₦airaland Forum

The Hisba is when a a Muslim individual volunteers to interfere in the lives of others once they commit a crime against God or against the people. The rights of God include doctrines and beliefs such as believing in God, His angels, His books, His prophets, as well as praying on time and giving alms, going on pilgrimage, fasting, repenting, and reading the Koran. The rights of people are protecting their money, lives and honor and the right to ownership.

What happens then when a person violates one of God's rights? Everyone tends to more or less agree as to the punishments for murder, burglary, theft, defamation and adultery (although the latter is controversial). But the real controversy arises when one of God's rights is violated through heresy, apostasy, ignoring prayers and abstaining from giving alms. Should the ruler punish this person? Should others interfere in this person's personal life and force him/her to adopt a certain faith under penalty of death? Should anyone force this person to pray or go to pilgrimage? In other words, is the hisba applicable here? And if the hisba is legitimate, and means interfering in someone's life, what are the limits of that intervention? Is it merely offering advice or should it include employing force through both moral and physical punishments? It is here that we find the vast difference between the Qur'an's shari'a which the Prophet exercised, and the shari'a applied by the clergy since the Abbasside era.

Empiree:
You should rather direct this at usermane, he is going to eat you fresh

I warned you, didn't I? Do not mention me on these matters again. No more do I take your elders serious. And instead of bothering about "Quraniyoon", why not bother about your slavery, child marriage and war sanctioned religion?

We don't need a revolt, the members of the Senate and House of Representative have the power to impeach a president if he is incapable of piloting the affairs of the nation. The House should impeach Buhari of by mid 2017, if he fails to permanently resolve the economic crisis that struck the nation since his arrival.

Empiree: Common man, you are smarter than this. When you said Shari'a, thats a broad context. Weren't you taught the basics of Islam, that's, things that take one out of the fold?.Hijab is not one of them. For instance, it is forbidden in Shari'a to drink (beer, alcohol etc). But if a muslim does, he/she is sinning. It does not take one out of the fold. Get it?. However, this does not mean forcing Hijab on her. She has to understand it before practicing it. You simply do not want to look into the breakdown. Thats your problem

Your assertion that Hijab is not a basic of Islam is contradictory to your own theology. Virtually, all your clergymen agree hijab is a basic in Islam, that denial of hijab is tantamount to kufr. Let's not loose our focus. Denying the law and violating the law are not the same. What the speaker stated was that denying sharia is kufr. Hijab being an element of sharia, denial of hijab is kufr as well, according to the speaker and traditional scholars. As a traditionalist, you are accept this.
In response to the speaker, I disagreed. My evidence being Quran 2:62, you don't need to be believe in Sharia to be a Muslim. Islam is not limited to Muhammad or the Qur'an. You can't call a Muslim a disbeliever because he disbelieves in amputation.

I have refrained from responding to your other questions & posts, you should have sensed it by now, you are not intellectually stimulating enough for me. You employ many logical fallacies in your arguments; appeal to extreme, shifting the goalpost, straw man, appeal to majority. You ask questions that you already know the response, questions I have responded to in the past, downright silly or irrelevant questions. Also, try research your sources and traditions properly when you debate me, unlike those folks at Religion section, I understand your sources or traditions thoroughly. I was raised an observant traditionalist for over 20 years. So, I can tell when you are covering up, omitting, falsifying or contradicting your traditions. Believe me

Peace

Empiree: Yes! did the Qur'an fall from the sky?. Are the Jews who reject Jesus prophet hood not gonna be hell-bound?

This perfectly sum up why I can't have a decent Islamic discourse with you and majority of traditionalists. You view on Islam and monotheism is very narrow and shallow. Please see Qur'an 2: 62. Of course, your Ulamas have abrogated it, but whatever. One can lead a man to knowledge but twenty cannot make him think.

Empiree:
Am sorry, i think you are deficient in your understanding of religious text. Believe in God alone, yes, that makes one a believer. Other things you mentioned are legislation. Hijab is mandatory but if a muslima does not wear it in contempt against order given by God in the QURAN, she is still a believer but she is simply sinning. She is disobedient believer. Very simple. Just like a Muslim who deals drugs. He is still Muslim but disobedient one.

