SECTARIANISM is what's killing us!!!!

unknownuser

How many people here still pray the traditional salat? I apologize if it looks like I'm finger pointing or slinging accusations around. It is certainly nothing personal towards this forum or the members here. I am merely pointing out an observance I have made and the conclusion that came from it.

And how many of you send salam on the prophet? Or had Holy Communion?

I don't think so...

Navid

Peace Navid,

Nice article you wrote bro. I like the conclusion you came to concerning a solution to the problem, but I agree with Manzoor ul Haque's idea of a solution better.

Thank you, I will read Manzoor ul Haque's article in its entirety.

I have to disagree with you Navid. Maybe You are not sectarian minded, but I can assure you that many others here are. The fact remains that most people who frequent this site as well as any of the other Quran Alone sites do not frequent traditional muslim forums on a regular basis, except maybe to do battle against them. That, my friend, is a case of the sectarian phenomenon.

I meant that I agree with you in that some people here make it seem as if we are a separate sect. However, I don't think people here not going on traditional forums (if this is true) is directly correlated with sectarianism. Perhaps it is a result of most people who follow the quran only have already experiences and been part of a sect their whole life, so they tend to stay on sites like FM. The opposite is true for most sunni/shia; they have been sunni/shia their whole life.

How many regular members here are also regular members at ourbeacon.com, submission.org, or 19.org? How many regular members of ourbeacon.com and 19.org also frequent this forum on a regular basis? Arnold Yasin is the only person that I know of who does this.

How many people here still pray the traditional salat? I apologize if it looks like I'm finger pointing or slinging accusations around. It is certainly nothing personal towards this forum or the members here. I am merely pointing out an observance I have made and the conclusion that came from it.

Again, I don't see how this implies sectarianism.

Peace

unknownuser

I think it is very naif to think that our broblem with sectarianism is so suprficial as to scratch jut at their name. I aslo want to point out that the name "qur'aniyyuun" was not chosen by those who follow qur'aan alone, but by the sectarians themselves. And yes, we want (I want) to stand different from them. I do not mind if someone calls me qur'aaniyya or munkira lilhadeeth (hadith rejector) or anything, yet I do not say "I am qur'aaniyya" if someone asks me my religion. I do not say "muslim", period, either. Labels never make someone a believer or an idolator. When a "muslim" commits atrocities, people would say he is not a muslim. These labels express your beliefs, but do not make them.

Samia, re-read my post and you will see that you are ranting about things that are not the point of my post or have anything to do with the topic. I did not say not calling myself a quraniyy any more solves the problem or is the heart of the problem either. The label is merely one of the many manifestations of the sectarian/seperatist/divisionist mindset that I am talking about.

Now if someone wishes to call me a quraniyy or munkirulhadeeth and refuses to acknowledge me as a muslim and wishes not to call me brother, that's fine by me. That person is the one guilty of seperation and division, not me. He will have to answer to GOD for it, not me.

I wish to disengage myself from the sectarian madness and strive for the unity that GOD is speaking of in His Book. And the mindset that I am operating with is the Unity of the 'Cool'. Meaning if you are 'cool' with me, then I am 'cool' with you. If you have a problem with my way of practicing Islam and wish not to be 'cool' with me, so be it. To you your way and to me my way. GOD is the one who will judge between us.

By the way, the term quraniyoon was deliberatly chosen by Subhi Ahmed and his comrades in Egypt (Ahlul Quran). This is a name they chose for themselves for their own reasons and have absolutely nothing to do with whatever others wish to label them as.

Question for you Samia, have you read Dr. Manzoor ul Haque's article ? If so, what points do you disagree on and what are your refutations against them?

unknownuser

Salaam Navid,

Again, I don't see how this implies sectarianism.

Peace

Turn towards Him and be dutiful to Him; be firm in devotion, and do not become an idolater,
(Or) one of those who created rifts in their order and are divided into sects, with each group exulting in what it has (carved out for itself) --
(Ahmed Ali translation)
Returning to God/repenting/obeying* to Him, and fear and obey Him, and keep up/start* the prayers, and
do not be from the sharers/takers of partners (with God).
From those who separated (in) their religion, and they were groups/parties (sects)* , each/every group/party
(sect)* with what (is) at them they are happy/rejoiced*.
(Mohamed & Samira Ahmed translation)

Now, we just need to ask ourselves two fundamental questions...

Upon their disillusionment of what the traditional muslims are doing, did not the free-minders (and quran aloners in general) separate themselves from the traditional muslims and made themselves into a seperate identity within Islam? Yes or No ?

