U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 03-16-2016, 01:11 AM
 
23 posts, read 10,214 times
Reputation: 10

Advertisements

You said if a verse is in the text you must follow the text as is without question. There is loads of death in the bible. So there is not over riding whatever. Even the New Testament has lots of death and the NT states clearly is a child curses his mother he must be put to death. And I am no even taking that out of context in actually teaches this read the entire section. So why is it is a Muslim takes verses from the Quraan out of context he is islamic and if a Christian acts in EXACTLY what it teaches he is not following the law??? Your a hypocrite and you have double standard the discussion is over and you lost.

 
Old 03-16-2016, 01:39 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,590,096 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamzam66 View Post
You said if a verse is in the text you must follow the text as is without question. There is loads of death in the bible. So there is not over riding whatever. Even the New Testament has lots of death and the NT states clearly is a child curses his mother he must be put to death. And I am no even taking that out of context in actually teaches this read the entire section. So why is it is a Muslim takes verses from the Quraan out of context he is islamic and if a Christian acts in EXACTLY what it teaches he is not following the law??? Your a hypocrite and you have double standard the discussion is over and you lost.
Generally a believer must comply to the dictates of his God.
Where there is an overriding maxim, the believer must first give consideration to that maxim.

Therefore when there are two conflicting verses one must give priority to the overriding maxim.
If one comply with the other then they will have to face God on Judgment Day.

With regard to this;
"Even the New Testament has lots of death and the NT states clearly is a child curses his mother he must be put to death."
I am not very familiar with the NT in detail but I don't think your interpretation is correct.
I will have to let those familiar with the NT to debate with you on this.

With the Quran there is no overriding maxim of pacifism.
A Muslim can fight [including kill] not Muslims under certain conditions.
The problem is the conditions are often ambiguous and vague [Duck-Rabbit] scenario.

If say a jihadist commit evil based when he read a verse as a 'duck' [while you read a 'rabbit' for the same verse] within the whole context of the Quran, WHO ARE YOU [and other Muslims] as a slave of Allah to judge him.
Only Allah can judge him on Judgment Day and in the meantime he will kill non-Muslims accordingly and is certain he will go to Paradise.
 
Old 03-18-2016, 01:22 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,590,096 times
Reputation: 461
Here is a case of a Muslim who saw the 'Duck' instead of the 'Rabbit' and acted upon what is told by Allah in the Quran.

Quote:
FRESNO, Calif. — Mar 18, 2016, 2:01 AM ET
A California college student [Faisal Mohammad, 18,] who went on a stabbing rampage that wounded four people before he was shot down by a campus police officer was inspired by the Islamic State group but acted alone, the FBI said.



<snip> ...

Attorney Daniel Mayfield, who represents Mohammad's relatives, said the family remains in the dark about what prompted the violent outburst just days after he turned 18. They are asking investigators to provide them with more information, he said.

"This is not the Faisal the family knew and loved and sent off to the university," said Mayfield, who added that before this the teenager had a reputation for being quiet, respectful and studious.

FBI: IS Group Inspired California Student in Stabbings - ABC News
As usual the blame is on the 'radicalization by Islamic State.'

The effective root cause is not 'radicalization by Islamic State.'
The effective root cause is the existence of evil elements within the Quran and the ethos of Islam [in part of, not whole of].

This Faisal Muhammad was reported to be a goody-two-shoes, quiet, respectful and studious.
It is the evil elements that triggered a supposedly good Faisal Muhammad to commit evil within the background of other Muslims [ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, etc.] who were in the same shoes, i.e. Muslims of ISIS.

Blaming ISIS as the root cause is not effective.
If humanity got rid of ISIS identified [wrongly] as the root cause,
the same evil will only manifest in other groups and individual Muslims who are evil prone [has tendency to commit evil].

To be effective, the right cause of action is to address the effective root cause, i.e. the evil elements in the Quran and ethos of Islam.

I am 100% certain if we get rid of the evil and violent elements within the Quran and Islam, there will be no more Islam-inspired evils and violence. There will be no evil elements to trigger the 20% of naturally born evil prone Muslims.

The above solution is obvious because there will be no more evil and violent verses in the Quran for evil prone Muslims to rely upon to relieve his/her itchiness/impulse to commit evil.

