All Muslim eyes today are turned toward New York, where Muslim WakeUp! and the Muslim Women's Freedom Tour have organized the first public woman-led Friday prayer service in ... well, perhaps ever. Needless to say, this event has stirred up quite a bit of controversy. In order to justify the event, MWU has posted an article by Nevin Reda arguing for the religious validity of female imams for mixed-sex Friday prayers. A few other such pieces, though not having the depth of Nevin Reda's, also exist on the internet. On the other side of the court, one can find articles opposing female imams for jumu'ah services. My contention here is that the argument in favor of woman-led jumu'ah salat is not persuasive, for reasons that have been only partially explained in some of the existing critiques.

As a starting thought, let me say that PMU/MWU! serves an important function in the Muslim community in its role as gadfly. Many of the issues they raise, pertaining to women, sexuality, the use of violence, interfaith relations and the like, are ones that need to be raised in an open way. They have thrown down the gauntlet to the rest of the ummah, and that is to be lauded. I agree with their overall goal of improving women's position within Islamic law, and of seeking gender equity. I also support a critique of classical Islamic legal methodology, and revision where appropriate. As for the issue of women leading salat al-jumu'ah, I have no personal objection to it. However, it is the divine will that I believe we are charged with discerning, not our personal sensibilities. Thus, my disagreement with the progressive position is not over the content of the rulings, but with the legal methodology by which the rulings are being argued, which does not appear to me to be sound.

In order to arrive at any new legal doctrine, or hukm, one must employ a systematic methodology by which to extract meaning from the sources. Traditionally, this methodology has been categorized under the rules of ijtihad. If the classical principles of ijtihad are not viewed by progressive Muslims as being adequate, either in whole or in part, for discerning the will of God, then they must present an alternative.

About the Friday Prayer Led By Amina Wadud - In the issue of the imamate of women, all opinions are respectable. If some Muslims consider that it is illicit for a woman to deliver the khutba and lead the friday prayer, they are in their right to do so. The contradictions among scholars are not necesarily bad. We have to consider them as an expression of the variety and vitality of islam, and never as a fitna. (Read more...)

The centerpiece of a proper juristic methodology is a sound system of legal reasoning which is consistent with the texts of the Qur'an and the most-likely-authentic Sunna, and which emerges from a spirit of piety and submission to Allah (or khushu'). By sound reasoning, I mean that any argument that is proffered should progress along logical lines that are internally consistent. The classical jurists of Islam developed such a methodology. They devised ways of both grading the reliability of, and extracting meaning from, the texts, ways that by and large are very sound. For example, the fuqaha' isolated different degrees of textual clarity: Does a text reasonably permit of only one meaning? Two? More? Are there other texts that help us decide between two possible meanings in the first text? They also came up with principles for determining when a strict application of the law might be set aside for reasons of individual or social necessity. The important point for our purposes is that while jurists might have disagreed about specific rulings, they followed a well-elucidated methodology that was highly rational, that was consistent with the Qur'an and Sunna/hadith, and that appears, from my readings, to have emerged from a very real spirit of humility before God. The classical methodology of discerning the divine intent is truly awe-inspiring, and a formidable challenge to anyone who seeks to arrive at wholly new hukms, in large part because - as a method - it remains highly persuasive.

I do not say that the classical juridical methods were flawless. There were clearly differences of opinion between the jurists over specific rulings, and these differences arose from methodological disagreements. However, despite these differences in methodology and content, there were broad swaths of moral action that were treated in nearly identical fashion by most expounders of the law. Any attempt to come to fiqh positions that are not given somewhere within the existing corpus must:

a) explain why the existing methodology is unacceptable (that is, why it necessarily leads to conclusions that are makruh or haram), and

b) provide an alternate methodology that is more capable than the existing one at discerning the divine intent.

The proposed ruling - that women may lead men in salat al-jumu'ah - violates several basic texts and classical interpretive principles, and its proponents provide neither a sound critique of the traditional legal methodology or nor an improved one to replace it. The impression one gets is that there is no consistent methodology, that in fact, the desired ruling (the permissibility of women leading mixed-sex congregations for salat al-jumu'ah) dictates their use of texts and of interpretive method. Heaven knows I have wished for women to be able to lead salat al-jumu'ah. But wishful thinking is not a sound methodology.

