www.free-islam.com

Class Discussion - Islam = "Following Muhammad": 2:143 Debate respons
- Tue 23 Aug, 2011 4:25 pm
Post subject: Islam = "Following Muhammad": 2:143 Debate response
Peace all; for interest you can see how an entire forum has to rely on one verse:


http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f15/refuting-quraniyun-44513/index18.html


They banned me from the forum so here is the latest response

(I have assembled most arguments into a discourse but will include some updates):


***


Quote:
The facts that you continue to ignore are of concern, and a thorn in the side to the doctrine of Qur'an-only.



It is no problem. Here is another flaw in your theory. Produce the hadith giving the non-Quranic order.


Quote:
Following the Messenger according to 143 entails following commands relayed by the Prophet but not present in the Qur'an.



I proved from the Quran that you are making unfounded claims.


Quote:
Why does it need to say follow Muhammad? As we have proven in 143, the Message was not Qur'an-only. Your apologetics here are in vain.



Because the Messengers only duty was to convey the Message (5:99). The Quran was the only thing he followed (5:48, 6:114) and is the only thing we are supposed to follow (45:6). You have not proven there was an external command. As I said, there may have been a causal effect. Also, we already know temporary commandments were not Quranic for other Prophets. You have failed to explain the difference, thus your arguments (assuming your interpretation) are harmless.


Quote:
You are refuting yourself here. If you follow the Message completely then you cannot be deemed to have turned your back on it. But 143 shows that non-Qur'anic commands form part of the Message and that abandoning them means to abandon Allah's religion.



Allah does not say that the test was a part of the Book, only a test to see who would follow the Messenger. The "Message" as in "revelation" may contain things external to the final Qur'an, but they are abrogated. The Messengers duty was only to convey the Message. Following means following a way of life, not religious practices once the message itself is accepted. I can demonstrate that further. Your interpretation does not have to be the correct one; there are others but we are only talking about the one that half-fits your wish. Produce the hadith with what you say. Produce your witness for all your non-Quranic commandments. 2:143 does not endorse anything except the fact that people found themselves in a situation where they had to follow another qiblah.

Here is an online English Tafsir supporting the interpretation I first presented you with:


Thus, in the same way that We guided you to it, We appointed you, O community of Muhammad (s), a midmost community, excellent and upright, that you might be witnesses to the people, on the Day of Resurrection, that their messengers delivered [the Message] to them; and that the Messenger might be a witness to you, that he delivered [the Message] to you, and We did not appoint, make, the direction, for you now, the direction, you were facing, that is the Kaba: the Prophet (s) used to face it in prayer, but when he emigrated he was commanded to face the Holy House [of Jerusalem], in order to win the hearts of the Jews. He prayed in this direction for sixteen or seventeen months before he changed direction; except that We might know, [that it become] manifest knowledge, who followed the Messenger, and believed in him.??????????????


This actually makes more sense. Again, even with the Sunni interpretation, it is quite clear that following the Messenger regarding the qiblah is a part of following his political views and social strategies. (i.e. helping him to deliver the Message (7:157)). It has nothing to do with making laws outside of the Qur'an. If we were in a situation where a Messenger had arrived and had given some Revelation, then if we knew his purpose and wanted to follow him, we would accept his social strategies. The test was quite temporary (for those people), and again, all wahi permanent revelation is in the Message.


Quote:
In believing in only part of the Message you turn on your heels.



All permanent wahi Revelation came in surat. Now you are showing your mushrik colours.


Quote:
Time limited verses which are superceded by other verses in terms of legal command are still preserved in the Qur'an. The qiblah was abrogated, but that is irrelevant to the argument. Obedience to the Messenger includes obeying non-Qur'anic instructions because these too come from Allah. The believers knew this.



The abrogation came from Allah, thus the fact still stands that it was non-permanent Revelation which in no way endorses any hadith except the Quran. That is an aspersion you cast, and to support it you say the Quran is not 114 surat but includes the contradictory mishmash narrations full of (honestly) filth.

I can refute obedience to the Messenger?????????????? quite easily, but save that for debate. The Messenger only followed the Quran, not hadith (5:48, 6:114).