The question is how can we implement such an effective solution?

Last edited by Continuum; 03-18-2016 at 01:42 AM..
 
Old 03-18-2016, 01:56 AM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,308,309 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Here is a case of a Muslim who saw the 'Duck' instead of the 'Rabbit' and acted upon what is told by Allah in the Quran.

As usual the blame is on the 'radicalization by Islamic State.'

The effective root cause is not 'radicalization by Islamic State.'
The effective root cause is the existence of evil elements within the Quran and the ethos of Islam [in part of, not whole of].

This Faisal Muhammad was reported to be a goody-two-shoes, quiet, respectful and studious.
It is the evil elements that triggered a supposedly good Faisal Muhammad to commit evil within the background of other Muslims [ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, etc.] who were in the same shoes, i.e. Muslims of ISIS.

Blaming ISIS as the root cause is not effective.
If humanity got rid of ISIS identified [wrongly] as the root cause,
the same evil will only manifest in other groups and individual Muslims who are evil prone [has tendency to commit evil].

To be effective, the right cause of action is to address the effective root cause, i.e. the evil elements in the Quran and ethos of Islam.

I am 100% certain if we get rid of the evil and violent elements within the Quran and Islam, there will be no more Islam-inspired evils and violence. There will be no evil elements to trigger the 20% of naturally born evil prone Muslims.

The above solution is obvious because there will be no more evil and violent verses in the Quran for evil prone Muslims to rely upon to relieve his/her itchiness/impulse to commit evil.

The question is how can we implement such an effective solution?
You will find that those of us who see the rabbit and not the duck will contend that what you and others perceive s "Evil Laden Verses" actually doscourage violence and withput them more of the percent that are evil prone will commit evil. those same verses guide to moderation not extremism as they show the price for extremism.

to say they increase violence is very similar to saying that teaching people that some US laws will carry the death penalty inspires people to commit murder.
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
 
Old 03-18-2016, 02:50 PM
 
3,167 posts, read 1,044,056 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Here is my logic;

1. Anything that is related to Islam is Islamic.

2. Muslims are adherent [related] to Islam

3. Therefore Muslims are Islamic.

4. A Muslim is one who has entered into a covenant with Allah to comply with its terms and conditions in the Quran [direct words of Allah to Muhammad via Gabriel] only - and no where else.

5. The members of ISIS had entered into a covenant with Allah

6. Therefore the member of ISIS are Muslims.

7. From 3, members of ISIS are Islamic.

8. If members of ISIS are Islamic, then ISIS is Islamic.

Can you dispute the above logic?
Yes.

1. Untrue. Even Shaytan (Iblis) is related to Islam. He was in islam before he refused to obey Allah and became one of the kuffar. Disobeying Allah deliberately (as Iblis did) renders one a kafir.

2. Muslims are those who are in Islam (are obeying the commands rather than are disobeying the commands).

3. Not all so-called Muslims are Islamic. To be "Islamic" person, one must comply with the Islamic principles. For something to be Islamic, it must be in tune with the Islamic principles. Nothing unislamic can ever be called Islamic.

4. A Muslim is someone who believes in Allah, the last day, the revealed books from Allah, the prophets, the angels, and then obeys Allah and His messenger by obeying the commands from Allah. The former is believing and the latter is submitting; the two main requirements to be met to stay a Muslim. These are the two pillers on which a Muslim stands.

5. You have no proof that all members of ISIS have entered into a covenant with Allah.

6. There is no proof that the ISIS members are believing and submitting to Allah.

7. Killing innocent people is unislamic. Therefore, those who kill innocent people are not Islamic.

8. If members of ISIS are unislamic then ISIS is not Islamic.
 
Old 03-18-2016, 08:34 PM
 
1,601 posts, read 754,395 times
Reputation: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamzam66 View Post
We keep hearing about ISIS on the news and the word that is always used is Islamic, the fact is ISIS is not islamic and they are called islamic only because they consider themselves as such when in reality they are contradicting the Quraan And Methodology of the Prophet Mohammed PBUH.
Here is my top ten list why the insane group ISIS is infact Un-Islamic.