Because the arguments in favor of women leading jumu'ah, and mixed congregations generally, is being made using traditional sources and methodology, let me explain why I think their argument is flawed.

1. Salat al-jumu'ah and the requirements of the imamah are issues of worship ('ibadat), and thus should not be modified.

Some might ask, is the issue of women leading salat one of social norms or religious law?

Answer: In a nutshell, the laws of Islam have been divided by the scholars into two broad categories, those that have to do with the rights of God, and those that have to do with the rights of human beings. Certain acts are purely in fulfillment of one, and some the other, and some fulfill both. Prayer, as one of the 'ibadat (forms of worship) has been considered to be almost purely in the category of rights of God. This is in distinction to social, economic and political activities, which are seen as having to do with the rights of human beings.

The jurists gave human interpretation very little scope in modifying the rules regarding the forms of worship. They reasoned as follows: The elements of salat - its physical format, the formulae read within it, the specifics of the surahs that may be read, the rules regarding special types of salat (such as jumu'ah, eid, janaza), the rules regarding what constitutes tahara (ritual purification), the number of raka'at in each type, the times of day, the alignment of men and women, the khutab - all of these were established during the life of the Prophet under divine guidance. We simply do not know the reasons for their form. Furthermore, because salat is so critical to proper practice of Islam, it is not an area that one may tamper with.

Thus, the scholars operated according to the principle that the rule (asl) in social laws (mu'amalat) is permissibility (ibahah), and the rule in religious observance ('ibadat) is prohibition (tahrim). In ordinary language, this means that in the area of ordinary life (social and individual), we may assume that a lack of evidences (dala'il) regarding an activity indicates that we can do it. In the area of the ibadat, however, we are to take the opposite approach: Unless there is a dala'il indicating that something is permissible, we are to assume it is prohibited. It is a very conservative approach to the ibadat, undoubtedly, and I believe for good reason.

The consensus among the scholars on the issue of leadership of salat (imamah), both in terms of leading the actual salat and of delivering the khutba, falls under the laws of 'ibadah, and is not simply a question of social norm. We submit to the form of the salat that the Prophet did, and pray as he did. Just as we cannot decide that the ritual aspect is old-fashioned and we now want to pray sitting in pews, we cannot modify the rules of imamah. A hard pill to swallow for some, perhaps, but the goal is jannah, in the end.

2. Women leading mixed congregations in fard salat does not constitute a grave need, for which ordinary rules of salat and imamah may be set aside.

According to the traditional methodology, the selection of a weaker hukm over a stronger hukm can only be done when there is a dire social or individual need, or a threat of injustice or loss of life. For example, when Umar b. al-Khattab suspended the law of cutting off the hand for theft in a period of hunger, that was a dire need. When one is permitted to consume alcohol or pork when on the verge of death, that is a dire need.

Women leading salat simply does not qualify as a dire need, either individually or socially. Nor does a woman delivering the khutba (which is part of the salat). Nor does bringing the women up to the front or having a mixed congregation. Furthermore, non-engagement in any of these actions does not result in a loss of life or well-being, intellect, property, lineage, or religion. Non-engagement does not constitute injustice. On the level of necessity, then, this proposed hukm does not pass the muster.

This is not to say that there are not grave problems concerning gender equity in our community. Women in the Muslim community generally, and in the mosque in particular, are seen as being "good Muslims" when they are most silent, most unobtrusive, most compliant with male-driven policies. Walls and curtains, crowded and substandard prayer areas, prohibitions from entering the "main" area or going through the "main" door, lack of comfortable and direct access to imams/scholars, gender separation of couples and families upon entrance into the mosque � all of these contribute to a feeling of alienation among Muslim women. All of these problems, however, should be rectified without violating the sanctity of our 'ibadat.

3. Tarawih and leading one's slaves and kin is fundamentally distinct from jumu'ah, and the rules from one cannot be translated to the other.

Although the majority of scholars said that women cannot ever lead men in jama'ah (congregation) for any prayer, there were a few (such as al-Tabari, al-Muzani, Abu Thawr and Ibn Taymiyya) who made exceptions. The exceptions were based not on any one hadith, such as that of Umm Waraqa, but on all the textual and rational evidences taken together. These exceptions were of two sorts:

1) That a woman may lead salat al-tarawih if there is no male who has memorized the Qur'an, as long as segregation and the rows are maintained, and

2) That a woman may lead her own male kin (her husband, her children, her slaves) in her own household, if she is the most knowledgeable of them.

