Eating with fingers [Archive] - Understanding Islam Community

21st September 2004, 05:41

Salaam all,

Anyway, just wash your hand properly is enough. Hey, I have been living eating from my hands, and there is no problem so far! By the way. it is true that there is an enzyme produce by your fingertips whenever you licked them after eat session. The enzyme is helpful in digesting.

When my kids have played outside in the play ground (buidling sand castles in the same sand where cats and dogs $hit and unrine in) they absoluteley need to wash their hands with good soap (desinfective)

Can you show me some articles where you found this info about your fingertips producing enzymes while licking? I mean common, these days media try to make you believe everything :LOL:

We do have a drink called Yakult (http://www.yakult.co.uk/product/faq.asp) here with Lactobacillus casei Shirota (LcS) (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=96107) bacterie though, some findings suggest that intranasal administration of LcS enhances cellular immunity in the respiratory tract and protects against influenza virus infection.

Not sure if you ever heard of it, but this bacteria doenst gets produced by your finger tops does it?

Peace

Guest

21st September 2004, 10:11

Im with Al-Ikhwan;). A sunnah is a sunnah. There is greater wisdom behind doing it than not doing it.

Ron

21st September 2004, 10:58

Salam Sheikh Haroon,

Im with Al-Ikhwan. A sunnah is a sunnah. There is greater wisdom behind doing it than not doing it.
Not to be silly or offensive, but do you ride camels too?

Regards

Guest

21st September 2004, 11:49

All the time bro, all the time;)! Silly slow things, but u know....:)

Al-Ikhwan

21st September 2004, 15:55

Assalamoalaikum,

can you site your source for this information. becuase in my medical career i have found that eating with your hands can cause blotulism and other problems. don;t get me wrong, if your hands are super clean and your nails are super trimmed and no bacteria or germs reside on you hands then it is well fine i suppose to eat with your hands.
super clean???? well, the sunnah is to keep ur nails cut, and ur self clean. but being a bit u know, i dont remember the word, (i should say maybe 'wehmi' in urdu)... thanx

If spoons and fork were invented back in 1400 years ago, wouldnt it be there any possibility to use them ?
no, i dont think so. fork was an invention by the europeans. and if it was invented then, sunnah would stay sunnah.
everything the prophet-saw says has a wisdom behind it. a nonmuslim knows that the muslim's right hand is clean, but no1 knows about a nonmuslims. everything is set. if it was unhygenic the prophet-saw would probably make muslims eat with wood or something like chopsticks. but the knowledge given to prophet-saw is by Allah and more supreme then any1 else who was born or is yet to be born, no doubt!

wassalam

palm

22nd September 2004, 01:58

how can the hands be unclean while forks /spoons are clean? After all it is the same hands that washes them. Those of you who do not wish to use hands while eating please dont. But it by no means mean that you start to critisize Sunnah or make claims that eating with hands is an unhealthy habit. If we take this theory then we shouldnt be even shaking hands with each other lest we might get infected

Ron

22nd September 2004, 04:47

Salam All,

I don't think my camel question was appreciated. Maybe I should be more direct. There are several people that said eating with the hand is "Sunnah." Can someone explain to me what they mean by this? Be as detailed as possible.

Regards

vinod

22nd September 2004, 04:54

Ron

It comes down to the definition of Sunnah.

Eating with the hand does not meet the requirement of an action being deemd 'Sunnah' as understood by you, but it does for those who think any action of the Prophet is Sunnah.

My stand on this is uncertain.

Regards
Vinod

Ron

22nd September 2004, 05:09

Salam Vinod,

I completely agree with you and do understand that that would be the reply of most. However, the next question becomes is the Sunnah part of the religion of Islam or not?

Regards

vinod

22nd September 2004, 05:13

Salaam Ron

Not sure where you are getting to. Is not the sunnah part of religion? I always thought so.

Regards
Vinod

22nd September 2004, 05:23

science is going slower than islam. If we follow islam, we would be so much ahead in technology.

So following Islam means eating like Ape's and Monkey's :lol:

vinod

22nd September 2004, 05:42

Mfo

Hope you do realize that that is an offensive post. It also means deriding the way the Prophet ate.

Regards
Vinod

Ron

22nd September 2004, 06:00

Salam Vinod,

Not sure where you are getting to. Is not the sunnah part of religion? I always thought so.
Well that's the point, if the Sunnah is part of the religion then we would have to follow it right? If by Sunnah it is meant that everything the Prophet did then it would include a lot of things. If I am correct then most people are not fulfilling the sunnah and may not even be able to. I would like an elaboration please on this issue.

MFO,

Not funny at all.

Regards

vinod

22nd September 2004, 06:17

Salaam Ron

If I am correct then most people are not fulfilling the sunnah and may not even be able to

Well that is true that most people are not following the sunnah, if it is defined as = every action of the Prophet. Now, there is a distinction between 1) not following sunnah coming from the 'who cares' and 'not willing to try' attitude 2) not following sunnah because the circumstances are impossible for it to happen eg: riding a camel.

What if the case of the Muslims today is that of point 1? - especially if it is actions like eating with hand?

was-salam
Vinod

Roswell

22nd September 2004, 08:16

Salam,
I think the term Sunnah refers only to those things that which Prophet(pbuh) generally promoted to all his followers. The reason why most poeple misunderstand that term becaue of Ahadith.It should be cleared that Ahadith are not source of the Sunnah however Hadith may comprise any Sunnah but Sunnah is only the consensus and practical perpetuation of companions of Prophet(pbuh) and the generation of Muslims as well.For instance number of Raka'h in prayers and concilation with enemy,choice of easy and hard.Neverthless, wearing cloths, eating,drinking water and riding etc can't be Sunnah because Prophet(pbuh) never promoted that to his followers as the part of Religion.Its common sense that that were his habbits and can't be followed by everyone of us.
Ahadith and Sunnah are two different things at all

Regards,

Ron

22nd September 2004, 08:40

Salam Vinod,

Thanks for your post. I don't think that the Sunnah (an important part of religion) would be something impossible to follow. However, people may choose not to commit to it just as they may choose not to follow the Qur'an. So I see a flaw in considering everything that the Prophet did was "sunnah." He had tastes and preferences surely not belonging to the religion. He liked honey, I do too, but what if I didn't? What if I couldn't stand the taste? HIs appreciation for honey cannot be seen as religious duty. That's the point I was trying to get at with y questions.

What do you think?

Roswell,

Exactly. That's what I believe.

Regards

vinod

22nd September 2004, 08:54

Salaam Ron

I've been eagerly waiting for your response. The strength of your argument as well as Roswell's rests on common sense. Yes, it has the same appeal to me. I liked the honey example that you gave to illustrate the point.

I am very inclined to that point of view. But I'm just being doubly sure of my stand.

If I've understood your argument right, it goes like this - since a part (or parts) of Deen becomes impossible to practice in my whole lifetime, that makes Islam a religion not suited for me"

But what if the counter argument is made that - "you are expected to only try your best in following as many Sunnahs as you can and subsequently you will be rewarded justly for your effort. Which means, that the particular action of the Prophet remains as a sunnah, and you will be rewarded for trying your best to approach it or atleast having the desire to practice it"

The above still leaves room for defining Sunnah as "every action of the Prophet"

Awaiting your response
Thanks and regards
Vinod

hasan

22nd September 2004, 09:25

Good point in your counter argument, then naturally it leads to catagorising acts such as Fardh Wajib/Sunnat Sunnat Nafile/Silence Silence Makroo etc etc as proposed by our illustrious doctors of theology. An angle I entertain is that sunnat is general and encompasses the fardh, it is to me a sunnat of our beloved Prophet, including the other catogories (edited) and his non religious deeds. It is with the intentions of how far you are to approach personally/spiritually Allahs pleasure and ofcourse it is to be in context and without an Imposing Idealist mentality or conscious monasticsm. This also does not mean to nullify the actions of those who just do Fardh.

vinod

22nd September 2004, 09:33

Hasan

Thanks for your response. I too hold the same view as you; just that I did not know how to articulate it. Therefore, I do not rub any 'not-so-emphasised' practices of the Prophet on any Muslim. Though I myself may strive to practice it and hold it as a rewarding act.
I do at emphasize on other Muslims those Sunnahs which are held Sunnah by the 'understanding-islam community'.

Peace and Regards
Vinod

palm

22nd September 2004, 09:36

asalamu alaykum
good points made my vinod,hassan and ron.
To what vinod said i would like to add that it all is a matter of love for our beloved Prophet Muhammad, sal`lallaho alaihi wasallam, and the level of our Iman that how much we want to follow in the foot steps of our Dear Prophet Muhammad, sal`lallaho alaihi wasallam.

hasan

22nd September 2004, 09:44

sal`lallaho alaihi wasallam

palm

22nd September 2004, 09:44

MFo

So following Islam means eating like Ape's and Monkey's
eating with hands doesnt make you an ape or monkey.

But walking naked or having sexual intercourse in front of the world definitley degrades one to the level of animals or even beyond that and that is what most of the westerners are upto.Even animals have some sort of protection in the form of fir or their tails but you guys just dont even bother. Besides you guys also believe (darwinism) that your ancestors were once apes and monkeys :rolleyes:
so you are making fun of your own ancestors :D

While we firmly believe that human race is a direct descendent of Prophet Adam and his wife Hawwa(Eve) (may peace and blessings of ALLAH be upon them).

Al-Ikhwan

22nd September 2004, 12:05

Assalmaoaliakum,

i read the discussion of ron, vinod. any action by the prophet-saw is sunnah which would be possible in the future as well, u cant restrict that now fight only with swords bcuz it is sunnah and not with any other weapon. it is not possible and u r restricting it. so sunnah is the action which can be performed any time of the world.

So following Islam means eating like Ape's and Monkey's
ENOUGH! I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF U. SINCE U HAVE BEEN HERE, I HAVE READ UR POSTS AND MOST OF THEM IS STRIKING ISLAM IN AN INDIRECT WAY! NOW YOU HAVE GONE TOO FAR. IT IS ENOUGH. U WANT TO ABUSE ISLAM GO ON A FORUM WHICH IS AGAINST ISLAM. YOU ABUSE ISLAM, OUR PROPHET-SAW AND ALL. YOU SAY (NAUZOBILLAH) THAT OUR PROPHET-SAW ATE LIKE... HOW DARE YOU??? I WOULD LIKE TO ADVISE YOU THAT AS LONG AS YOU STAY IN THIS FORUM, YOU SHOULD BETTER WATCH WHAT YOU SAY, AND NOT EVEN TRY TO ABUSE ISLAM. YOU ARE GETTING MORE AND MORE FRANK DAY BY DAY, AND IT IS ENOUGH!!! ABUSING ISLAM ABUSING THE PROPHETS, I WILL TAKE NO MORE!

---------
this is the weakness of muslims, that the kufar have dared to come to this extent and there even worse cases it is time for muslims to revive their souls

wassalam

22nd September 2004, 13:38

Oh sorry, it wasnt intended to offend, I think I didnt use my brain and flopped out what my mother always says at the dinner table if we dont use our forks and knives.

I have no intention of insulting Islam, I will try to put things different.

Al-Ikhwan

22nd September 2004, 15:33

jazak Allah for understanding

i hope u will keep ur word

wassalam

Guest

22nd September 2004, 16:24

Once i remember calling u lot something like "sunnah killers", remember? Well, u have yet to prove me wrong, Ronnie please (without asking me questions back) could u explain wat u hope to achieve by destroying our sunnahs?

MF, u joker! That was silly!

xp²

22nd September 2004, 19:27

Salaam,

Haroon sahib, Ronnie is not "destroying" the Sunnah, he is merely questioning your thought process by what you deem as the "Sunnah". If the Prophet rode on camels, does that mean we should too, and not use cars or planes? The Sunnah consists of those acts which the Prophet promoted and instituted as part of the religion. His own likes and dislikes are a personal preference, and don't usually have any roots in the Deen. If you choose to eat with the hands because the Prophet did, then that's great, but you cannot blast those who use utensils. Someone can also argue we not use our computers for sending messages like email, because the Prophet had a man deliver his on horseback, written on old scrolls. That's a Sunnah too then isn't it? No? That's the point. Its only those which he instituted as part of Islam that we must follow.

So its not always about destroying Islam. Questioning is merely that, questioning. It's an integral part of understanding.

-

MF, that wasn't a nice thing to say really, but I did grasp your reasoning for doing so. I just think it was not well thought out. Anyway, you realize that now, so its no biggie.

I think we have all eaten pizza with our hands at some time or another. Anyone who insists on a knife & fork for its consumption, is a snobby twat. No offense, ofcourse. :D

Guest

22nd September 2004, 20:10

Salaam.

Point taken. I will agree that as long as no one says anything against a sunnah (what ever type, especially the type which is less associated with the Deen) then, we should not blast them for not doing it either. Agreed?

hasan

22nd September 2004, 20:28

It saw it as being purely innocent from MFO

sheik

22nd September 2004, 21:41

salaam,

the wise brother ronnie made excellent points. we can not regard everything the Propeht did in respect to sunnah. if the Prophet was around to day things would be different. 1400 years ago many things used to happen that doesn;t occur anymore.

are you willing to take the medicine the Prophet took during that time period? that means no penicillin. if you have cancer i bet you wont; follow sunnah then. don;t get me wrong, the Prophet established prinicples and lifestyles that we should follow not interpret in extreme ways. the Prophet probably didnt; do the things or follow the things that past Propehts did. if islam remained like it did 1400 years ago then no advancements would occur in society. if the religion didn;t follow the time, islam would collapse. notice question on this fourm were not mentioned during the time of Prophet thusly we must us our modern knowledge of the Quran to assess situations. as wise brother ronnie said, do you still ride camels everywhere?

as far as eating with fingers, the enzyme secretion by the fingure tips are invalid. i researched this and found nothing. brother al ikhwan if you can provide me with evidence that would be appreciated.

salaam

Ron

22nd September 2004, 21:59

Salam All,

Thanks XP for that explanation. I don't think I need to defend the point that I am not trying to destroy anything. I follow the Sunnah of the Prophet (P) insha'Allah. All I was looking for was how we arrived at what is considered "sunnah." The word has a general Arabic meaning not related to the Prophet. So I think a better understanding of this through dialog is how I want to proceed.

Vinod,

If I've understood your argument right, it goes like this - since a part (or parts) of Deen becomes impossible to practice in my whole lifetime, that makes Islam a religion not suited for me"
Both the Qur'an and Sunnah were instituted by the Prophet. Both have things we must believe and follow for all times. In terms of the Sunnah, there's nothing in it that would be "impossible" to follow at any point of time. It is the practice of the religion of Islam and just as the Qur'an is for all humanity for all times so is the Sunnah. Praying and hygeine and the other aspects do not become impossible with time nor do they fade away. There may be a few instances where one cannot perform certain practices but that's exceptions. Even the Qur'an has those. I'm not sure I'd phrase it as you did but I just don't see how a practice instituted by the Prophet for all would have an expiration date due to era or where one lives. Only exceptions can occur. I hope I made the point clearer.

But what if the counter argument is made that - "you are expected to only try your best in following as many Sunnahs as you can and subsequently you will be rewarded justly for your effort. Which means, that the particular action of the Prophet remains as a sunnah, and you will be rewarded for trying your best to approach it or atleast having the desire to practice it"
Generally we are trying to do the best we can. But I think it would be a bit unfair to people that some people got to do all the sunnahs because of their eras while we get to do less because of ours. Time or place shouldn't be a factor in performing ones religious duties, with exceptions. There are certain groups that pray only 3 times a day and an excuse I heard was that they had more time to do things then but today we don't. So maybe in 10 years we won't have any time to do any prayers if we take their reasoning.

