Can anybody answer these simple questions ??
-
Peace Leoxyz,
What has been said that you need us to reference. In Sha Allah if it makes you understand our position better I am sure there are a number of people who would help you hunt down some reference etc. But if you do not wish to learn and merely want to mock us then no-one would wish to find references for you and waste their time. So what do you need explained? ???
Salaam
Al -
Peace Leoxyz,
What has been said that you need us to reference. In Sha Allah if it makes you understand our position better I am sure there are a number of people who would help you hunt down some reference etc. But if you do not wish to learn and merely want to mock us then no-one would wish to find references for you and waste their time. So what do you need explained? ???
Salaam
AlDear Brother
If someone comes up authentically ,I will become pretty serious because I am also a learner.But when I see wrong things are being posted without being backed up by proper reference ,I get upset.
See how many post actual arabic text of the Quran ?? -
But if you do not wish to learn and merely want to mock us then no-one would wish to find references for you and waste their time.
not many are going to waste their time repsonding to somebody who doesn't answer any of our questions and continues asking questions like a parrot. It's frustrating and a waste of time, I've personally stopped taking this guy seriously.
-
No reply?
Could I expect anything less?
-
not many are going to waste their time repsonding to somebody who doesn't answer any of our questions and continues asking questions like a parrot. It's frustrating and a waste of time, I've personally stopped taking this guy seriously.
Seen too many of those come and go. Ah well.
-
Peace to all
Did Muhammad (PBUH) exist?
What was his father's name ?
When did he start getting revelation ?
How did he spend his days and nights?
How many wives did he have?
Did Battle of Badar & Uhad take place ?
How did Muhammad (PBUH) used to say Salat ? (How many times /day) and How many Rakaat were there in each Salaat?
Was ther "Adhaan" before each Salaat or not at his time?
If Adhaan was there how were its words compiled ?Please answer these questions ,rest will come forward.
With reference please.Salam.
Yes, prophet Muhammad existed, what would "they"gain by making up a man and prolonging his existance so long?
Is Muhammad's father's name really that important to me and you, to us, to our children, grandchildren, to those in the year 4047?
Again, same as before.
How did prophet Muhammad, who lived in the world of sand and attacks spend his days and nights? Well, he never experienced pressure of working from 0900 to 1700, right? He lived better life then us on some levels. I respect him because he survived the world, the life, the wars and the evil, without Secret Service, bulletproof vest, AK-47 and without any pills. I truly respect him.
He must have had more then one wife and less then 4. He cannot go against the Law of The God, right?
Prophets had many battles. They didn't have the time to write it down on Wikipedia.
Prophet Muhammad followed The Quran as much as one man can.
They called to the prayer, prayed and went on with their businesses.
Peace.
-
So, can I have answers? With reference please. Rest will come forward.
-
Peace,
WHY do we have to answer simple questions like the ones in the first post of this thread? Why?
When one sits down to think about the Creation... , the diversity of everything, the force of life and how life goes on and develops, the human mind, constructive things that bring good things such as kindness, truthfullness, honesty, helpfullness, justice, love and gratitude, our short lives, past civilizations, millions of years, the vastness of our planet, the solarsystem, the universe, God's incomprehendable greatness and nature, the afterlife, what we were before we came to Earth, the nature of our souls, spirits and bodies.. how small we humans are, incomparable to the Creator... .... ... then it doesn?t seem very crucial whether some prophet held left or right hand on his head while urinating squatting. Compared (which you really can?t anyway) to God and Life, even prophets seem disappearingly small. What are prophets? They are nothing but human beings that had enough goodness, skill and light in them to be able to delivere God?s message. They were just humans! What are humans "compared" to God? NOTHING!!!! Nothing at all! Yet we see the masses insist on elevating other human beings so much that those prophets/sons of God/saints etc become the central part of their lives. Whether they think these prophets etc are actually divine or not, doesn?t matter.. because in each case, humans give these prophets such an attention that ONLY suits GOD. This is idol worship. Why does muhammads name always hang next to God's name in mosques? Why does muhammad have 99 names just like God? WHY?
Why this overemphasis on everything EXCEPT God???