Each of these exceptions has its particular logic, a logic that cannot be extended to Friday prayer within the existing interpretive methodology.

Tarawih is distinct from jumu'ah in several key respects: Tarawih is a nafl salat, while jumu'ah is a fard salat. Tarawih is ideally offered in one's own home, while jumu'ah is the most public of congregations. Tarawih becomes the grounds for an exception, according to the Hanbali jurists, because of the importance of reciting and hearing Qur'an during the month of Ramadan. So important is it, they reasoned, that if a woman were the only one who had memorized or could read and recite Qur'an, it warranted an exception to the rule of male-led salat. It is very difficult to argue that in an entire locality, there is no man who is capable of leading jumu'ah, while for the much smaller tarawih, it is more likely that a woman may be the one who has memorized most Qur'an.

Leading salat al-fard in one's own household is distinct from jumu'ah in several key respects, which all stem from the fact that in one's own home, the assumption is that one is leading maharim (blood-relatives) only, while the assumption is that in jumu'ah, one is leading mostly ghayr maharim (strangers). The rules for relationship between maharim are well-known: A woman need not cover herself or be as concerned for modesty around her husband, parents, siblings, children. She can touch them, relax, etc.

In short, the jurists who were open to women's imamah still limited their exceptions to tarawih and household salat. They took the hadith of Umm Waraqa seriously, but did not run with it to the point of trampling all the other dala'il, as does the progressive approach to this issue.

4. The hadith of Umm Waraqa does not provide a sufficiently persuasive basis for women leading mixed congregations in salat al-jumu'a.

At most, one might reasonable argue that a woman can lead her own household, as have a minority of jurists. The progressives' argument on the general permissibility of women's imamah hinges in part on the idea that in the hadith of Umm Waraqa, "dar" means area or locality. While this is one of the possible meanings of "dar," it is highly unlikely in this context. For example, no one ever suggests that when the early Muslims prayed at the "dar" of al-Arqam, they were praying in al-Arqam's locality rather than within the confines of his private residence. Perhaps the strongest evidence that "dar" literally means her home is the fact that there are multiple variants of this hadith. While in Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd, the word used is "dar," the version given by Abu Dawud in his Sunan uses the word "bayt," which not only means "home" but even "room within a home."

Nevin Reda's argument (on the MWU site) is particularly inconsistent on the meaning of "dar" in Umm Waraqa's hadith. On one hand, she says that "dar" likely means "area," and that Umm Waraqa was thus designated to be imam of her locality. On the other hand, she says that "dar" means "home," and that Umm Waraqa's home functioned as the jami' masjid of her area. Both readings are speculative, and cannot be used as a basis upon which to construct a general permissibility of women's imamah, especially when there are no other supporting texts for that idea, and when there are several texts indicating that in all other known circumstances, men served as imams over other men.

In the same way, the argument that Umm Waraqa's congregation must have included more than just her 2 slaves and perhaps the elderly man who served as her muezzin can hardly pass as strong evidence for women leading jumu'ah or mixed jama'ah. Likewise, the contention that there must have been more than 3-4 people in order for there to have been a designated muezzin is not strong. There can be a muezzin even for such a small group, and most jurists held that even a lone man doing salat should call adhan for himself. Numbers have nothing to do with the need for a muezzin.

In general, the arguments that are given in support of the upcoming female-led jumu'ah, in combination with the extent of the modifications being made to traditional laws of salat, reflect an ends-justify-the-means approach. It appears that it has already been decided that it is permissible for women to lead a mixed congregation in jumu'ah. Any textual or rational indicants that these rulings might be invalid are conveniently rejected. At the same time, texts that are seen as supporting the pre-determined ruling are championed in a way that is highly selective and methodologically inconsistent.

Furthermore, the claims being made are far more sweeping than the evidence warrants. For example, Nevin Reda writes, "From the above evidence it is abundantly clear that Qur'anic and hadith evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of woman imams." Can it really be that the same scholars who preserved for us the hadith of Umm Waraqa could have been so dimwitted as to have missed "abundantly clear" rulings? That we are the first to realize that the Prophet had actually established a second mosque in Madina and designated Umm Waraqa as its imam? While it may be fashionable to ignore or undermine the classical legal tradition, I have a hard time understanding how one could reasonably think that those interpretive methods were all flawed, that the jurists were all wrong, and that we have arrived at the true Islam � which happily enough, matches our own cultural sensibilities.