I think one of the most important things to keep in mind is that the Sunnah has a purpose. It is to develop a better relationship with God, to remind of righteousness, to maintain a healthy physical and spiritual self etc... Hence, I don't deem everything the Prophet did as sunnah because riding a camel, eating honey, dressing in certain clothing, living in tents etc... does nothing to bring us closer to the Almighty. Those are outward things that have nothing to do with spiritual growth or enlightenment. Sure we can all live like the Prophet or try to emulate him that's everyone's choice but to claim that it is the "sunnah" of our religion would be, imho, wrong. We are not required to live like Arabs of the 7th century but we are required to follow the Prophet in what he taught as part of the religion.

Hasan,

Good point in your counter argument, then naturally it leads to catagorising acts such as Fardh Wajib/Sunnat Sunnat Nafile/Silence Silence Makroo etc etc as proposed by our illustrious doctors of theology.
My dear brother weren't our "illustrious doctors of theology" who came up with all these categories you have mentioned? Did the Prophet institute them? To my information not so. He instituted the Sunnah for all Muslims in all periods of time and not to be deminished.

An angle I entertain is that sunnat is general and encompasses the fardh, it is to me a sunnat of our beloved Prophet, including the other catogories (edited) and his non religious deeds.
If you are right then you should be wearing a turban. You should also use stones or other objects to cleanse yourself, etc... I disagree with you here because Islam isn't dependent on these things. It's teachings are a guidance for humanity for all time. All these methods of back then have change and will change but we will always face the Qiblah purfied with wuduh, prostrating and bowing for 1400+ years and into the future.

It is with the intentions of how far you are to approach personally/spiritually Allahs pleasure and ofcourse it is to be in context and without an Imposing Idealist mentality or conscious monasticsm.
Yes but what is Allah's (swt) pleasure? Is it the man who rides the camel? Or the man who lives in a tent? Or the one who wears the turban? Or is it the man who even though he works so hard day and night breaks away from the chains of everyday life so that he can give himself and the Almighty some time together? Isn't it that we follow the moral example of the Prophet that pleases God? That we don't lie, steal or cheat. That we are kind and helpful. Is that not the essence of what one is to do with his life?

This also does not mean to nullify the actions of those who just do Fardh.
Nor am I suggesting that those who interpret Sunnah as you do have what they do nullified. But that which they do is a choice not the practice of Islam.

MFO,

Thanks for the apology. Let's move on and move in a positive direction.

Regards

vinod

23rd September 2004, 03:00

Assalmu Alaikum Ronnie

Both the Qur'an and Sunnah were instituted by the Prophet. Both have things we must believe and follow for all times. In terms of the Sunnah, there's nothing in it that would be "impossible" to follow at any point of time. It is the practice of the religion of Islam and just as the Qur'an is for all humanity for all times so is the Sunnah. Praying and hygeine and the other aspects do not become impossible with time nor do they fade away. There may be a few instances where one cannot perform certain practices but that's exceptions. Even the Qur'an has those..

Till here I'm with you.

I'm not sure I'd phrase it as you did but I just don't see how a practice instituted by the Prophet for all would have an expiration date due to era or where one lives. Only exceptions can occur. I hope I made the point clearer.

I think I lost you here. Could you pls illustrate with an example, preferable the eating with hand example?

Thanks and Regards
May Allah bless you
Vinod

Ron

23rd September 2004, 04:09

Salam Vinod,

I think I lost you here. Could you pls illustrate with an example, preferable the eating with hand example?
Ok, let me try to clear it up. The practical aspect of Islam cannot be limited to a particular time or place. If God gives us a religion to follow then surely He'd give us something would span mankind's history regardless of the conditions. What would it mean to follow something at one point of time in history (past) but couldn't do it now or in the future? To me it would render the religion living in the past and dead now and in the future because it cannot be practiced. I hope I didn't confuse you even more.

Let's take the eating with the hands thing. First, we must suspend our ideas. We must relieve ourselves of the concept that "sunnah" means everything the Prophet (P) did and said. Then we have to understand that with just about every religion comes some sort of practice or rituals etc... These fall under the category of sunnah. The rituals in Islam included prayer, hajj, cleansing etc... These are things that will remain forever with the Muslim as an obligation upon each person. What cannot be counted in these are things like the tastes and preferences of the Prophet. So, as in this example he ate with his hands not because there is something about it that is spiritually uplifting but rather because that was the means to eat. Eating with ones hands was/is not a ritual instituted by the Prophet rather it was the norm of his time. Now if one considers this a ritual then many people are in trouble because they would not be doing something the Prophet instituted as part of the religion. However, he didn't. Some people take eating with their hands as getting extra rewards but in all honesty I don't share this view. When you eat with your hands it's just that, you're eating with your hands...no rewards, no pluses no minuses. Maybe some people consider the effort in trying to be like the Prophet is valuable but again I don't see how these actions even if their spirit is to follow every step really does much of anything. I think a man/woman can follow the Prophets ways and be wonderful Muslims without eating with their hands or riding camels or forcing themselves to like something they don't like.

Let me recap: The practices of Islam cannot/are not limited to a certain point of time or circumstances. They are not reliant on any era or point of time in history. Eating with the hands is limited to a time and culture...Islam is ever-living, encompassing all cultures. So the tastes and preferences, norms (e.g. eating with hands) of the Prophets time are not the practices of Islam hence not the Sunnah. While praying, performance of hajj, wudu etc... are.

Let me know if it's still not clear I'll be more than happpy to help.

Regards

vinod

23rd September 2004, 04:26

Ronnie

Thanks for the detailed response. Thanks also for tying up the response with the example of eating with the hand. I'm still contemplating over it. Will let you know my response soon InshaAllah.

Al-Ikhwan, Sheik Haroon, palm, Hasan--> what are your thoughts about this?

Wassalam
Mahmood

Roswell

23rd September 2004, 04:31

Can I jump in vinod ?

vinod

23rd September 2004, 04:33

Roswell, you kidding me?? :biggrin:

Roswell

23rd September 2004, 04:51

:D http://cc.domaindlx.com/mskg2001/msn/tongue_smile.gif

vinod

23rd September 2004, 05:08

Dear Ronnie, Salaam

Your view is very sound indeed, but I'm unable to rid myself of doubts about it. Some of them maybe very trivial. Hope you'll bear with me

Ok, your stand would require Muslims to examine the life of the Prophet and filter out those actions that are not emanating from the cultural/personal context of the Prophet. How would we, in our time, do that? He did not try to define which of his actions are Sunnah and which are not. He just did them and the Sahabah somehow undertstood it. There are no guidelines from the Sahabah ( as far as I know ) telling us how to identify a Sunnah.

Now, over here, I'll get into something similar to (if not equal to) the salafi argument. The distillilation of the Sunnah from the Prophet's life was done by the subsequent generation of scholars who followed the Sahabah. This was necessitated because the question was being raised by the converts coming into Islam( I only heard this; cannot produce evidence though ). Yes, they also differed in their conclusions, nevertheless they agreed on many aspects. Now, why should their conclusions be taken as an authority to define a Sunnah ? - the argument to support this is that many of them got to meet the Sahabah. Hence, they got the philosophy of the sunnah correctly. So, finally, can we say then that the bunch of actions on which this generation agreed upon was the Sunnah can be taken as the Sunnah by us as well?

If we try to do the same distillation, I'm afraid not having the nearness to the time of the Prophet, may work to our disadvantage and seriously make our conclusions wrong.

Pls comment on the above.

Was-salam
Vinod

Roswell

23rd September 2004, 06:58

Salaam vinod,
Ok, your stand would require Muslims to examine the life of the Prophet and filter out those actions that are not emanating from the cultural/personal context of the Prophet. How would we, in our time, do that? Research work i.e. Ijtehad. We can't just relay on what Fiqa'h had done.Ijtehad will always continue.However the Sunna'h as in the part of Religion,having the interrelation or an affiliation with Qur'an as well as Sunnah is the practical example of .So in my humble opinion,it is not a big deal to filter out those actions as whether the part of religion or not.
I want to explain again what the word Sunnah means,

Literally, the word Sunnah means a "clear path" or a "busy path" etc.The manner in which the Almighty deals with nations and which holds true for all nations as been termed in the Holy Qur’an as the Sunnah of Allah. For example:

It was the practice [approved] of God amongst those of old that have passed away. And the Command of God is a decree determined. (33:38) As noticed(through the Qur'an), God didn't point towards on his "every" action as Sunnah.It can't really be.Therefore the same defination applied to the Sunnah of Porphet(pbuh).

He did not try to define which of his actions are Sunnah and which are not. He just did them and the Sahabah somehow undertstood it. There are no guidelines from the Sahabah ( as far as I know ) telling us how to identify a Sunnah. In every sphere of life we have before us ideal examples set by the Prophet (pbuh) for our guidance. Whatsoever commandments and rules of conduct of Islam we are supposed to know and learn have been demonstrated by him for us through actual practice(NOT Ahadith at all, these are the Ahadith[by meaning] which fluster us as in Sunnah) and this pratice is then transfered to the subsequent generation through the practical perpetuetion.That is what Prophet(pbuh),obviously, didnt explain the "defination" of Sunnah and therefore his companions understood by consensus.

The rest is upto Ronnie because you've actually asked him.

Regards,

hasan

23rd September 2004, 09:09

[Hasan,

Quote:
Good point in your counter argument, then naturally it leads to catagorising acts such as Fardh Wajib/Sunnat Sunnat Nafile/Silence Silence Makroo etc etc as proposed by our illustrious doctors of theology.

My dear brother weren't our "illustrious doctors of theology" who came up with all these categories you have mentioned? Did the Prophet institute them? To my information not so. He instituted the Sunnah for all Muslims in all periods of time and not to be deminished.]

Yes your dear to me too, "(Hischam too) I cannot recall at the moment an hadith where our beloved prophet has allowed teaching of Islam from the knowledgeable Ummat but I am certian of it either way it would have been debateable. I am certain that in the Quran there is an advise to ask those of the Ummat that knows, and possibly as a stretch of analogy those who are even outside the Ummat for research purposes. Could this be seen as instituted by the Prophet?

I am not sure I can make sense of the following;

"My dear brother weren't our "illustrious doctors of theology" who came up with all these categories you have mentioned?"

[Quote:
An angle I entertain is that sunnat is general and encompasses the fardh, it is to me a sunnat of our beloved Prophet, including the other catogories (edited) and his non religious deeds.

If you are right then you should be wearing a turban. You should also use stones or other objects to cleanse yourself, etc... I disagree with you here because Islam isn't dependent on these things. It's teachings are a guidance for humanity for all time. All these methods of back then have change and will change but we will always face the Qiblah purfied with wuduh, prostrating and bowing for 1400+ years and into the future.]

I can understand where you get the "should" from, The last sentance from the qoute below will elighten my approach to the sunnat. It does not mean that I will be adverse to wearing a turban, or using stones or other objects, there may be a time where these will be neccasity, I hope to one day roam the deserts on dromederies and take in the air of our beloved prophet and his environment , while reflecting, if not now then as retirement plan God willing, this may be an Idealist mentality within me but it is not imposing. I am sure/hope that I would not be chastised for seeing that I do not have a concern or a need to do wear a Turban or use stones or other objects in my current circumstance or life style.
The Qibla was regarded as a sunnat of Prophet by those who had wished it had not been the case, they disallusioned themselves by justifing there concerns that their Allah is to be obeyed and would not have commanded such a thing, of course even thou it had been explained in the Quran. They were quite happy that originally they had been praying in the direction of jeurasalum even while face the Kaaba, of course it had been a test to weed out those who believe in the Prophethood of our beloved Prophet from those who dont when all directions were commanded to face the Kaaba. I can see it "too" as a sunnat of our beloved Propehet catagorised as a fardh with a hope to be of those written as believers.

[Quote:
It is with the intentions of how far you are to approach personally/spiritually Allahs pleasure and ofcourse it is to be in context and without an Imposing Idealist mentality or conscious monasticsm.

Yes but what is Allah's (swt) pleasure? Is it the man who rides the camel? Or the man who lives in a tent? Or the one who wears the turban? Or is it the man who even though he works so hard day and night breaks away from the chains of everyday life so that he can give himself and the Almighty some time together? Isn't it that we follow the moral example of the Prophet that pleases God? That we don't lie, steal or cheat. That we are kind and helpful. Is that not the essence of what one is to do with his life?]

It may be based on intentions or "Taqwa" there are occurences in the Quran relating to these terms.
Yes the moral example is encompassed within Taqwa.
An interesting thought I like to express, these morals that Our beloved Prophet has so eloquently expressed in sayings and deeds, can there be a man who simply is moral does not lie cheat steal kind helpful by just the belief that it is a sunnat of our prophet can it be maintaned?

[Quote:
This also does not mean to nullify the actions of those who just do Fardh.

Nor am I suggesting that those who interpret Sunnah as you do have what they do nullified. But that which they do is a choice not the practice of Islam.]

This has concerned me I am not sure what to make of it.

Addition;

As I re-read these posts I have a suspicous feeling that there will be a counter reply exclaimimg that I haven't really answered the posts, indicating me possibly going on a tangent again, anyhow I find it humorous. I am not going to fix the grammer....or spelling

Al-Ikhwan

23rd September 2004, 12:35

......:@

Al-Ikhwan

23rd September 2004, 12:39

OMG SUCH LONG POSTS...
y dont u ppl stick to the discussion this thread is made for...?

Ron

24th September 2004, 01:18

Salam All,

Thank you for your posts.

vinod,

Ok, your stand would require Muslims to examine the life of the Prophet and filter out those actions that are not emanating from the cultural/personal context of the Prophet. How would we, in our time, do that? He did not try to define which of his actions are Sunnah and which are not. He just did them and the Sahabah somehow undertstood it. There are no guidelines from the Sahabah ( as far as I know ) telling us how to identify a Sunnah.
Now I see the problem. Actually my stance is not that. We Muslims don't ascertain the Sunnah but rather the Sunnah is tranferred to us via the previous Muslim generation. It's a package deal. No one "filters" what the Sunnah is because we receive it as a whole. Now what happened is some pious people decided that every action of the Prophet (P) was an example for us to follow. Had this been true the Prophet would surely have said it and made some sort of effort to transmit this information to us. But his life was not the Sunnah. I'm sure that all the things he did in his life were for the best during his time but some are not applicable today. If he could have used a Jeep to get around the desert rather than a camel maybe he would have...I don't know. The point is he did with what they had at the time because that was life. I disagree that he didn't define which of his actions are "sunnah." The reason I say this is because is because everything that was Sunnah he told the people to do. For instance when he was teaching people how to pray he said, "pray like me." When he taught them wudu, he showed them how to do it. When they performed hajj he showed them the rites. Removing of the hair, he told them what should be done. I can go on. He never said my sunnah is riding a camel because they all did, so that wasn't a sunnah of religion but rather the sunnah of their times. So living in tents, eating what they ate, wearing what they wore was basically what the Prophet did too because that was the normal thing to do. As a matter of fact they were doing it before he was even born. Now if you consider that, how can one say that it is our religious duty to commit to such things. Also, I'm interested in what you said about the companions being confused as to what the sunnah was can you give examples and expound on it? The guidelines of the companions were given in their immediate generation to pass down to the next and so on till it reached us. Look at the Muslim world today do you think that the ahadith inculcated these practices in them all? Most people that Islam reached couldn't even read, so ask yourself how did it happen? Let me know what you come up with.