1. ISIS kills innocent people who are not involved in the conflict.
Because my time has value, I will only give 3 examples to support my case. If someone wants more examples, read the Quran and ahadith. I will rebut your first claim only, as a start.

1. ISIS kills innocent people who are not involved in the conflict.

Wrong. This is totally Islamic. Especially because everyone who is not submitting to allah is in conflict with Islam.

Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them (9:5)

"The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives" (Bukhari46:717)

The women and girls were raped after this attack.

You claim: "Not only do they kill men who are not even in the struggle they have the nerve to kill women and children, when the prophet ( pbuh) specifically commanded us not to do so."

As recorded in both Bukhari and Sahih Muslim:

It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: “They are from them.” (Sahih Muslim 4322, see also Bukhari 52:256)

Collateral damage is entirely acceptable to Muhammed. Also, Muhammad used a catapult against the city of Taif. Just like bombs, a cataplut kills indiscriminately.

You say: The Quraan also says plainly not to kill anyone without just cause and anyone who kills a single innocent person it's as though they have killed all of mankind:
"Whoever kills a person unjustly it is as though he has killed all of mankind. And who ever saves a life, it is as though he has saved all of mankind." (Sura 5:32)

This is an example of misquoting the Quran for your own purposes. Let's see what this verse really says:

Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

Surat Al-Ma'idah [5:32] - The Noble Qur'an - ?????? ??????

Just so you know, these wonderful sounding words come from a preexisting Jewish text (Mishnah, IV Division 5!!!! Muhammed plagiarized them.

Additionally, this was not even addressing the Muslims. Read the next verse!!

Quran 5:33 The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.

Mischief is pretty subjective!! Maybe speaking against Muhammed in poetry is mischief. Muhammed has people slaughtered for doing that!

We also have to take abrogation into account. Your verse 60:8 was abrogated, wiped out, by this:

Quran 9:29 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.

ISIS is simply following Islam and the example set by Muhammed.
 
Old 03-18-2016, 09:19 PM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,308,309 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by juju33312 View Post
Because my time has value, I will only give 3 examples to support my case. If someone wants more examples, read the Quran and ahadith. I will rebut your first claim only, as a start.

1. ISIS kills innocent people who are not involved in the conflict.

Wrong. This is totally Islamic. Especially because everyone who is not submitting to allah is in conflict with Islam.

Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them (9:5)

"The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives" (Bukhari46:717)

The women and girls were raped after this attack.

You claim: "Not only do they kill men who are not even in the struggle they have the nerve to kill women and children, when the prophet ( pbuh) specifically commanded us not to do so."

As recorded in both Bukhari and Sahih Muslim:

It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: “They are from them.” (Sahih Muslim 4322, see also Bukhari 52:256)

Collateral damage is entirely acceptable to Muhammed. Also, Muhammad used a catapult against the city of Taif. Just like bombs, a cataplut kills indiscriminately.

You say: The Quraan also says plainly not to kill anyone without just cause and anyone who kills a single innocent person it's as though they have killed all of mankind:
"Whoever kills a person unjustly it is as though he has killed all of mankind. And who ever saves a life, it is as though he has saved all of mankind." (Sura 5:32)

This is an example of misquoting the Quran for your own purposes. Let's see what this verse really says:

Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

Surat Al-Ma'idah [5:32] - The Noble Qur'an - ?????? ??????

Just so you know, these wonderful sounding words come from a preexisting Jewish text (Mishnah, IV Division 5!!!! Muhammed plagiarized them.

Additionally, this was not even addressing the Muslims. Read the next verse!!

Quran 5:33 The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.

Mischief is pretty subjective!! Maybe speaking against Muhammed in poetry is mischief. Muhammed has people slaughtered for doing that!

We also have to take abrogation into account. Your verse 60:8 was abrogated, wiped out, by this:

Quran 9:29 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.

ISIS is simply following Islam and the example set by Muhammed.

The assumption that the latter verses abrogate the earlier ones is an non-Muslim error. All the verses are pertinent and still in effect. None have been done away with. The Meccan verses are as valid as the Madinah verses and they do not contradict each other.

