General Issues / Questions

this poor and ignorant ggg is very impressed by your vast knowledge and wisdom ) 262 is clear - all those who believe in God, the Last Day and do righteous deeds will attain their reward from God. The Quran is also clear that idolaters will recieve punishment - this includes Sunnis, Shias, trinitarian Christians, etc. and since these "Sunnis, Shias, trinitarian Christians, etc." also believe in God and the Last Day, your first "clear" thing clearly contradicts with your second "clear" thing, doesn't it ? laugh consequently, one thing is really clear...do you know what ? rotfl in verse 262 the clear thing is that those who believe in God, the Last Day and do righteous deeds will attain salvation, but it is definitely not clear (at least not clear for some guys) what Allah means by saying "believing in God, the Last Day and doing righteous deeds". Actually the majoity of verses in Quran are there to give the answer.. if 262 were as clear as you think, then Anti-Islamic web sites wouldn't claim contradiction between 262 and other verses.

Heard on the radio that the americans had recovered computers with encrypted hard drives from the OBL alledged hideout. They gave some name of some encryption algorithm... AES or whatever it was... and narrated how many thousands of years it would take to crack the encryption. How wonderfully convenient for Obama et al. Now they have an unlimited well of lies to pour from. At any given time when it suits them and the purposes, they can claim to have decrypted and decoded another piece of data or information. This info could be things like plans and names, allowing the americans to crack down on anyone in the world they choose to.... afterall, their names and details of terrorist plans were "found" in OBL's pc. And nobody would ever be able to verify it. I guess OBL officially died now because his pc would be more useful than his body. Why chase him in montains when his pc can warrent unlimited action at any place at any time. ...the only comfort is that Allah knows what we don't know... Allah has a plan with everything...

I have my own approach to the "inheritance problem". Please critique it. The following is a literal rendering of 411 ?Instructs you Allah concerning your children for the male like portion two females. But if there are women more (than) two, then for them two-thirds what he left. And if is one, then for her half. And for his parents, for each one of them a sixth of what left, if is for him a child. But if not for him is a child and inherit him his parents then for his mother one-third. And if are for him brothers and sister, then for his mother the sixth from after any will made or any debt.? 411 Notice that the parents only receive 1/3 (between them) of ?what is left?, not of ?what he left?. That is to say, they receive a third of what remains following any other payments. An examination of the literal wording in 412 reveals that both children and spouses get equal priority in that they are all assigned fractions from ?what the deceased left? (i.e. from the whole as opposed to the remainder). So let us consider The Qur?an distinctly says that the male child will receive the share of two females and that if there are two or more females then the females receive 2/3 between them. In other words, if there are male children then the share of the children comes last since the ?double share? of the male must be preserved. To demonstrate, if Harold leaves two daughters, a son and a wife, the daughters would receive 2/3 (1/3 each) and the male child would receive 2/3. That would mean 4/3 of the inheritance has been distributed before we even get to his wife! The portion of the male child is never stated and depends on what the daughters receive. Thus we add ?and no males? into the translation of 411 when it refers to the daughters. Moreover, when it refers to the share of the mother with siblings we infer that it means a mother and no offspring, wife or father (since parents only receive a portion of what is left and there are no instructions for siblings). There are no children as 4176 differentiates ?kalala? from its use in 412 by adding the clause ?and he has no child?. There cannot be a wife and two parents because if this allowed him to be a ?kalala? there would be instructions for the siblings in this verse. The absence of a wife, absence of a mother or absence of a father (or any combination) thus renders one a ?kalala?. 4176 clarifies this by stating that the portion which siblings receive will possibly be the entire inheritance (see the context) as long as males receive the share of two females. There could thus be no wife or father, and the deceased there is termed a ?kalala?. There could likewise be no mother except for the fact that 411 gives instructions where the mother receives a 1/6 of what is left (in the case of siblings). To illustrate, if a ?kalala? dies leaving three daughters, a mother and a brother and sister, the daughters receive 2/3 and his siblings 1/3 (412). His mother receives 1/6 of nothing which is nothing. However, if a ?kalala? dies leaving only a mother, a brother and a sister, the mother receives 1/6 whilst the remainder is apportioned according to 4176. Siblings only receive a default inheritance if there is neither wife nor father, and parents only receive a portion of what is left. Let us use the example which people use to ?disprove Islam? Harold dies and leaves behind three daughters, two parents and his wife. The three daughters receive 2/3 between them, his wife receives 1/8 and the parents receive 1/3 of what is left. In this case there will be an excess which can be distributed to relatives or charity according to usage (48 ).

