err or be doubted, any intelligent and impartial person would immediately recognize the unreliability of that as an "undoubtful" source to legislation. It's not Muhammad's fault that the inheritors of his legacy are incompetent. Mainstream Sunni Muslims consider all (emphasis on "ALL") of Muhammad's 120 thousand companions as great and trust-worthy people and as a result, all narrations are reliable by definition regardless of how few people heard them directly from Muhammad, so long as the narration is recognized via a chain of "trust-worthy" narrators.
Al-Bukhari refers to the great number of Singular Narrations as Authentic (Sahih) and the majority of the scholars (Ulama) back in the day agreed to his terms through Consensus (Ijima). Good on them forming a doctrine, and I don't mind you enjoying being an adherent of that doctrine. But it simply does not match my perception and sensibilities and I'm not going to further delve into why it doesn't because this is a complicated subject that I've long since lost interest in discussing. No offense, but you're in no way a representative to your religion, much less a representation of the truth. I couldn't care less about what you hope I belong or don't belong to.
Circumstances and historical context do indeed matter from a pure searcher perspective. This is a very basic and elementary knowledge. My ancestors' interpretations and conclusions via consensus isn't the truth that I'm searching for.
|
Sorry mate, husn al dhann made me expect the best. You are right to a degree, I shouldn't have tried to use Islamic usul with someone who doesn't believe as that means very little to you( I didn't "hope" because I thought you would care by the way, I hoped because I believe firmly in Islam and would like all good people to believe also). I get the vibe that you were formally Shi'a based on your anti-Sunni rhetoric, which still manages to shine through despite your disbelief. I'll be honest, I am not able to reply to your mantiq comments nor your claims about the science of hadeeth because you are so brazenly wrong that I feel there would be little benefit. I am happy to connect with you on Facebook if you are open to a long-term discussion, perhaps one of us may convince the other of his position.
"Circumstances and historical context do indeed matter from a pure searcher perspective" Yes, they matter greatly to me, I can not emphasise how much they mean to me - these are narrations from the beginning of Islam, the ideology I base my whole life on, so I really, truly hold them in high esteem. That doesn't mean that they limit rulings. If an event occured and Allah revealed a ruling, then similar events will take a similar ruling - it's pretty simple. We can't write off half the ahkaam with the "ahh but look at the context" line, it doesn't even make sense to do so. There are some cases where a ruling was identified as being specific to a case, that is when you can limit it.