Now, over here, I'll get into something similar to (if not equal to) the salafi argument. The distillilation of the Sunnah from the Prophet's life was done by the subsequent generation of scholars who followed the Sahabah. This was necessitated because the question was being raised by the converts coming into Islam( I only heard this; cannot produce evidence though ). Yes, they also differed in their conclusions, nevertheless they agreed on many aspects. Now, why should their conclusions be taken as an authority to define a Sunnah ? - the argument to support this is that many of them got to meet the Sahabah. Hence, they got the philosophy of the sunnah correctly. So, finally, can we say then that the bunch of actions on which this generation agreed upon was the Sunnah can be taken as the Sunnah by us as well?
There is no "distillation" of the Sunnah. That's simply some sort of misconception. The "scholars" did nothing but try to implement what they understood the Shari'ah was. So I don't understand what this arguement stems from. So neither the Salafi's nor the 4 Schools of Thought are the authority to define the Sunnah. The Sunnah exists, it's an axiom. All the aforementioned disagree on what their perception of Sunnah is or how it should be done, while in reality the Sunnah has been passed along perfectly just as the Qur'an. The Prophet instituted it, taught it to the companions and they transmitted it to generations after them. There's really not much to interpret in the Sunnah as they are actions. After all how does one interpret the movements of prayer or wudu. Of course they have meaning, but I mean how does one define them? They can't be define or interpreted because they are actions. Hence there's no element of misunderstanding due to interpretation.

If we try to do the same distillation, I'm afraid not having the nearness to the time of the Prophet, may work to our disadvantage and seriously make our conclusions wrong.
As you can see there is no distillation. The Sunnah can be practiced easily by all Muslims. However, if some want to live like 7th century Arabs because they believe this is somehow beneficial because that's how the Prophet lived then they have every right to. I wouldn't condemn them nor would I discourage them. Every person has a different need and ties themselves spiritually in a different way. Nevertheless, it should always be remembered that the Sunnah is not living like a 7th century Arab, but rather it is practicing the religion of Islam as the Prophet laid down.

I don't know if you've read this if not check it out see if it helps you understand the point better:

http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=186

Looking forward to your comments

Regards

Ron

24th September 2004, 01:45

Salam Hasan,

Thank you for your reply.

Yes your dear to me too, "(Hischam too) I cannot recall at the moment an hadith where our beloved prophet has allowed teaching of Islam from the knowledgeable Ummat but I am certian of it either way it would have been debateable. I am certain that in the Quran there is an advise to ask those of the Ummat that knows, and possibly as a stretch of analogy those who are even outside the Ummat for research purposes. Could this be seen as instituted by the Prophet?
Hischam is very dear to me also. I don't think that the Prophet "allowed" teaching from the knowledge of the Ummah. Rather, I understand it to be his teaching as he taught and passed it on. He told the people to pray like him, surely that wasn't just for his companions only. Nevertheless I'll see if there is something in the Ahadith that indicate this. I know the verse of the Qur'an that you are speaking of but I would prefer to further understand before I comment. However, a much stronger verse, imho, is the Qur'an telling us to follow the example of the Prophet. What example? The ahadith weren't compiled so what were we to follow? Surely the Prophet had some sort of example; the Sunnah. I cannot see how anyone can take those words to mean to emulate his every act or mode of life. However, it can be taken that we learn his goodness, kindness and truthfulness etc... He was the living Islam and that's what we must follow. Think of Islam (both the Qur'an and Sunnah) as a religion in a vaccum. Meaning that cultural norms do not impose upon it.

I am not sure I can make sense of the following;
All I was saying was that many of those categories (e.g. makrooh, silence, etc...) were created by scholars to that they can help the common man understand. These are not part of the religion, just an explanation of concepts within concepts.

I hope to one day roam the deserts on dromederies and take in the air of our beloved prophet and his environment , while reflecting, if not now then as retirement plan God willing, this may be an Idealist mentality within me but it is not imposing.
I have. If only for a brief moment. It awakened me to a lot. The experience left me in awe. I commend you on this, not because I think that this is a religious obligation but just that the mere thought of such a thing is so beautiful because I see the love you have for the Prophet. Of course, those who don't do it or share the same wish as you do can and are still just as much the type to love the Prophet, just as you do.

I am sure/hope that I would not be chastised for seeing that I do not have a concern or a need to do wear a Turban or use stones or other objects in my current circumstance or life style.
But that is exactly the point I'm trying to make. So many people look down on others because they lump everything together and call it Islam and chastise others for not performing their Islamic duties. That's why the Sunnah is different from the everyday norms of any particular society; it spans cultural norms and time and history encompassing them all without being bent by them.

An interesting thought I like to express, these morals that Our beloved Prophet has so eloquently expressed in sayings and deeds, can there be a man who simply is moral does not lie cheat steal kind helpful by just the belief that it is a sunnat of our prophet can it be maintaned?
I'm not sure I fully comprehended all that you mean here. However, not lying or not stealing or not cheating are all a part of Islam. So a man who prays but lies and cheats is not successful in his Deen as he has not appreciated the full extent of Islam as expressed in the Qur'an and Sunnah.

This has concerned me I am not sure what to make of it.
I need clarification.

As I re-read these posts I have a suspicous feeling that there will be a counter reply exclaimimg that I haven't really answered the posts, indicating me possibly going on a tangent again, anyhow I find it humorous. I am not going to fix the grammer....or spelling
No complaints from me :)

Regards

vinod

24th September 2004, 04:44

Assalamu 'Alaikum Ronnie

That is more of the kind of clarity I was looking for. Thanks a lot for the explanation.

Also, I'm interested in what you said about the companions being confused as to what the sunnah was can you give examples and expound on it?

Errrrr. i didn't imply this. There's been a misunderstanding.

What I meant was this - that the companions clearly understood what the sunnah is though they have not gone on to categorically state it action by action for every action. I mean they didn't say something like - eating with hand is not sunnah, marriage is sunnah etc etc. It should not be construed that I'm saying that the companions didn't say it for any action.

The guidelines of the companions were given in their immediate generation to pass down to the next and so on till it reached us. Look at the Muslim world today do you think that the ahadith inculcated these practices in them all? Most people that Islam reached couldn't even read, so ask yourself how did it happen? Let me know what you come up with.

That is a very good and convincing argument. But can it not be argued that during the times close to the Prophet the imitation of the Prophet was so strong amongst the Muslims that there was no need to record down hadith. The need to record hadith started when the transmission by action did not continue with the same force as 8-10 generations of Muslims passed and also as new sects and fake scholars started to emerge. This point I think is explained in the main site.

Had this been true the Prophet would surely have said it and made some sort of effort to transmit this information to us.

But can it not be argued that the Prophet emphasised transmission (by word or action) only where he found a gap in the following of the Sunnah. In other words, he might not have noticed anybody not eating with the hand and therefore did not see a need to emphasize it (by stating it verbally that this is my sunnah). On the other hand, he may have noticed people attempting to stay unmarried and therefore emphasised that that was his sunnah. Also, there may have been implicit understanding among the generation of the Sahabah that the Prophet is to be imitated even in the mundane things. So, this imitation may have been done usually and onyl when there were exceptions did the Prophet say something to emphasize the sunnah.

For instance when he was teaching people how to pray he said, "pray like me." When he taught them wudu, he showed them how to do it. When they performed hajj he showed them the rites. Removing of the hair, he told them what should be done. I can go on

On the above, can I please request you to provide some more examples. It gives more assurance of the idea to my mind.

Regards and Salaam
Vinod

vinod

24th September 2004, 06:38

Salaam Ronnie

Just got back from jummah ..

On the issue of applicability that has often times come up during the course of this discussion, I can see it be a show-stopper for actions like riding a camel. But what about eating with the hand? Except for desserts and ice-cream and similar stuff, how is this being a barrier? As far as I can see, there's nothing that prevents it from being a universal practice.

But perhaps your argument against this is not the applicability, rather 1) it was not communicated as a sunnah by the Prophet verbally (= no hadith to that effect) or 2) transmitted as a sunnah generation to generation. Am I right?

But on point two, was it actually not transmitted?? Haven't the muslims been eating with the hand all along? Wasn't the fork and spoon a recent entry into the Ummah's lifestyle as we started imitating the west whole-sale?

Pls let me know your thoughts

Peace and Regards
Vinod

palm

24th September 2004, 07:58

asalamu alaykum
Have you guys noticed that when it comes to following a Sunnah eg growing a bead people would raise all kinds of objections but when a pop or movie star has a beard then everyone follows blindly and there is no problem.
Today if a hollywood 'celebrity' :rolleyes: is shown eating with hands then in no time this practice will spread like fire and we will see people taking great pride in eating like this.

vinod

24th September 2004, 08:10

Assalau 'Alaikum Palm
Just some related thoughts...

What you say is true and sad. But more often than not, it's not rectified by directly confronting a person with it. One has got to win the heart of the individual by displaying ihsan and generosity to him. He has to see the sunnah as the way of those with the most excellent of characters. The love for the Prophet creeps into the heart mostly due to 1) reading up on the life of the Prophet to see the man he was And/Or 2) seeing the Prophet's example of good character being displayed in a Muslim

Regards
Vinod

Al-Ikhwan

25th September 2004, 09:26

Assalamoalaikum
yes true palm,
that is the condition of muslims these days. they try tp find excuses and try to stay away from sunnah. they won't even do zikr bcuz their satan is so scared of it and wont let them do it. They should just try,

u just need to take the first step towards Allah. u have to show the desire and have to have the desire to turn towards Allah. Allah will do the rest
wassalm

Guest

25th September 2004, 09:53

Salaam All,

Brother Ronnie, im sorry, but i cannot agree with u.

No one "filters" what the Sunnah is because we receive it as a whole.

So, remind me, which brings the greater good, keeping the "whole" or filtering it? Take the beard for example. How our modern muslims like to cut corners. When in the grave the angels show u the face of our beloved prophet (s.a.w) how do u expect to recognise him, if u have not the beauty of the sunnah on ur own face? In actual fact, my sheikh made this point yesterday in juma, "its only a sunnah", right? Wrong. It is through doing OPTIONAL acts that bring us closer to Allah. And we all acknowledge that the prophet is Allah's beloved, then should we not be fighting to KEEP his sunnah, rather than destroy it?! I seriously dont get u people.

Ur point about clothes linked with spirituality is also baseless. The prophet (s.a.w)'s intercession will be more guaranteed for him who loved his sunnah. He (s.a.w) says, "He who does not love my sunnah, has nothing to do with me" Sahih Muslim. So, what shall we do? Destroy the sunnahs!

Btw, i should point out that the point of this forum, (at least how i see it) is not to agree with or have thoughts complimentary to Ronnie or the other moderators. Like XP once said, "unity doesnt mean we agree with everything", but i should also point out to the members that just because "ronnie/ hischam said it" doesnt mean that we become firm upon it, like that. The greater good is in following every aspect of the sunnah as best and as fully as possible. So wat should we do? Destroy the sunnahs! Or as ronnie puts it, "filter" them. Brother, EVERYTHING the prophet (s.a.w) did, was for a good purpose, as im sure u know. Why, was he not the walking, talking Quran? And wat are we doing again? "Filtering"? Great, brother. Great indeed.

Ron

25th September 2004, 21:22

Salam Vinod,

Thanks for your post.

On the issue of applicability that has often times come up during the course of this discussion, I can see it be a show-stopper for actions like riding a camel. But what about eating with the hand? Except for desserts and ice-cream and similar stuff, how is this being a barrier? As far as I can see, there's nothing that prevents it from being a universal practice.
The point wasn't a barrier, rather, the practiability of it. People designed forks and spoons because they wanted to accomodate themselves. Most of the world uses these utensils (or chopsticks) so whether it can be done or not is not the issue.

But perhaps your argument against this is not the applicability, rather 1) it was not communicated as a sunnah by the Prophet verbally (= no hadith to that effect) or 2) transmitted as a sunnah generation to generation. Am I right?
Exactly.

But on point two, was it actually not transmitted?? Haven't the muslims been eating with the hand all along? Wasn't the fork and spoon a recent entry into the Ummah's lifestyle as we started imitating the west whole-sale?
No. Eating with the hands was the norm till the new norm (using spoons/forks) took over. All I'm saying that if using a spoons was the norm in the Prophet's time surely he would have used them. There's nothing special about eating with the hands or with spoons. It's only a method of eating.

Regards

Ron

25th September 2004, 21:25

Salam Ikhwan and Palm,

Both your posts indicate that you seem to think that I or others wish to do away with the Sunnah. I can't see how you can possibly arrive at that conclusion from my words. So in order to help understand please do explain it for me.

Regards

Ron

25th September 2004, 21:46

Salam Sheikh Haroon,

Brother Ronnie, im sorry, but i cannot agree with u.
That's ok. Disagreements can be healthy. However, from reading your post it seems you actually cannot disagree with something you haven't understood. I'll explain below.

So, remind me, which brings the greater good, keeping the "whole" or filtering it?
Maybe the words "no one filters the sunnah" don't make sense to you. What I meant is that no one has the right to filter the Sunnah. No scholars. No people. No books. Nothing. The Sunnah was transmitted to us as a whole. Now hopefully you understood this point and you can see that your question is not relevant.

It is through doing OPTIONAL acts that bring us closer to Allah.
My dear brother the Sunnah is not "OPTIONAL." The Sunnah is what the Prophet taught us to fulfill our religion. Now this is the question you have not answered, "what is the sunnah, what does it mean?"

And we all acknowledge that the prophet is Allah's beloved, then should we not be fighting to KEEP his sunnah, rather than destroy it?! I seriously dont get u people.
Before you accuse anyone of doing such a thing first you should try to understand them correctly. You react out of frustration and what seems to be anger. But what is there to be angry about? First, you haven't understood what is being said. Second, how can any discussion be fruitful when you carry this tone? I urge you to calm yourself and open your mind and be receptive to what is being said. Once you have understood it, then you can argue it and when or if you still disagree then state that you do. Don't fall into that trap of condemnation, it makes you sound judgmental and unrighteous. So, thusfar I hope you realize no one is trying to destroy the Sunnah...it cannot be destroyed.

Ur point about clothes linked with spirituality is also baseless.
It sure would help if you would back your statement up with something valid. Maybe something like, "those who wear clothes like me are following my sunnah" or something to that affect. If you can't then I suggest not making such statements. So tell me how wearing the fashion of 7th century Arabs is good for my salvation especially in the light that Arabs before the Prophet was even born dressed like that?

He (s.a.w) says, "He who does not love my sunnah, has nothing to do with me" Sahih Muslim. So, what shall we do? Destroy the sunnahs!
You haven't even defined sunnah much less understand what the underlying importance of this hadith is. When you do we will discuss it further.

Btw, i should point out that the point of this forum, (at least how i see it) is not to agree with or have thoughts complimentary to Ronnie or the other moderators.
You are 100% correct. I agree with you fully.

The greater good is in following every aspect of the sunnah as best and as fully as possible. So wat should we do? Destroy the sunnahs!
Right we should follow the Sunnah as much as possible, I agree. No one is trying to destory the sunnah you should not be such an alarmist.

Or as ronnie puts it, "filter" them. Brother,
Wrong. I said that no one can filter them and because you misunderstood you've allowed your imagination run wild.

Brother, EVERYTHING the prophet (s.a.w) did, was for a good purpose, as im sure u know.
Of course, but what's your point?

Why, was he not the walking, talking Quran? And wat are we doing again? "Filtering"? Great, brother. Great indeed.
Again, you mention filtering but I'll say it again you're wrong. "Great brother" I don't appreciate the sarcasm. First understand me then debate me but there's no room for insults...wouldn't that be the way of the Prophet (P)?

Wassalam

Guest

26th September 2004, 11:38

Salaam Ronnie sahib,

Forgive my tone of anger, i acknowledge that i did not totally understand u.