(the answer lies with God)
-
770
"Progressive Muslims"
They said "Have you come to us to serve God alone and abandon what our fathers had served? Bring us what you promise if you are of the truthful ones!"3945
"Progressive Muslims"
And if God Alone is mentioned, the hearts of those who do not believe in the Hereafter become repulsed. But when others are mentioned beside Him, they rejoice!4012
"Progressive Muslims"
This is because when God Alone was mentioned, you rejected, but when partners were associated with Him, you believed. Therefore, the judgment is for God, the Most High, the Great. -
Chiming in...
- The truth is from your Lord, so do not be of those who doubt.
- Whoever debates with you in this after the knowledge has come to you, then say ?Let us call our children and your children, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves, then, let us call out, and we shall make God?s curse upon the liars.?
- This is the narration of truth, there is no god but God; and God is the Noble, the Wise.
PEACE
-
Salaam all
The answer to OPF's question regarding lahwa Al Hadeeth is in this thread
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=14594.0As for the question posed by DArgento, those are things that are mentioned for worship and following the messenger is not worshipping the messenger. It is part of worshipping God and worshipping God alone. Your following God alone is really your following your own bias alone. It is a word of truth used to support falsehood.
OPF in his post, talked about the use of logic in helping understand the Qur'an. It is a false statement and here is why
Since you all use logic in understanding the Qur'an, then how come you cannot agree on anything related to the simplest Qur'anic statements of Salat HAJJ and so on. True logic does not lead to disunity. It leads to unity. What you got then is poor understanding or poor logic or both.
As for the issue of detailed, then that will depend on how one understands the word FUSSILAT and one of you correctly pointed out that FUSSILAT does not mean detailed as you understand it. God made the Qur'an Fussila= delineated or separated and differentiated. As for the details of the implementation of what the Qur'an ordered, then they are in the Sunna= the consistent repeated actions of the prophet as witnessed by his followers. Consistent repeated actions is the Qur'anic definition of Sunna if you contemplate it. We are supposed to follow the messenger as per the Qur'an and that is what leads to consistent repeated actions, very much unlike your method of chaos and poor knowledge mixed with poor logic. A situation that does not lead to unity but disunity.
Abu Bakr did not fight Ali. The fights happened between Ali and Muwaiya. The division between Sunni and Shia is not political. Most Sunni scholars were on the side of Ali against Muwaiya. The reason the division continued is because of theological reasons. Shia ended up believing that the only person to interpret the Qur'an are the Ahl Al bayt. Sunnis believe that any person with deep knowledge can interpret the book. The differences in practices are minimal when compared with your own inner differences. Despite all their errors, Sunnis and Shias pray in the same direction at the same time and do hajj the same way and fast at the moon sighting and not in the middle of the heat of the summer when the moon is full.
Take care all
Hussein
-
Salaam all
The answer to OPF's question regarding lahwa Al Hadeeth is in this thread
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=14594.0As for the question posed by DArgento, those are things that are mentioned for worship and following the messenger is not worshipping the messenger. It is part of worshipping God and worshipping God alone. Your following God alone is really your following your own bias alone. It is a word of truth used to support falsehood.
OPF in his post, talked about the use of logic in helping understand the Qur'an. It is a false statement and here is why
Since you all use logic in understanding the Qur'an, then how come you cannot agree on anything related to the simplest Qur'anic statements of Salat HAJJ and so on. True logic does not lead to disunity. It leads to unity. What you got then is poor understanding or poor logic or both.
As for the issue of detailed, then that will depend on how one understands the word FUSSILAT and one of you correctly pointed out that FUSSILAT does not mean detailed as you understand it. God made the Qur'an Fussila= delineated or separated and differentiated. As for the details of the implementation of what the Qur'an ordered, then they are in the Sunna= the consistent repeated actions of the prophet as witnessed by his followers. Consistent repeated actions is the Qur'anic definition of Sunna if you contemplate it. We are supposed to follow the messenger as per the Qur'an and that is what leads to consistent repeated actions, very much unlike your method of chaos and poor knowledge mixed with poor logic. A situation that does not lead to unity but disunity.
