> How a Modernist Renders Prophethood Obsolete

[al-boriqee]

The Following are examples of how Modernist muslims posing as self proclaimed “moderates’ actually nullify Islam itself as being a religion that should be adhered to.
A modernists says the following

" Prophet (saw) used to make Ijtihaad [he was quoting from someone who had recently written a book]. Sometimes Prophet (saw) was wrong when he made Ijtihaad. When Prophet made the Ijtihaad and he was wrong, Allah (swt) didn't always correct him. Therefore we have to go to the Sunnah of Prophet (saw) and try to determine where he was correct in his Ijtihaad and where he was incorrect.”

[Assad]

:

bro. I didnt understand what is this post supposed to mean? Is this a modernist argument? If yes than what is the counter argument ?

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by Acid

:

bro. I didnt understand what is this post supposed to mean? Is this a modernist argument? If yes than what is the counter argument ?

what is in the quote is a modernist viewpoint. In order to explain it properly, what this modernist is basically advocating is that sometimes, the prophet's judgments were wrong audhubillahi min adh-dhaalik. Just merely having this viewpoint is kufr in what Allah brought to us in the Qur'an because Allah told us he does not speak of his own desire

And then this modernist further espoused more kufr by stating that BECAUSE the prophet was sometimes wrong (audhubillah), Allah did not always correct him.

So not only is this belief kufr, but likewise, this idiot modernist also claimed that God almighty did not protect the religion, rather Allah almighty allowed for there to be mistakes made by the prophet.

And then he concludes with this kufr that because Allah supposedly did not correct the Messenger, then we ourselves have to do the correcting, which is the basic gist of modernism. In other words, he just advocated the idea of revisionism, because in order for us to "correct" the mistakes of the prophet, it means rendering obsolete those hadeeth that sound problematic to us and therefore nullifying the ordainments of the Messenger

in essence, they want to bring new meanings to statements that were never meant in the way they understand them, and they wish to nullify the correct meanings of Islam. They can only advocate that idea by convincing us of basically believing in the unprophetic nature of our prophet which is kufr

I hope this was explained efficiently

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

what is in the quote is a modernist viewpoint. In order to explain it properly, what this modernist is basically advocating is that sometimes, the prophet's judgments were wrong audhubillahi min adh-dhaalik. Just merely having this viewpoint is kufr in what Allah brought to us in the Qur'an because Allah told us he does not speak of his own desire

And then this modernist further espoused more kufr by stating that BECAUSE the prophet was sometimes wrong (audhubillah), Allah did not always correct him.

So not only is this belief kufr, but likewise, this idiot modernist also claimed that God almighty did not protect the religion, rather Allah almighty allowed for there to be mistakes made by the prophet.

And then he concludes with this kufr that because Allah supposedly did not correct the Messenger, then we ourselves have to do the correcting, which is the basic gist of modernism. In other words, he just advocated the idea of revisionism, because in order for us to "correct" the mistakes of the prophet, it means rendering obsolete those hadeeth that sound problematic to us and therefore nullifying the ordainments of the Messenger

in essence, they want to bring new meanings to statements that were never meant in the way they understand them, and they wish to nullify the correct meanings of Islam. They can only advocate that idea by convincing us of basically believing in the unprophetic nature of our prophet which is kufr

I hope this was explained efficiently

Salam,

There will be idiot people everywhere, in all communities. When you classify someone as 'modernist' (I do not know exactly who is modernist) you have to point out to which modernism so and so person belongs. When an idiot says Allah did not correct the prophet when he did something wrong, he is just an idiot and not a modernist.

However, it is just a fact that there were occasions Allah admonished the prophet and the prophet immediately corrected it. we can see even at one place in the Quran where Allah is asking the prophet, why he prohibits something which Allah has made permissible. It does not mean that when the prophet did something wrong Allah never corrected the prophet. And also there were occasions the prophet changed his own opinion when sahabas came up with better alternatives. One such instance is the Battle of Badr, in which one of his companions questioned him about the choice of the camp. He asked the Prophet whether the selection of the camp was ordained by Allah or had been made by him? The Prophet replied that the choce had been made by him. Thereupon the companion submitted that another site would be preferable and his suggestion was accepted. This shows that the prophet always consulted the Sahabas.