Ok, u asked what the sunnah is, u probably know better than me, but as far as i know it means "way" i.e. the way of the prophet, or something like that?

Let me also explain my stand on why we should safeguard and love the sunnahs. Its like, if u have a hero, u try to be like him in as much as u can, walk like him talk like him e.t.c. So basically, i, and im sure u do too, love the prophet (or at least try to) and i believe, imho that the best way to do that is to follow the sunnahs. Now the dress. Well, i know this may sound a lot like opinion, but it is more comfortable to pray in loose clothes, robes rather than jeans. It is also seen as the "islamic" look, and i promote that. U know my views on how we should keep our identity in society, and not assimilate too much into it.

Perhaps im talking once again like the extreme guy ive been known as, but the beauty in the dress, in the long robes, in the beard, in the way it covers u, no arrogance, the clothes of modesty, revealing nothing, showing nothing, subhanallah, its just too good to give up, hence why i spoke aggressively to u, for which i once again ask u to pardon me.

As far as spirituality in the dress, well its about the heart and the intention isnt it? I mean, if ur dressed islamically so as to resemble the prophet and to make Allah happy with ur imitation of his beloved, then surely thats a good thing, isnt it?

Btw, Ronnie sahib, i must thank u for speaking with great politeness, when faced with a wave of onslaught, and accusations. I hope we can continue in tones of decency and understanding for ages to come.

vinod

27th September 2004, 04:02

Salaam Ronnie

So, if I've understood your view of the sunnah correctly then -

1. Not everything that has been transmitted in the Muslim Ummah is sunnah
There has to be some hadith that mentions it as the sunnah or
something similar in the Hadith to that effect
2. Not everything mentioned in the hadith as the Prophet's action is
sunnah. There has to be a generation to generation transmission of it.
3. Sunnah is NOT OPTIONAL

Am I right in the above?
But, a question still in my mind is that why should I choose this view of the Sunnah over the view that all actions of the Prophet are Sunnah? I think the answer would be in knowing what the Sahabah understood as the Sunnah.

I'm unable to place trust the reliability of point2 - the generation to generation transmission as an identification mark of the Sunnah. The current state of the Ummah where the Sunnah is treated as throw-away material is responsible for my doubting this mode of transmission.

Anyway, I'm going to readup a bit on what the Sahabah understood and acted upon as the Sunnah. If I find something interesting to share I'll do so, inshaAllah.

Was-salam
Vinod

Ron

27th September 2004, 04:57

Salam Sheikh Haroon,

Thanks for your reply.

Ok, u asked what the sunnah is, u probably know better than me, but as far as i know it means "way" i.e. the way of the prophet, or something like that?
From my understanding "sunnah" is the practical aspects of Islam that the Prophet laid out for every generation of Muslims to follow. Pleae read some of these answers from the main page and let me know what you think:

http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/questionsarticles.asp?sscatid=66

Let me also explain my stand on why we should safeguard and love the sunnahs. Its like, if u have a hero, u try to be like him in as much as u can, walk like him talk like him e.t.c. So basically, i, and im sure u do too, love the prophet (or at least try to) and i believe, imho that the best way to do that is to follow the sunnahs. Now the dress. Well, i know this may sound a lot like opinion, but it is more comfortable to pray in loose clothes, robes rather than jeans. It is also seen as the "islamic" look, and i promote that. U know my views on how we should keep our identity in society, and not assimilate too much into it.
I don't disagree with you here. The Prophet (P) is our best example in terms of our religion. However, he had a lifestyle that dealt with his conditions. Most of us don't have those conditions to deal with. Times have changed. In the societies you and I live in it's almost impossible to do some of the things that was necessary during the Propeht's times. What I'm trying to say is that does not mean everything that the Prophet did. It's fine that people want to be exactly like him; eat like him and dress like him etc...There's nothing wrong with that but just remember that eating like the Prophet is not what Islam is about.

As for the "Islamic dress," then I question what you are referring to? Are you talking about the long white robes for men? If you are and you deem them to be the correct clothing then on what basis? Could you tell me if the Prophet wore this? I think when you figure out the the answers to these questions you'll realize that you are talking about Arab and African clothing. That's they're style, that's how they dress. And I'm sure you know that just because something is Arab does not make it Islamic. So the "comfort" you are talking about is not related to the religion because I get the same comfort from wearing sweat pants or pajamas. Please think about these points.

Perhaps im talking once again like the extreme guy ive been known as, but the beauty in the dress, in the long robes, in the beard, in the way it covers u, no arrogance, the clothes of modesty, revealing nothing, showing nothing, subhanallah, its just too good to give up, hence why i spoke aggressively to u, for which i once again ask u to pardon me.
I don't see you as being extreme. From your writing it seems that you are a Muslim struggling just like many are. The beauty in these things is in your eyes. So long as one is modest then I see no reason to promote one style over the other, unless that's just a personal choice. Surely, it cannot be promoted as "Islamic clothing." I know in Pakistan they have their own style, seems just as comfortable should we accuse you of trying to "assimilate" into Arab culture? I'm not being snide, just something to think about. By the way, don't answer that it's because the Prophet wore it because you'd have to show me that. Also, you need to explain if this type of clothing has any religious connection in light of the fact that it was worn before the Prophet was born. I'm not saying don't wear them or eat this way or dress this way all I'm saying that I don't think it should be made out to be some sort of religious plus.

As far as spirituality in the dress, well its about the heart and the intention isnt it? I mean, if ur dressed islamically so as to resemble the prophet and to make Allah happy with ur imitation of his beloved, then surely thats a good thing, isnt it?
There's nothing spiritual about a particular style of clothing. It's the modesty and intentions that counts. Also, it's not the fact that you dress like the Prophet or eat like the Prophet but rather that you are trying to emulate this great man. This "trying" may be wonderful and I commend anyone who has this type of love for the Prophet but I insist that he did not implement his lifestyle as a religious duty or even spiritual in some sense.

Btw, Ronnie sahib, i must thank u for speaking with great politeness, when faced with a wave of onslaught, and accusations. I hope we can continue in tones of decency and understanding for ages to come.
My dear brother we are here to learn from one another. We should behave as Islam has guided us. If the prisoners of war during the time of the Prophet were to be treated hospitably; to eat with them and walk with them...and these are the very people that were trying to kill the Muslims. How then shall we act? Of course we will continue decency and I appreciate that you've continued in this vain. Thank you for being so kind in your time to discuss this.

Regards

Ron

27th September 2004, 05:40

Salam,

Thanks for your reply.

1. Not everything that has been transmitted in the Muslim Ummah is sunnah. There has to be some hadith that mentions it as the sunnah or
something similar in the Hadith to that effect
The first sentence is right. The second needs modification. The sunnah comes from generation to generation transmission not dependent on Ahadith. The ahadith were transferred from individual to individual. Hence you can see the difference. The sunnah didn't even need writing as practices are better taught by example.

2. Not everything mentioned in the hadith as the Prophet's action is
sunnah. There has to be a generation to generation transmission of it.
Yes but it's not based on the hadith, although the hadith can contain this information.

3. Sunnah is NOT OPTIONAL
In terms of prayer, hajj and the like it's not.

But, a question still in my mind is that why should I choose this view of the Sunnah over the view that all actions of the Prophet are Sunnah? I think the answer would be in knowing what the Sahabah understood as the Sunnah.
To help you make a choice you have to define sunnah. Is it the things that are mandatory? Or optional? If they are everything that he ever did how do you determine what is a must and what is not? I think your suggestion is great, I think you should research it and let us know the results.

I'm unable to place trust the reliability of point2 - the generation to generation transmission as an identification mark of the Sunnah. The current state of the Ummah where the Sunnah is treated as throw-away material is responsible for my doubting this mode of transmission.
I don't think based on reality. For 1400 years it's been passed along. It was passed down until 250 years or so when it written down in the ahadith and other historical documents. Interestingly enough you trust in individual to individual transmission but something as grand as the passing of the Sunnah you don't think is as good? Is it because wasn't written? Think about this, most people in the Muslim world were unable to read and write so having them in ahadith books wouldn't have taught them as quickly. Besides the ahadith don't have instructionals as to do things, but what it does have is the mention that the Prophet prayed this or that way but not in a full instructional. You would have to compile many ahadith before your get the full idea of it.

Anyway, I'm going to readup a bit on what the Sahabah understood and acted upon as the Sunnah. If I find something interesting to share I'll do so, inshaAllah.
Excellent. Please keep me informed.

Regards

vinod

27th September 2004, 07:02

Dear Ronnie salam,
I seem to be having a hard time grasping your definition of Sunnah.

The sunnah comes from generation to generation transmission not dependent on Ahadith.

Well, if the generation to generation transmission alone qualifies an action as a sunnah, why doesn't eating with the hand qualify as a sunnah? Why is that a simple norm and not a sunnah?

You also mention in your response to my note (refering to optionality of sunnah) that

In terms of prayer, hajj and the like it's not.

Which implies that, in other terms, certain sunnah can be optional.

In your response to Sheikh Haroon, you mention that

My dear brother the Sunnah is not "OPTIONAL." The Sunnah is what the Prophet taught us to fulfill our religion

There is something missing in the two above that make it seem contradictory. Pls elaborate.

I don't think based on reality. For 1400 years it's been passed along. It was passed down until 250 years or so when it written down in the ahadith and other historical documents. Interestingly enough you trust in individual to individual transmission but something as grand as the passing of the Sunnah you don't think is as good? Is it because wasn't written? Think about this, most people in the Muslim world were unable to read and write so having them in ahadith books wouldn't have taught them as quickly. Besides the ahadith don't have instructionals as to do things, but what it does have is the mention that the Prophet prayed this or that way but not in a full instructional. You would have to compile many ahadith before your get the full idea of it.

Well, the individuals who recorded the hadith are known to be precise in their recordings, observation and analysis. But, I do imagine a lot of loopholes occuring in the "enmasse transmission of actions" because the commitment of Muslims to Islam has constantly dropped from generation to generation.

Your last point about having many hadith together to get a full picture of the Prophet's actions is correct. And probably that is the reason that scholars of today (and also of the times of yore) differ/differed in their interpretation of "the sunnah actions". You know, like, some of them didn't get to see the whole bunch of hadith etc.

Now, I imagine the generation to generation transmission to be highly effective only for a couple or so of generations. But to assume that it worked for >14 generations does not seem true.

Thanks and Regards
Vinod

Ron

28th September 2004, 00:42

Salam Vinod,

Thanks for your reply.

I seem to be having a hard time grasping your definition of Sunnah.
I'm sorry, but don't despair we'll keep at it even if you in the end don't agree then at least I just want you to understand.

Well, if the generation to generation transmission alone qualifies an action as a sunnah, why doesn't eating with the hand qualify as a sunnah? Why is that a simple norm and not a sunnah?
Because the Sunnah was established purposefully for the practice of Islam. Eating with one's hands existed before the Prophet and it is not an established religious practice. On the one hand you have something that the Prophet emphasized and developed and on the other it was merely something he did due to the conditions of his society.

Which implies that, in other terms, certain sunnah can be optional.
I'm sorry for the confusion. I really didn't want to get into this aspect of the of the issue before we grasped the understanding of Sunnah. The most important thing to remember is that the Sunnah was putforth by the Prophet (continuing Abraham's traditions). Now with that, there's also some of what the Prophet established as the practice of Islam to be optional yet if done would fulfill the spirit of what Islam is in faith and practice. To give you an example raising the finger up and down during prayer in the sitting position is one. I would prefer not to go too far on this until we have a better understanding of what the Sunnah means.

Well, the individuals who recorded the hadith are known to be precise in their recordings, observation and analysis. But, I do imagine a lot of loopholes occuring in the "enmasse transmission of actions" because the commitment of Muslims to Islam has constantly dropped from generation to generation.
The question of recording ahadith is not the issue but rather the individual and his/her understanding while transmitting it. Now we know that the Prophet did not institute the writing of ahadith but he did institute the Sunnah. So opinions and ideas may creep into ahadith but not the Sunnah. The reason is that one person or many cannot corrupt what an entire generation of people know and understand. You say the commitment of Muslims have slipped but that's really an opinion regarding how they are as Muslims. Even if you are correct this does not affect the practice is transferred. You are suggesting some sort of breakdown or corruption entering this form of transmission but that's not possible due to the masses that follow the way of the Prophet. This follows the concept of tawatur, that so many people do it there can be no disagreement. It is simply an axiom.

Now, I imagine the generation to generation transmission to be highly effective only for a couple or so of generations. But to assume that it worked for >14 generations does not seem true.
The proof is in the pudding, as the American saying goes. If Muslims are not practicing the Sunnah correctly then one should be able to show it. It cannot be argued that it was maintained because of the ahadith because that's not how human history has worked and the same goes for Islamic history.

Regards

vinod

28th September 2004, 04:37

Assalamu 'Alaikum Ronnie

Your patience is appreciated in this matter -

Because the Sunnah was established purposefully for the practice of Islam. Eating with one's hands existed before the Prophet and it is not an established religious practice. On the one hand you have something that the Prophet emphasized and developed and on the other it was merely something he did due to the conditions of his society

I think the part in bold is the root of our different views. One may see it as not a mere action but rather something endorsed by the Prophet by virtue of his continued practice of it. To this, if one adds that 1) not all sunnah is mandatorily to be performed, and 2) as long as one has the intention of following a sunnah when circumstances for it are impossible, one still gets the reward of doing it....bingo, there is a working definition of Sunnah in place.

This of course excludes the obvious - like the claim to Prophethood.

But the above alternate view does not invalidate your view. I just don't see why one should be preferred over another. So far, both views seem equally viable.

You see, it's not that the generation to generation transmission proceeded as -

"wash your hands this way in Wudhu, that is the sunnah" etc

Was it not just that one generation saw the previous in action and emulated it? If that is true, then ascribing 'norm' to eating with the hand and sunnah to 'wudhu' comes from your view of what the mundane actions of the Prophet signify.

Your statement -

The question of recording ahadith is not the issue but rather the individual and his/her understanding while transmitting it. Now we know that the Prophet did not institute the writing of ahadith but he did institute the Sunnah. So opinions and ideas may creep into ahadith but not the Sunnah. The reason is that one person or many cannot corrupt what an entire generation of people know and understand.

does convince me of the superiority of the generation to generation transmission over the ahadith compilation in elucidating a sunnah.

On the other hand, the statement -

On the one hand you have something that the Prophet emphasized and developed

raises the question - how does one know that the Prophet emphasized and developed an action? Knowing that generation to generation transmission alone does not act as sufficient proof (as shown by the example of eating with hand) of 'development and emphasis' by the Prophet, it seems to be pointing to ahadith again.

Lastly, I believe that when you made the statement -

It cannot be argued that it was maintained because of the ahadith because that's not how human history has worked and the same goes for Islamic history

you had some kind of analogy in mind. Could you pls share that?

Thanks and Regards
Vinod

Ron

28th September 2004, 15:19

Salam Vinod,

Thanks for your reply.