Abu Bakr did not fight Ali. The fights happened between Ali and Muwaiya. The division between Sunni and Shia is not political. Most Sunni scholars were on the side of Ali against Muwaiya. The reason the division continued is because of theological reasons. Shia ended up believing that the only person to interpret the Qur'an are the Ahl Al bayt. Sunnis believe that any person with deep knowledge can interpret the book. The differences in practices are minimal when compared with your own inner differences. Despite all their errors, Sunnis and Shias pray in the same direction at the same time and do hajj the same way and fast at the moon sighting and not in the middle of the heat of the summer when the moon is full.
Take care all
Hussein
Thanks. It's good to see you are responding, rather than ignoring and posing your own thoughts continually, God be praised.
Can you direct me to the exact post? On page 8 there is a similar but not exact citation and you say "That refers to those who reject".
OPF in his post, talked about the use of logic in helping understand the Qur'an. It is a false statement and here is why
Since you all use logic in understanding the Qur'an, then how come you cannot agree on anything related to the simplest Qur'anic statements of Salat HAJJ and so on. True logic does not lead to disunity. It leads to unity. What you got then is poor understanding or poor logic or both.
It is not a false statement. It is true by its own virtue - we need to use logic when addressing the Quran. My statement was that we need to use the same technique used already - ijtihad - sans ahadith. Again, logic must be combined with other things. Logic in itself can be used to do ANYTHING (studies show criminals are left handed, polar bears are left handed, hence polar bears are criminals), what keeps it in check are things such as context and taking into account all factors. In this case, people will leave out verse X or Y to justify their understanding of salat/zakat/hajj. So what is present is a combination of all the above (as long as we are human, this will ALWAYS happen, and it happens in every circle, Sunni included - the reason there is no similar effect is due to the sheer number of Sunni scholars).
then how come you cannot agree on anything related to the simplest Qur'anic statements of Salat HAJJ and so on.
This is false and you know it. Unless you mean universal consensus. Which simply does not exist in any circle, the difference being that due to Sunni manpower, it is on a higher degree of superficiality, rather than at the fundamentals.
As for the issue of detailed, then that will depend on how one understands the word FUSSILAT and one of you correctly pointed out that FUSSILAT does not mean detailed as you understand it. God made the Qur'an Fussila= delineated or separated and differentiated. As for the details of the implementation of what the Qur'an ordered, then they are in the Sunna= the consistent repeated actions of the prophet as witnessed by his followers. Consistent repeated actions is the Qur'anic definition of Sunna if you contemplate it. We are supposed to follow the messenger as per the Qur'an and that is what leads to consistent repeated actions, very much unlike your method of chaos and poor knowledge mixed with poor logic. A situation that does not lead to unity but disunity.
Yusuf Ali and Marmaduke Pickthal translate fussilat as "detailed" and "explained".
http//www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/006.qmt.html#006.114
We are supposed to follow the messenger as per the Qur'an and that is what leads to consistent repeated actions, very much unlike your method of chaos and poor knowledge mixed with poor logic. A situation that does not lead to unity but disunity.
Can you explain which messenger? Hint Trick question. Let's not jump from A=>C here, without verifying B, A = Messenger, B = Bukhari, C = Obeying the messenger.
May I add, 610. Very important aya.
Abu Bakr did not fight Ali.
Sorry, wrong word. Allegiance dispute, and property dispute. Disunity.
Shia ended up believing that the only person to interpret the Qur'an are the Ahl Al bayt. Sunnis believe that any person with deep knowledge can interpret the book.
Please tell me that was satire. Last time I checked, Shia disregard the corpus of Sunni thought and rely on "ahlul-bayt". Does it not say in the Quran - do not become "Shia"? Sunnis believe any person with deep knowledge can interpret the book. As long as it does not affect what they found their forefathers doing, i.e. traditions.
The differences in practices are minimal when compared with your own inner differences.
Please show me images of Sunnis who slice each other up every year.
The differences in practices are minimal when compared with your own inner differences.
Really... Satire?
Despite all their errors, Sunnis and Shias pray in the same direction at the same time and do hajj the same way and fast at the moon sighting and not in the middle of the heat of the summer when the moon is full.