Wassalam

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by optimist

Salam,

There will be idiot people everywhere, in all communities. When you classify someone as 'modernist' (I do not know exactly who is modernist) you have to point out to which modernism so and so person belongs. When an idiot says Allah did not correct the prophet when he did something wrong, he is just an idiot and not a modernist.

But your not grasping the basis akhee

Im not saying that people can be idiots. Im saying that people who form these modernist conclusion can only be formulated in the arena of idiocy thereby making such a one, an idiot. However, idiots aside, the modernist have "arrived" at the conclusion that we can revise what has already been established. So yeah, he may be an idiot, but the focal point for his idiocy stems from actual modernist thought.

However, it is just a fact that there were occasions Allah admonished the prophet and the prophet immediately corrected it.

Thats accepted and agreed. The problem is that people in our times morphed this phenomenon into an idea that some of the sayings of the messenger is actually a misguidance. Secondly, you have to understand the aqeedah of M'asoom (infallibility)

When the people of the Sunnah and the Jama'aah say that the Messenger of Allah was or is infallible, the implications derived of this principle is concerning
1. his deliverance was flawless (without a single iota of deficiency) and a hadeeth to prove this point is where he said
"I have left you upon clear guidance. its night is like its day, no one deviates from it except that he is destroyed"
another hadeeth is
"There is nothing that will lead you to the paradise except that I have brought you the news of how to go there, and there is nothing that will lead you to the hellfire except that I have given a warning from it"
2. Speaking about the religion of Allah
this is supported by the ayaah "He does not speak of his own desire, it is but revelation sent to him" and the hadeeth
"nothing comes out of this tongue (and he points to it) EXCEPT the truth"

so with all that being said, then the "mistakes" of the prophet are merely minor human mistakes that have nothing to do with revelation or the conveying of the guidance to humanity. In others, lets take for example, when Allah correct the prophet in Suratu-'Abasa (He frowned). Here, the messenger was trying to give dawah to the pagan leaders and a poor man who could not see was wanting to learn Islam. Allah was informing the messenger that this situation demanded that the prophet divert his attention from the pagans and to focus it on the poor man. It was a mistake in the human flaw of reasoning, NOT in the revelational aspects of guidance, and this is key that needs to be understood because this is different than the modernist ideology which proclaims otherwise or at least their conclusion lands to such blasphemy.

we can see even at one place in the Quran where Allah is asking the prophet, why he prohibits something which Allah has made permissible.

again, another situation. The Messenger NEVER prohibited honey, he merely disliked its use on a certain occasion (I forgot the hadeeth on the top of my head). No one in history has claimed that the messenger proclaims haraam what Allah proclaims halaal or vice versa. The ayaah was actually an encouragement to the prophet to actually use the honey and it was revealed in that gesture of language, it is not to be understood that the Messenger prohibits what Allah made lawful. This is why when we learn the Qur'an, we as well have to learn its meaning. This is exactly what the prophet chastised the Khawaarij for. He warned his companions that the khawaarij, their recitation of the QUr'an would be so great, that you (the companions) would look down upon yours in contrast to their recitation, YET their recitation does not go past their throats" meaning that they would not have a shred of an idea of what the intent of the Qur'an is. And this is exactly the modernist outlook. They bring new and strange ideas of the Qur'an that makes no sense in the actual Qur'anic context, linguistically or historically.

It does not mean that when the prophet did something wrong Allah never corrected the prophet.

we know that already. What Im tryin to educate you is that these "wrongs" of the prophet cannot amount to any more than a human mistake DISCONNECTED with actual guidance received from revelation. I will quote you another hadeeth proving this point

There is a hadeeth where some farmers came to the messenger of Allah concerning guidance in how to farm, so the prophet alihi salatu salam gave his opinion and they did what he said. Later on the crops were destroyed (from whether) and so they came to the prophet to tell him about the outcome of his advise. The response of the prophet if I remember correctly was
"al-Hamdulillah Allah sent me as the revealer of hidaya (religious guidance) for I have not been given guidance concerning worldy affairs" or soemthing to this effect. The point is, is that if I have a technical problem with my computer, I am going to revert to Salman before I revert to anything the Messenger of Allah has stated. Furthermore, it is to show that whatever miniscule mistakes the messenger made has nothing to do with religious guidance, and this is the essence of the discussion. To assume that the messnger made a mistake in the divine revelation or legislation of Allah is kufr that negates Islam and this is agreed upon by the entirety of Muslims