So now you agree that one can deny Sharia and still be Muslim? That is great, given that only earlier, you were supporting the speaker's stance that denying sharia equal kufr

underlined is ABSOLUTELY correct. Forget about whether a hadith is sahih, daif or fabricated. That's another issue. Bolded, you can give example?

Which example? I beg. You need me to remind you of the many prohibitions and prescriptions in Hadith that cannot be found in Qur'an? Monotheism, is a very delicate subject.

humm




Yes. When you were in what you called "orthodox Sunni Islam", what was the definition of hadith growing up as you were taught?. They defined hadith as SAYINGS, DEEDS, SILENT APPROVAL of the prophet(SAW) right?. Here again, forget about categories of hadith. That's irrelevant here.



Can you please give example of his "flaws" before revelation?

Tell me about the rabbits, George. Please see Quran 48:02 and 93:07. Muhammad was never perfect and for this reason, all his words, deeds or silent approvals cannot be taken at face value.

How is it possible for you to know history, reasons for revelations of certain verses in the Qur'an?

I think I answered this question in the past. I never needed a reason for the revelation of any verse, without finding the reason within the passage containing the verse.

What is Hikma according to you?. Well, Hikman is "understanding of religious" text i:e Qur'an. In another word, WISDOM. For instance, as I have discussed previously concerning amputation. If a poor man steals, leader should use hikma before carrying out punishment. Hikma here could mean reviewing his economic situation. So we see hikma in many places in the Sunnah where a man peed in the masjid.Did the prophet call for his head?. No, he gently advised him it is inappropriate. And many situations like this.Today, wisdom is missing among muslims but knowledge is rampant. Everyone is 'Sheikh' today but devoids of hikman. Same wisdom was given to all other prophets and messangers. Like Isa Ibn Maryam(as), he was given hikma and he applied it when a woman accused of adultery was brought to him by the Rabbi. He applied hikma. So you dont understand Qur'an at all.

Thank you.

In another word, homosexual would be morally just according to you bcuz Quran does not specify punishment for it?. This verse you quoted to justify your opinion simply doesnt reason with you. Bro, you only thread religion. You dont now it. You are super literalist. You only thread religion you dont now it. Qur'an exhorts us to think. Not only to think but to think things out. "Li qaumi yatafakkarun" You dont think. Sorry. Qur'an is for the intellectuals.

Thank you, Mr.

Can you please answer it using Qur'an alone?. Underlined, really?. You think the prophet was just carrying the Book around and reading it to his companions?. You are fantastic. You think this is Bible?

Again, thank you. Your problem is you still believe in Hadith about Muhammad on flying horse to visit God and bargain the number of daily salat. You still have the understanding that salat came with Muhammad, so please, I really don't have it in me to flog the dead horse again.

Yes, they struggled with their lives and wealth. Qur'an praises them Tawba:100



Of course some sahaba turned on heel. Qur'an itself talks abotu hypocrites amonsgt them. However, understand that Sahaba are those who accepted Islam in teh time of the prophet (SAW) and remained muslims after him. Unless and until you can specifically mentioned names of those "sahaba" who disbelieved NOT hypocrites, i wont address this. Again, the verse 25:30 you quote could mean other thing. In the context of Quran itself it could mean people read Quran but do not understand it like you have been doing.

@bold. Please read and digest the verse properly. Preferably read from the 27th verse to the main verse. Yes, some sahabas have been promised paradise according to 9:100, but not all of them. Muhammad's complain in Qur'an 25:30 foretell that MOST of the his people(those he delivered the Quran to) will reject the Qur'an. This is contrary to the idea that all of Arabia embraced Islam after Muhammad.

Empiree:
Question is, do you believe amputation for theft Divine as Quran clearly mentions?. Forget about application.