The irony is that the traditional "hajj" is pagan by self-admission.
Here
Volume 6, Book 60, Number 23
Narrated 'Asim bin Sulaiman
I asked Anas bin Malik about Safa and Marwa. Anas replied, "We used to consider (i.e. going around) them a custom of the Pre-islamic period of Ignorance, so when Islam came, we gave up going around them. Then Allah revealed" "Verily, Safa and Marwa (i.e. two mountains at Mecca) are among the Symbols of Allah. So it is not harmful of those who perform the Hajj of the House (of Allah) or perform the Umra to ambulate (Tawaf) between them." (2.15
There is a compendium of these at http//www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-hajj-pagan-origin.htm
The source is heavily biased but the references are there for all to see. Isn't it strange...
-
There's a difference between people having different levels of understandings/interpretations of things and "disunity." 1.6 billion Muslims putting their whole faith in a few HUMAN scholars, sure it's "unity," does that mean it's right? No. We discuss things and try to gain our own best individual understanding. This leaves for personal improvement, always room for becoming a better muslim. To you, on the other hand, the meaning of improvement is synonymous with the amount of ahadith (manmade works) memorized. The quran is just an afterthought.
Peace
-
Salaam all,
OPF,
Can you direct me to the exact post? On page 8 there is a similar but not exact citation and you say "That refers to those who reject".
Sorry, it was not in that thread but in the 597 thread. Here is an example of one thing I wrote there amongst others
As for idle speech, then it is true that someone can bring hadeeth and make idle speech with it. However, any person can do that with or without hadeeth, just as the person who claims that God's order to obey the people of authority is unwise, or that since the messenger is dead you cannot obey him, while his material is still existant.
I would add that since there was no "hadeeth of the prophet" then, then one cannot impose that "hadeeth" is what is talked about. This would be manipulation. Unless you want to retract your statements that hadeeth did not come until 200 years later.
It is not a false statement. It is true by its own virtue - we need to use logic when addressing the Quran. My statement was that we need to use the same technique used already - ijtihad - sans ahadith. Again, logic must be combined with other things. Logic in itself can be used to do ANYTHING (studies show criminals are left handed, polar bears are left handed, hence polar bears are criminals), what keeps it in check are things such as context and taking into account all factors. In this case, people will leave out verse X or Y to justify their understanding of salat/zakat/hajj. So what is present is a combination of all the above (as long as we are human, this will ALWAYS happen, and it happens in every circle, Sunni included - the reason there is no similar effect is due to the sheer number of Sunni scholars).
The part that I boldened is blasphemy. Leaving out a part of the Qur'an in order to justify an understanding based on "all other factors sans hadeeth" is pure nonsense. This is what God called "beleieve in part of the book and reject part". Nothing but bias will push people to ignore or reject part of the book or restrict some of the understandings of it beyond what the language allows.
This is false and you know it. Unless you mean universal consensus. Which simply does not exist in any circle, the difference being that due to Sunni manpower, it is on a higher degree of superficiality, rather than at the fundamentals.
No one asks for universal consensus. One is asking for minimum consensus. If you truly believe that the Qur'an is detailed and is clear, then you have no reason to have several different widely varying meanings for Salat, Zakat, Hajj, SAwm and so on. Or, do you believe in it when you debate me and forget about it when you debate each other? There is a name for this. It is called hypocrisy.
Yusuf Ali and Marmaduke Pickthal translate fussilat as "detailed" and "explained".
http//www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/006.qmt.html#006.114
Obviously, others do not share the same meaning. Also, "the book" does not always mean Qur'an and it does not have to mean it in this same Aya. It can be Qur'an and more, including something the messenger received that is not in the Qur'an.
Source any book of Fiqh or tafseer and Lisan Al arab.
Can you explain which messenger? Hint Trick question. Let's not jump from A=>C here, without verifying B, A = Messenger, B = Bukhari, C = Obeying the messenger.
Messenger= Muhammad (pbuh)
Obey the messenger= obey Muhammad.How do you do that?