My recommendation is that we study and critique the tradition, and work on developing a legal interpretive methodology that leads to more equitable rulings, yes. But I would also recommend a much greater dose of caution and of humility, in light of the gravity of the task. I would seek to remind us all that our first priority is to seek the good pleasure of Allah, whose guidance for humanity may not always be scrutable.

Given both a recognition of the marginalization of women from public religious life and the need to preserve the sanctity of the 'ibadat, there are other ways for women to become integrally involved in jumu'ah in a public teaching capacity, and I would encourage masajid to implement these. I realize that my recommendations will not satisfy those who favor women leading mixed congregations, and this is fine. I think it is also clear by now that I am not willing, at this point, to concede the legitimacy of that route, wallahu a'lam. I suggest these avenues for those who remain unconvinced of the progressive position, who seek to preserve the integrity of the 'ibadat, but who also would feel that women must have greater visibility within the religious life of the community:

1) Women may write the Friday khutbas to be delivered by the khatib with proper attribution to the author. In my experience, imams are more than happy to have someone else do the work of putting together the khutba, and the practice of khatibs reading sermons written by others is well-known.

2) Women may deliver public lectures just prior to the khutba. The practice of a public talk between the adhan and the beginning of the khutba is found in much of the Muslim world and is an even more direct way than the above for women to communicate their ideas directly to the congregation. One idea for dual-language communities is that the talk delivered by the woman can be the basis for the khutba, which would essentially be a translation of it.

3) Women may be the translators of the khutba, as the translation is not technically part of the khutba. This is clearly not a function in which her own ideas will be disseminated, but in many communities, even hearing a woman's voice, either through one's headset or after the khutba, would be a significant improvement over the status quo.

Some might regard these suggestions, particularly #2, as being so close to women giving the khutba that I am just hairsplitting. Others may feel that these suggestions do not go far enough, since they stop shy of restructuring the jumu'ah rules. My hope, however, is that for those who seek a middle course, these will provide a sound basis for action while remaining within the parameters of the tradition.

CONT.

***If the above is not true, and please do confirm this, if it is, then please answer my original question: How can you guarantee that the messenger did not make a mistake in the Quran given the fact that he is fallible and is prone to making mistakes? How do you know he did not make a mistake in one of his revelations? You are essentially caught up in the trap of circular reasoning. You are saying the sky is blue and when asked why, you reply, b/c blue is the color of the sky. Your argument and reasoning both point to one another. ***

Muhammad, when acting in the capacity of Messenger, could not err. when not acting in the capacity of the Messenger, he could and did err. I gave you two ayats to confirm my assertion about that. The Message/Quran/Revelation was NOT from Muhammad, but was from Allah through him. I gave you ayats where Allah, God Almighty, states that He has PROTECTED His Quran from any errors. With this in mind then, how could the Messenger make a mistake in its transmission? My question to you at this point is,...do you believe Allah or don't you? If you do believe Allah then my reasoning is not circular but Quranic.

***It is obvious that you do not believe or are unaware of the concepts of taqlid, ijtihad or ijmaa, so I will not waste time getting into it. However, let me get to the end point of my reasoning b/c this has gone on long enough.***

On the contrary, I am quite aware. Tell me, where in Al-Quran can I find the ayat or ayats which support any such notion as---ijtihad? This concept is an invention of men and not from Allah and, is the priniciple source of taqlid [blind following/following that for one's guidance other than Allah] and shirk [ijtihad] impacting out ummah today.

CONT.

***There is no answer to my question, it is a trap. The answer is that we MUST believe in the infallibility of the last messenger, b/c we have to, we do not have a choice. It is a leap of FAITH. The logical reason for this is because, we cannot believe in the message until we believe that the messenger was incapable of making a mistake. If we believe that the messenger was capable of making a mistake then we, as rational people, must believe that he MAY have made a mistake in the Quran. (We can be irrational and selectively choose what we want to believe but again, that would be an irrational and illegitimate approach). Once we make the statement that he MAY have made a mistake then our entire faith comes under review and we end up with people like Wadud who say that they have Ïproblems believing some parts of the QuranÓ. But I digress.***

The Messenger made no mistakes, however, Muhammad, when not acting in the capacity of Messenger did. Ayats 33:37 and 66:1 confirms this. What is your response to those ayats, what do they mean to you?