And also there were occasions the prophet changed his own opinion when sahabas came up with better alternatives.

of course, that is understood. it is called shoorah in Islam, which is drastically different than democracy

One such instance is the Battle of Badr, in which one of his companions questioned him about the choice of the camp. He asked the Prophet whether the selection of the camp was ordained by Allah or had been made by him? The Prophet replied that the choce had been made by him. Thereupon the companion submitted that another site would be preferable and his suggestion was accepted. This shows that the prophet always consulted the Sahabas.

Wassalam

thank you. You have just provided a refutation of modernist leanings with this very quote. Look how the companion asked if this decision was the ordainment of Allah or just the decision of the messenger

This tells us that this matter that took place has nothing to do with divine guidance, but rather a strategical decision that man is allowed to have a judgment in. And this is what has to be understood. What modernist try to do is to use this example and those like it that have no connection to revelational guidance and then stretch it with their fabulous imagination to signify that sometimes, Muhammad's religious edicts were erroneous and that we need to revise them.

thank you for raising these inquiries

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

The Messenger NEVER prohibited honey, he merely disliked its use on a certain occasion (I forgot the hadeeth on the top of my head). No one in history has claimed that the messenger proclaims haraam what Allah proclaims halaal or vice versa. The ayaah was actually an encouragement to the prophet to actually use the honey and it was revealed in that gesture of language, it is not to be understood that the Messenger prohibits what Allah made lawful.

Salam,

You are going extremly over causious to admit a simple thing.

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.

It is simple;

"They ask you (O Muhammad) what is made lawful for them. Say: (all) good things are made lawful for you." (Al-Ma'idah: 4)

I was not implying that the prophet was expressly prohibiting something which was specifically mentioned by Allah as lawful. All good things are lawful. Allah is only 'friendly' admonishing the prophet not to prohibit something for himself in order to please his wives.

Furthermore, it is to show that whatever miniscule mistakes the messenger made has nothing to do with religious guidance, and this is the essence of the discussion

You are wrong. You can not say the above issue is not pertaining to religion. If it was something which was not pertaining to religion Allah would not interfere. look again another incident reported in chapter 80. The issue is again religious and pertaining to religion. Quran teaches one of important principles to the prophet through this chapter. In order to establish the Divine Order, the principle that should always be kept in view is the motive and enthusiasm of the people who are desirous of joining it, and not their worldly status or position. The Quran admonishes the prophet in this way;

What you should consider is the desire in someone's heart. Why should frown and turn his face away just because a poor, invalid or blind person has come to him for guidance. How do you know that this blind man cannot become a virtuous man whose personality would nourish and develop. Or that he cannot understand the teachings and gradually derive some benefit from them. On the contrary, you should not tire yourself for a person who thinks he does not need your guidance and in turns ignores it. (O Rasool!) "If such a person is not reformed, then it is not of your concern and you will not be blamed. But if someone who fears consequences of an erroneous way of life and wants to save himself from them, comes to you for guidance and you give him a cold shoulder, then you are to be blamed.

Not even an explanation is needed to prove that the issue is something pertaining to religion.

Again;

“Allah pardons you! Why did you give them leave until those who spoke the truth had become manifest to you and you had known the liars?” - (9: 43)

This is again something pertaining to religion. The essense is that Allah would not interfere if something is not pertaining to religion.

wassalam

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by optimist

You are wrong. You can not say the above issue is not pertaining to religion. If it was something which was not pertaining to religion Allah would not interfere. look again another incident reported in chapter 80. The issue is again religious and pertaining to religion. Quran teaches one of important principles to the prophet through this chapter. In order to establish the Divine Order, the principle that should always be kept in view is the motive and enthusiasm of the people who are desirous of joining it, and not their worldly status or position. The Quran admonishes the prophet in this way;

What you should consider is the desire in someone's heart. Why should frown and turn his face away just because a poor, invalid or blind person has come to him for guidance. How do you know that this blind man cannot become a virtuous man whose personality would nourish and develop. Or that he cannot understand the teachings and gradually derive some benefit from them. On the contrary, you should not tire yourself for a person who thinks he does not need your guidance and in turns ignores it. (O Rasool!) "If such a person is not reformed, then it is not of your concern and you will not be blamed. But if someone who fears consequences of an erroneous way of life and wants to save himself from them, comes to you for guidance and you give him a cold shoulder, then you are to be blamed.