Obey anything that you beleive he ordered. What do you beleive her ordered? There is some where you are certain and some when you are less certain and some where you are certain he did not say. The formula is not either 100% or 0%, there is a lot in between and you have to deal with it accordingly. You actually cannot 100% prove the Qur'an is authentic to be truthful. So what is the solution? You do your best at trying to authenticate, but you do not summarily reject all hadeeth. Why? because you cannot be 100% sure that it is 100% false. What does that mean? If you are sincere in following the message, then you make an effort. Saying no and relaxing is a lazy and wrong way out. If you do fall in error, then you are solely responsible for your error in front of God.Sorry, wrong word. Allegiance dispute, and property dispute. Disunity.
Not in implementing the Qur'an.
Please tell me that was satire. Last time I checked, Shia disregard the corpus of Sunni thought and rely on "ahlul-bayt". Does it not say in the Quran - do not become "Shia"? Sunnis believe any person with deep knowledge can interpret the book. As long as it does not affect what they found their forefathers doing, i.e. traditions.
The Qur'an says do not divide in groups as the meaning of "Shia", but it inculdes any group that aims to consider itself apart from the rest. Sunnism is about remaining in one group. Sunnism is about accepting the Islam of whoever adheres to the five pillars and that is where Sunnis and all other Muslims have consensus. Anyone who adds more pillars to his or her Islam is not Sunni, but Muslim. Shia are in that group, so are you guys and so is Bin laden and Zarqawi. All of those are not Sunnis, why? because they choose to exclude themselves outside the body of the rest of the Muslims who agreed on the minimum common denominator. Also, because all those groups add more conditions to consider a person Muslim, something that Sunnism did not do. You can read any book of Fiqh, including the writings of Ibn Tiamiyyah and they will explain this simple fact for you.
Here
Volume 6, Book 60, Number 23
Narrated 'Asim bin Sulaiman
I asked Anas bin Malik about Safa and Marwa. Anas replied, "We used to consider (i.e. going around) them a custom of the Pre-islamic period of Ignorance, so when Islam came, we gave up going around them. Then Allah revealed" "Verily, Safa and Marwa (i.e. two mountains at Mecca) are among the Symbols of Allah. So it is not harmful of those who perform the Hajj of the House (of Allah) or perform the Umra to ambulate (Tawaf) between them." (2.158
The Qur'an did mention that the pagans prayed at the "masjd Haram". Does that make the Qur'an a book that asks us to worship in the same place that the pagans did? will you conclude that the Qur'an is asking us to return to paganism because of this shared element?
There are many shared elements between humans believers and otherwise. We do not reject everything that is shared. We reject what God asked us to reject. God did not ask us to reject the hajj that was performed by the premuslim arabs. He asked us to purify it and make it only for God.
Take care and have a great evening
Hussein
-
peace Hussein,
then how come you cannot agree on anything related to the simplest Qur'anic statements of Salat HAJJ and so on.
Your wording is a little strange, but if you are stating "salat" & "hajj" are amongst the simplest topics in al quran, then that is pure nonsense. If you did not mean this, please clarify.
-
Salaam Wakas,
I am saying that if you claim that the Qur'an is clear and detailed and did not leave anything, then understanding some of the more important concepts of the Qur'an as Salat and Zakat and hajj should be simple and straightforward, especially since you are all very intelligent and endowed with " true logic". Your failure to have a coherent united stand on those issues will then have to force you face the question
1- What does the Qur'an being clear mean?
2- What does detailed mean? when we are having such difficulty.
3- Are we just being dishonest with ourselves and others when we claim clarity and detail when we cannot find them.
4- Are we hypocrites when we say all that fancy stuff in our debates with our detractors, yet in truth and deep inside us we do not believe it?
5- Is our logic faulty?Failure to face yourselves with such imortant and probing questions would be detrimental to your movement and it's future. Deluding yourselves with the youth of the movement is not acceptable if you truly beleive the Qur'an, clear, detailed and self explaining.
Take care and have a great eveniing.
Hussein
-
Salaam all,
OPF,Sorry, it was not in that thread but in the 597 thread. Here is an example of one thing I wrote there amongst others
I would add that since there was no "hadeeth of the prophet" then, then one cannot impose that "hadeeth" is what is talked about. This would be manipulation. Unless you want to retract your statements that hadeeth did not come until 200 years later.