***Once we have established that the messenger is infallible, we can begin the task of reviewing his actions to see how our religion is to be implemented on a day-to-day basis. Enter the concept of Hadith or Sunnah. Because the transmission Hadith or Sunnah are not offered the same divine protection that the Quran has, there are a number of corrupt Hadith that exist and some that are flagrant fabrications.***

Ahh! and so we come to the heart and the meat of the matter...your wanting to rationalize the use material extra to Al-Quran for one's guidance/salvation of the soul, and for the establishing of Islamic jurisprudence :). Well, let me say this, NOWHERE, in Al-Quran does Allah make any mention of an sunnah of the Prophet, sunnah of Muhammad or sunnah of the Messenger. Allah does use the term sunnah and the following ayat ilustrates it use:

35:43 On account of their arrogance in the land and their plotting of Evil, but the plotting of Evil will hem in only the authors thereof. Now are they but looking for the "way the ancients' were dealt with? But no change wilt thou find in 'Allah's way' (of dealing): no turning off wilt thou find in "Allah's way".

35:43. Istikbaran fee al-ardi wamakra alssayyi-i wala yaheequ almakru alssayyi-o illa bi-ahlihi fahal yanthuroona illa 'sunnata al-awwaleena" falan tajida "lisunnati Allahi" tabdeelan walan tajida "lisunnati Allahi" tahweelan

CONT.

If you, and whoever else, insists that there is a sunnah of the prophet to be followed, then, it is incumbent on you, to go to Al-Qur'an and post the ayat which says...the "sunnah of the prophet" or, you are in contradiction of the following ayat:

3:78. There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is not part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!

Then, Allah asks [and not for our opinion about it]:

29.51 Is it not sufficient/enough for them that We have revealed to you the Book which is recited to them? Most surely there is mercy in this and a reminder for a people who believe.

And the Messenger was ordered to convey this Message:

10:15 And when Our clear ayats are recited to them, those who have no hope of meeting with Us say: "Bring a Qur'an other than this or change it. Say: It is not for me to change it of my own accord. I follow naught but what is revealed to me". Indeed I fear, if I disobey my Lord, the chastisement of a grievous day.

You see, Roomih, you want another quran other than Allah's Quran, hence , your denial of what "obey the Messenger" means and desire to incorporate Sunnah and Hadith in Allah's Guidanc. The following is the definition of quran:

QARARA, the root of Quran, means to read, read a written thing, recite with or without having a script, proclaim, convey, call, rehearse, transmit.

Main Entry: SCRIPT: something written.

In, 10:15, people want a quran other than Allah's, but the Messenger is commanded to state..."I follow nothing but what was REVEALED to me". ONLY Al-Quran was revealed to him and that is what we are required to follow and not the speculations about every facet of the Prophets life. Btw, qarara, means both scripted and unscripted, hence, the sunnah, which many say is distinct from the hadiths, is also covered by this word.

29:18 And if you reject (the truth), nations before you did indeed reject (the truth); and nothing is incumbent on the messenger but a plain delivering of the message.

***One test to determine legitimacy, however, is that if a Hadith goes AGAINST the Quran, it is in all likelihood a fabrication or a corruption of a real Hadith. There are other criteria such as isnad and matan that are looked at, but without getting into the science of Hadith, let me tell you that, by far, the bulk of our day-to-day guidelines come from Hadith.***

Has Allah or His Messenger told Muslims to use any other body/bodies of work for spiritual guidance/salvation of the soul and for the establishing of Islamic jurisprudence? If so, please post the ayat or ayats from Al-Quran which proves they said this, because 10:15 alone precludes any such notion/practice.