Also, are not the free-minders (and quran aloners in general) happy and rejoicing in what they have going on as a group of believers and see no need to show brotherhood/comradery with the other groups of believers within islam? Yes or No ?

I leave you all with those two question for now.

Salaam all,
Damon.

Navid

Now, we just need to ask ourselves two fundamental questions...

Upon their disillusionment of what the traditional muslims are doing, did not the free-minders (and quran aloners in general) separate themselves from the traditional muslims and made themselves into a seperate identity within Islam? Yes or No ?

Also, are not the free-minders (and quran aloners in general) happy and rejoicing in what they have going on as a group of believers and see no need to show brotherhood/comradery with the other groups of believers within islam? Yes or No ?

Sects within Islam are derived from following humans and manmade works. We all agree on the validity of the quran; the creation of sects relies inevitably in following humans. The quran clarifies this fact

You shall submit to Him, reverence Him, observe the Contact Prayers (Salat), and - whatever you do - do not ever fall into idol worship.

(Do not fall in idol worship,) like those who divide their religion into sects; each party rejoicing with what they have.

This makes clear that "rejoicing with what they have" is referring manmade works each sect follows, since everyone agrees on the quran. This is all we are doing, following the quran only, this is how we avoid sectarianism. All we are simply doing is having a forum in which we can better ourselves as muslims in the context of our beliefs (following the quran only). This is nowhere near what the quran talks about, in regards to sects.

Peace

nadeem

Peace Damon,

Do you agree that the diversity within free-minders is greater than that within mainstream Islam?

If so, how does that cope with your thoughts?

(I do not completely disagree with your sentiments, btw.)

Nadeem

Samia

You can't say I was "ranting" and then acknowledge that "label" was one of many manifestations. It should not be any of the manifestations, hence my comment.

As for the name "qur'aaniyyun", I know of "ahlul qur'aan" a long time ago before Sub7i Mansour appeared on the arena. I was also asked if I were "qur'aaniyya" during the early ninties.

Yes Damon, I read the article. My problem is not just with the writter, but with your understanding of the article. I think you could have simply referred to verse 6153 to understand what is meant by 3103. If mere unity is what God wants us to be, why sending messengers? We could well unite in idol worshipping or no belief at all (Isn?t this what some allude to in understanding verses 2092-94?). As I mentioned before, just because "qur'aanism" is on the rise now, this does not make it a "new" sect. It IS what God wants us to follow exclusively. Thanks to the internet which neutralised suppression of thought now like-minded people can communicate and learn. Muhammad have distanced himself before from idol worshippers. Does that make him "happy with what he got"?

What I do not understand from the author is his focus on "how to pray" as the sign of unity!

Ah, and the author speaks of Masjid-E-Zarrar!

So, yes, I also have a problem with the author.

I also do not have any problem with any group that does not take hadeeth as divine "sayings". I have a big problem with anybody who takes hadeeths as divine. Does that make me muslim like them?

Wakas

peace brother Damon,

Dr. Manzoor 'ul Haque pointed out in his very informative article how Aaron (brother of Moses) deliberately allowed Bani Israel to make the golden idol in Moses' absence because he did not wish to arouse a situation that will create division among the people and yet neither GOD nor Moses chastised Aaron for doing this. This is a very strong indication of the seriousness of factionalism and divisionism in GOD's view.

Interesting, although I have not studied the story thoroughly.

When I read your post, I first thought of chapter 9, specifically 911.

ayman

Peace Damon,

After reading This Article by Dr. Manzoor 'ul Haque, I've decided to do further research and studying into the whole sectarian issue and I finally realize that we here at this forum are just as guilty of sectarianism as the traditional muslims. '(

Dr. UlHaque doesn't even understand basic concepts such as the concept of "deen"/obligation and "muslim"/peacemaker. Thus he is unable to translate them or see their implications.

I want to give you all a briefing of my conclusions and the research I have done to come to them.
First the research I simply used 3031-32, 3103, and 6159 as my points of departure. I studied these verses and all the words that are in these verses, then I re-read Manzoor 'Ul Haque's article (along with a few other articles of similar import), and studied those verses again...and again...and again...and yet again. I have been pondering pretty heavily on this topic for at least a month now.

Since you have studied those passages then please share with us your translation of those passages based on your understanding.

I had looked up the root words Sheen-Yaa-'Ayn and Faa-Raa-Qaf in every standard Arabic or Quran Dictionary at my disposal and after much reading and pondering, I have come to the conclusion that those who profess a Quran Alone stance are not innocent of this crime. A crime that is described as shirk, the unforgivable offense.