The part that I boldened is blasphemy. Leaving out a part of the Qur'an in order to justify an understanding based on "all other factors sans hadeeth" is pure nonsense. This is what God called "beleieve in part of the book and reject part". Nothing but bias will push people to ignore or reject part of the book or restrict some of the understandings of it beyond what the language allows.
No one asks for universal consensus. One is asking for minimum consensus. If you truly believe that the Qur'an is detailed and is clear, then you have no reason to have several different widely varying meanings for Salat, Zakat, Hajj, SAwm and so on. Or, do you believe in it when you debate me and forget about it when you debate each other? There is a name for this. It is called hypocrisy.
Obviously, others do not share the same meaning. Also, "the book" does not always mean Qur'an and it does not have to mean it in this same Aya. It can be Qur'an and more, including something the messenger received that is not in the Qur'an.Source any book of Fiqh or tafseer and Lisan Al arab.
Messenger= Muhammad (pbuh)
Obey the messenger= obey Muhammad.How do you do that?
Obey anything that you beleive he ordered. What do you beleive her ordered? There is some where you are certain and some when you are less certain and some where you are certain he did not say. The formula is not either 100% or 0%, there is a lot in between and you have to deal with it accordingly. You actually cannot 100% prove the Qur'an is authentic to be truthful. So what is the solution? You do your best at trying to authenticate, but you do not summarily reject all hadeeth. Why? because you cannot be 100% sure that it is 100% false. What does that mean? If you are sincere in following the message, then you make an effort. Saying no and relaxing is a lazy and wrong way out. If you do fall in error, then you are solely responsible for your error in front of God.
Not in implementing the Qur'an.
The Qur'an says do not divide in groups as the meaning of "Shia", but it inculdes any group that aims to consider itself apart from the rest. Sunnism is about remaining in one group. Sunnism is about accepting the Islam of whoever adheres to the five pillars and that is where Sunnis and all other Muslims have consensus. Anyone who adds more pillars to his or her Islam is not Sunni, but Muslim. Shia are in that group, so are you guys and so is Bin laden and Zarqawi. All of those are not Sunnis, why? because they choose to exclude themselves outside the body of the rest of the Muslims who agreed on the minimum common denominator. Also, because all those groups add more conditions to consider a person Muslim, something that Sunnism did not do. You can read any book of Fiqh, including the writings of Ibn Tiamiyyah and they will explain this simple fact for you.
The Qur'an did mention that the pagans prayed at the "masjd Haram". Does that make the Qur'an a book that asks us to worship in the same place that the pagans did? will you conclude that the Qur'an is asking us to return to paganism because of this shared element?There are many shared elements between humans believers and otherwise. We do not reject everything that is shared. We reject what God asked us to reject. God did not ask us to reject the hajj that was performed by the premuslim arabs. He asked us to purify it and make it only for God.
Take care and have a great evening
Hussein
Thanks for the reply.
I would add that since there was no "hadeeth of the prophet" then, then one cannot impose that "hadeeth" is what is talked about. This would be manipulation. Unless you want to retract your statements that hadeeth did not come until 200 years later.
I was of the understanding that "lahwa al-hadeeth" encompasses ALL sayings/narrations/expositions/hearsay. You are attempting to argue semantics here, and this cannot be allowed. If you remember, what I stated, or if I did not make it clear then, was that there were no full hadeeth compilations (aside from muwatta) until those given years. There will always have been baseless ahadeeth, some of the messenger (jesus, moses, etc), some simply urban myths, some superstition and so on.
The part that I boldened is blasphemy. Leaving out a part of the Qur'an in order to justify an understanding based on "all other factors sans hadeeth" is pure nonsense. This is what God called "beleieve in part of the book and reject part".
I would like to ask how you managed to associate "ijtihad" with blasphemy. The act I described (leaving out a verse) can only be described as "concealing truth", whether intentional or simply obliviousness (pre-concieved notions will bolster this particular phenomenon). As for "believe in part and reject part", that is a world of argument/debate and mutual. Stoning punishment, please explain how that is not "believing some and rejecting others). Please note that if you want to appeal to the existing texts, this is synonymous with making a distinction between messengers and in turn, making a distinction between messages, hence claiming there is more than one deen to follow.