We are not going back there anymore, I had a lengthy discourse with you over my non-literal interpretation of the verse last year. How could you forget that. I don't have to deal with amputation, as I don't believe in that interpretation.

Everything here is not directly implemented. I don't think it makes sense to lump everybody together.

It doesn't change anything. It is part of sharia, implemented or not implemented.

*Apostates - there is no law in neither hadith nor Quran to punish people for this. There is however punishment for treason. This is death. This is punishment recognized worldwide for this offence. This is why its controversial when discussed within Islam. Quran clearly declares "NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION". This phrase does not refer to Muslims at all. Muslim is bound by judgement, obligations in Islam bcuz Quran says "ENTER INTO ISLAM COMPLETELY".

Dude the hadith on killing apostate are straight forward, sahih and mention nothing about the condition under which apostates are to be killed. "Kill anyone who change his faith", No more, No less.

So a Muslim can not say 'I don't have to pray salat, zakat, hajj, ramadan or believe in Qadar' or disbelief in hudud.

What are you saying? Islam is a personal religion between one and his Lord. An act of worship is rewarded based upon intention, if a Muslim does not believe an act of worship is compulsory, he get no reward if the state or police compels him to observe it. No compulsion in religion covers everyone.

"LA IKRA FI DIN" does not protect this. It only protects non Muslims. Which means usermane who claims to believe in Quran MUST offer all these obligatory practices as established. Even worst, lazy Muslims do not dispute these obligatories

No one is disputing these practices, the question here is; can a Muslim be forced to observe them by the state or police of the Muslim community? This is where the verse on "No compulsion in religion" fall in.

*STONING, myself have problem with this. Not bcuz it's simply not in the Quran but bcuz of the implications it carries along. That's, its chain has nothing to do with prophet himself but it's recorded in the Hadith. It's implication is, it's in conflict with protection of Quran. That's the main reason I reject it. However, I believe it's Allah's Law legislated in Old Laws. So the speaker saying whoever doesn't believe this is kafir. ...that is his opinion. If he had mentioned rejecting amputation, lashes etc that are mentioned in the Quran, he would have been right.


*Gay, we know for sure this is punishable offence. You can't deny it. If you do, it means you condone it. Truly, Quran does not prescribed punishment but it gives room for it. So this is a matter of ijtihad which varies from each Muslim country. If Saudi for instance prescribes death for it, it's none of anyone's business. Malaysia may say its punishable offence up to 10 years behind bars. That's their final and none of anyone's business. Etc.


*Child marriage. You simply have to difine this cuz it means different thing to people

*Polygamy, is not a legislation but it's legitimate in Islam. I don't know what your problem is. If I practice it, I follow Quran. If I choose to remain mono, im not sinning. But it becomes problematic if anyone denies it. That's like contending Allah's statement. This may lead to kufur.

My problem? Ask you sunni sisters

*Slavery, really don't know what you want with this one.




[b]Mr Speaker then goes on to call disbelievers in the shariah, kafir.Yes. You just need to be precised. If anyone disbelieves in Shariah i:e things that are legislated like shahada, daily salat, qadar, ramadan, hajj, zakat. Also hudud mentioned in the Quran like lashes, amputation, and whatever punishment mentioned in the Quran, such a person is a disbeliever. These are basic shariah(rigid and clear without interpretation). Other aspect of shariah that fall under ijtihad, qiyas don't make one kafir like gay issue I just talked about bcus these are flexible. Countries may change law.

Are you saying that anyone today who does not accept Muhammad as messenger is doom for hell? Seriously Empiree, I find you perception of Islam to very mundane.

If Muhammad does not interpret the Quran, which interpretation do we follow? He asked this question.
Well, we simply follow what we find most morally and
rationally convincing. This is the recommendation of
the Quran, I just can't recall the specific verse. Of course, this will lead to disagreements on interpretation but to every one his religion, none will be held accountable for another.