I agree. There is no such thing as Quran Alone. So professing such a meaningless stance is false. The great reading is a true description not a label. It is a book that must be studied in the context of the god's signs in us and around us and never "alone". It is like a map. It provides guidance but you still need to keep an eye on the road and on your speed, etc. Being a "Map Aloner" is meaningless nonsense and will never get you to any destination.

My conclusions
The ones who follow Quran Alone have decided to seperate/break off/distinguish themselves from the traditional muslims by banding together to follow their own way. The Quran only faction are just as guilty of 3032 as are the many factions of the traditional muslims. And much like the traditional muslims, the quran alone faction are further divided into many other sub-factions.

Damon, since you studied it in depth, please share your knoweledge by translating 3032.

I don't think that there is such a thing as traditional peacemakers. It is a trait and a manner of acting. It is not a club that someone belongs to. You either do it or you don't.

Anytime a group of people decide to seperate/distinguish themselves from a group of others, go by a name/label different from the others, extend brotherhood to one another within the group as opposed to those outside of the group, and refuse unity with those outside of the group are officially practicing partisanship/sectarianism and are GUILTY of committing Idolatry.

Then you are guilty of this too by naming/labeling yourself Muslim instead of taking it as a universal concept.

I no longer call myself Quran Only Muslim, Quran Alone Muslim or Quranist or Quraniyy. I am simply a Muslim. Nothing more, nothing less. I also accept the terms Mumin (Believer) and Haneef (Monotheist/Pro-GOD) since they are also utilised in the quran favourably. Though I must say while stating this I only take GOD's Book as my source of guidance and knowledge in matters of Deen.

The names Muslim and Deen that you use are just as empty a name/label as all the other names/labels you objected to.

Sects are always started when there are enough people that are dissatisfied with the practices and views of the current group and wish to seperate themselves from that group and become their own ideal group. This is the essence of sectarianism.

No according to the great reading sects are always started when they separate their obligation and are happy with what they have NOT when they separate from a current group and are dissatisfied with its practices. It seems that you are implying that we should be "happy with practices and views of the current group". The great reading is saying the opposite of what you are saying. Do you think that the people of the cave were sectarians? Do you think that Abraham was a sectarian? Do you think Moses was a sectarian? do you think that Lot was a sectarian?

Dr. Manzoor 'ul Haque pointed out in his very informative article how Aaron (brother of Moses) deliberately allowed Bani Israel to make the golden idol in Moses' absence because he did not wish to arouse a situation that will create division among the people and yet neither GOD nor Moses chastised Aaron for doing this. This is a very strong indication of the seriousness of factionalism and divisionism in GOD's view.

Moses chastised Aaron and destroyed the idol. Aaron was wrong and his excuse was lame.

I ask you all who come across this thread to do two things (not for me. Do it for your own sake)...Study, and I mean really, really Study the root words Sheen-Yaa-'Ayn and Fa-Ra-Qaf inside and out. Study them in every standard Arabic Dictionary and Lexicon that you can get your hands on. Then read the above mentioned verses and all the other verses where derivatives of these words are used in the quran. Notice how the quran utilises these words. Notice what GOD says about divisionism/factionalism/sectarianism and how it is tantamount to Shirk!! Shirk, the one offense that GOD will Never Forgive.

I think that this is good advice. You should also study other root words such as "DYN" and "SLM".

Even the many different Masaajid (Mosques) that are abundantly scattered in many different parts of your average city here in the U.S. My city is not that big, yet I can tell you that there are definately 9 Mosques here that am 100% certain of. And these are just the Mosques that I know of. There could be others. These Mosques were NOT established for convenience of location. And neither do the individuals who prefer any one Mosque over the others frequent them on merit of location. No, they go to the one that they believe is more correctly inclined than the others are. That's just the bottom line.
My only question now that I haven't been able to answer is how to Effectively address this issue while guarding ourselves against the illegitimate practices of the muslim factions at the same time. I pondered on this thought as well and I must say that it looks extremely bleak. What to do, what to do? hypno

The first step is to understand what the very concept of "muslim" means and be able to explain it and translate it. If you do then everything will become extremely clear.

Peace,

Ayman

unknownuser

You can't say I was "ranting" and then acknowledge that "label" was one of many manifestations

Of course I can which is why I did it. It was a premature rant that assumed in the beginning of it that I was pushing the idea that adopting "labels" was the problem and to discard any given "label" was its solution. If you had bothered to carefully read my post instead of jumping to conclusions and adopting your confrontational post to me you will realize that I am happy with the term muslim because it is a Sectarian Mindset (as far as I am concerned) that is not happy with that description and hence requires some sort of adjective in front of it.

