Answering a commenter: Who's misleading whom?

Technorati tags: Malaysia, Islam, Rhetoric, Rebuttal, Dogma

Walski received an anonymous comment early this morning, in response to a post from a couple of weeks ago. Due to the nature of the comment, Walski felt that it deserved a response in a full post. But before the rebuttal, a recap of what the commenter had to say (emphasis by myAsylum):

peace be upon you..
قوله تعالى:
وما ءاتاكم الرسول فخذوه وما نهاكم عنه
فانتهوا واتقوا الله
(AL-HASYR surah 59:verse 6)

"and whatever (the Quran, the Hadith, the Qiyas) Rasul taught you so take it, and whatever he forbade from so stop (never approach it) and do fear ALLAH...."

And i do agree with ustaz Zaharuddin abd rahman. and what he wrote is definitely true.

And just how can you walski69, who never studied al-Quran & Al-Hadith, try to say that hadith, cannot supercede the Al-Quran in authority when it comes to Islamic JURISPRUDENCE????

And all you do is using your mind, never take the Al-Quran as one, and all you do is take the Quran partly, and never accept the other part!!

Please, never do such thing another time. Bear in mind this thing you do'll just let the anger of God and the muslimin out.

Firstly, the commenter has quoted the wrong verse number. The verse number which he/she meant was verse 7 (not 6). Secondly, it is not the complete verse 7. Finally, to the commenter: please do not presume that Walski has not studied the Quran and Hadith.

Now, the full verse 7 of surah 59 (al-Hasyr, or Exodus) reads as follows (using the Yusuf Ali translation, with the portion of the verse quoted by the commenter bolded, by myAsylum):

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.

The verse excerpt quoted by the commenter is perhaps one of the most-abused verses in the Quran by those who insist that the Quran alone is not enough. The verse (the one preceding it, and several verses after) talks specifically about spoils of war and makes no mention whatsoever of hadith, qiyas or the Quran as alluded to by the commenter. If ever anyone is taking the Quran only partly it is the commenter, and not Walski.

And adding meaning to God's scripture, by implying that the verse is talking about someting else altogether? This, in fact, is a very dishonest act of trying to uphold a dogmamatic belief.
(more of this rebuttal in the full post)

Consider the following verse, Surah Ali-'Imran (surah 3), verse 7:

He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

What the commenter has done, in essence, is ignore the obvious meaning of the verse, and instead imply that it means something else altogether.

Other translations state "men of understanding" as "those who posses intelligence". In either case, it means "use your brain" - your God-given intelligence and intellect. And the call, by God in the Quran, for believers to use their intelligence can be found in numerous other verses.

If one truly regards the Quran as being the word of God almighty, the question posed by the commenter pertaining to the validity of the hadith superceding the Quran in matters of Islamic law would not arise in the first place. To quote the Quran again, Surah Yusof (surah 12), verse 111 (emphasis by myAsylum):

There is, in their stories, instruction for men endued with understanding. It is not a tale invented, but a confirmation of what went before it,- a detailed exposition of all things, and a guide and a mercy to any such as believe

The "It" in the verse above refers to the Quran, and what Yusuf Ali has translated as "a tale" ('...a tale invented') is in fact the Arabic word "hadith". The Quran describes itself as 'complete and detailed' - not just in this verse but in many others as well (see Surah Al-An'am [surah 6] verse 114, Surah Al-A'araf [surah 7] verse 52 and Surah Yunus [surah 10] verse 37).

The question then becomes: if Muslims insist on using extra-Quranic sources (Hadith, Qiyas, etc) for Islamic guidance, does this not imply that the Quran in itself is not complete or detailed enough? And if so, doesn't that also imply that God is lying when He says that the Quran is complete and detailed?

Far be it from Walski to even dream of considering such blasphemy!

And if Walski's writings, thoughts and arguments let out the anger of the Muslims, then we have to ask: why would a Muslim be angry for a call to return to God's words, the Quran? And how could this even remotely anger God?

Or are they angry simply because Walski challenges the dogma that they so strongly hold on to?

~ in the end, only God knows best ~