Peace to all, Who among us would be willing to relocate, live and work in a community and help transform it according to Quranic principles. This will be a free and open society that allows all to live and work in peace, while the rest of us set an example as true Muslims, and hopefully draw others to join us. I believe this may become a possibility before too long and I will need the help of others in order to achieve anything. Im just curious who may be willing to join. You can inbox me if you dont want your name in public. Kurt Well.. all of those can be done even without relocating.. start with our own respective community, can be as small as family, neighborhood, company/workplace, group of friends and start from there. As for me I always promote tolerance, critical thinking, love, caring and awareness that "God" is not something which is far above and beyond. And tell people that they can reach God directly... that's it.. I also spread the message that islam and/or muslim is not bind to a specific rites or culture.. islam is an attitude not a religion... Salam / Peace

Peace, Based on this http//www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/islam/fiqh/hallaq_hadith.html and other articles, the only mutawattir lafzi (mutawattir by word) type of hadith is "man kadhiba -alayya muta'ammidan fal-yatabawwa' maq'adahu min al-nar" ("He who intentionally lies concerning something I have said will gain a seat in Hellfire" ) It is noteworthy, that the word "intentionally" in this hadith, is also doubtful as some versions do not include the word "intentionally". Additionally, it is quite an irony that a hadith that strongly (especially if the word intentionally was not there) discourages hadiths, is the only one found by hadith scholars to be of such a strong category of hadith tawatur lafzi. There are hardly any other hadiths that have been reported by a big group of narrators with the hadith containing almost identical words. Hope this helps. I must also point out that I am not 100% confident of even this hadith, due to the doubt with the word intentionally, and also because God has promised only to protect the Quran. Besides, the essence of this hadith is found throughout the quran, making this hadith redundant. Peace. Thank you for that. Do you have relation with Ahmed? No need to answer Salam

One of my favorite verses of the Quran Quran 3410 We bestowed Grace aforetime on David from ourselves "O ye Mountains!Sing ye back the Praises of God with him! and ye birds (also)! And We melted the iron for him;- (Note the last expression is metaphoric as if even the metals themselves melted from the beauty of the praises of Saiidna Dawood (David) PBUH) Psalms orignal music possibly recovered from the bible http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKjForhzzpU

Great posts OPF and san. PEACE

Great post, I have been through a similar thinking process. What I presently think is that Adam and his wife were on Earth the whole way through (because of 230). The garden referred to is more like a state of pure innocent being that they slipped out of upon touching the forbidden. See 1448 as well, upon judgement everything still takes place on Earth, it's just that this is a fresh one. Another thing to consider, the creator teaches Adam the names but he teaches man language (554). Without the ability to name we would have to resort to the basic assortments of grunts and groans that our chords can vocalise. As the monkey world shows, it doesn't carry a species very far relatively speaking. The ability to name creates a constant point of reference in the collective mind that can be referred to repeatedly. In essence it's as if God created this giant computer program then gave Adam the ability to declare his own variables in the very same program. Yet there's no point having the variables without them being used. So then comes language and we have a fully fledged system literally write and rewrite itself over a period of time resulting in the obscene bureaucratic mess we have today. Hmm, I like the idea. How do you understand the concept of "Khalaq" "Creation" by the way? Is it miraculous (supranatural) or natural and open to scientific inquiry? Raw creation at its heart is making more information come out of less or no information. Universe back then, exceedingly simple. Universe now, complexity to the ninth degree and then some. I imagine our fingerprints carry more information now than the entire universe did in its earliest instances. Supposing that this is an accurate definition of what creation actually is then surely that makes creation both astoundingly miraculous yet completely natural and open to scientific enquiry. I do believe the universe is open source.