Nothing but bias will push people to ignore or reject part of the book or restrict some of the understandings of it beyond what the language allows.
You are correct. Also, obliviousness to those verses, either lack of knowledge or simple obliviousness, or blind ignorance. Sometimes it comes from blind lack of logic and common sense. An example would be the person who asks what to wear for prayer and asks why it is not found in the Quran. Other examples can be given in this regard.
No one asks for universal consensus. One is asking for minimum consensus.
I cannot comment here. I believe there is "minimum consensus" between people here, however.
If you truly believe that the Qur'an is detailed and is clear, then you have no reason to have several different widely varying meanings for Salat, Zakat, Hajj, SAwm and so on.
Can you explain about Sawm? Especially as to how there is no consensus on this. Salat - I already said that from what I have observed, it is people advocating ritual prayer from the Quran to be incorrect in their understanding, because of several flaws (unrelated verses used to reverse engineer a "rakat" system for instance). If I remember, the emphasis was also on personal study as opposed to group consensus. Can you explain how the lack of consensus in this group apparently destroys the concept of the Quran by itself, when there is a plethora of verses that show the Quran should be the only source of law, that baseless hadeeth should be rejected, that one should verify all information, etc, ad nauseum? This is an attempt to tie two unrelated concepts together - the Quran itself stating it is the only source of law, and the lack of consensus in a group of individuals. If you want to see consensus, please visit www.submission.org. Or sunniforum.com. Or www.shiachat.com.
Obviously, others do not share the same meaning. Also, "the book" does not always mean Qur'an and it does not have to mean it in this same Aya. It can be Qur'an and more, including something the messenger received that is not in the Qur'an.
2002, 279.
Also
003.081
YUSUFALI Behold! Allah took the covenant of the prophets, saying "I give you a Book and Wisdom; then comes to you a messenger, confirming what is with you; do ye believe in him and render him help." Allah said "Do ye agree, and take this my Covenant as binding on you?" They said "We agree." He said "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses."I believe that if the book (indefinite article in the aya) does constitute the things you say, it would be a good explanation as to why all the messengers died of broken backs. Unfortunately, they did not.
Futher, 692, 1101 (indefinite article), 141, 2951 (which is rehearsed, hadeeth or Quran? Please explain. With reference.), 3923 (No redundancy in Quran? Really?), 4215 (Allah reveals the book), 464 (please bring the book D), 1061 (the book is not anything but... a book).
Now I will, by the power of Quran, kill your argument wholesale.
To recap, your logic (the overall Sunni logic, in general) is thus
1.) Al-Kitab is a broad tem
2.) Hadeeth is part of Al-Kitab (something the messenger recieved out of the Quran)
3.) Hadeeth are needed to explain the QuranYet
1037
And this Quran is not such as could be forged by those besides Allah, but it is a verification of that which is before it and a clear explanation of the book, there is no doubt in it, from the Lord of the worlds.
Q.E.D. (apologies for the question marks, browser problems)
So now
1.) Al-Kitab is a broad tem
2.) Hadeeth is part of Al-Kitab (something the messenger recieved out of the Quran)
3.) Hadeeth are needed to explain the Quran
4.) The Quran explains Al-Kitab - it is also self-contained (6114 and others, some cited above)
5.) Hadeeth are needed to explain the Quran which explains Al-Kitab which contains hadeeth
6.) Quran explains Al-Kitab which contains hadeeth which explain Quran which explains Al-Kitab which contains hadeeth which explain... ad nauseum. Circular logic indeed.Messenger= Muhammad (pbuh)
Obey the messenger= obey Muhammad.Please provide reference. More to follow. ar-rasool or "the messenger" is an all-encompassing term and cannot signify a single person. May I warn you
The Holy Quran warned us
(446) Among those who have become Jews ,there are some who alter the words from their context,
Also (ref Ahmed Ali, and others)
025.030
YUSUFALI Then the Messenger will say "O my Lord! Truly my people have fettered this Quran!"How do you do that?