***Once we acknowledge the legitimacy of the Quran, and Hadith, we can look to see if there are any interpretations or tafseer of the Quran that legitimize womenÌs imamate. There are none. There are no Hadith that substantiate it. There are no interpretations of the Quran that substantiate it and there are no fatwas that substantiate it.
Now keep in mind that whenever a religious practice is introduced, the onus is not on the Islamic knowledge base to DISPROVE it, rather it is on the practice being introduced to PROVE that it is acceptable.
Not only is womenÌs imamate not substantiated from any angle, it actually goes against the approved practices.
Making a blanket statement that Ïnowhwere in Al-Quran does Allah make haram a woman leading men in salatÓ is immature and only shows your lack of understanding of what Islam is.***

Here we go..."Once we acknowledge the legitimacy of the Quran, and Hadith". Now tell me, where does Allah authorize/legitimize any such extra-Quranic body of work called the Sunnah/Hadtihs?? Examine what Allah says here:

7:33. Say: the things that my Lord hath indeed made HARAM are: shameful deeds, whether open or secret; sins and trespasses against truth or reason; and that you associate with Allah that for which He has NOT SENT DOWN ANY AUTHORITY; and saying things about Allah of which YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE.

Don't you realize yet that, to ASSOCIATE ANYTHING [Sunnah of the Prophet & Hadiths] with Allah without His EXPLICIT AUTHORIZATION, that is, ayats from Al-Quran to prove what you advocating, is shirk? Shirk, is to take a partner along with Allah, for one's GUIDANCE.

No, Roomih, it is not me who is immature and lacks understanding, but you and those who advocate your beliefs. If you can read with any comprehension, and I'm certain that you can :), then ayats 7:33 and 10:15, absolutely prevents you and others from using anything for your spiritual guidance/salvation of the soul, and for the establishing of Islamic jurisprudence, other than Al-Quran. Allah, has not designated the Sunnah and Hadith as supplements to His Book of Guidance/Quran. Allah says that His Book is fully detailed/fassalna. Do you then reject/dispute that? If you don't, then you can see how absolutely un-Islamic it is to use anything as a supplemant to Al-Quran for one's spiritual guidance/salvation of the soul/islamic jurisprudence? You admitted earlier that, the hadiths are not error free. With this is in mind then, do you really believe that Allah would have us follow something as law/guidance that wasn't error free? What sense would that make?? Listen to yourself, Allah gives man an error free Book and then tells us to follow a corrupted body work--Sunnah/Hadith as well, what sense does that make?

Allah says:

6:19 Say: What thing is the weightiest in testimony? Say: Allah is witness between you and me; and THIS QURAN has been revealed to me that WITH IT I may warn you and whomsoever it reaches. ..

Regarding onus of proof for whatever is done in Allah's name, ALL PARTIES must substantiate their claims via Al-Quran. The above ayat, 6:19, among others, proves this, as well as:

16:116 But say not - for any false thing that your tongues may put forth,- "This is lawful, and this is forbidden," so as to ascribe false things to Allah. For those who ascribe false things to Allah, will never prosper.

BOTTOLINE...DOES ALLAH FORBID WOMEN TO LEAD MEN IN PRAYER...YES OR NO? If the answer is no, then you and those who support your view, have NO case, sorry. This is because...ONLY Allah makes something lawful and unlawful and not men.

***And if you still disagree, please explain to me WHY CANT I PERFORM MY PRAYERS NAKED OR IN THE NUDE. Please produce an ayat that prohibits this practice.***

Why not, if you are alone :)?

"No, Roomih, it is not me who is immature and lacks understanding, but you and those who advocate your beliefs. "

No! No! You guys were doing so well...please don't start flaming now...!

CONT.

***Oh, btw, please refrain from the distasteful habit of quoting from the Quran, unless somebody says 'where in the quran does it say that'.
Qutoting from the Quran in a non-quranic discussion is the equivilant of putting the Quran on a spear and saying that you are fighting the Quran. ***

How can quoting Allah's Book in defense of His Deen, EVER be distateful?!? I really think you need to re-think and re-phrase your comment. I don't have to wait on anyone before quoting Allah. It's very interesting that, up to this point in our discussion, you have YET to quote Allah's Book of Guidance in defense of your postions...why is that?

Please quote the ayat where Allah says that it is haram for a woman to lead men in so-called ritual prayer. Remember, Allah has fully detailed in His Quran what is lawful and what is unlawful for His servants...do you also reject this assertion?

SALAAMUN TO ALL

Don't worry, I will remain civil and I'm certain Roomih will as well :D.

SALAAMUN ROOMIH

Looking forward to your response...please quote Quran in support of your assertions, thanks. Remember..."with Allah is the conclusive argument". 6:149

Yawn, Hadeetha and Sunnah bashing, the hallmark of a diseased mind.