I think the part in bold is the root of our different views. One may see it as not a mere action but rather something endorsed by the Prophet by virtue of his continued practice of it. To this, if one adds that 1) not all sunnah is mandatorily to be performed, and 2) as long as one has the intention of following a sunnah when circumstances for it are impossible, one still gets the reward of doing it....bingo, there is a working definition of Sunnah in place.
The reason it was not endorsed by the Prophet (P) is because there is no indication whatsoever that he told his community to follow him in how he dressed or how he ate. Now, considering, from your view, that it would be better to follow him in regards to eating with the hands then he should have specifically said so. The reason I say this is because God would have informed him that times would change (creation of spoons and forks). Hence, it would only be fair to let us know that the way one remains steadfast in the Prophet's way is to eat like him with the hands. But obviously he did not tell people to do this. As a matter of fact here's an interesting story I read in a hadith that I'll paraphrase. The Prophet one day had a gold ring made for himself. He liked it and wore it. No sooner did he wear it then began to notice that people were making gold rings and wearing just as he did. So enough so many people did it that he stood in front of everyone and pulled the ring off his finger and threw it away. Just as he did so did the people. From my understanding of this hadith it is clear that the Prophet had personal tastes and when he saw how the people would follow every aspect of his life he wanted to correct it. This hadith directly speaks to the issue of tastes and preferences of the Prophet and how he didn't promote his lifestyle but rather the Sunnah as was given to Abraham (P) and purified by the Prophet. Again, I don't agree with your definition. You say that he endorsed what sums up to be his lifestyle but really could he have lived any other way? He had to eat with his hands because there was nothing to eat with. He had to ride horses because that was the quickest form of transportation and there were no cars. He had to dress in certain ways because of the climate in the desert etc...So you see you cannot convince me that these were endorsed because it was part of his life. What if he lived in a cold environment? Think about it.

Was it not just that one generation saw the previous in action and emulated it? If that is true, then ascribing 'norm' to eating with the hand and sunnah to 'wudhu' comes from your view of what the mundane actions of the Prophet signify.
True, with a slight correction. People were teaching one another. That's how it was being transmitted. If someone was to do it wrong they would correct him/her. So indeed there was teaching and an overt passing of it. But eating with the hands was not passed on because it was normal till people created forks and spoons. I've never heard anyone teaching against eating with them or correcting anyone about it. There must be a way to seperate religious duties from lifestyles and it was done via the passing down of the sunnah.

how does one know that the Prophet emphasized and developed an action? Knowing that generation to generation transmission alone does not act as sufficient proof (as shown by the example of eating with hand) of 'development and emphasis' by the Prophet, it seems to be pointing to ahadith again.
We know because it was passed down and practiced till today. Also, check history books and ahadith. From what I have read there's a clear distinction between what the Prophet had taught and what he simply did as a person living in 7th century Arabia. Statements such as, "pray as you see me praying" is a teaching not merely a request to adopt a lifestyle. But in fact the generation to generation transmission does eliminate things that were not sunnah as not the entire Muslim community follow it. Even if we did not have the ahadith, which the Muslims did not have an operating body till Bukhari (250 years later), the community thrived and passed the Sunnah down. How else could it have so rapidly been picked up if there was no compiled books of ahadith and a mostly illiterate people even those of foreign nations? Even many of the ahadith were passed down from person to the next by word of mouth till they were written down. So how would you explain the maintainence of the Sunnah for the first 2 centuries of Islam?

you had some kind of analogy in mind. Could you pls share that?
I think the above should help explaining it. Let me know. It is a pleasure having this discussion with you.

Regards

Al-Ikhwan

28th September 2004, 15:38

how do u ppl get so much time to read sooo long and so mmaaannny posts. do u sit infront of ur pc for half an hour or something???????? reading posts?? and answering?
God, i dont have that much time
wassalam

Guest

28th September 2004, 19:29

Ronnie sahib, salaam and peace to u.

Can i ask u to sum up in a sentence or two what ur purpose is with regards to talking about sunnah. Jazakallah.

Ron

28th September 2004, 20:23

Salam Sheikh Haroon,

Can i ask u to sum up in a sentence or two what ur purpose is with regards to talking about sunnah. Jazakallah
Well it's a discussion. People made some statements and I wanted to discuss the Sunnah with them. I tend to think we have a misunderstanding as it regards what it means and its implications. Also, I'm sharing my understanding of it. Is there something that bothers you about this discussion? Please express yourself freely.

Regards

Guest

28th September 2004, 20:40

Salaam great brother.

Erm... i dunno really... i just have this dodgy feeling...

Some time out, would probably do me some good.

Jazakallah, for ur words, ur great. Forgive my insolence, my dear brother.

xp²

28th September 2004, 22:22

Salaam Haroon,

I think you are feeling troubled by Ronnie's posts, because he is saying that there are certain practices which are not part of Islam. Those certain practices, like the wearing of specific dress is something that you are currently observing. So I can understand how you are feeling, because it is your identity in question (in your mind).

No one is destroying the Sunnah, so take that out of your mind. Its about understanding why a certain practice or action is a Sunnah, and another one not... like the riding of camels, for example. Its great that you want to be like the Prophet in every way possible, but its not the outwardly actions themselves, rather your intentions that are beautiful. If wearing that specific dress is a Sunnah, then all muslims would have to be wearing it. Same applies to eating with the hands.... if using any utensils was against the Prophet's commands, then the muslim Ummah would not be using them or dressing differently. To suggest that they dropped the practices because of laziness or whatever is to bring the whole Sunnah into question.... as it cannot be reliable, so praying and all these other things could be inventions, and before we know it, we'd be agreeing with Icono... because it is no longer a certainty but conjecture.

If we take it a step further, then one might say that wearing only "white" or such and such colour is Sunnah, and any others are not. Or then they might say, only this fabric can be deemed Sunnah, and nothing else.

I know its hard for you to see it this way, because you are engaged in the observance of these yourself, so any questions of these practices is like questioning you as a person.

vinod

29th September 2004, 02:44

Assalamu 'Alaikum Al-Ikhwan

how do u ppl get so much time to read sooo long and so mmaaannny posts. do u sit infront of ur pc for half an hour or something???????? reading posts?? and answering?
God, i dont have that much time

The answer to the above is simple. When one is keen to finely understand something he/she creates time for it. I don't thave the time for other posts if you notice. You seem to have the time for "Zikr-e-Allah" discussion.

By the way, if you want to improve the time spent in reading the new posts try the "New Posts" button. It may help. Or you may simply want to read posts by persons who you think have worthwhile thoughts. Click on a username and then click on view all posts by this person.

You may want to print out this discussion and read at your convenience. It does challenge your currently held view of the Sunnah. ;)

Lastly, my job is about sitting in front of the PC for 8hr a day. :)

Fii Amaanillah
Vinod

vinod

29th September 2004, 04:10

Assalamu 'Alaikum Ron

Thanks for the detailed response. I sure am learning a lot here. :)
Well, this is going to break all previously held records for the longest post... :)

I am beginning to get the essence of what you're saying.

You say that he endorsed what sums up to be his lifestyle but really could he have lived any other way? He had to eat with his hands because there was nothing to eat with. He had to ride horses because that was the quickest form of transportation and there were no cars. He had to dress in certain ways because of the climate in the desert etc...So you see you cannot convince me that these were endorsed because it was part of his life. What if he lived in a cold environment? Think about it.

The above is a very fine and excellent point. I liked the distinction you are making where the idea of endorsements of actions makes sense only when there are many possible ways of doing it....Really nice and sensible point.

The example of the gold ring is also appreciated. Thanks

Now, coming to eating with hands...

Now, considering, from your view, that it would be better to follow him in regards to eating with the hands then he should have specifically said so.

Well , here goes...
Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 65:
Volume 7, Book 65, Number 288:
Narrated 'Umar bin Abi Salama:

Ibn abi Salamah reported, "I was a boy under the guardianship of the Messenger of Allah, and my hand used to wander around the dish (while I was eating). Then the Messenger of Allah said to me, 'O boy, mention (the name of) Allah and eat with your right hand, and eat from what is closest to you.' Thereafter I did not lapse from this way of eating." (Bukhari).

Umar bin Abi Salamah Radiyallahu 'Anbu came to Rasululah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam while food had been served to him. Rasulullah Saliallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam said: "O my Son come near, recite Bismillah, and eat with your right hand from that portion which is in front of you".

Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 65:
Volume 7, Book 65, Number 291:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:

A tailor invited Allah's Apostle to a meal which he had prepared. I went along with Allah's Apostle and saw him seeking to eat the pieces of gourd from the various sides of the dish. Since that day I have liked to eat gourd. 'Umar bin Abi Salama said: The Prophet, said to me, "Eat with your right hand."

From Abi Bakr ibn Ubaidallah ibn Abdullah ibn Umar from his grandfather Ibn Umar that Allah's Messenger (sas) said: "When any of you eat let him eat with his right hand and when he drinks let him drink with his right hand because Shaytaan eats with his left hand and drinks with his left hand." (Muslim)

Salamah bin Al-Akwa` (May Allah be pleased with him) reported on the authority of his father: A man ate with his left hand in the presence of Messenger of Allah (PBUH), whereupon he said, "Eat with your right hand.'' The man said: "I cannot do that.'' Thereupon he (the Prophet (PBUH)) said, "May you not be able to do that.'' It was vanity that prevented him from doing it and he could not raise it (the right hand) up to his mouth afterwards.
[Muslim].

In another narration it is related that Sayyidina RasulIullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam once saw a woman eating with her left hand. 'Sayidina Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam cursed her, the woman died in a plague. It is stated in Ibn Maajah that Sayyidina Rasulullah Sallailahu 'Alayhi Wasallam said: 'The shaytaan eats with the left hand, therefore do not eat with the left hand'.

What do you make of the above, combined with the generation to generation transmission of this practice? Also, our experience about the overt transmission of it is very different. You write -

True, with a slight correction. People were teaching one another. That's how it was being transmitted. If someone was to do it wrong they would correct him/her. So indeed there was teaching and an overt passing of it. But eating with the hands was not passed on because it was normal till people created forks and spoons. I've never heard anyone teaching against eating with them or correcting anyone about it.

Well, I've seen this actively being taught in muslim families. If you've read the book by Mohammad Asad "Road to Mecca" he mentions this practice being taught in the Saudi royal family as well.

About your point -

But in fact the generation to generation transmission does eliminate things that were not sunnah as not the entire Muslim community follow it.

I wouldn't place my bet on it nor would I dispute it. It does makes sense. But there is also room for doubt in it.

So how would you explain the maintainence of the Sunnah for the first 2 centuries of Islam?

Holding on to my current view of Sunnah ( which by the way, is in the process of being fine tuned :) ), I would explain this by stating what I've said before. The commitment of Muslims during this period was top class. Hence, the action transmission did the job of preservinf the Sunnah. But as time passed and the commitment to Islam dropped, the need to compile it in books was felt ( there were also other reasons for it ). The history of Muslims and the current state of Muslims, where most Muslims do not pray even the 5 obligatory prayers, points towards this degradation.

Fii Amaanillah
Vinod

Guest

29th September 2004, 11:45

Salaam Vinod,

is in the process of being fine tuned

I should remind u that most scholars wear robes and eat with their hands and keep their cloth above the ankles. I would also advise u not to change ur viewpoint so easily.

Ron

29th September 2004, 19:40

Salam Vinod,

Thank you for your post.

I really appreciate that you took the time to look up the ahadith regarding eating. However, I must ask you to take a real close look at them and think about some of the things I'm about to mention. First, let me state clearly that eating with the right hand is without a doubt a Sunnah (as per my understanding). You quoted these ahadith to show me that the Prophet (P) did indeed ask people to eat with their hands, correct me if I'm wrong. But of course I disagree that that's what these ahadith are about. In fact, they are not in regards to eating with the hand but eating with the right hand. The crucial word here is "right." If you read critically the ahadith you will see that the Prophet is instructing the boy on the Islamic ettiqutte of eating. First you mention God's name, you eat with your right hand and start from the food closest to you so that you don't cause a messy trail in the dish. He was showing the proper way of eating according to the spirit of Islam; clean, appropriate and firstly God's name upon the food. How beautiful is that? Now hold onto the thought of what he was teaching and think about this also: All the people ate with their hands so obviously the Prophet telling someone to eat with their hands wasn't the significant teaching. What would be the point? If you eat with a spoon and I see you doing it would it make sense for me to command you to, "eat with a spoon"? I'm sure you can appreciate this point. So what is important here is not the hand but rather using the correct method of eating; the right hand. I too eat with my right hand but I use a spoon and fork (not always). The point is the very spirit of eating with the right hand evokes a reminder and a conscious effort for a righteous deed. The right side is symbolic of goodness and you do all those things which are clean. The left is symbolic for not so good things and doing those things to be clean. So to sum up, the Prophet saying use your right hand had nothing to do with the use of the hand but rather the use of the right dexterity. So using the right hand whether using utensils or not is the Sunnah but nowhere in those ahadith can one make a factual argument that says we should use the bare hands to eat.

I wouldn't place my bet on it nor would I dispute it. It does makes sense. But there is also room for doubt in it.
But it is alive today as it was then. The ahadith didn't preserve it the Muslim generations did and if you read history you'll see that Islam spread so fast and wide that there couldn't have been mass inventions. Till today it's still active and being passed down from generation to generation, this is without a doubt a fact.

Holding on to my current view of Sunnah ( which by the way, is in the process of being fine tuned ), I would explain this by stating what I've said before. The commitment of Muslims during this period was top class. Hence, the action transmission did the job of preservinf the Sunnah. But as time passed and the commitment to Islam dropped, the need to compile it in books was felt ( there were also other reasons for it ). The history of Muslims and the current state of Muslims, where most Muslims do not pray even the 5 obligatory prayers, points towards this degradation.
I can see your point if we are talking about the 2 generations after the Prophet, but here we are talking something like 250 years. Even if I agree with you that the Sunnah was compiled it still does not negate the point that it has been preserved via generation to generation. The books of ahadith could not have even closely do the job the Sunnah did. People just didn't read. Nor did people have to try to figure out how to pray or anything else from the ahadith. One of the reasons of the ahadith is that the historical accounts regarding the Prophet were supposed to be preserved. People wanted to know about him and his life. Think about it. Did it really take the hadith collectors to save the religion of Islam? They did great work but the Sunnah of Islam did not depend on them. What if they hadn't chosen to collect these narrations wouldn't that imply that the Prophet had not fulfilled his duty? How effective would God's religion be? So the point is that these great figures and their works are not responsible for the spread of the Sunnah but actually the Prophet is.

As for some Muslims not praying 5 times a day this in no way relates to the passing of the Sunnah. As a matter of fact even those who don't pray all 5 at least know that they should pray 5. This weakness regarding prayer does not negate the Sunnah. First, because these weaknesses are more current. Second because the Sunnah is so solidified that it cannot erased from the minds of people.

Regards

Ron

29th September 2004, 19:49

Salam Sheikh Haroon,

I should remind u that most scholars wear robes and eat with their hands and keep their cloth above the ankles.
I challenge this assertion. Who are these scholars? Also, please keep in mind that what the men of the Gulf region (Saudi, Qatar, UAE etc...) wear is not what the Prophet (P) used to wear.

I would also advise u not to change ur viewpoint so easily.
Although I don't disagree with you here it seems you are unjustified in saying such a thing. My dear brother, you are an intelligent man and God has blessed you why don't you correct my understanding if I am wrong. If I am it would make me greatly happy if you actually set me straight. Don't deny me the knowledge which may bring me closer to God. If you cannot challenge my position then I urge you to bring someone that can. This way he/she can set me straight. It would be an honor. If they don't come here then present them with my views and have them refute me and you can post it here. Whatever the case let us keep our miinds open and not try to dismiss the very opportunity we can help each other. Don't discourage people from seeing other points of view and don't be discouraged by seeing reading different points of view. I look forward to your reply.

Please read what XP wrote to you I'm not sure if you missed it:

Salaam Haroon,

I think you are feeling troubled by Ronnie's posts, because he is saying that there are certain practices which are not part of Islam. Those certain practices, like the wearing of specific dress is something that you are currently observing. So I can understand how you are feeling, because it is your identity in question (in your mind).

