Re your question about gold being haram. Whether it is or not is not the issue for THIS thread. But I use it as a lead for WHY the early jurists coined the term "makruh". Many people misunderstood "makruh" to mean "u can do it but it is disliked by god, without any sin." That layman's view is wrong. For the early jurists, based on an ayah I quoted yesterday, HARAM could only be what is so defined in the Qur'an. Only God has the right to do that.
But then they had the problematic: what about things that are logically also forbidden, but not mentioned in the Qur'an? Based on Sura 21: O prophet, why do you forbid what God has allowed?...(even though the prophet had a logical reason to abstain from that particular food)--the jurists simply viewed it that, since there was no quran based prohibition, and they could not arrogate to themselves the authority to declare something as such, they simply said it was "makruh". meaning WE the jurists detest it, and we think that God might also hate it. In other words, makruh means something that is logically haram, but without the scriptural mention.
My point: think about it when next someone tells you smoking is makruh.

This is my position. The Qur'an tells us that we should not make halaal what Allah has made Haram and vice versa. That is the limit. Now the Prophet did things based on the conditions at the time, his conditions as well as the conditions of his followers and even the conditions of those who did not follow him. If someone were to tell me to do that which the Prophet did so that I may mimic him as much as possible, I have no trouble with that. However, if they were to say that if I don't do them, I am committing sin, now that would be a problem since they are incorrect to say that. Why do we have to tell someone that smoking is makruh. Isn't it enough to tell them that it is against their health? But we are always too anxious to slap an Islamic label on everything.

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:
This is my position. The Qur'an tells us that we should not make halaal what Allah has made Haram and vice versa. That is the limit. Now the Prophet did things based on the conditions at the time, his conditions as well as the conditions of his followers and even the conditions of those who did not follow him. If someone were to tell me to do that which the Prophet did so that I may mimic him as much as possible, I have no trouble with that. However, if they were to say that if I don't do them, I am committing sin, now that would be a problem since they are incorrect to say that. Why do we have to tell someone that smoking is makruh. Isn't it enough to tell them that it is against their health? But we are always too anxious to slap an Islamic label on everything.

Bingo. But that is the problem of coming from the Middle East where everything has to have a 'religious" label. Perhaps the worst manifestation is regarding clothing. But I don't criticize too much because, a la Ibn Rushd, one has to check the mind set. Is the guy doing it because he actually THINKS God blesses him? IN that case, why argue with him? Is he rational? In that case, I might take time to tell him he is putting up a barrier..that M dressed like an arab because he was an Arab, not a berbician. As you know, the worst type of person to argue with is one who is consumed by HIS version of faith. I met one lady who insisted that the four imams were special to the point of being almost prophets. But then, she turned out to be so sweet and kind that I realized I had wasted time arguing with her. Her views did not have any negative impact on me..so why did I waste time? That realization, I guess, comes with age...

Guess no one else have an opinion. cool.

Is difficult here..because what I am saying is not so much something that can be argued for or against..sorta like Jesus saying "judge not..". Is like the hijab wearing women. Some I will oppose, some I support..it depends on the REASON they give. If she says "I just feel it is the way of serving my lord, and I hear your arguments,I understand them, but I don't feel good inside about not wearing it. Plus, I want to show in this society that I am who I am, and will NOT hide who I am..."...I feel she has made a good argument. And Power to her.
But when she says "The hijab makes me seem an equal to man and it is for me a liberating tool because the hair is a private part" I will quote all the laws and history and rip her argument to shreds. The same as I will do for a non-hijabi who says "look at her with her hijba...she thinks she is so pious..." Maybe that is why religion is the cause of so much conflict!!! almost schizophrenia let loose.

That is the point. If she says that she will be sinning or not a good Muslim if she doesn't wear the hijab, then she is incorrect because the hijab is not required to be a good Muslim. If she says that she is doing so for personal reasons, then she has all right to do so.

BUT DON'T LOOK DOWN ON A WOMAN WHO DRESSES LIKE THE PAKISTANI AUNTY WITH THE HURNI ON HER SHOULDERS AND SAY THAT SHE IS COMMITING A SIN BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASON FOR THAT.