Seems to be a gaping logical hole in sunni and other hadithist teachings, since Sunna Mohammed, is not Sunna God. Mohammed only does Gods will. Anything he does or says is from God. Hadithists clearly distuingish between Prophet Mohammed, and God, or being inspired by God. These hadiths are so called "hadith qudsi". So they have this historical person "Mohammed" who apparently says and does things of his own. Which then logically must be completely innovated. And looking at the quality of hadith, that seems to be obvious. Not that I believe in hadith qudsi either, but here you have a reason for rejecting most of hadith litterature. And since so much is forged, you might aswell consider the rest very likely to be forged aswell. Same thing with Obeying Mohammed is Obeying God. But Mohammed in hadith, is not God is it.

Salaam gazzali, InshaAllah I will try. For me there is no difference except the 'AL' which means 'THE' in English. 'WA' means 'AND' in both the examples. And the words used above can be translated as Wa + Al + Malaaikatu And + the + Angels = And the Angels Wa + Malaaikati + Hi And + Angels + His = And His Angels Hope this helps, inshaAllah May Allah guide us all to His path pr Mohammed M. Khan Salam brother thank you so much Alhamdu lillah

So much hatred in sectarian teachings. Yup and sometime racist too... It remind me of "Protestant B" tag for the "American Jewish Soldier" stationed in Saudi Arabia, to defend them from Iraqis/Saddam aggression. Given "Any Jew" who set foot on the "Holy" Saudi Arabian soil shall tainted the land to be 'unholy'... Yet oddly enough they accept Kissinger (which is a jew) visiting the 'holy land'..