No one is destroying the Sunnah, so take that out of your mind. Its about understanding why a certain practice or action is a Sunnah, and another one not... like the riding of camels, for example. Its great that you want to be like the Prophet in every way possible, but its not the outwardly actions themselves, rather your intentions that are beautiful. If wearing that specific dress is a Sunnah, then all muslims would have to be wearing it. Same applies to eating with the hands.... if using any utensils was against the Prophet's commands, then the muslim Ummah would not be using them or dressing differently. To suggest that they dropped the practices because of laziness or whatever is to bring the whole Sunnah into question.... as it cannot be reliable, so praying and all these other things could be inventions, and before we know it, we'd be agreeing with Icono... because it is no longer a certainty but conjecture.

If we take it a step further, then one might say that wearing only "white" or such and such colour is Sunnah, and any others are not. Or then they might say, only this fabric can be deemed Sunnah, and nothing else.

I know its hard for you to see it this way, because you are engaged in the observance of these yourself, so any questions of these practices is like questioning you as a person.
Regards

Guest

29th September 2004, 20:04

Vajradhara

29th September 2004, 20:34

Salaam palm,

thank you for the post.

MFo

eating with hands doesnt make you an ape or monkey.
you're correct.. .it simply is unheigenic.

But walking naked or having sexual intercourse in front of the world definitley degrades one to the level of animals or even beyond that and that is what most of the westerners are upto.

please provide a source for your comment that "most westerners are walking around naked in public and having sex in public." if you cannot, please consider the honorable thing and retract your statement.

Even animals have some sort of protection in the form of fir or their tails but you guys just dont even bother. Besides you guys also believe (darwinism) that your ancestors were once apes and monkeys :rolleyes:
so you are making fun of your own ancestors :D

nope... common ancestor but not apes and chimps and monkeys. this is basic stuff.. i cannot imagine how you've confused this particular point as it is heavily emphasized in every publication that talks about evolution.

While we firmly believe that human race is a direct descendent of Prophet Adam and his wife Hawwa(Eve) (may peace and blessings of ALLAH be upon them).
hey... weren't they naked as well?

besides... do you realize the genetic implications of saying that the entire human species came from two beings? are you familiar with Mendeilan genetics and the theory of genetic inheritence?

Ratatosk

29th September 2004, 20:45

Namaste Vajradhara,

A quick side step; are you aware of the functionality of Genetic Algorithms (a type of optimization algorithms used in, amongst others, neural networks) and their relationship to Mendelian Genetics? I am totally at a loss when it comes to the biological genetical inheritance machinery, but is there a close relationship betwixt these two, ie genetic algorithms (crossovers, node swapping, etc) and the biological ditto? Sorry, I had to ask. If there is, I might be able to follow your line of thought.

Acting like a nerd,

vinod

30th September 2004, 04:40

Assalamu 'Alaikum Sheikh Haroon

I would also advise u not to change ur viewpoint so easily.

Hey, am I not giving Ronnie a tough challenge?..just playing :)

Anyway, it's not about my view point and Ron's viewpoint. It's simply about arriving at the Truth of all matters, even if that is not aligned with my current viewpoint.

but i was thinking more along the lines of the clothes being islamic symbols, or being seen as islamic symbols. Is it then wrong to promote them?

Well, this whole discussion is about that - are they really "islamic" symbols?
You may want to define the word islamic here?

Peace and Regards
Vinod

vinod

30th September 2004, 04:42

Sheikh Haroon

I was just thinking - maybe you have contacts with scholars. How about printing out this discussion and checking their opinion on it?
Even if you require sometime, I can wait for it.

Peace and Regards
Vinod

Ron

30th September 2004, 05:03

Salaam Ronnie sahib,

Forgive my speaking in ur presence, but i was thinking more along the lines of the clothes being islamic symbols, or being seen as islamic symbols. Is it then wrong to promote them?

Salam Sheikh Haroon,

As brother Vinod said the question is whether they are Islamic or not. As for promoting them then that's your call, but you shouldn't promote something as being Islamic if it is not. Hence, this discussion :)

Regards

vinod

30th September 2004, 05:20

Assalamu 'Alaikum Ron

I agree that on a closer look at the hadith the point of emphasis is not the hand but the "right-ness" of it. Well, how is the "right-ness" ascertained when one eats with a fork and a spoon? With one spoon, yes, it's easy to establish that. But with a fork and a spoon? :confused:

I also wonder whether one can be really sure that the Prophet was not implicitly endorsing the usage of the hand as well? Can that be ruled out in the above? Just a doubt.

The books of ahadith could not have even closely done the job the Sunnah did. People just didn't read. Nor did people have to try to figure out how to pray or anything else from the ahadith.

The way it worked was that scholars read the books and taught the masses. There were scholars present in every community and region. So, I would disagree with you on the above.

One of the reasons of the ahadith is that the historical accounts regarding the Prophet were supposed to be preserved. People wanted to know about him and his life. Think about it.

Agreed. But the triggering factor in the compilation, in my opinion, was the widespread circulation of weak and fabricated hadith to gain personal points that had become a frequent ocurrence and therefore required cleaning up.
These fabricators tried initiating practices in the name of the Sunnah (by quoting the Prophet falsely ), but were thoroughly undone by the excellent job of the ahadith collectors. Hence, in my opinion, the work of the hadith collectors in preserving the purity of the sunnah is very great.

Did it really take the hadith collectors to save the religion of Islam? They did great work but the Sunnah of Islam did not depend on them. What if they hadn't chosen to collect these narrations wouldn't that imply that the Prophet had not fulfilled his duty? How effective would God's religion be? So the point is that these great figures and their works are not responsible for the spread of the Sunnah but actually the Prophet is

The reponsibility of the Prophet ended the moment he left this world. While alive he no doubt fulfilled the responsibility to perfection. Hence, there is no blame at all on the Prophet if the hadith collectors had not done their job. The preservation of Sunnah was subsequently done by the scholars relying a lot on the works of the hadith collectors.

But it is alive today as it was then. The ahadith didn't preserve it the Muslim generations did and if you read history you'll see that Islam spread so fast and wide that there couldn't have been mass inventions. Till today it's still active and being passed down from generation to generation, this is without a doubt a fact.

You can clearly see that I cannot agree with this till you've convinced me of the view of Sunnah you're presenting and the mode of it's preservation (independent of Hadith) that you're advocating. Also, I'm unclear on what the point of the part in bold is.

As for some Muslims not praying 5 times a day this in no way relates to the passing of the Sunnah. As a matter of fact even those who don't pray all 5 at least know that they should pray 5. This weakness regarding prayer does not negate the Sunnah. First, because these weaknesses are more current. Second because the Sunnah is so solidified that it cannot erased from the minds of people.

To me it does relate to the passing of the Sunnah. When the emphasis on praying 5 times (obligatory act) dropped so badly in the Ummah how can I believe that the emphasis on sunnah ( mostly non-obligatory) was preserved?

I can see your point if we are talking about the 2 generations after the Prophet, but here we are talking something like 250 years

I agree that I cannot be cent percent sure about this. 250 years would be 3-4 genrations, or 4-6 at the most. I noticed that you are willing to give me the benefit of doubt in this case - :)

Even if I agree with you that the Sunnah was compiled

On some of the statements that you've made -

1. But it is alive today as it was then

2. Second because the Sunnah is so solidified that it cannot erased from the minds of people.

3. Till today it's still active and being passed down from generation to generation, this is without a doubt a fact

To agree with you on the above, I will first have to accept the definition of sunnah that you're advocating. From where I stand, the sunnah is hardly being followed (to call it 'alive') by the big bulk of the Muslims. It's only a small minority that is still upholding the sunnah.
I think we need not argue on that. It is a matter of perception coming from the differing definitions of sunnah.

Awaiting your clarifications

Peace and Regards
Vinod

vinod

30th September 2004, 05:23

Dear Vaj

you're correct.. .it simply is unheigenic.

I think in this response you were simply reacting to palm, isn't it? Otherwise, washing the hands before eating makes for good hygiene, isn't it?

Regards
Vinod

Al-Ikhwan

30th September 2004, 11:03

sigh*
i dont see why?
u people are having so long discussion, and arguments...
i dont see why...
it is a sunnah and it IS A SUNNAH. PERIOD.

Sunnah is Sunnah
and Sunnah wil remain Sunnah,
regardless of the fact u accept it or not,
or even try to hide it
IT WILL STAY SUNNAH...

IF YOU WANT TO EXTERMINATE IT. YOU WILL HAVE TO CUT THE HEADS OF (in ur idea maybe extremists) BUT OF THE SUNNAH LOVERS. OF THE WHOLE OF AL-IKHWAN.
AND EVERY OTHER MUSLIM ALLAH HAS GUIDED HIM/HER TOWARDS HIMSELF...

--------
this doesnt count for non-muslims.
--------

wassalam,

Mujahid
Member of Al-Ikhwan
All Time Sunnah Follower

_______________________________
May Allah help you and me, and guide us all to the straight path

Vajradhara

30th September 2004, 14:34

Namaste ratatosk,

thank you for the post.

you science geek you! :)

the short answer is yes, there is a direct relationship betwixt the two.

the implications of this should become crystal clear now, eh? ;)

Namaste Vajradhara,

A quick side step; are you aware of the functionality of Genetic Algorithms (a type of optimization algorithms used in, amongst others, neural networks) and their relationship to Mendelian Genetics? I am totally at a loss when it comes to the biological genetical inheritance machinery, but is there a close relationship betwixt these two, ie genetic algorithms (crossovers, node swapping, etc) and the biological ditto? Sorry, I had to ask. If there is, I might be able to follow your line of thought.

Acting like a nerd,

Vajradhara

30th September 2004, 14:42

Greetings Vinod,

thank you for the post.

Dear Vaj

I think in this response you were simply reacting to palm, isn't it? Otherwise, washing the hands before eating makes for good hygiene, isn't it?

Regards
Vinod
yes, it was in response to Palm.

well... no. simply washing the hands does *not* make for good hygiene. well... let's say that the modern view of this, based on Germ Theory, would not consider simply washing of the hands to be sufficient.

the bacteria that live on your hands can only be killed with an anitbacterial soap. the crucial aspect of this is that you must, MUST wash your hands for 1 full minute with antibacterial soap to ensure that you've taken care of them.

if you wash for less time, the bacteria that survive, start to build up an immunity to the antibacterial agent. they evolve.

we see this currently with a strain of bacteria known as VRE. the interested reader is directed to this URL for more information:
http://www.molbio.princeton.edu/courses/mb427/2001/projects/02/vancomycin.htm

Ron

1st October 2004, 00:59

Salam Vinod,

Thanks for your post.

Well, how is the "right-ness" ascertained when one eats with a fork and a spoon? With one spoon, yes, it's easy to establish that. But with a fork and a spoon?
Because just as you have understood that the ahadith are related to "right-ness" it doesn't matter what the utensil is. In other words so long as it's your right hand you may use bread, forks, spoons etc...Now if you have a spoon and a fork, you may help scoop the food into your spoon with the fork but when you put the food in your mouth using the spoon (or whatever) then you use the right hand.

I also wonder whether one can be really sure that the Prophet was not implicitly endorsing the usage of the hand as well? Can that be ruled out in the above? Just a doubt.
It's impossible to know from any info we have. How can one ascertain such a thing when it was so normal? Unless he specifically says "eat with your fingers of your right hand." And I have not come across such information. So I don't think there's an implicit statement.

The way it worked was that scholars read the books and taught the masses. There were scholars present in every community and region. So, I would disagree with you on the above.
This doesn't sound plausible. Who are these scholars? Did they all understand the same way as each other? Why would the masses follow them, just because they're scholars? Also please provide me with the source of your information, it is quite interesting.

But the triggering factor in the compilation, in my opinion, was the widespread circulation of weak and fabricated hadith to gain personal points that had become a frequent ocurrence and therefore required cleaning up.
As I said, that was one of the reasons and so is this one you mentioned. But the ascertaining the Sunnah was not an issue, maybe preserving it in written form but not because the Ummah failed to pass it on. Actually, it would almost be impossible because it would take every person to just quit performing it. Now if you mean Sunnah as in the lifestyle of the Prophet well that's just biographical material and they wanted to preserve it because of its importance to the Muslims.

The preservation of Sunnah was subsequently done by the scholars relying a lot on the works of the hadith collectors.
Again, I would need the supporting evidence for this information.

Also, I'm unclear on what the point of the part in bold is.
It means that Islam and its practices had spread so fast and wide that every part it had spread were practicing the same way. This speed could not have been left to scholars studying ahadith then teaching the community.

To me it does relate to the passing of the Sunnah. When the emphasis on praying 5 times (obligatory act) dropped so badly in the Ummah how can I believe that the emphasis on sunnah ( mostly non-obligatory) was preserved?
I disagree that this is a fact of history. Praying 5 times a day has never dropped that there was a danger that the Ummah would lose it. As for the Sunnah as I understand it it is not mostly non-obligatory. As I said, I think history proves the fact that the Sunnah has been perserved but I understand that we have a difference of opinion of this.

To agree with you on the above, I will first have to accept the definition of sunnah that you're advocating. From where I stand, the sunnah is hardly being followed (to call it 'alive') by the big bulk of the Muslims. It's only a small minority that is still upholding the sunnah.
If we say that the Sunnah is the lifestyle of the Prophet then I would agree. However, if we define it as I understand it then I don't agree, I think the proof is in the reality of what we have today.

Regards

vinod

1st October 2004, 06:49

Salaam Ron

The discussion has gone way too fast and I need time digesting it. I'm now not sure what points I agreed on and what I've disagreed on.
So, I've printed almost the whole discussion out. InshaAllah, I'll read it over the weekend and give a response on Monday.

Fii Amaanillah
Vinod

THE_ICONOCLAST

1st October 2004, 17:12

PEACE TO ALL

After reviewing the exchanges between you people, it is evident that none of you know, for a certitude, what the Prophet did or didn't do/say or didn't say. How is this possible, especially, given that, as Ronnie and some others proffer, "the sunnah of the prophet", is a requisite part of the Din of Allah? The one glaring fact that none of you wish to accept/appreciate is, there is NO "sunnah of the prophet" mentioned in Allah's Quran, hence, the Prophet, could not have told anyone to do anything, pertaining to the Din of Allah/Al-Islam, unless Allah had revealed it to him and commanded him to recite it, to wit:

10:15. But when Our Clear Signs are rehearsed unto them, those who rest not their hope on their meeting with Us, Say: "Bring us a reading other than this, or change this," Say: "It is not for me, of my own accord, to change it: I follow naught but what is revealed unto me: if I were to disobey my Lord, I should myself fear the penalty of a Great Day (to come)."

18:27 And recite what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord, there is none who can alter His words; and you shall not find any refuge besides Him.

A good example of this is around the issue of so-called "wudu". If the so-called sunnah of the prophet, cannot supercede Al-Quran, and if you people believe that the ablution mentioned in Al-Quran is wudu, then, how do you justify adding additional movements in your wudu? Are you saying that the so-called sunnah of the prophet is better to detail matters than Allah?

If you people go back and re-read your exchanges, it becomes abundantly apparent that, you all are simply conjecturing about the life of Muhammad, but have no certain knowledge.

Main Entry: KNOW :to be certain of.

Main Entry: KNOWLEDGE: the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association.

Main Entry: CERTAIN: known or proved to be true : indisputable, dependable, reliable.

Main Entry: CONJECTURE: supposition: inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork.

10:36 And most of them do not follow (anything) but conjecture; surely conjecture will not avail aught against the truth; surely Allah is cognizant of what they do.