Oh for heaven's sake, driveby.
Leave it to you to come along and poop on a good debate.

Dr.Driveby

On the contrary, the hallmark feature of diseased mind, is one that cannot think critically and employ common sense...think about this.

Walikum Iconoclast;
I implore you, beg you, plead with you, Please do NOT do any dawah, especially to a well versed Jew or Christian. They will chew you up and spit you out.
How can you quote from a book, whose authenticity you can not substantiate? Please no more ayats that say that the Quran is infallible. Every single book out there says it is the word of God and it is infallible, from the Torah to the Bible and even the filthy Hindu Ramayan says that it is the ONLY, TRUE word of GOD (gods in this case), what makes the Quran so different?

We can discuss what is IN the Quran only after we can verify that it is authentic. Your twisted, circular logic that the messenger entered some sort of Ïinfallibility zoneÓ while receiving divine ordinance is ridiculous. Where are you getting this stuff anyway?
Let me see if I understand: God took away the messengerÌs capacity to err when giving him guidance then returned that capacity to him when God was done÷.???!!
ThatÌs it? Is that the best you can do?

Our discussion can only move forward if you can substantiate the infallibility of the Quran OUTSIDE OF QURANIC REFERENCES (Good luck with that)

Oh, btw, I was waiting for the battle cry of SHIRK! So now I am a mushrik from a person that says itÌs ok to pray in the nude. Thanks for not disappointing.

Awaiting your reply.

Salaam Alikum to everyone;
Rest assured I will remain civil throughout my discussion with Iconoclast. Everyone else is fair game..... ;)

>>>Roomih seems to be arguiing for the sake of argument.
Performing salat in naked or in the nude is out of the question since Quran has mandated a minimum dress code for both male and the female.
- Posted by jalal Zuberi on Mar 21, 05 | 2:53 pm<<<

Mr. Zuberi,
My question is part of an overall discussion with Iconoclast. Either read all the postings or refrain from interjecting your half baked opinion.
To bring you up to speed: Since we are only discussing what is in the Quran, the question is a rhetorical question designed to show Iconoclast the fallacy of his methodology. There is NO ayat that prohibits a person from praying in the nude, much like Iconoclast is asserting. The dress code you are referring to does not EXPLICITLY prohibit a person from praying in the nude.

So is there anybody other that Iconoclast who feels that they can pray in the nude?

Mr Roomih:
I will grant you that something doesn't become haram if there is no specific ayat in the Quran which prohibit a Muslim to do that act. These are the muhkamat of Allah, where haram and halal is clearly defined. You guys have covered that ground so there is no need to repeat. Then there are Muhtashibat, where are indirect guidance is used. Most scholars agree that besides these two extremes, there is a grey area where things are not difined due mainly to the fact that it people didn't encounter those situations. For example hostage taking or demanding ransom. Since there is no ayat in the Quran forbidding this act, this doesn't become permissible.
Re. praying in the nude, and I know it was a rhetorical and that is why I said you were arguiing sor the sake of argument, is that the hukm of Allah re teh dress code, takes care of that issue, since if you can't be infront of anybody in thr nude, can you be standing infront of Allah in that state?
It is common sense and Allah repeatedly implores all mankind to use common sense in worldy matters.

SALAAMUN ROOMih

Part 1

***How can you quote from a book, whose authenticity you can not substantiate? ***

Hmmm..."chew me up and spit me out"...LOL! well, this has not happened to date, in fact, it has always been the other way around! Later, insha-Allah I will show the bible verse which destroys any notion of the divinity of Jesus. Thus far, as per the command of your Lord, you have not brought ONE SINGLE AYAT from His Quran to support your assertions. How can YOU give dawah and NOT quote Allah's Quran...the Book of Guidance to mankind? Don't you realize that Allah says to say..."SAY" hundreds of times in His Quran? Now, I ask you, if He does ot want us to quote Him/His Quran, why then, does He hundreds of times, command us to say.."SAY"?

You continue to ask me about the authenticity of Al-Quran and I gave you the following ayat:

4:82 Do they not consider the Qur'an with care? Had it been from OTHER THAN ALLAH , they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.

Now, I ask you, have you or anyone else in over 1400 years...found ONE discrepancy in Allah's Quran? The above ayat is the test of authenticity from Allah, The Lord of the Worlds. What other authority will you accept that will prove to you the word of Allah Himself?