Moreover, we know that the commandment (assuming your interpreation) did not contradict the Quran. I can quite easily prove that any hadith which contradicts the Quran cannot be used, so even if you endorse the mishmash, you have to follow only that which does not go against the Quran. Unfortunately the Quran is complete, fully-detailed and a perfection of the deen, so that means that they all contradict if you hold them as obligatory. Your shirk is the only reason you say I am not Muslim, and it is the reason why this forum had to change my name.

Produce one legitimate example of abrogation in the Quran.


Quote:
This is your attempted face-saving caveat. If you have a problem with the foundation of the argument, go back and respond accordingly. It's all there. All you have done is present one feeble interpretation after another, abandoning one in favour of the other when you realise you are on a sinking ship.



I still uphold my other interpretation, supported by the Tafsir. What is your problem with it? Perhaps you should respond logically. I only continue to expose how weak your arguments are. I did say we should agree to disagree, but you would not have it because you know it hurts morale.


Quote:
I think you mean to ask what is the role of the Messenger. The role of the Messenger is to deliver the Message. 143 shows that the Message comes in non-Qur'anic form too and the Muslims are obliged to observe it.


The Muslims of the time had no problem with the principle of observing religion based upon non-Qur'anic commands because they evidently knew that such commands had divine origin. Allah later confirms this divine origin in 143. This provides key insight into the understanding of the Muslims of the time regarding what verses like 'Obey Allah and Obey His Messenger' truly meant, and that understanding is in direct contradiction to you and your false dogma. MeesaMorons of the time would have turned on their heels, no doubt about it. Allah abrogated the qiblah, but nowhere was the principle abrogated.



Prove that the commandment is a part of the final Message. Produce your shirk pamphlet showing me the commandment.

We already know messengers were to be followed. Following means following the way of life. Messengers are made community-leaders (2:124), but they must lead only according to the Message (21:27, 21:73).

So basically it ties in with 7:157, 48:10.


And We have not sent you but as a giver of good news and as a warner. Say: I do not ask you aught in return except that he who will, may take the way to his Lord.??????????????

25:56-57


Those who did not follow the Messengers qiblah were not helping him to deliver the Message (7:!57) and thus were not endorsing the way of life prescribed by Allah.

Here is what following the Messenger really means:


And the day when the unjust one shall bite his hands saying: O! would that I had taken a way with the Messenger. O woe is me! would that I had not taken such a one for a friend! Certainly he led me astray from the reminder after it had come to me; and the Shaitan fails to aid man. And the Messenger cries out: O my Lord! surely my people have treated this Quran as a forsaken thing.??????????????

25:27-30


So your shirk pamphlets have nothing to do with the Message.


Quote:
The Qur'an perserves the principle of internal abrogation of varying degrees. Quranists live in denial and have to resort to apologetics.



Never lost a debate on abrogation yet.


Quote:
Lol, I don't think even you know what you're talking about



I do, and knowing why you respond like that I will say it again:

"They demonstrated they followed the Messenger by following the qiblah, meaning they demonstrated their faith in the Messengers authenticity (i.e. the Quran)."

This means they demonstrated their faith in the fact that the Messenger was a Messenger. The Messenger cannot be believed to be a Messenger without the people first having faith in the Message.

Abstract logic may be difficult, yes, but it works.


Quote:
More self-refutation. According to this, if one does not follow he who gives the Message, then they do not truly believe he is a Messenger. Do you know where this lands Quranists?



Read my above arguments. If you believe in the Messenger, you will help him to spread the Message regardless of whether his command to do something is Revelation or whether it is a good socio-political strategy (as it was). Either way the decision was abrogated, being no different to other temporary external Revelation given to him and other prophets. Allah says we follow the Quran, and any decision which goes against the Quran (e.g. embellishes it) is unacceptable.


So you can have your pamphlets, but you might have trouble using them and staying Muslim.


Quote:
To convey the Message. Which as has been shown, cannot be Qur'an-only. When will you understand?



The Messenger was only a warner (35:23), warning of the consequences of certain behaviour compared to other behaviour. The Arabic Quran was revealed to the Messenger so that he could use it to warn the people (6:19, 42:7). 38:70 confirms that everything revealed to the Prophet was a part of the warning.


Quote:
Once again, to follow the Messenger means to observe the Message he came with and to obey. The Message is proven to be more than Qur'an only - and non-Qur'anic commands upon Muslims have divine sanction.