53:23 They are naught but names which you have named, you and your fathers; Allah has not sent for them any authority. They follow naught but conjecture and the low desires which (their) souls incline to; and certainly the guidance has come to them from their Lord.

53:28 And they have no knowledge of it; they do not follow anything but conjecture, and surely conjecture does not avail against the truth at all.

To continue to defend a body of "conjectural knowledge" i.e. "the sunnah of the prophet" [for your guidance/slavation of your souls] which isn't even mentioned in Allah's Quran, is simply folly.

vinod

6th October 2004, 00:51

Assalamu 'Alaikum Ronnie

I have printed out and read the whole discussion again. I have a lot of stuff to write about (mostly in agreement with very minor disagreement), but time at the moment does not permit. InshaAllah, I'll continue on this when time permits - very soon, InshaAllah

Was-Salam
Vinod

Ron

6th October 2004, 05:32

Wa Alaikumu Salam,

I look forward to it my dear friend.

Wassalam

vinod

8th October 2004, 07:40

Assalamu 'Alaikum Ron

Finally got some time for this. Hopefully I can collect my thoughts together. Here goes...
Some points that you mentioned on Sunnah, that can be taken as defining, which I totally agree with are -

1 Sunnah is actions

2 It does not include the tastes and preferences emanating from the Prophet's human nature

3 It includes actions that are promoted as part of religion by the Prophet. Another word used to describe the same was established purposefully

4 It is for all times just like the Quran and does not have an expiry date (nice choice of term )

5 It is for all humanity regardless of place

6 It does not include actions that are a result of his era or the norm of his time unless the action meets point 3

The above 6 points are all distilled from your posts and has helped me tremendously in identifying a sunnah.

On a separate note, I'd also like to add another point of agreement, asubtle one, which I think Sheikh Haroon probably failed to see.

You did acknowledge that when someone copies the Prophet's taste and preferences out of love for him it is indeed highly commendable. but it shouldn't be promoted as sunnah.

To the above, you tend to add another - actions that have been transmitted generation to generation as a teaching.

And you've also been particular at disconnecting the ahadith in the preservation of Sunnah.

But I noticed that when I pointed out eating with hands was passed down generation to generation as a teaching in large parts of the Muslim world, you asked for evidence of the Prophet's promotion of this. In other words, you were asking for references from Ahadith on this. Though it turned out that the evidence of promotion for eating with hand was actually for the rightness of it, your expectation from ahadith to tally an action with point 3 contradicts the disconnection-stand that you hold between ahadith and sunnah.

You asked for the same reference to ahadith from Sheikh Haroon to validate his statement of link between clothes and spirituality.

Some arguments that you laid to emphasise the disconnection between ahadith and sunnah are -

1 Sunnah is there in the generation to generation transmission. There is no need to refer to ahadith to tally.
2 The Prophet told people and ensured they put it into practice and also ensured that it is passed down to the next generation
3 With most parts of the Muslim world being illeterate, the ahadith could never have done the job of preserving the sunnah
4 ahadith were never collected with the intention of sunnah preservation
5 Sunnah being actions does not get lost in interpretation
6 The ahadith were compiled only 250 years after the Prophet passed away. So, how did the preservation of Sunnha take place in the generations till then, if not by generation to generation transmission?
7 Generation to generation transmission of actions cannot be corrupted unlike the individual to individual transmission of ahadith

For fear of losing this post due to whatever problems I'm going to continue in part 2.

Was-salam
Vinod

vinod

8th October 2004, 08:03

Assalamu 'Alaikum Ron

Part 2

Some arguments that you laid to emphasise the disconnection between ahadith and sunnah are -

1 Sunnah is there in the generation to generation transmission. There is no need to refer to ahadith to tally.
2 The Prophet told people and ensured they put it into practice and also ensured that it is passed down to the next generation
3 With most parts of the Muslim world being illeterate, the ahadith could never have done the job of preserving the sunnah
4 ahadith were never collected with the intention of sunnah preservation
5 Sunnah being actions does not get lost in interpretation
6 The ahadith were compiled only 250 years after the Prophet passed away. So, how did the preservation of Sunnah take place in the generations till then, if not by generation to generation transmission?
7 Generation to generation transmission of actions cannot be corrupted unlike the individual to individual transmission of ahadith

In summary, you've placed a lot of trust in the generation to generation mechanism working to preserve the Sunnah. You acknowledged the weakness in practice of the Sunnah in the current generation but you still added that it is there in the minds. You derive this trust from the initial successful functioning of this mechanism in the Ummah.
Well, this is where we depart. I pointed out that this mechanism started to breakdown after the initial few generations deriving this belief/impression from the current broken-down state of the sunnah in the ummah and the poor commitment of Muslims even to the basic pillars of Islam. The sunnah-in-the-minds point does not hold much water to me.

I place greater trust on the role of the ahadith in preserving the Sunnah. I mentioned that scholars read the ahadith and did the job of promoting the sunnah amongst the illiterate masses. I derive this belief from the presence of prominent scholars in every generation in the ummah having written books on various subjects. I acknowledge that I haven't presented any evidence of this to you. But I guess that I wouldn't have to. If you differ then yeah.. I gotta do more research etc and I acknowledge my laziness to do that. But is that something that the Al-Mawrid institute can research on - the role of ahadith in preserving the sunnah?

Point1 was negated by your expectation of ahadith from Haroon and me. No disagreement on point2. The to-be-researched argument of mine is for point3. Though point4 is true, the ahadith do/did play the sunnah-preservation role. Point5 being true, it does get lost with the weakening commitment of the Ummah to Deen from generation to generation. I think this will always be a subjective difference between us and may not get bridged. On point6, 'Thunder' in another note has presented some evidence of ahadith collection happening during the Prophet's era. Did that collection help later generations in anyway? Well, this is again a to-be-researched argument. Point7 being true, sunnah can be forgotten, though not corrupted.

Well, if in the above 2 posts I've misquoted or misunderstood you then pls do forgive me.

That took me an hour.

Off to work again :dancingna
Was-salam
Vinod

palm

9th October 2004, 13:37

vajradhara

you're correct.. .it simply is unheigenic
I use my hands for eating and so far nothing has happened to me. Same applies for most of the muslims that they use both hands for eating. If hands are unhealthy then how can be the spoons/forks be hygienic as the same unhealthy hands wash them using plain water and soap/detergent. If hands are unhealthy then no one should shake hands, mothers should not hold their babies , in fact no one should come closer to another person lest they might get infected.

Ron

11th October 2004, 03:08

Salam Vinod,

Thanks for your post.

Though it turned out that the evidence of promotion for eating with hand was actually for the rightness of it, your expectation from ahadith to tally an action with point 3 contradicts the disconnection-stand that you hold between ahadith and sunnah.
I'm not clear on what you are trying to get across to me. I'm sorry could you clarify?

You acknowledged the weakness in practice of the Sunnah in the current generation but you still added that it is there in the minds.
Actually, I don't think that I fully agree with this statement. The evidence lies in the history of the widespread transmission of the Sunnah. Go to any country in the world and you will see Muslims performing the Sunnah. This cannot be attributed to ahadith because that's not how mass teachings become so common and reach the level of tawatur.

You derive this trust from the initial successful functioning of this mechanism in the Ummah.
The only way that it wouldn't be successful after the early generations is if there was mass failure. If you are suggesting this there should be some evidence for it. However, there is none that I'm aware of. Also, the history doesn't even show the slightest hitch in this transmission. So the transmission is trustworthy from those times till now.

I pointed out that this mechanism started to breakdown after the initial few generations deriving this belief/impression from the current broken-down state of the sunnah in the ummah and the poor commitment of Muslims even to the basic pillars of Islam. The sunnah-in-the-minds point does not hold much water to me.
The Sunnah is not in a "broken-down state." Maybe what you are talking about is the state of Muslims. It is true many have lost there way, maybe even fallen out but I assure you that the Sunnah is still preserved. How is this possible? Because the Sunnah becomes a sort of cultural norm the thrives within people. As I said only if there is mass breakdown could this entire system actually be destroyed. I respect your opinion however I need more than that to go on to rethink this concept.

I place greater trust on the role of the ahadith in preserving the Sunnah.
I think that is because it is tangible. To most minds if it is written then it is there and it can't be argued with. However, practices don't reach the masses via any books. Especially books that need sorting out to understand the methods and practices. The ahadith books don't give you a step by step, the Sunnah does by the very nature of how it is passed down.

If you differ then yeah.. I gotta do more research etc and I acknowledge my laziness to do that.
:)

But is that something that the Al-Mawrid institute can research on - the role of ahadith in preserving the sunnah?
Sure. However please keep in mind that not I nor Al Mawrid rejects the ahadith or their importance. It's just that we have to recognize their position and utilize them the correct way. Ahadith are very important and this is recognized and appreciated.

Point1 was negated by your expectation of ahadith from Haroon and me.
I don't know how but the point of asking for ahadith is because I wanted to impress the point that the ahadith were not instituted by the Prophet (P).

Though point4 is true, the ahadith do/did play the sunnah-preservation role.
How? And even if it did so long as we agree on what the Sunnah is then the discussion of its preservation gets easier.

Point5 being true, it does get lost with the weakening commitment of the Ummah to Deen from generation to generation.
Only if it's so weak that people completely stop performing something in every part of the world, almost in agreement. There has to be conformity in this weakening, if not then the Sunnah is not lost but rather some people in some part of the world may not be practicing it correctly. Moreover, this can be checked and corrected by taking into account the Sunnah as it is practiced around the world. The consensus is just too strong to simply brush aside as if the committment of the entire Muslim world has failed.

On point6, 'Thunder' in another note has presented some evidence of ahadith collection happening during the Prophet's era. Did that collection help later generations in anyway?
Thunder was wrong on a few points. Also, I've never said that the ahadith weren't written in the Prophet's time just that he did not encourage them as being the method to transfer the Sunnah.

I really appreciate your time. I hope we can continue further if there are any points we need to discuss.

Regards

P.S. Do you ever check your private messages (PM)? ;)

Ron

11th October 2004, 03:13

Peace Ratatosk,

Not so, I'm afraid. Far from it. Actions seldomly required in our daily routine are more prone to corruption, but even actions that are at the very core of our mundane existence are transforming as we speak. Our speech, ie spoken word, is a well enough example of this. This is naturally language-dependent, although it should suffice as example, anyhow. If we would, by means of Science Fiction Transportation(tm), have the fortunate possibility to travel back in time, the further we'd go, the harder it'd be to understand what is spoken. Et cetera.
How do you explain the recitation of the Qur'an for over 1400 years? How do you explain the practice of worship of Muslims more than 1400 years till this day?

Regards

Ratatosk

11th October 2004, 07:46

Salam,

O' most noble Ron. I was refering to the general statement, originally by vinod.

7 Generation to generation transmission of actions cannot be corrupted unlike the individual to individual transmission of ahadith

Language (my example) does change. Even if the written word is more or less the same, annotations and connotations attached to the written and spoken word do change. Pronuncation changes. Word choices change. Words and actions take on different meanings. That's what I meant.

Regards,

Vajradhara

11th October 2004, 18:51

Namaste Palm,

thank you for the post.

I use my hands for eating and so far nothing has happened to me.

you've also never been struck by lightning. yet, that still happens.

Same applies for most of the muslims that they use both hands for eating. If hands are unhealthy then how can be the spoons/forks be hygienic as the same unhealthy hands wash them using plain water and soap/detergent.

it's not hands that are unhealthy, it's bacteria and virii. what cleans forks/spoons etc, is not the soapy water, per se, it's the heat. if you wash your forks and spoons etc in tepid water, it's virtually the same as if you didn't wash them at all.

If hands are unhealthy then no one should shake hands, mothers should not hold their babies , in fact no one should come closer to another person lest they might get infected.

this is true. of course, this is a scientific theory called Germ Theory. you may or may not accept the evidence related to this theory as valid. nevertheless, according to this theory, this is exactly how some bacterium pass from person to person, through casual contact. reducing casual contact amongst people with bacterial infections reduces the amount of spreading of the disease.

syedhs

12th October 2004, 02:44

you've also never been struck by lightning. yet, that still happens.

Dear Vaj,
I have also ate food using hands since I was born, and it actually work fine for me. If you are using lightning analogy, I am asking you - is there anyone actually died or suffer stomach ache simply because he ate using hands? Of course, we have to reject dirty hands or dirty spoons/forks.

this is true. of course, this is a scientific theory called Germ Theory. you may or may not accept the evidence related to this theory as valid. nevertheless, according to this theory, this is exactly how some bacterium pass from person to person, through casual contact. reducing casual contact amongst people with bacterial infections reduces the amount of spreading of the disease.
I have no objection toward this theory - but are we meant to living in germ-free environment? Maybe this is funny, but my opinion is we should be living within a correct amount of 'germ' in our environment so that we are not weakening ourselves.

palm

12th October 2004, 03:10

asalamu alaykum
syedhs has made some very good points in response to Vajradhara's post. Bacteria and virii maybe harmful but so far handwashing has proved very succesful in combating against them. We have our own defense mechanisms inside our body so it is not that we get sick as soon as some bacteri/virus enters there. Also we can never be germ free as there are protective bacteria on our skin and inside our body. If we use strict measures to rid our body of those useful germs then we can become prone to various forms of diseases. There is a friendly bacteria that makes youghurt for us. So not all of them are really bad.
Trust me if you wash your hands/crockery( with water or soap depending upon circumstances) before cooking and eating you are not gonna get any infection at least not from your food. These hygienic measure are enough. If we have to pass everything through a steamer/sterilizer then we would be doing nothing but just making our lives miserable. We would not be able to live in an environment that has germs everywhere

vinod

12th October 2004, 05:08

Assalamu 'Alaikum Ron

I'm not clear on what you are trying to get across to me. I'm sorry could you clarify?

When I pointed out that eating with hands is something that has been (and still is) the dominant form of eating in the Muslim Ummah and it is something that is actually taught and propagated from generation to generation, which should meet your definition of Sunnah, you then asked whether the Prophet had actually promoted it as a teaching. Wasn't that a tally with the ahadith to check if eating with the hand was sunnah? In spite of the fact that this meets one of the important criteria that you look for in Sunnah, you still were forced to look into the ahadith to conclude on this matter. That is what I'm driving at. Even if something has been transmitted from generation to generation as a teaching we still have to check with the ahadith to see if th eProphet has actually promoted it himself. Hence the indispensibility of the ahadith in ascertaining the sunnah.

Go to any country in the world and you will see Muslims performing the Sunnah.

A question for you- Do you think that if I go to various parts of the Muslim world and take a random sample from each part and ask them to list the sunnah, I would get identical lists from each part? Are you suggesting that the least common denominator in these lists is the Sunnah?

Because the Sunnah becomes a sort of cultural norm the thrives within people. As I said only if there is mass breakdown could this entire system actually be destroyed. I respect your opinion however I need more than that to go on to rethink this concept.

Ronnie, the bolded part is precisely my coincern in identifying a sunnah. The sunnah is mixed with the cultural norms of a society and to filter it out from the norms is where the ahadith come into the picture.

Sure. However please keep in mind that not I nor Al Mawrid rejects the ahadith or their importance. It's just that we have to recognize their position and utilize them the correct way. Ahadith are very important and this is recognized and appreciated.

Yes, I recognoze that. But I differ in where the ahadith are placed in determining the sunnah. And I'm still unclear on whether ahadith can be used as an independent source of belief. That got challenged after reading this site.

How? And even if it did so long as we agree on what the Sunnah is then the discussion of its preservation gets easier
The 'how' of it is easy in modern times when more often than not scholars refer to ahadith to prove an action as sunnah or not. But whether that was the case all along is something that we differ on.