Obey anything that you beleive he ordered. What do you beleive her ordered? There is some where you are certain and some when you are less certain and some where you are certain he did not say. The formula is not either 100% or 0%, there is a lot in between and you have to deal with it accordingly.Oh please. If you had not rejected the Quranic guidance (1736 and others), you would see there is NO BELIEF but sound verification. Selectively rejecting the Quran and fettering it results in all sorts of wacky conundrums, not least the circular logic. The formula is 100% - for those who believe. Please note that "believe" is not used in that sentence to bring a perception of "faith" but as "acknowledgement".
Also, please be mindful of 1036, which predicts men will follow conjecture. Also 610 where those who mocked the messengers (through baseless hadeeth I assume) ended up being encompassed and dominated by their mockery (see Christianity and shall I say, Sunni-ism).
You actually cannot 100% prove the Qur'an is authentic to be truthful.
Please provide reference. You cannot prove 100% anything. You can however, prove Quran to be the truth with certainty. I asked you last time and you did not respond, perhaps because it completely negated the aspect of "isnad" - can the Quran be proven using the scientific meanings and understandings only? Hint The answer is yes. 3680, please understand what compound is responsible for the green colour of vegetation and also what compound the process of photosynthesis revolves around, and also the products of the process of photosynthesis, and finally, the key components of fire, particulary the fires made by early man and indeed those in the 7th century, still used now.
http//www.scienceagogo.com/news/20000706041735data_trunc_sys.shtml
http//www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/earthorigin.htm
http//ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0469(1965)022%3C0225%3AOTOARO%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1Can this book be from anyone else BUT the God? Do I need isnad or anything else but an elementary knowledge of Arabic and my own eyes to see this? Please explain. With reference.
So what is the solution? You do your best at trying to authenticate, but you do not summarily reject all hadeeth. Why? because you cannot be 100% sure that it is 100% false. What does that mean? If you are sincere in following the message, then you make an effort. Saying no and relaxing is a lazy and wrong way out. If you do fall in error, then you are solely responsible for your error in front of God.
You are correct. Which is why some/most here are working towards finding Salat in the Quran as intended.
Not in implementing the Qur'an.
Implementing social justice is part of implementing the Quran. There was no social justice in taking away the property of a daughter of the prophet no matter how "legal" it was self-declared to be.
The Qur'an says do not divide in groups as the meaning of "Shia", but it inculdes any group that aims to consider itself apart from the rest. Sunnism is about remaining in one group. Sunnism is about accepting the Islam of whoever adheres to the five pillars and that is where Sunnis and all other Muslims have consensus. Anyone who adds more pillars to his or her Islam is not Sunni, but Muslim. Shia are in that group, so are you guys and so is Bin laden and Zarqawi. All of those are not Sunnis, why? because they choose to exclude themselves outside the body of the rest of the Muslims who agreed on the minimum common denominator. Also, because all those groups add more conditions to consider a person Muslim, something that Sunnism did not do. You can read any book of Fiqh, including the writings of Ibn Tiamiyyah and they will explain this simple fact for you.
Can the people of the book be considered Muslim? They have submitted to one God as per Abraham. As for Ibn Taymiyahh, I have read one translated essay of his, on the jinnee, and I like to avoid taking the word of a profound schizophrenic/hallucinator as fact without verification.
The Qur'an did mention that the pagans prayed at the "masjd Haram". Does that make the Qur'an a book that asks us to worship in the same place that the pagans did? will you conclude that the Qur'an is asking us to return to paganism because of this shared element?
Please provide reference.
God did not ask us to reject the hajj that was performed by the premuslim arabs. He asked us to purify it and make it only for God.
The hajj as performed by the pre-muslim arabs, yes. Around which cubic structure? There are tonnes of them.
Thanks for the reply, and peace be on you ).
Edit Oh, not so fast! I do not think that question shall be dodged so easily, you are no Agent Smith, the vacancy is taken by a beloved brother of ours.
Did the prophets(P.B.U.T.) say "amen" in their prayers/salat? For instance, after reciting Al-Fateha? What did Abraham say, " "? What did he do after prostration in the second, and fourth rakats of 4-rakat prayers, and in the 2nd and 3rd rakats of 3-rakat prayers?