Assuming it was direct Revelation, of course it was in the Message. The Message can abrogate itself (2:106), which is what happened. It is just like all other non-permanent Revelation. Allah informing the Prophet about his wives in 66:1-5 is a part of the Message according to you. They are essentially the same, except one was a test of faith to see if the people believed that the messenger was a Messenger. Your only reply to that was I dont even think you know what youre talking about.??????????????


Quote:
Following the Qur'an means to obey the Messenger. Quranists claim that the Messenger is only obeyed insofar as his Message and that Message is only the Qur'an. We have demonstrated this is a false notion per the Qur'an itself.



Shirk symptoms again. Following the Quran means to obey the Messenger. The Messenger only followed the Quran (2:23, 4:105, 6:50, 46:9, 5:48, 6:114). Why does following the Quran mean to obey the Messenger? Because the Messenger delived it. Obey Allah and obey the Messenger?????????????? mean obey the Messenger and obey the Messenger?????????????? according to your view. You place Muhammad above Allah by saying we obey the Messenger in anything regardless of what the Quran says.


All Revelation was produced in surat. Bring your other Revelation with divine witnesses. I forgot, the Quran guides to what is perfect (17:9). Allah guides with the Quran, not with the Messenger (39:23). Please explain, because this renders your claim completely impossible.


Quote:
Muslims must observe the revelation. The Qur'an shows that the Messenger's instructions are part of revelation even if not part of the Qur'anic text itself. This is the reality Quranists cannot deny.



So now you are saying that the commandment was only a command of the Messenger. I thought you were saying it was from Allah, not the Messenger. Most of my argument has dealt with the fact that if it came from Allah then it cannot contradict the Quran (even bypassing the fact it was never meant to be temporary). Now you are saying we obey Muhammad in anything regardless of whether Allah commanded it. I addressed that also by saying the test was about what the people demonstrated by following his social strategies and supporting his mission (thus endorsing that way of life). Muhammad has quickly become your God, but I debunked the possibility of that in my previous note.


Quote:
And the Book shows that the Messenger's instructions must be obeyed, Qur'anic or not.



But whether it came from Allah directly or not, it was still Allah that made the situation where they had to change their qiblah! Allah cannot contradict Himself even if you say Muhammad is God (as you now do). All you are doing is saying that an abrogated command (never meant to be temporary) demonstrated to prove if people followed the Messenger (who I demonstrated could only deliver the Quran) means we have to accept shirk pamphlets completely unrelated to what we are talking about. And this assumes you interpret the verse right, which is unlikely.


The Messenger was only a warner (35:23), warning of the consequences of certain behaviour compared to other behaviour. The Arabic Quran was revealed to the Messenger so that he could use it to warn the people (6:19, 42:7). 38:70 confirms that everything revealed to the Prophet was a part of the warning.


The Messenger only followed the Quran, so again you have no room to even use your mushrik books. If you do, you contradict the verses where it tells Muhammad to judge by it. I provided good verses in my last response which you have not addressed.


Quote:
Quranists always get this part back to front. By following the Qur'an you are obliged obey the Messenger's instructions.


Obedience to the Messenger is not restricted to following only the Qur'an. Otherwise the believers would have failed the test of 143.



Maybe you confuse Book?????????????? with ahadith. The Quran never says what you say. 2:143 does not actually endorse any other hadith. It simply says there was an intentionally-temporary test to see who would follow the Messenger. It has been demonstrated that the Messenger did not deliver anything permanent except the Quran. Moreover, the test was to see what people demonstrated (i.e. would they help the Messenger and did they believe in the authenticity of the Message which made him a Messenger). Allah would not test people who ALREADY accepted the Quran to see if they SERVED MUHAMMAD as well. Why would he try to trick people who already believed in Allah? 2:142 makes it completely clear that their problem was not about whether it was Quranic or not, but actually about the change in qiblah.


Say: What! Do you then bid me serve others than Allah, O ignorant men???????????????

39:64


We serve Allah by following the Book (11:1-2)

As you can see, the test could not possibly be to see who served Muhammad. That is to say, He was not testing people to see if they believed in His Revelations whether they were in the Quran or not. Follow the Messenger?????????????? takes into account that the Messenger only followed the Quran and only served Allah.