Also, I've never said that the ahadith weren't written in the Prophet's time just that he did not encourage them as being the method to transfer the Sunnah.

Now that indeed is an important point to consider. May I check with you - did the Prophet encourage written records of the Quran?

Was-Salaam was Rahmatuallahi wa Barakatuhu
Vinod

Vajradhara

12th October 2004, 14:36

Greetings Syedhs,

thank you for the post.

Dear Vaj,
I have also ate food using hands since I was born, and it actually work fine for me.

as have i. the point is not that hands, by themselves, are unhygenic. the point is that improper washing of the hands leads to the spread of disease.

If you are using lightning analogy, I am asking you - is there anyone actually died or suffer stomach ache simply because he ate using hands?

whilst i don't have the empirical evidence available to me at this moment, i can find it if you're really interested.

I have no objection toward this theory - but are we meant to living in germ-free environment? Maybe this is funny, but my opinion is we should be living within a correct amount of 'germ' in our environment so that we are not weakening ourselves.

we cannot live in a germ free enviornment. our mouths are absolutly full of harmful bacteria... nevertheless, the point being that by using proper washing techniques humanity, as a whole, has inhibited the transmission and spread of disease.

syedhs

13th October 2004, 07:24

Greetings Syedhs,
as have i. the point is not that hands, by themselves, are unhygenic. the point is that improper washing of the hands leads to the spread of disease.

Dear Vaj,
Of course anything which improperly washed is unhygenic eg unwashed spoons or forks.

The impression brought by your previous posting is eating with hands is unhygenic, no matter what - that's a stand which palm and I incl. others found inaccurate.

Vajradhara

13th October 2004, 14:12

Namaste syedhs,

thank you for the post.

Dear Vaj,
Of course anything which improperly washed is unhygenic eg unwashed spoons or forks.

The impression brought by your previous posting is eating with hands is unhygenic, no matter what - that's a stand which palm and I incl. others found inaccurate.

hmm... i wonder why that is. all i've been on about in this thread is that improper washing of hands is, in fact, unhygenic and leads to the spread of disease.

this is incontrovertible, in my view.

Ron

13th October 2004, 18:50

Peace Vajradhara,

hmm... i wonder why that is. all i've been on about in this thread is that improper washing of hands is, in fact, unhygenic and leads to the spread of disease.
I think it all started with this exchange:

Vajradhara Quoted:
Originally Posted by palm
MFo

eating with hands doesnt make you an ape or monkey.

Vajradhara replied:
you're correct.. .it simply is unheigenic.
I thought that would shed light on how it all started..

this is incontrovertible, in my view.
I don't think anyone disagrees. When we saying eating with bare hands its implicit that the hands are clean.

Just thought it would help.

Regards

Vajradhara

13th October 2004, 20:50

Salaam Ron,

thank you for the post.

I don't think anyone disagrees. When we saying eating with bare hands its implicit that the hands are clean.

Just thought it would help.

Regards

OH! it must have been my own presumptions at work! i'll have to be more mindful in this regard in the future.

thank you for the clarification.

i suppose that i didn't take from the conversation the understanding that improper washing of the hands leads to the spread of disease.

my poor reading comprehension, i suppose :o

Halima

18th October 2004, 00:18

Hey Vajradhara,

You always say "namaste" well, what does it mean?

Vajradhara

18th October 2004, 15:35

Namaste Halima,

thank you for the post.

Hey Vajradhara,

You always say "namaste" well, what does it mean?

it's an ancient Nepali greeting made with the palms pressed together and held infront of the chest. it's a bit tough to translate directly into English, the best that i've heard is thus:

i bow to the divine in you. when you are in that place in you and i am in that place in me, there is but one of us.

syedhs

22nd October 2004, 03:41

Dear Vaj,

I would say that you put the meaning of namaste in signature :LOL: If you remember, I also asked the same question, and I expect more to come :brow:

Vajradhara

22nd October 2004, 13:57

Salaam Syedhs,

that's not a bad idea at all..

hmm....

though... it does spark an interesting conversation, usually :)

vinod

16th November 2004, 07:24

Salaam Ron

I'd like to know your view on the following -

The practice of using kuhl.

The following ahadith related to it are from Tirmidhi -
(48) Hadith Number 1

Ibn 'Abbaas Radiyallahu 'Anhu says:
"Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam said: 'Use kuhl made of ithmid on the eye; it brightens the eyesight, and strengthens and increases the growth of the eye lashes'. (Sayyidina Ibn'Abbaas Radiyallahu'Anhu also used to say) 'Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallarn had a small container for keeping kuhl, from which he applied kuhl in each eye three times every night"'.

49) Hadith Number 2

Ibn 'Abbaas Radiyallahu 'Anhu reports: "Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam applied kuhl of ithmid three times in each eye before sleeping'. In a narration also from Ibn 'Abbaas Radiyallahu 'Anhu, it is reported: "Rasuluilah Sallallahu'Alayhi Wasallam had a small container for keeping kuhl, from which he applied in each eye kuhl three times before sleeping'.

(50) Hadith Number 3
Jaabir bin 'Abdullah Radiyallahu 'Anhu says: "Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam said: 'Use the kuhl made from ithmid for the eyes. It brightens the vision and strengthens the growth of the eye lashes'.

(51) Hadith Number 4

Ibn 'Abbaas Radiyallahu 'Anhu says: "Rasulullah Sallallah 'Alayhi Wasallam has said: 'The best from among all the kuhl used by you is the one made from ithmid. It brightens the eyesight and strengthens the growth of the eye lashes"'.

52) Hadith Number 5
'Abdullah bin 'Umar Radiyallahu 'Anhu related the same hadith from Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallarn that: "Verily use the kuhl made from ithmid. It brightens the vision and strengthens the growth of the eye lashes".

From my experience, applying kuhl to the eyes by males is a practice virtually non-existent in the Muslim world now. I don't think it is also something that is regarded as sunnah in the minds of the Muslims. Is that also your experience? If so, then in your view, does that suffice to conclude that it is not sunnah?

But what does one make of the above ahadith on the subject? Do they make applying kuhl a sunnah? Initially, I thought so. Ahadith 48 and 50 can be construed to be atleast recommendations by the Prophet if not commands.

But on looking closer, the emphasis is on the source of the kuhl - ithmid rather than the practice itself. It sounds like as if the Prophet (pbuh) is saying - "IF you're using Kuhl, then use the one from Ithmid". The capitalization of IF was deliberate. In other words, he wasn't promoting the practice asa part of Deen, rather a recommendation to those who use it for the best source. Do you also read the above in the same manner?

Then again, I do wonder whether the emphasis was on 'kuhl from ithmid' and not just the 'from ithmid' alone. I really can't say for certain that this is ruled out thought I think it is unlikely.

I'd like to know your thoughts

Fii Amaanillah
Vinod

Ron

17th November 2004, 13:26

Salam Vinod,

From my experience, applying kuhl to the eyes by males is a practice virtually non-existent in the Muslim world now. I don't think it is also something that is regarded as sunnah in the minds of the Muslims. Is that also your experience? If so, then in your view, does that suffice to conclude that it is not sunnah?
I would have to agree that most of the Muslim world does not follow this act. However, in some Arab countries kuhl is highly regarded and there are some who have it naturally which is a sign of beauty according to my understanding. The way I understand Sunnah to be I would have to say that this is not a Sunnah of the Prophet (P). However, by some just the mere fact that he suggested it or did it himself would make it Sunnah. I naturally disagree with those holding that opinion.

But what does one make of the above ahadith on the subject? Do they make applying kuhl a sunnah? Initially, I thought so. Ahadith 48 and 50 can be construed to be atleast recommendations by the Prophet if not commands.
The problem with these ahadith and many like them is the issue of context. Did someone ask the Prophet about something in particular? Was he making a recommendation because he saw someone doing something? Was it a prescription for a ailment? The questions could go on and on. From reading all these ahadith related to the same subject it seems that it is a recommendation for two reasons: 1. strengthening the eye sight 2. having stronger lashes. Now if you permit my guess I would have to say that these are very reasonable suggestions. Let me give you an examples why: If you ever watch American football you'll see some of the players with black lines underneath their eyes. I was informed that this helps them see better on very sunny days when the suns rays are extremely strong and bright. From that I surmise that the kuhl on the eye helps ones vision in a very bright and sunny Arabian desert. In the second case of the lashes, I believe (only hypothesizing here) that lashes prevent the sand particles/dust from getting into the eyes. Remember that the Arabs did this even before the Prophets time and he probably learned them and recommended them because they were common sense solutions to their circumstances. Also, both represent an element of beauty in some Arab cultures.

But on looking closer, the emphasis is on the source of the kuhl - ithmid rather than the practice itself. It sounds like as if the Prophet (pbuh) is saying - "IF you're using Kuhl, then use the one from Ithmid". The capitalization of IF was deliberate. In other words, he wasn't promoting the practice asa part of Deen, rather a recommendation to those who use it for the best source. Do you also read the above in the same manner?
Yes I completely concurr. It's simply a recommendation for those who use kuhl and he's giving his personal opinion as to what type is the best.

I think we agree with one another. I also believe that these types of ahadith support my understanding of what is and what is not Sunnah.

Thanks for this post it was actually enlightening.

Regards

vinod

18th November 2004, 00:08

Salaam Ron

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. Your post was also very enlightening.

I have a premonition that I may be running similar cases with you time and again on this forum in the future, inshaAllah. Hope you don't lost interest or get bugged by me. Thanks

Regards
Vinod

Ansar Al-Haq

18th November 2004, 23:04

Very enlightening.

Halima

20th November 2004, 02:02

Nimisti Vaj! :p :)

it's an ancient Nepali greeting made with the palms pressed together and held infront of the chest. it's a bit tough to translate directly into English, the best that i've heard is thus:

I can almost imagine how they would do it.....lol! It would be so cool if I did that to everyone I see. It kinda reminds me of Karate when the people would bend over and put their palms together. Do they actually do that in Nepal? Bow down to greet? :D

Vajradhara

20th November 2004, 19:09

Namaste Halima,

thank you for the post.

I can almost imagine how they would do it.....lol! It would be so cool if I did that to everyone I see. It kinda reminds me of Karate when the people would bend over and put their palms together. Do they actually do that in Nepal? Bow down to greet? :D
not really bowing... rather... a simple nod of the head... if that. when people greet each other with this understanding, as you may imagine, it tends to allow a more honest and forthright relationship to blossom.

Ron

24th November 2004, 00:56

Salam Vinod,

I have a premonition that I may be running similar cases with you time and again on this forum in the future, inshaAllah. Hope you don't lost interest or get bugged by me. Thanks
Never :) It's quite the pleasure. I love to learn from you.

Regards

K-one

24th November 2004, 02:38

well... no. simply washing the hands does *not* make for good hygiene. well... let's say that the modern view of this, based on Germ Theory, would not consider simply washing of the hands to be sufficient.

the bacteria that live on your hands can only be killed with an anitbacterial soap. the crucial aspect of this is that you must, MUST wash your hands for 1 full minute with antibacterial soap to ensure that you've taken care of them.

if you wash for less time, the bacteria that survive, start to build up an immunity to the antibacterial agent. they evolve.

we see this currently with a strain of bacteria known as VRE. the interested reader is directed to this URL for more information:
http://www.molbio.princeton.edu/courses/mb427/2001/projects/02/vancomycin.htm
VRE is a created super bug, the R stands for resistant the V = Vancomycin the drug it is resistant to, and the E the bug that without the V would have been harmless. In that by created I mean aggresivly selected for, by conditions.
same as MRSI, M=multi r=resistant S=(strep of staph) can't remember. I.e. a bug on everyones hands that has been made dangerous by loads of different drugs.
Too much use, and incorrect use have made normally benign organisms into killers.
The theory that washing with anti-bacterial agent agrees with the following theory on why not to wash too much and to eat with fingers.

This is because there are now theorys about how injesting a steady stream of small numbers of pathogens is benificial. It come form a allergic reaction study that compares the numbers of type two reaction to allergens.
In large families the later children all tended to have less type two reactions, the study thought this could be due to the way that later children have more exposure to pathogens at an early age. Gearing up the immune system for a healthier later life.

Another thought/theory was that in any non-sterile media, there will be various pathogens, if anti-bacterial agents, excessive cleaning is used, then only the resistant strains survive, and they breed rapidly as there is no competition for the resourses )food space etc. This works equally well in the gut as on the hands.

So there could well be good scientific reasons for a wash with water only. Remember, all science is only theory, waiting to be disproved.

If the clothing was essential to be a muslim, then the religion would be impossable in the deep South Of New Zealand, as some days only rise to 2 or 3 degrees centigrade. If the religion is the birthright of all (as I believe is claimed) then desert clothing CAN'T be mandatory. Therefore Rons position makes a lot of sense, else the religion is only for warmer regions. I do know it gets cold at nights in the desert, a time when shelter is sought, fires lit etc.

If utensils are never to be used, than HOT food becomes a major problem, and we do know that the cooling period in the greatest danger for LARGE numbers of bacteria to breed. It is large numbers of the pathogen at the early stage of infection that causes the worst symptoms etc. The body is remakable ABLE to deal with small numbers of lots of potentially fatal bacteria.

Very detailed debate guys.

Peace

Anyway Fish and Chips, and knifes and forks, is sooky la la stuff.

Ansar Al-Haq

28th November 2004, 01:01

Amazing how we can go into sooo much detail on just a small aspect of Islamic manners.

K-one

28th November 2004, 04:13

Amazing how we can go into sooo much detail on just a small aspect of Islamic manners.

I just don't like the assumption, that just because the west has a fad, or a new theory, then everyone else must be wrong.

Remember Muslims made gurshl and woodo, used stones etc. when the west didn't understand any cleanliness.
The book Islam and the West, points out how amazed Christians were that they couldn't blow thier noses and spit onto the floor of the Mosque, that being the habit in the west, with rushes covered floors.
The western theory at the time being washing and cutting hair nails were "Resisting the ravages of time" therby dishonouring God.

We need to remember, JUST a theory, as far as science goes. But an instruction from God if in the Qu`ran, and wise advise from his prophet, if an authentic aHadith. Who do you trust when a "JUST a theory" disagrees with the other two. Time disproves almost every theory in time.

Peace

Warbird

28th November 2004, 04:30

i have a basic answer... God has given me this body.. these fingers, these toes and these eyes... i have to respect my body and treasure it.. keep it sacred cuz with our bodies a part of god lies.... then we got to respect the food god hs provided us with to survive.. so by eating with my fingers i show a great deal of respect for my body and the food because only something such as my fingers a sacred me is used to feed me and give me life.

Ansar Al-Haq

28th November 2004, 19:25

I like that answer warbird.

K-one, you are absoloutely correct. The west feels as though it is the standard by which all other cultures/civilizations are to be judged.

Warbird

2nd December 2004, 02:17

true k-one but you also got to realize that we live in a very tough world now... where people dont have that blind faith in god anymore they believe in whatever anyone can prove and science can only do all the proving because we dont need to see proof when we believe in God we feel his proof. And yes alot of the western cultures have forgotten what is real but notice its most of the western culture nowadays that make ll the decisions in politics or anything.... people dont have minds of their own what anyone says they believe and thats why i wish to spen my life with a women from the eastern culture, one that knows where she comes from and who she should surrender to... not money not the best cloths or shoes but yes the almight creator... alot of the people in the western culture dont believe in God anymore and i cant blame them its all the parents... parents who have forgotten their responsibilities to grow their kids knowledge and love for God... i live in Canada and i seen so many well lets just say "bad apples' but you know what i can just pray for them that God will guide their lost soul back to him for i too was once lost and now im with you my brothers.