Not even an explanation is needed to prove that the issue is something pertaining to religion.

Again;

“Allah pardons you! Why did you give them leave until those who spoke the truth had become manifest to you and you had known the liars?” - (9: 43)

This is again something pertaining to religion. The essense is that Allah would not interfere if something is not pertaining to religion.

wassalam

I am right, you are wrong

review that entire post again, all of it is quarantined into non religious mistakes

and what further repudiates this fact is that Allah, because of His favor to humanity, MORPHED the prophet's simple human mistakes into a benefit for humanity and those who believe. So when you say "it is religious" on the basis that Allah said it in the Qur'an, that holds no weight or water because Allah already turned the mistakes of the prophet INTO a guidance for us even though the actual essence of the mistake made by the prophet was a trivial non religious matter.

In other words, the premise for Allah revealing the surah about the prophets mistake in turning a blind eye to the man IS NOT to point out that the prophet made a religious guidance based mistake, BUT to to morph that simple human error INTO religious guidance for the benefit of the believers.

that is how the Muslims and the aqeedah of ahlu-sunnah wal- jama'aah has extracted this reality

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

I am right, you are wrong

review that entire post again, all of it is quarantined into non religious mistakes

and what further repudiates this fact is that Allah, because of His favor to humanity, MORPHED the prophet's simple human mistakes into a benefit for humanity and those who believe. So when you say "it is religious" on the basis that Allah said it in the Qur'an, that holds no weight or water because Allah already turned the mistakes of the prophet INTO a guidance for us even though the actual essence of the mistake made by the prophet was a trivial non religious matter.

In other words, the premise for Allah revealing the surah about the prophets mistake in turning a blind eye to the man IS NOT to point out that the prophet made a religious guidance based mistake, BUT to to morph that simple human error INTO religious guidance for the benefit of the believers.

that is how the Muslims and the aqeedah of ahlu-sunnah wal- jama'aah has extracted this reality

Salam,

You are assuming the issues are of trivial "non religious matter". Tell me on what basis you are classifying something as religious and non religious? Please give me a specific answer for the following issue and prove that prophet's act of ignoring a blind person and Allah's interferance has nothing to do with any religious guidance. Allah is teaching the following principle in chapter 80.

"In order to establish the Divine Order, the principle that should always be kept in view is the motive and enthusiasm of the people who are desirous of joining it, and not their worldly status or position"

Are you telling me that this is not a religious guidance?? If not, please tell me me what it is. If it is nothing to do with religion why should Allah interfere and correct the prophet? Islam is not confined to some rituals and practices. It encompasses all our life. I hope you do not have any arguement that Islam has nothing to do with politics and state matters. Also what is our authority to say that this was a simple mistake from the part of the prophet? Even prophet himself took this as a serious mistake and we know how much respect the prophet was giving to this blind person after the incident. Have you not noticed in Quran, Allah is not even addressing the prophet in the first person. Please read all the verses again and you will know how serious was the issue in Allah's sight.

He (The Prophet) frowned and turned away, Because there came to him the blind man (interrupting). But what could tell thee but that perchance he might grow in purity?- Or that he might receive admonition, and the reminder might profit him? As to one who regards Himself as self-sufficient, To him dost thou attend; Though it is no blame to thee if he grow not in purity. But as to him who came to thee striving earnestly, And with fear (in his heart), Of him wast thou unmindful. By no means (should it be so)! For it is indeed a Message of remembrance: Therefore let whose will, keep it in remembrance.

See 'Let whose will, keep it in remembrance', a clear religious guidance for all Muslims at all times. it is not a simple, silly thing a verse is relvealed to the prophet reprimanting him something. And the prophet and the sahabas never considered the same in this way. You can not calssify a warning as trivial "non religious matter". You have to come up with solid logical deductions.

Wassalam