You agree that the test was a test because of the change in qiblah. You thus discount the claim that it was a test because the Revelation/command was not in the Quran. This means Allah was not testing to see who followed the Messenger in things outside the Quran. He was testing peoples FAITH IN THE MESSAGE. 2:143 says:


And Allah was not going to make your FAITH to be fruitless; most surely Allah is Affectionate, Merciful to the people.??????????????


So it was a test of FAITH, not a test of whether one followed Muhammad. Find me one other verse in the Quran telling people to follow the Messenger in anything except the Quran. It was a test of faith to see if people believed in the Message (hence the Messenger) and the way of life. It was a test of faith in all of Allahs words, not a test to see who would follow Revelation even if it was not in the Quran. Following the Messenger?????????????? is equated to faith??????????????, but you are saying following the Messenger?????????????? only applies to faith in non-Quranic Revelation or any command that the Messenger gives.

We know that this faith came from the Quran, because Allah guides with it (17:9, 39:23) and Allah said it would not be hard for those he guided (2:143). Thus leave 2:143 for a moment and find me a verse in the Quran which supports your interpretation. You will bring 4:65 even though it refers to disagreements between hypocrites, but anyway lets see.


Quote:
Quote mining isn't as impressive as you think it looks.



The point about 5:42-43 refuted your religion, but that is all you can say?


Quote:
143 shows that abandoning the Messenger in non-Qur'anic divinely sanctioned commands is an extremely serious matter.



It was about faith in Allah, as I just proved. It was not about whether one followed Muhammad. One demonstrates faith in Allah by following the Messenger whose only duty was to spread the Message.


People had to help him (7:157, 48:10). Actually 4:80 confirms that following the Messenger means following the way of life prescribed by Allah. I can elaborate but will wait.


Quote:
Does internal abrogation amount to Allah changing His mind, dear MeesaMoron?



There is no internal abrogation.


Quote:
You are unsure of a lot of things. Including which argument you wish to peddle.



The first one worked. This is only to show that your argument fails in all cases.


Quote:
You haven't understood half of what's been written. Hence your constant confusion and switching arguments.



I do not believe I switched arguments. I agreed to disagree at one point, but you continued so I engaged on your interpretation henceforth.


Quote:
Yet genuine Prophetic instructions are from Allah, as 143 shows.



But it was a temporary test. It was never meant to be permanent thus it was not in the Quran. It was a deliberate test to see who would follow the Messengers way of life (the Quran). It was a test of faith, not a test to see who was picky about whether it was in the Quran or not. You claim it was a part of the Message, but then you ignore 2:106 where it says things can be abrogated. Things which are abrogated are not in the final Quran. If ahadith are from Allah, there can be no contradictions. There are.

Why cant we find this genuine Prophetic instruction in ahadith?

Again, of course it was a part of the Message. However it is not a part of the Book. It was abrogated.

It was a test to see who had enough faith to follow that Revelation from God. Muhammad was not going to tell them to do something and hide the fact it was from God (if it were direct). It was a part of the Message according to you, and yet it could have been (assuming the interpretation) but it was abrogated. We must follow the Book alone according to the Book.


Quote:
I love how you try to throw more excuses into the mix when others fail. Perhaps you could elaborate your ridiculous suggestion so you can be further exposed as the heretic you are.



I love your rhetoric. So predictable and cute. There is nothing to elaborate on except to say again you cannot prove it was direct Revelation and not merely a causal effect (e.g. every war would have been a test for believers but not every command to go to war is in the Quran). Regardless of anything, it was abrogated.

As I said, ahadith are not from Allah. They come from people who disobeyed their own ahadith and wrote them down whether they were true or not.

You see, as per 17:36 and 45:6 etc., a Muslim cannot follow anything not confirmed by Allah. Even if there were verses saying follow only true hadith??????????????, there would still be a dispute. Unfortunately you tell us that Allah did this, which is funny.


Quote:
The specific command, yes. The underlying principles, no. As mentioned, it shows an insight into how the Muslims of the time understood what it meant to obey the Messenger. A fact Quranists cannot handle.



The underlying principle (according to 2:143) was a test of faith, and what else were they to have faith in except Allah? If they already believed in Allahs words (in the Quran) then they already believed in the Messenger. The fact it was a test of faith based on guidance eliminates your claim that there was a follow Muhammad?????????????? principle. It was faith in Allah, not in Muhammad. We only serve Allah (39:64), and we do that with the Book (11:1-2). To further refute your shirk, 3:79 tells us to worship Allah only from our knowledge of the Book.

