TWO SOURCES OF ISLAM?
Mullahs assert that there are two sources of Islam, the Qur'an and the Sunnah. The latter is supposed to have come to us through Hadith and through generations. But the Hadith and Sunnah of each sect differ and often overlap or clash with others. The Qur'an is the only revealed and fully preserved Source of Islam. All else is Number Two Islam.
Imam Shafi'i was the first man to covertly proclaim that the Qur'an was an incomplete Book! He said that Allah has revealed to the exalted Messenger Mithlu ma'ahu (More revelation like it). On the basis of this conjecture, a Hadith was concocted by Bukhari: Hazrat Abu Hurairah said, "Rasoolullah taught me two kinds of knowledge. One I have made known, but if I reveal the other one people would cut my throat."
Two Sources of Islam?!
-
Dr. Shabbir
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 12:46 pm
- Contact:
Two Sources of Islam?!
Wassalam,
SA
SA
-
Arnold Yasin Mol
Two Sources of Islam?!
Salaam Aleikum,
When you read Shafi's Risallah, you can see he is defending his idea. His way of defending shows he his trying to convince the majority of the people he is right. This shows that the majority of that time didn't believe in 2 sources of Islam.
If the majority of Muslims believed in 2 sources, then Shafi would not have needed to talk in the way he did. He is using 'convincing' speech instead of 'confirming' speech.
He was born in Palestine and was raised in Mecca. It is said he was a Quraishi even, and had lived with the Beduin tribes. If this is true or just fables to make him more look reliable as a source is questionable. He studied law in Medina with Malik ibn Anas and Hanifa. Also studied in Baghdad. He was trained in Hanafi law.
The weird thing is that his idea that Hadith and Sunna determine the Quran's interpretation is rejected by Hanafi and Malik. Shafi also lived in Yemen for large periods and was highly influenced by the Jewish communities living there. This is maybe where he further developed his idea of 2 sources of Revelation. As the Jews believe in the Thora and the Talmud=oral tradition, to be on the same level.
The biggest question is: How can it be that we have 3 famous Imams, which all 3 completely differ in approaching Islam, had the same education? Malik used hadith and the Sunnah of Medina as present in 150AH, that he got from the Persian Imam Zuhri. Hanafi didn't use any Hadith at all, and only based it on the Quran and the present condition. It was known he could give 10 different judgements on the same subject during his life, as every time certain factors had changed, this is why Hanafi rejected the idea that Sunnah is something fixed. Shafi believed in a fixed Sunnah, and saw it even as second Revelation next to the Quran.
None of the above scholars had ever created a school, most even warned not to follow him. And all 3 differed completely on the concept of Law in Islam. And this is where we base our law on?
When you read Shafi's Risallah, you can see he is defending his idea. His way of defending shows he his trying to convince the majority of the people he is right. This shows that the majority of that time didn't believe in 2 sources of Islam.
If the majority of Muslims believed in 2 sources, then Shafi would not have needed to talk in the way he did. He is using 'convincing' speech instead of 'confirming' speech.
He was born in Palestine and was raised in Mecca. It is said he was a Quraishi even, and had lived with the Beduin tribes. If this is true or just fables to make him more look reliable as a source is questionable. He studied law in Medina with Malik ibn Anas and Hanifa. Also studied in Baghdad. He was trained in Hanafi law.
The weird thing is that his idea that Hadith and Sunna determine the Quran's interpretation is rejected by Hanafi and Malik. Shafi also lived in Yemen for large periods and was highly influenced by the Jewish communities living there. This is maybe where he further developed his idea of 2 sources of Revelation. As the Jews believe in the Thora and the Talmud=oral tradition, to be on the same level.
The biggest question is: How can it be that we have 3 famous Imams, which all 3 completely differ in approaching Islam, had the same education? Malik used hadith and the Sunnah of Medina as present in 150AH, that he got from the Persian Imam Zuhri. Hanafi didn't use any Hadith at all, and only based it on the Quran and the present condition. It was known he could give 10 different judgements on the same subject during his life, as every time certain factors had changed, this is why Hanafi rejected the idea that Sunnah is something fixed. Shafi believed in a fixed Sunnah, and saw it even as second Revelation next to the Quran.
None of the above scholars had ever created a school, most even warned not to follow him. And all 3 differed completely on the concept of Law in Islam. And this is where we base our law on?