Further, regarding authenticity, Allah says:

4:166 But Allah bears witness by what He has revealed to you that He has revealed it with His knowledge, and the angels bear witness (also); and Allah is sufficient as a witness.

10:37 And this Quran is not such as could be forged by those besides Allah, but it is a verification of that which is before it and a clear explanation of the book, there is no doubt in it, from the Lord of the worlds.

So, your Lord, the One who gave you life, will give death and raise you to life again to know you destiny, tells you clearly that...He is sufficient as a Witness to Himself, AND, that He bears witness to His revelation. Now, I ask you, what source can you present that will give more certitude of the authenticity of Al-Quran, than the two ayats which the MESSENGER was given to recite to mankind regarding this matter?

Then Allah asks:

29:51 And is it NOT ENOUGH/SUFFICIENT for them that we have sent down to thee THE BOOK which is rehearsed to them? Verily, in it is Mercy and a Reminder to those who believe.

Remember, THE MESSEGER SAID..."I follow NOTHING but what was revealed to me" 10:15. So, what is your difficulty, Roomoh?

Part 2

***We can discuss what is IN the Quran only after we can verify that it is authentic.***

I think I've answered this question in depth.

***Your twisted, circular logic that the messenger entered some sort of Ïinfallibility zoneÓ while receiving divine ordinance is ridiculous. Where are you getting this stuff anyway? Let me see if I understand: God took away the messengerÌs capacity to err when giving him guidance then returned that capacity to him when God was done÷.???!!
ThatÌs it? Is that the best you can do?***

Hmmm...my my, Roomih...it's getting hot over there where you are, eh :)? Yes, while reciting wahy, the Messenger, was in an "infalliblity zone" [Btw, I really like you how you put that :D ]. I can't do better but Allah can, so we'll let Him, to wit:

Sura MUHAMMAD, ayat: 47:19. Know, therefore, that there is no god but Allah, and ask FORGIVENESS FOR THY FAULT, and for the men and women who believe: for Allah knows how ye move about and how ye dwell in your homes.

Now, I ask you, if Muhammad, as you wish to assert, is infallible, that is, incapable of error, 24/7, then why is Allah instructing him to ask forgiveness for his fault?? If one is infallible, then one has no faults! If Muhammad was infallible, as you wish to assert, then he would be a god and equal with Allah, because ONLY Allah is without fault or error.

What will challenge now after these ayats, Roomih? Please bring Quranic evidence for your, what I can only describe up to this point are...wild assertions. No more of you opinions/conjectures, please tell us what Allah says, thanks.

Part 3

***Our discussion can only move forward if you can substantiate the infallibility of the Quran OUTSIDE OF QURANIC REFERENCES (Good luck with that)***

Per above ayats 4:82, 4:166, 10:15, 10:37 and 29:51, it is clear as crystal that, Allah doesn't require any outside source to substantiate the infalliability of His Quran, but, because you asked I give you this ayat:

7:157 Those who follow the Messenger-Prophet, the Ummi, WHOM THEY FIND WRITTEN DOWN WITH THEM IN THE TAURAT AND THE INJEEL (who) enjoins them good and forbids them evil, and makes lawful to them the good things and makes unlawful to them impure things, and removes from them their burden and the shackles which were upon them; so (as for) those who believe in him and honor him and help him, and follow the light which has been sent down with him, these it is that are the successful.

Ayat 7:157, clearly answers your question about an outside source authenticating Al-Quran. Given that, the Messenger is mentioned in those previous scriptures, then those who recognize that know Al-Quran is from Allah and is infallible.

***Oh, btw, I was waiting for the battle cry of SHIRK! So now I am a mushrik from a person that says itÌs ok to pray in the nude. Thanks for not disappointing.***

Let me ask you a question...have you never been in the shower or bath tub and prayed to Allah for something...not even once? gotcha! :D

Btw, I never called you a mushrik...but...

Please, bring Quran to substantiate your claims...no more conjecture, thanks.

SALAAMUN JALAL

***Then there are Muhtashibat, where are indirect guidance is used. ***

You ae not correct here, Jalal. Shabaha, the root of mutashabitun, means...alike, similar, same, consistent. Whe I get home, I will give you the ayats which proves this.

Comments for this article have been archived and no further comments are allowed.