Assuming that the Ahadith are Sacred commands is a misuse of the Ahadith.
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
 
Old 03-18-2016, 10:58 PM
 
1,601 posts, read 754,395 times
Reputation: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
The assumption that the latter verses abrogate the earlier ones is an non-Muslim error. All the verses are pertinent and still in effect. None have been done away with. The Meccan verses are as valid as the Madinah verses and they do not contradict each other.

Assuming that the Ahadith are Sacred commands is a misuse of the Ahadith.
I referred to abrogation in the Quran, not the hadiths. And that is not what the Quran says.

2:106 We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?

16:101 And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse - and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down - they say, "You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of lies]." But most of them do not know.

"Classical scholars argued that anyone who studied the Qur'an without having mastered the doctrine of abrogation would be "deficient."[15] Those who do not accept abrogation fall outside the mainstream and, perhaps, even the religion itself."

Peace or Jihad? Abrogation in Islam :: Middle East Quarterly

You said several times you had blocked me and could no longer see my posts. What happened? How do you block someone on this forum?
 
Old 03-19-2016, 12:13 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,590,096 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
Here is my logic;

1. Anything that is related to Islam is Islamic.

2. Muslims are adherent [related] to Islam

3. Therefore Muslims are Islamic.

4. A Muslim is one who has entered into a covenant with Allah to comply with its terms and conditions in the Quran [direct words of Allah to Muhammad via Gabriel] only - and no where else.

5. The members of ISIS had entered into a covenant with Allah

6. Therefore the member of ISIS are Muslims.

7. From 3, members of ISIS are Islamic.

8. If members of ISIS are Islamic, then ISIS is Islamic.

Can you dispute the above logic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
Yes.

1. Untrue. Even Shaytan (Iblis) is related to Islam. He was in islam before he refused to obey Allah and became one of the kuffar. Disobeying Allah deliberately (as Iblis did) renders one a kafir.

2. Muslims are those who are in Islam (are obeying the commands rather than are disobeying the commands).

3. Not all so-called Muslims are Islamic. To be "Islamic" person, one must comply with the Islamic principles. For something to be Islamic, it must be in tune with the Islamic principles. Nothing unislamic can ever be called Islamic.
This defeat your reply in 1. Satan did not comply with Islamic principles.

All Muslims are Islamic re my point 2.
The degree of compliance by a Muslim will determine his degree of Islamic-ness.
Note I quoted various verses where Allah stated a Muslim believe in degrees and will be graded as such and rewarded accordingly.

Quote:
4. A Muslim is someone who believes in Allah, the last day, the revealed books from Allah, the prophets, the angels, and then obeys Allah and His messenger by obeying the commands from Allah. The former is believing and the latter is submitting; the two main requirements to be met to stay a Muslim. These are the two pillers on which a Muslim stands.
A Muslim is some who has entered into a covenant with Allah.
Analogy: A man may love another woman, but they are not husband and wife with obligation to each other until they both has signed a marriage contract.

A person may believe [loose term] in Allah exists etc. but s/he cannot be a Muslim until s/he has entered into a covenant [submitting to] with Allah in accordance with its terms and conditions in the Quran. It is after the covenant and submission that a Muslims progress to believe [proper] with greater understanding and compliance with the commands of the Quran and Islam.

Quote:
5. You have no proof that all members of ISIS have entered into a covenant with Allah.
I have no actual proofs but the point can be inferred from various circumstances.
All members of ISIS would have taken the Sahada with witnesses.
With such evil_ness within ISIS no one would dare to take the risk of joining ISIS without taking the Shahada. [there could be rare exception, i.e. spies and real deviant which are not significant and don't count].

Quote:
6. There is no proof that the ISIS members are believing and submitting to Allah.
If they have taken the Shahada under such strict surveillance, ALL [with rare exception] would have submitted to Allah and progress to comply with the commands of Allah zealously as a slave and with fear of Hell.

With your above then you cannot claim there are 1.6 billion Muslims at present.
At least I have strong circumstantial evidences to justify members of ISIS are Muslims but to prove 1.6 billions are Muslims would be an impossible task.

Quote:
7. Killing innocent people is unislamic. Therefore, those who kill innocent people are not Islamic.
What is in the Quran is Islamic.
Those who read the Quran and certain verses as 'Duck' as act is out is 'Islamic.'
Therefore if the 'Duck' turn out to be killing infidels, that is Islamic.