Found the verse: Quran 39:18

Empiree:
[size=20pt]The Sunnah - An Integral Part of The Shari'ah - PT (1/2)[/size]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKTBbQ1CK28


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igejmOTSj70

This second part ^^^ is really for usermane

Peace Empiree. I don't usually watch lengthy traditional Muslim videos like these. The reason being that I am very busy fellow who have a lot of priorities and every minute of my day counts. These days I just can't seem to be bothered about a traditional Muslim(sunni/shia) preacher. Even in my days as a traditionalist, most traditional preachers never appealed to me, even those i never disagreed with. I never felt that urge to follow their lectures. And make no mistake, I was raised in a observant Sunni household, and before my transformation to a Quran alone adherent, I would have agreed with everything the speaker mentioned, including amputation for petty theft. This is not the first time you call me out specifically on your videos, but for some reason I cannot see, I found myself watching it. Here are my responses

The speaker, didn't state anything new or intellectually stimulating to me. He tried too much to validate the shariah and sunnah that he began to sound ridiculous.
Shariah
This, according to the speaker is divine law. Yet he admitted he 'll not implement amputation if given the choice, but since it is decreed by God, he has no choice but to accept it. Like many traditionalists, he is insinuating that this law in inappropriate although he 'll blindly accept it. You can't truly believe without conviction. You can't come inviting us to what you deem sharia if you clearly have issues with it. I accept the sharia of the Quran, but not simply because it is from God, but because I am convinced by it.
Most of you traditionalists cannot boast of that. Some have issues with killing apostates, others with stoning adulterers or gays, some with slavery, some with child marriage, many with polygamy, e.t.c. You try to hide these insecurities with sharia, call others to it even though deep down you see the problems with it. This isn't honest.

Mr Speaker then goes on to call disbelievers in the shariah, kafir. He clearly ignores the multiple verses that reveal anyone who accept God alone and observe righteousness is a believer. Hijab, jihad, he thinks these physical things are what will guarantee eternal life.

Hadith
Our speaker like all Hadith proponents invoke the Quranic phrase "Obey Allah and obey the messenger". He says obey the messenger mean obey the Hadith, not the Quran. If God decrees in the Quran and Muhammad decrees outside the Quran, then Muhammad is another Lord beside the God of the Quran. Gross violation of monotheistic principle. God never shares His authority of legislation with anyone. God alone legislates and decrees, the messenger only delivers(Quran 5:99) and he does not share God's authority in legislating. Monotheism is deeper than you traditionalists understand.
Obey the messenger is an allusion to those who claim to obey God, whilst rejecting Muhammad's message. To get these people to the Quran, it is not enough to call them to God, they already claim to obey God. The need to call them to the messenger.


The speaker said the sunnah encompass all Muhammad's deeds, speech and even actions he approved or did not condemn. No wonder Hadith books are filled with repulsive tales of Muhammad's sexual life. Before the revelation, Muhammad like all men was flawed. Receiving the message of course improved him, but it didn't make him perfect. Messengers of God whist being role models for believers are not perfect manuals or substitute for the scripture.
The speaker asked the common question Quran alone Muslims get from traditionalist; If the Quran is sufficient for guidance, why do we need the messenger? Well we could as well reverse the question, if the Hadith already explains the Quran, why do we need the Quran? Why do we all have Quran copies on our shelves, reciting it daily while we don't even have a page of Hadith in the house.

He also quoted Quran 4:65 to corroborate his proof for Hadith. Forty verses later, in the same chapter, it is revealed that Muhammad has to judge with the book. He cannot come up with his own judgement without Quranic confirmation. The word "Hikmah" he cites as Hadith is easily defined as the Quran given that the Quran describe itself as hikmah in multiple verses.

If Muhammad does not interpret the Quran, which interpretation do we follow? He asked this question. Well, we simply follow what we find most morally and rationally convincing. This is the recommendation of the Quran, I just can't recall the specific verse. Of course, this will lead to disagreements on interpretation but to every one his religion, none will be held accountable for another.