It should not be any of the manifestations, hence my comment.

But unfortunately it IS one of the manifestations of the mindset, hence MY comment.

As for the name "qur'aaniyyun", I know of "ahlul qur'aan" a long time ago before Sub7i Mansour appeared on the arena.

So have I, your point?

Yes Damon, I read the article. My problem is not just with the writter, but with your understanding of the article

And I'm sure that you are well aware that I have a problem with your understanding of it as well.

I think you could have simply referred to verse 6153 to understand what is meant by 3103.

I feel as though that the other verses that I brought up are just as pertinent to understanding 3103 as you believe 6153 to be. Are you now going to say that you are right and I am wrong? Or your understanding is better than my understanding? Is this what it's really boiling down to?

If mere unity is what God wants us to be, why sending messengers?

This goes to show that you did not sit down and try to understand the point of my post. I never said that we should be pushing for mere unity. Read the post again Samia and notice the question I asked at the end of it. How can we address the sectarian issue without becoming guilty of the sectarian practices and divisionism ourselves? If mere unity was my concern, I wouldn't ask this question nor would I want to address this issue. I would just adopt their ways and practices and do everything like them for the sake of mere unity.

As I mentioned before, just because "qur'aanism" is on the rise now, this does not make it a "new" sect.

I totally disagree with this understanding presented here. If you give it a name (qur'aanism), have a profile of a person that fits the description of "quraniyy" and establish yourselves as your own little "quraniyy" group, it IS a "new" sect. A "new" sect among "other" sects within islam. Quraniyyoon have the same "my way is better than yours" mentality as the other factions within Islam. Don't kid yourself.

It IS what God wants us to follow exclusively

The only thing you and I agree on so far. Thing is, WE are not the first people to have come to the conclusion that the traditional muslims are practicing ideas that are not consistent with the quranic message. The people who do not agree with the ways of the traditionists have been apart of this movement of islam since time immemorial. What THEY have done is address the issue from within this community of people and tried their level best to do this in the spirit of universal brotherhood. What WE are doing is addressing the issue from outside of this community of people and we are not doing it in the spirit of universal brotherhood. I understand that it is difficult to do this when so many of them will shun you the instant you tell them that you are not a hadith follower, but I have come to learn that not all of them will react this way. Some of them will lend you an ear. It is these people we can and should reach and hopefully these same people can do the same thing. But we do not have to do this in the name of yet another "group/faction" under the banner of islam.

Muhammad have distanced himself before from idol worshippers. Does that make him "happy with what he got"?

I don't know where you got your knowledge of Muhammad from, but I know that the messenger I speak of who received revelation from GOD was told in 6159 that he is to keep himself aloof from those who wish to be divided and seperated from the rest of the pack. Were he here today, I believe that he would have distanced himself from all those who practice sectarianism. How do you think he would react to you?

What I do not understand from the author is his focus on "how to pray" as the sign of unity!

Like you I also do not agree with his focus on the salat as the sign of unity, but unlike you I do not use that one issue as a reason to disregard the author or the rest of his understandings he presented in his article. You found one thing in my initial post (the use of "labels&quot and your very first response to me in this thread was not only condescending, but quite confrontational. This attitude will not get you very far in life.

I continued to read the article anyway and I simply took careful note of the points that I do agree with and simply ignored what I do not agree with. On top of that, I am more than willing to correspond with the author on those issues instead of merely shooting him and his article down. I am humble enough to realize that I do not know everything.

So, yes, I also have a problem with the author.

Yes Samia, that is quite apparent.

I also do not have any problem with any group that does not take hadeeth as divine "sayings". I have a big problem with anybody who takes hadeeths as divine. Does that make me muslim like them?

No, but it does make you sectarian like them if you are not willing to extend a hand of sisterhood and try to educate them on that issue, but instead cut yourself off from them, associate yourself with your own exclusive "quraniyyoon" group and take on the "My school of thought is better than your school of thought" mentality that all the other sects of islam have also taken on.

unknownuser

Peace Ayman,

Dr. UlHaque doesn't even understand basic concepts such as the concept of "deen"/obligation and "muslim"/peacemaker. Thus he is unable to translate them or see their implications.