Quote:
8. If members of ISIS are unislamic then ISIS is not Islamic.
From my point in 5 & 6 the members of ISIS are Islamic, and ISIS is Islamic.
 
Old 03-19-2016, 12:29 AM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,308,309 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by juju33312 View Post
I referred to abrogation in the Quran, not the hadiths. And that is not what the Quran says.

2:106 We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?

16:101 And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse - and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down - they say, "You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of lies]." But most of them do not know.

"Classical scholars argued that anyone who studied the Qur'an without having mastered the doctrine of abrogation would be "deficient."[15] Those who do not accept abrogation fall outside the mainstream and, perhaps, even the religion itself."

Peace or Jihad? Abrogation in Islam :: Middle East Quarterly

You said several times you had blocked me and could no longer see my posts. What happened? How do you block someone on this forum?
You block a person in your user settings What it does is you can no longer see the person's post. However, it does not work well because if some one quotes the blocked person you still see their post in the other person's post. It did not help, so I unblocked you.

Your link is not from an Islamic source and the author is making the same errors many non-Muslims make about abrogation in the Qur'an. to learn what it means you need to look at an Islamic source.

Quote:
Introduction

The abrogation of Quranic verses, arguably the greatest lie against the Quran, was originally invented during the fourth century A.H. (late 10th century A.D.) by some Muslim scholars notably Ahmed Bin Ishaq Al-Dinary (died 318 A.H.), Mohamad Bin Bahr Al-Asbahany (died 322 A.H.), Hebat Allah Bin Salamah (died 410 A.H.) and Mohamad Bin Mousa Al-Hazmy (died 548 A.H.), whose book about Al-Nasekh and Al-Mansoukh is regarded as one of the leading references in the subject.
Quran-Islam.org - True Islam
l

Abrogation actually has more to do with The Madhabs os of Shariah than with the Qur'an. Just using the Hanafi concept of abrogation we have:

Quote:
Hanafi Doctrine of Naskh (Abrogation)

Hamdard Islamicus, Vol. 22 (1999) No. 3
by Dr. M. Akram Rana

In the usual classification of Muslim sciences, the usul al-fiqh isgenerally defined as the science of the proofs which lead to the establishment of legal standard.(1)

The usul had been the subject of study by jurists as attested by the fact that Abu Yusuf discusses certain aspects of it in his Kitab al-Kharaj(2) and Shaybani is reported to have written a book on the usul.(3) But this term had not yet acquired the technical meaning of a science dealing specifically with the sources of Islamic law. The Risalah,(4) a unique work in the literature of Islamic law, gave Shafi’i a name as the founder of the science of usul al-fiqh. Shafi’i was followed in his monumental work on the principles of jurisprudence by a Hanafi jurist, al-Karkhi, the teacher of al-Jassas. Although his treatment was very sketchy, it was a fruitful start in the field concerned.(5) Al-Karkhi was followed by Abu Bakr al-Jassas who wrote a comprehensive book about usul al-fiqh in which he explained the views of his teacher al-Karkhi.(6) The Usul al-Jassas, as a matter of fact, is the first systematic attempt ever made to describe the principles of Muslim jurisprudence. The late Hanafi works on the usul and particularly on al-Nasikh wa’l Mansukh give us clues that most of the ideas were borrowed from the Usul al-Jassas.(7) Mustafa Zaid,(8) an Egyptian Writer on the subject of al-Nasikh wa'l-Mansukh, states that definition of naskh by Jassas was followed for five centuries. Jassas included in his Usul the views who do and do not believe in the theory of Naskh. The views of his fellow Hanafites like 'Isa b. Aban are also explained. Further, he presented Karkhi's views and remarked that Karkhi's opinions were clearer than those of 'Isa b. Aban's.(9) Records show that Jassas was an exponent of the Hanafi school and its acknowledged Usuli. The production of the Usul al-Jassas was intended to verify the fiqh of Imam Abu Hanifah. Jassas endeavoured to document the Hanafi views in the light of verses of the Qur'an and the ahadith of the Prophet (P.B.H.).

Islam for non-Muslims: Abrogation?
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top