Following the Messenger in 2:143 means to follow his way of life and thus help him. If we were in a situation where a Messenger had arrived and had given some Revelation, then if we knew his purpose and wanted to follow him, we would accept his social strategies. The test was quite temporary (for those people), and again, all wahi permanent revelation is in the Message. Those who did not follow the qiblah were disobeying Allahs word (a commandment He Himself abrogated) or they did not have the courage to do so (just as there are no commands to go into every single individual battle). Those who did not follow the qiblah disobeyed 7:157, for example.

You do realize that your interpretation does not actually make much sense, dont you? Again, we are supposed to obey those in charge too (4:59). Does this mean prophecy? We know Messengers were community leaders (as I pointed out before). This is because they brought a new way of life and we were expected to follow it. Assuming your very weak interpretation, following the qiblah was an order from God which was abrogated. Understanding follow the Messenger?????????????? as follow Muhammad?????????????? thus never comes into it, because it has to be from God or in accordance to the spread of Islam. It was one of these or both of them. If it was direct from God, then it was a part of Revelation but it was abrogated and never included as part of the Quran (how would they tell immediately anyway?). If it was a situational decision made necessary in the socio-political climate, then the people should have followed the Messenger anyway, but their refusal would show they did not have faith enough in Islam and its truth. It is obvious that the People of the Book were not going to help the Messenger if they did not follow the same qiblah.


Quote:
The Message comprises Qur'anic and non-Qur'anic elements. All from Allah. And the Qur'an proves it.



See above. Abrogated. All permanent wahi Revelation is in the Quran.


Quote:
18 pages on and you still think you aren't debating.



This is not debating. I can refute you with a single verse, but I am just showing the strength of your arguments and how much shirk you have to commit to be a Sunni. Debating is when you do not ignore the evidence and concede that your arguments prove nothing.


Quote:
Are you braindead or something? 143 shows that Allah sent revelation to be conveyed to the believers (i.e. instructions on the original qiblah) for them to observe. This is the very definition of the 'Message.' And this divine command was non-Qur'anic in nature. Please stop embarrassing yourself.



If it was as you say, then of course it was Revelation, but it was abrogated. Just like elsewhere and for other prophets. How were the people to know if it was Quranic or not? As far as they were concerned it was an order from God (hence a test of faith). The concept of what it meant to follow the Messenger?????????????? does not come into it. Otherwise it was a situational order. However your whole interpretation of 2:142-145 makes slim sense, so there are other ways of addressing this.

As I said, you deny the Messengers function as well as the fact that the Quran guides to what is most upright. You ignore 45:6 and many other verses I posted in front of you. Perhaps it is you who is braindead J


Quote:
You ignore responses you cannot answer. Is it any surprise you passed over my exposition of your latest desperate attempt to distort the verse re: your false deductions about ja'alna?



How have I passed over it? I have repeated my claim that you cannot prove it was not a causal effect, suggested in part by the word. I never implied it was a definite argument, but I am showing you are basing your assumptions upon assumptions upon your wishes and against plain verses of the Quran. You have passed over them.


Quote:
The beauty of 2:142-144 is that it is an incident enshrined in the Qur'an itself which debunks all of the myths and lies promoted by morons like yourself about verses relating to obedience to the Messenger.



Such confidence is exactly why I am talking to you. I have demonstrated that your arguments are based on many fallacies which must be ignored. These are a thorn in your side.


Quote:
You are conflating the Qur'an-sanctioned principle of obedience to the Messenger with the historical
preservation of narratives. Quranists tend to do this when in meltdown.



But the Messenger only followed the Quran. We do not need a Messenger to judge by it (5:42-43). I can provide many verses but you do not dare debate. Nor do you address the Quranic ayat I listed, instead you confuse message?????????????? with book?????????????? claiming that ahadith can supersede Quran.


Quote:
I suggest you look at the drubbing you've received here and stop hiding behind all of these pathetic excuses for arguments which I have meticulously and comprehensively exposed, one by one.



I am not hiding behind your arguments.
All times are GMT + 10 Hours
Powered by phpBB 2.0 .0.17 © 2001 phpBB Group