Our speaker also treated the so called five pillars of Islam, referring to them as justification for Hadith. He exposed himself here, asking questions like "when are the time for hajj and salat according to Quran?" These questions are clearly answered in the Quran, traditionalists don't see these answers despite singing the Quran daily because they already got their answers from elsewhere. Salat and Hajj are not as formulaic as traditionalists understand. If details like number of rakas or prostrations of omission are not found in the Quran, perhaps it mean that these details don't matter to God, not necessarily because the Quran is not sufficient for performing these rituals

Lastly, our speaker narrated a Hadith in which a sahaba prove the necessity of Hadith. He then goes on to exalt the sahabas as the bravest and most righteous generation of Muslims, whom Muslims ought to look up to. I got to say I read a beautiful book by Dr Ahmed Mansur lately, a major critique of the so called companions of Muhammad. Traditionalists teach that these companions are the best there is and the best there will ever be. It is not true. Most of them turned astray after Muhammad, turned Islam into a political weapon and a justification for all their atrocities including offensive jihad and slavery. I don't see these people as exemplary Muslims. Read the Quran 25:30, how ever you choose to interpret it, it is a prophecy that Muhammad's own people will desert the Quran. To assume that the preceding generations to be guide for latter generation is a satanic trap that every community of believers; Jews, Christians and Muslims have fallen into.

Peace

How does growing up an orphan feel and without one or both parents, what is life like?

This question is directed to the orphans but anyone can respond. Thanks.

maclatunji:
None of the 2 candidates is actually Muslim-friendly. However, if you are going to think strategically, Trump is a better candidate for the world. He is likely to remove America from its hypocrisy and make it more easier to relate with. It is not like China and Russia for example love Muslims but we can easily understand what they think, what they are doing and react accordingly.

The Americans over the years have always tried to present themselves to be friendly to Muslim interests but act the opposite, they are not easy to manage and relate with.

@bolded indicate your own warped view on Americans, akin to an ignorant American view that Muslims are terrorists. What Americans hate is not Muslims as a religious denomination but Muslims seeking to "Islamize" America as they have considerably done in Britain. As for Trump, it doesn't matter if he hate Muslims or not. Trump is a product of Political correctness and Islamism, two dominant trends in the American public. Unlike Obama, Trump doesn't dismiss these trends and the threat they pose to the society. Obama will say, "we cant call it Islamic terrorism because they do not represent Islam or Muslims", but Trump realize these terrorism cannot be isolated from Traditional Islam.

A lot of Trump's threats about Muslims in America are not easily implementable because of their constitution and institutions. You just need to look at Libya and Syria to see that Hilary is bad news.

Good input. You also forgot to add the Hadith which state that any nation ruled by a woman will not prosper. That alone should get American Muslims away from Hilary

Mamalistic5:
If he loves you enough, he will find a way to woo you. If he doesn't ask you out please wait for your own man. You are too special to waste your time on a man n that doesn't love you

No. Depending on a man's personality, situation or understanding, he may not woo a woman even if he love her enough. I am not going to tell the OP to go find out his feelings or make the first move here.

However, the idea that a man will always make the move if he love a woman is garbage. It is like concluding a person will always go for their want, if they want it enough. Do you go for everything you really want? For personal reasons, I certainly don't.

This is a sensitive topic and regardless of societal expectation, it all boils down to you. I don't believe gender roles are determined by society

lexiconkabir:
I think I made mention that the analysis was copied from shaykh Al-Albanee's book? So if you see the same analysis somewhere else what would that mean to you? Anyway you swept through Abu dawood and didn't find the hadith? If you had checked only kitab al-libas you wouldve found it, anyway the reference I gave was an error it should be 4104 not 4140, I tried to see if I can get an online hadith app because I don't want to go through the stress of scanning the original book, check here https://muflihun.com/abudawood/34/4092 although on the app the reference is 4092, on the hardcopy its 4104.

No. The link refered me to the Hadith whose chain Abu Dawud declared incomplete. Post the other version of this Hadith you claimed has a complete chain.

According to Ahlus sunnah wal jama'ah the awrah for men does not include the chest, is the novel (or knees) more attractive than the chest?