The Qur'an calls for women to cover their bosoms, not their head. There are also ahadiths of Umar complaining that the prophet's wife was out without their heads covered and if it was required, who would know better than the prophet's wives. In some ways, one could question that ahadith about Umar being the other prophet if there were any after our dear one, may Allah always bless his noble soul.

My point is that we should not go overboard and impose haraams on us that Allah has not made haraam.

Allah has very eloquently told us that we should not go to extreme in regard our religion.

Don't turn our habits into a game of numbers. We behave like we need to build up this great box of good deeds and then we are shattered by our imaams telling us that no matter how much we do, it will amount to nothing and we will still need the mercy of Allah to get us off the ground. It sounds like a very contradictory preaching which differs very much from the Qur'anic teachin that we get only one strike for every bad deed while we can get as much as an infinite number of stars for every good deed. And since it is inherently out inclination to do that which is good, why are we so paranoid about being in Allah's good book. All of us do more good than bad everyday and the only people who tell us otherwise are those who wish to enslave our minds.

Which brings me back to the question once asked by a Christian Bible scholar.

HOW MUCH DO I NEED TO DO TO BELIEVE THAT I AM GOING TO HEAVEN. AT WHAT POINT DO I FEEL THAT I HAVE COMPLETED THIS TASK

None of us Muslim can truthfully answer this but the preachers are much more at lost because they preach that we cannot get there on our own but by Allah's mercy. Now that is right in the Christian's hands because we just proved to him that our actions are not good enough.

Either that or our preaching is as confusing as those we make comments about.

Nonetheless, these good actions are beneficial to our fellow inhabitants of this world and we should argue it as such instead of encouraging the ammassing of good deeds that we then say are not good enough.

But then, I could be totally wrong.

Allahu a'lam.

You seem to have gotten yourself into some quagmire.

Gold is not inherently evil. There are a several ahadith that mention in some cases, prohibitions and in other cases allowances. If one investigates these ahadith a clear picture appears that shows the negative attitude towards gold is really related to pomposity and haughtiness, which are clearly qualities that Islam wants to cleanse us from. Things like gold and silk were considered to be symbols of highness and pride and were therefore discouraged by the Prophet (pbuh).

Q 59:7 = So take what the Messenger assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you.

I am far, far from being knowledgeable enough to discuss fiqh issues in such detail. This takes a mastery of the Arabic language, its nuances and such.

quote:

Originally posted by Fu Real:
Gold is not inherently evil. There are a several ahadith that mention in some cases, prohibitions and in other cases allowances. If one investigates these ahadith a clear picture appears that shows the negative attitude towards gold is really related to pomposity and haughtiness, which are clearly qualities that Islam wants to cleanse us from. Things like gold and silk were considered to be symbols of highness and pride and were therefore discouraged by the Prophet (pbuh).

Q 59:7 = So take what the Messenger assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you.

Makes sense until we realize that women are more inclined to display these with more pride than men do. We don't see men rushing to acquire the perfect body the way women do. Therefore, it is more reasonable to restrict them from women than it is from men.

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:
You seem to have gotten yourself into some quagmire.

Quite the contrary.

Remember whatever our Holy Prophet(pbuh) told us to do ,do as much of it as possible and what ever he told us not to do just stay as far away as possible.Allah knows best.

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by Fu Real:
Gold is not inherently evil. There are a several ahadith that mention in some cases, prohibitions and in other cases allowances. If one investigates these ahadith a clear picture appears that shows the negative attitude towards gold is really related to pomposity and haughtiness, which are clearly qualities that Islam wants to cleanse us from. Things like gold and silk were considered to be symbols of highness and pride and were therefore discouraged by the Prophet (pbuh).

Q 59:7 = So take what the Messenger assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you.

Makes sense until we realize that women are more inclined to display these with more pride than men do. We don't see men rushing to acquire the perfect body the way women do. Therefore, it is more reasonable to restrict them from women than it is from men.

Careful Brother...don't make what is Hallal, Haram for the sisters.

quote:

Originally posted by Fu Real:
Careful Brother...don't make what is Hallal, Haram for the sisters.