Peace peeps; Edip It's fairly difficult to place this argument because I'm not sure how how exactly the circles arise but I'll give it a go. It is indeed very much like the ontological argument in a lot of respects. 1.) There is an absolute truth that none can disagree upon - the terms "existence", "knowledge", "energy", "the universe" all refer to this absolute truth 2.) We hold no separate identity to the universe at large as we are a part of it 3.) Given that we each have an identity as an observer of the universe and taking account of (2), we acknowledge that the universe has a single identity 4.) We must agree then that there is fundamentally connected observation taking place; the single identity observing the universe 5.) The fundamental connection between all observers is the observer which we may then call "God" Asana I apologise for any implication put forth that I am underestimating your knowledge. What I mean by misunderstanding is that we are talking about exactly the same thing but we have two different perspectives on it that seem to disagree. To be honest I am getting confused by some of the words you're using. The idea I'm trying to put forth is that at first is only the creator then comes the duality of created/creation. Yet the omnipresence of the creator demands that they are fundamentally inseparable. We disagree in that I hold that the physical universe is perfect. But I am looking at its workings here, not the froth on the top; a perfect paintbrush makes art that some may call imperfect. Predestination is half-fixed by the creator as I already gave reference in my first post. And a supporting verse is 7039; stating that not all beings are created wanting to even enter paradise. Predestination is inevitable if anything is to have form. You refer to 2130, why should it say "his existence"? The quran is perfectly strict in its wording, leave it be. My belief is not "the universe is his being" but that creation is inseparable from creator. Regardless, mine or anyone's belief does not change anything about the creator. We are indeed in agreement that "his essence is unfathomable". Then we move onto 4171; refer to 6612, Jesus is brought to Mary as spirit. Why it says both word and spirit in 4171 I could not precisely tell you, I don't know enough about that. If you have an answer let me know. No, Jesus is not the creator and nor does the framework I think in hold him to be so. Who is creator, that is exclusively decided by who is there at the beginning of all things, none but ALLAH. As for alpha/omega, you said what I said essentially word for word yet somehow managed to disagree. This is where we are in misunderstanding. I already showed you that time does exist for the creator exactly the same way as it runs for us, see 711. That does not mean that creator is limited by time. As for returning to the creator, nowhere has it been said in my posts that we go "in him". Indeed if we use take the strawman you are using we are already "in him". However that is not what I mean. The creator is the source, like an infinite well that does not run out. See 2546 for something similar. Any kind of energy comes from the source of energy and returns back to the source. You misread my next statement. I think that alpha and omega refer to the two states in which there is only ALLAH and nothing else. Those two states are the beginning and the end. In between, creation exists. You have constructed a strawman in your mind about what I believe perhaps based on your past discussions with "non-dualists". The concept I am running with is that ALLAH is in some fashion the substance that the universe is made of. I get this from 2435 which seems to explicitly state to me that this is the case. What you refer to by "Essence" and "Being" confuses me, these are very vague terms. Regarding meditative experiences, consider that you don't need to train your mind to see or hear the creator. The fact that you hear a sound at all, you hear the creator. Now if rationality and logic were surefire in proving the creator's presence, then perhaps there wouldn't be such an onslaught of people of the new age claiming to herald science and all things sane yet vehemently denying their very source. One of the key aspects of Zen thinking is that breaking the tired old environmentally conditioned patterns of rationality can be a much easier/faster/cheaper way to a direct experience of the self. The brain can work much faster using its experiencing/creative aspects unhindered by glacially slow conscious thought. It must work logically regardless because it is a computer at its core. Instead of running through a long series of "what ifs" in our brain circuitry we can run through a single "what is". We arrive at the same point either way, assuming the logical method is even guided by absolutely correct information, which it rarely is. Both methods are harmonious with one another when guided properly. Sure, belief must be based on rationality. Yet the questions the quran poses work both ways. On free will - I seriously do not understand where you find yourself to be lost. The creator has shaped the sun to be round and humans to be human shaped. These things utterly dominate our free will. We know via science that there is only a very precisely defined set of possible movements you can carry out within a given time interval. The key concept here is that you cannot change the past but you can affect the future. The further back in time something comes to be, the more influence it has over the entire universe in time to come. As ALLAH is at the beginning, ALLAH has total control of all things. We then move onto the state of unity. There is an issue of putting this into words here. You say "That state to me is allowing yourself to sense Him in you and you in Him". This is not the case, being in this state is nothing like that. There is no "you in Him" and "Him in you" at all. There is no "sensing" either. There is no "me" in this state. When you sleep, there is no "you" experiencing the sleep. Likewise, the concept of "you" is seen to be an illusion here. How best to put it, I don't know. Energy experiencing energy, the universe seeing itself see itself see itself see itself ad infinitum, awareness being aware of awareness. There is no "two become one". It is ineffable. Regarding trees and the creator; the creator runs through all things, that is what I am trying to express. This is a question of semantics. If a musician makes a song or a painter creates a work of art, I hold that creation to be part of the creator. It is "them". Perhaps you make the distinction here. I do not. We do not "create gods" because here we fundamentally acknowledge that no matter what everything is from the sole creator of all things. Nothing can truly create anything, we can only rearrange existing energy. Final point - yes, the creator is doing it all. As they say on the back of crisp packets, your statutory rights are not affected. Think about it, honestly. You still have to eat, sleep and bomb the toilet every day. You still have to spin around the sun once a year. Finding out that 2+2=4 does not change the fact that you have always had 5 fingers. It merely puts it into context. God's teaching is that everything is his will and that man was created to endure stress (904) and to work for a specific purpose (559). May God increase our knowledge indeed!