Haha. I 'll be sure to ask the women in Romance section

lexiconkabir:
I don't intend having long discussion with you...



As you can see I held this view too, until I found another reliable hadith which as followers of sunnah we can't downplay.

Post the full Hadith and complete reference. I 've swept through Sunan Abu Dawud and it is not there. I reckon that your original post was not original but copied and edited from another forum.

Covering the faces is recommended and I am sure I made mention of this, but it is not compulsory, there is no single sahih hadith directly from the prophet that says IT IS WAAJIB TO COVER THE FACE but we have a reliable hadith which specifically mentioned that the hands and the face can be left from the mouth of the prophet directly.

There is a reason why a segment of your clergy still treat the Face-veil mandatory, the reason being that they cannot confirm this Hadith your are profferring. Your religion requires women to conceal their beauties from men. Is the face no longer part of a woman's beauty, is the face less attractive than the feet which you require to be covered?

Peace

Forgive me, but I think someone ought to have mentioned this. Going by the mainstream orthodox interpretation of Hijab, Niqab is compulsory. There is proof for this in the Hadith. Here:

Narrated Safiya bint Shaiba: 'Aisha used to say: "When (the Verse): "They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms," was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces."

►Volume 6, Book 60, Number 282: (Sahih Bukhari)
This is just one of the many Hadith that are clearly overlooked among the mainstream Muslim community.

Then there is an Hadith Tirmidhi that mention that a woman is awrah(nakeddness). If so, then her entire body including her face is unclothedness and have to be concealed.

I think within the fold of traditional Islam, there is enough proof mandating face-covering. Since majority of Muslim women don't wear it, we have many now claiming it is not mandatory.

Newnas:
You have said nothing but crap, and your words are not close to being intellectual!!!

Shove it up your arse, fella.

What qualifies the enemies of intellectualism in Islam to decide what is intellectual or not intellectual?

It is sinful for the tip of a man's trouser to touch the ground but it is blessed for handspan or forearm length of a woman's dress to scrub the ground of dust, mud, sewage. Smh.
Tomorrow they 'll go holding seminars and publishing books on how high their religion regard women. I could take days after days exposing all kinds of ridiculous "Islamic" dogmas that these traditionalists promote, but I don't want to hurt anyone's feeling.

Empiree: However, one needs to also consider [size=20pt]نجاسة[/size] {impurity}. Allah accepts only pure. Imagine if trouser drags on the ground, it is very possible to pick up impure substance. If the cloth is only dirty without [size=20pt]نجاسة[/size] , it is okay. That's the one thing i think the problem is. Moderation is just the best way

A traditional Muslim woman dress dragging on the ground is not considered dirty in God's sight but a traditional Muslim man's dress touching the ground is condemned as dirty in the sight of God? Hmmm..... dogmas. Of course, believe whatever you choose but filth is filth whether on the hem of a man's trouser or the hem of a woman's dress. It is not even an Islamic subject. No hygienic person would let their cloth drag on the ground in the name of pride, religion or modesty.

lexiconkabir:
This is my business, because the thread refers to people that believe in the ahadith of the prophet, i should be the one telling you to mind your business, so mr man go and sit your behind somewhere, you are not invited.

Go shove it up your arse, lex. I need not your worthless invitation or approval to post here.

lexiconkabir:
Mr man, go sit your behind somewhere, you are not invited.

I couldn't care less about your invitation or anyone's invitation. Why don't you just mind your business instead of plying the path of the losers.

theimmortals:
Thank you my brother,
That's exactly what I was thinking, but. Don't you think it will be too late by then.

Is it ever too late? If you fear you might not meet her after she leaves, you could tell her just before she leaves.

I won't advise you to make any move at this point. Your hospitality could easily be misconstrued as conditional and will only scare her off. Reveal your feelings only when she has left your house.

Empiree:
Listen to this man again. Is he not going far or what does he not understand?





What is it this man doesnt undersrtand?. Which "other God" Muslim affirm in saying:


[size=19pt]La illaha illa Allah, Muhammad Rosulullah[/size]


Is This Dude Insane or What ?