I answer only for myself and my family.

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by Fu Real:
Careful Brother...don't make what is Hallal, Haram for the sisters.

I answer only for myself and my family.

On the contrary...we also answer for what we propagate...good or bad.

quote:

Originally posted by limer:

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by Fu Real:
Careful Brother...don't make what is Hallal, Haram for the sisters.

I answer only for myself and my family.

On the contrary...we also answer for what we propagate...good or bad.

Ameen

quote:

Originally posted by limer:
On the contrary...we also answer for what we propagate...good or bad.

I am not propagating anything. Just asking questions since we have a professor of religion here. I still do everything that I was taught including the ones that I bring up questions on.

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by limer:
On the contrary...we also answer for what we propagate...good or bad.

I am not propagating anything. Just asking questions since we have a professor of religion here. I still do everything that I was taught including the ones that I bring up questions on.

My apologies bro. I did not mean u...I was making a general comment in response to yours alluding that you answer only for u and your family.

quote:

Based on Sura 21: O prophet, why do you forbid what God has allowed?...(

Dara..Don't know of such a ayah in Surah 21. I could be mistaken though. Actually a similar ayah is in surah 66-1. This was in reference to a particualr situation, though. So I'm not sure if you can use this ayah to make your above surmise.

quote:

Originally posted by limer:

quote:

Based on Sura 21: O prophet, why do you forbid what God has allowed?...(

Dara..Don't know of such a ayah in Surah 21. I could be mistaken though. Actually a similar ayah is in surah 66-1. This was in reference to a particualr situation, though. So I'm not sure if you can use this ayah to make your above surmise.

66-1 deals specifically with the wives of the prophet. I dont know about 21 either.

quote:

Originally posted by limer:

quote:

Based on Sura 21: O prophet, why do you forbid what God has allowed?...(

Dara..Don't know of such a ayah in Surah 21. I could be mistaken though. Actually a similar ayah is in surah 66-1. This was in reference to a particualr situation, though. So I'm not sure if you can use this ayah to make your above surmise.

I will answer as a jurist, then as a critic.
The law regarding the Qur'an is " al ibrato bi umum al lafz, laa bi khusus as sabab" the criterion lies in the generality of the expression, not the specificity of the situation." Meansing that Quranic ayats are read for their general meaning rather than being specific. As a critic...one has to be careful..my thing is that if even the Prophet is being chided, then we ought to be very careful about tahrim..which is why the ulema were so careful about their terms, hence the coinage "makruh'
Regarding the ayah quoted earlier, I am not going to get into a discussion here becuase NEITHER side can be proven beyond the shadow of academic doubt to be correct..but regarding"
Take WHAT (maa)..that what is subject to a lot of interpretation. For the mutazlilites..it is the Qur'an only. for others it is the quran and sunna. for others, it is the quran sunna and hadith. a lotta leeway.
Regarding the sis. that is wrong...Kaz..she has a good argument. She can come back and say" khumur" was ALREADY being worn....so it cannot be that she is covering her bosom and leaving the head. The khimar was on the head to being with, but all she is being asked to do is pull it over her chest rather than leave it trailing behind. I am not in support of her argument, but am simply giving how, if I wre on her side, I would advise her to argue.

My mistake you are correct. This is my problem that I should know better..I always say tath Muslims refer to surahs by name rather than number. But you are right...sura 66 is 'tahrim"..a rather pointed name.

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
Regarding the sis. that is wrong...Kaz..she has a good argument. She can come back and say" khumur" was ALREADY being worn....so it cannot be that she is covering her bosom and leaving the head. The khimar was on the head to being with, but all she is being asked to do is pull it over her chest rather than leave it trailing behind. I am not in support of her argument, but am simply giving how, if I wre on her side, I would advise her to argue.

The record is there that the khimar was being worn or Umar would not have made a point of it concerning the prophets' wives not doing so. But if it was mandatory, they would have been doing it. The trouble is that people today are taught that it is mandatory. And one cannot overlook the possibility that the narration may be incorrect, used to support a later condition.