Salaam brother Abdul-Hadi, I did not understand the purpose of aayaats quoted by you. Can you please clarify them and explain me how they are in relation to the topic? Wa Alaikum as-Salam Brother Khan I quoted AQ 2140 and 367 to show that Abraham (peace upon him and all prophets) was neither a Jew nor a Christian. He could not be (not only because AQ says so!) but also because the Holy Texts related to people called Jews or Christians did not exist at that time. So then...if neither the Torah, Mosaic law, the Bible, the Gospel, nor AQ existed, I pose the following questions in relation to your post Ibrahim (AS) and all other Prophets were having 'The Book' i.e., AlKitaab. Which Book might that be? Abraham (peace upon him and all prophets), came long before Moses. Any Book in existence at that time was neither the Torah, the Bible, nor AQ. In English, what Book is AL KITAAB? By my understanding, AL KITAAB refers to "People of the Book", not a specific Holy Text--and any person chosen for Guidance, even if they had not recieved a Book, is to be considered a AL KITAAB. Guidance is Guidance--it doesn't and didn't matter if it was conveyed through a Book or not. 683 And such was Our argument that We gave Abraham over his people; We raise the degree of whom We please. Your Lord is Wise, Knowledgeable. 684 And We granted him Isaac and Jacob, both of whom We guided; and Noah We guided from before; and from his progeny is David, and Solomon, and Job, and Joseph, and Moses, and Aaron. It is such that We recompense the good doers. 685 And Zachariah and John, and Jesus, and Elias; all were from the upright. 686 And Ishmael and Elisha and Jonah and Lot; and each We have preferred over the worlds. 687 And from their fathers and their progeny and their brothers We have also chosen; and We guided them to a straight path. 688 Such is the guidance of God, He guides with it whom He pleases of His servants. And if they set up partners, then all that they had worked would fall away from them. 689 Those to whom We have given the Book, and the law, and the prophethood, if they reject it, then We will entrust it to a people who will not reject it. Are you sure that 689 says "These" and not "Those"? The overall purpose was to state that nothing in Allah's creation is reserved for any person solely because of any manmade label. AQ 262 is not the only way of confirming this. I feel that it is wrong to claim exclusivity where none exists--and neither rewards nor punishments are ours to bestow or deny! Isn't this one of the problems with Judaism, that it claimed exclusivity for its adherents? If I am mistaken, I look forward to increasing my knowledge and understanding. May ALLAH see fit to grant us all useful knowledge, and Guide all seekers. peace ~Abdul-Hadi

peace IMHO, By the way, your use of "English dictionary" is incorrect. No-one here uses an English dictionary. Perhaps you mean the Classical Arabic-English lexicon, that is Lane's Lexicon. Salaam Thank you for correcting me that is what I meant. To be blunt IMHO, you had your chance to discuss it. You failed. Each to their own Missed opportunity ( I am a failer Simpls

Salam and Peace! People of the last ummah are in search of the "Words of Rasool." ( Hadith ) They also claim, and put all their cerebral power to prove that he was illiterate. He could not read and write. Then how could he write his Words ( Hadith )????? Words???-----from someone who can not write. I am still wondering at this intellectual demand.

Mr. or Mrs. Loxbox13, It has been a week now with no response from you in this thread nor did you respond to the p.m. that I sent you with the same queries in my prior post. I believe it is safe to assume that you have No Evidence or links to documented research to support the claims that you have made in this thread.

And history of immorality..not just crime. .. Good night

Salam and Peace on Isa and everyone! Allah sent His Messenger(SAW) with "The Message". And Allah ordered us to obey the Messenger. ---"O you who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger." (Al-Nisaa-59)--- ---"He who obeys the Messenger, has indeed obeyed Allah." (Al-Nisa-80)--- What is "Obedience to Allah"?-----What is "Obedience to the Messenger"? Are these two different things?---Or---Are they one thing? The Question is Can anyone obey the Messenger without following "The Message"? Today, the Ummah answers Yes, it is possible to obey the Messenger without following "The Message".---How??? They say "Obedience to the Messenger" is the ahadith (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Al-Muslim, etc.). So, if you follow the ahadith, you obey the Messenger. (Ironically) And if you have obeyed the Messenger by following the ahadith, you have obeyed Allah. ---"He who obeys the Messenger, has indeed obeyed Allah." (Al-Nisa-80)--- (Ironically) So, today the Ummah is obeying the Messenger by following the ahadith, which is equal to obeying Allah. (In real) The Ummah have finally got rid of "The Message" that the Messenger brought.---So sad!

Ever since I was young, I have always found inner beauty amazing, mesmerising, drawn to it, like it was not a choice but an irresistible magnet for my soul, surrendering in its glow.... and I have often wondered why? What is it about it that moves me in this way? Why does my heart/mind/soul feel so alive when I encounter it? Is it because to truly experience inner beauty, something so pure and selfless, it is like glimpsing the divine? That special part of us where God resides and works through? I believe it is this that our heart/mind/soul resonates to, seeks and longs for, and when we feel connected with this, in harmony with it, in that moment we become something else entirely, not a mere biological body, not a disconnected part of the whole, but we transcend and our true plain of existence is brought forth, as spiritual beings. Wakas, this is the best I've read from you when it comes to salaat.

Peace Thanks for your recommendation. IMHO. Haha SAN, I was like velocious, what the. I looked it up in the dictionary. I was like duh. velocity. Kukumber.