Which Other God Muslim affirm here "There Is No Deities Besides Allah, Muhammad Is His Messanger"


Can Someone help what I am missing here?

Here is my summary on this subject:
www.nairaland.com/2734412/testimonies-give-not-give

I am not a Muhammedan. Peace

parisbookaddict:
For about 3 months i have been too busy to post on nairaland.. so I am trying to post all the backlog...

And besides i will be retiring soon.. dont tell anyone else.. .. hope u gud tho.. dont see much of ur post these days.

Left because Religion section mods were moving my threads to Islam sections where they force me to testify to other than God before I post and then eventually delete my thread. So, I felt it was time I left. You have Nairalanders here who share your views and back you even in your absence, I have none.
You 're only retiring from this section right? It 'll be good to know another side of you.

parisbookaddict:
You could try this link

http://opticapuerto31.com/77504-the-people-vs-muhammad-psychological-analysis.html

On a lighter note, don't you get tired? Aren't you bored of all this? Isn't this robbing you precious time? I know you have points in your stand against Islam but I feel you need to relax and just let it pass sometimes.

Whatever you do, just remember that true believers in God are very, very few and however much you show the truth, most people would still hold on to falsehood. In every generation of man, the truth is always generally rejected and the genuine believers in God are very few.

Peace and Love

I vote Falconey Cc NLJega

AlBaqir:
^Would have love to tear this hadith in Sahih Muslim into pieces but never with a disbeliever in hadith. Really am done with you.

You are not doing it for me. I derive no benefit from your responses.

udatso:
Oh......i have known you here for some years now. I have just avoided engaging you in any way cos most brothers always do but at the end of the day, it doesn't change anything.
Empiree has explained and countered every point you raised but you keep dragging it further. He explained the meaning of lail as per the saum fast, not reciting loud.. ...but it never changes your view.
In my opinion, I think you decided to believe what you think is more comfortable to you.

Drag it? I left the thread long before you mentioned me yesterday. Empiree's assertion that Sunset begins night (layl), to justify breaking fast at clear daylight will only convince uneducated literates. His justification of reciting salat silently is too weak that even him realize it. His excuses are flimsy, aren't too different from the excuses of the people of the Book. Once you find in your scholars' teachings, the justifications for deviating from the scriptures, you 've lost it.

Albaqir: Whoever pointed that Ahad hadith (single narration) out will always meet a mutawattir (widely reported) hadith which overrule, override and overwhelmed the Ahad as far as science of hadith is concern. That is hadith Thaqalain (hadith of the two weighty things):

And any such person that who find that mutawatir Hadith will eventually realise the disparity on the meaning of that Hadith among traditional scholars. Such a person, would be inclined to seek the ideal meaning from less mutawatir or ahad hadith. Why else do the non-Shia traditional scholars who confirm your own version of Hadith Thaqalain still reject Shiism?

I never intended to go this far, but since you bring it, am just gonna take it. Looking even more closely at Hadith Thaqalain, we find two phrases; "that which if you hold fast to it you will never go astray" and "my offsprings". It is arguable that the first phrase describes the "Book of Allah" that follows it while the "Ahlul Bayt" is described by the second phrase, the phrase proceeding it. What Muhammad left are two:
A. that which if held onto will never let us stray: Qur'an
B. his offspring: Ahlul Bayt.

We confirm this from another report of Hadith Thaqalain in Sahih Muslim, Book of merit of companions, Hadith 55:

Yazid b. Hayyan reported, I went along with Husain b. Sabra and 'Umar b. Muslim to Zaid b. Arqam and, as we sat by his side, Husain said to him:
......
I am about to receive a messenger (the angel of death) from my Lord and I, in response to Allah's call, (would bid good-bye to you), but I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said: The second are the members of my household I remind you (of your duties) to the members of my family.....


When scholars cannot agree on interpretation of a mutawatir Hadith, they turn to even ahad hadith to seek the right interpretation. You know it, I know it.