This is only an assertion on your part Ayman. Anybody in the world has just as much oppurtunity to say that you don't understand basic concepts such as Deen for the same reason you say so about Dr. Manzoor; namely that you don't agree with his understanding. I think you would present a more humble stance if you would say that you don't agree instead of saying a person doesn't know a certain thing. You never know when you may have to humble yourself and retract those kinds of statements. He simply has a different understanding than yours Ayman. You can't say that your right, he's wrong and you know more than him. GOD is the ONLY ONE who is flawless in knowledge and wisdom.

Since you have studied those passages then please share with us your translation of those passages based on your understanding.

Damon, since you studied it in depth, please share your knoweledge by translating 3032.

There is no need for me to give an independent translation since I have posted two translations with which I agree (Mohamed Ahmed and Ahmed Ali). I share their understanding of 3032.

I don't think that there is such a thing as traditional peacemakers. It is a trait and a manner of acting. It is not a club that someone belongs to. You either do it or you don't.

It is a "label" that is mutually understood between those who go by it as well as those who do not. I'm sure everyone here already knew that.

Then you are guilty of this too by naming/labeling yourself Muslim instead of taking it as a universal concept.

Then you must say that GOD is also guilty of this since HE is the one who gave me this description. He who does not submit to Him is labeled as Kafir. I did not come with this name. GOD DID!! And it is onbiously not a universal concept as you prematurely claim otherwise there would be no such thing as mushrik, kafir and zaleem, etc.

The names Muslim and Deen that you use are just as empty a name/label as all the other names/labels you objected to.

WOW!! You have to take that up with the quran and the one who revealed it. I guess both of these terms are used in the quran simply to fill up the empty spots of the pages.

No according to the great reading sects are always started when they separate their obligation and are happy with what they have NOT when they separate from a current group and are dissatisfied with its practices

This is total nonsense Ayman. How can they seperate their obligation when their is not already a core foundation (be it correct or incorrect) for them to seperate from? And who is upholding this core foundation? What, did they seperate from nothingness? In order to divide and seperate, their has to be something for you to divide and seperate from. That is only plain logic.

It seems that you are implying that we should be "happy with practices and views of the current group".

Ayman, I am telling you the same thing that I told Samia. Read my post before coming up with baseless accusations like that. You either did not read my entire posts in this thread or you wish to flip my words around to come to your conclusion that I am implying that you should be happy with the practices and views of the current group. I addressed the practices and views of the current group more than once in this thread and not one time did I say that we should be happy with them. I asked how many people here frequent other forums that are not quran alone forums or who here totally shun the traditional way of Salat. Do not try to use that and say That I am implying that you be happy with the practices of the current group because the current group has thousands of views and practices that I am not happy with and will not uphold.

The great reading is saying the opposite of what you are saying

No, the great reading agrees with me completely. I say that people here have established themselves as a group apart from the rest and are happy and rejoice in it. Now read 3032 and you will notice that it says that Kulluu Hizb/EACH party rejoices in what is with it. EACH GROUP Ayman. That includes the group who call themselves quraniyyoon.

Moses chastised Aaron and destroyed the idol.

Can you please give me the chapter and verse where he does so? It certainly isn't 2092-94 which are the verses that I am speaking of. Which verses are you speaking of where Moses chastised Aaron?

Aaron was wrong and his excuse was lame.

If Aaron was wrong and his excuse lame then GOD could have chastised him for it.....but he didn't!!!

I think that this is good advice. You should also study other root words such as "DYN" and "SLM".

Again with the unwarranted and premature assumptions. I can tell that you not only assume that I have not studied those root words, but I get the feeling that you think that you are lingusitically superior to me when it comes to the quran and it's language. is this your attitude towards me Ayman?

I end my post with another piece of advice for everyone here. My understanding of 5679 is that it is the purifed heart that GOD teaches. Arrogance is not becoming of a true muslim. It is usually the arrogant ones who I have learned don't even know half of what they think they know.

Peace be with you,
Damon.

CavemanDoctor

Can you please give me the chapter and verse where he does so? It certainly isn't 2092-94 which are the verses that I am speaking of. Which verses are you speaking of where Moses chastised Aaron?

If Aaron was wrong and his excuse lame then GOD could have chastised him for it.....but he didn't!!!

It actually is 2092-95.

This is from Ahmed Ali's translation, who you say you agree with

But (Moses) said "O Aaron, when you saw that they had gone astray, what hindered you
From coming after me? Did you not disobey my command?" (And Moses pulled him by the hair).
"O son of my mother," (Aaron cried), do not pull me by my beard or my hair! I was really afraid you may say that I had created a rift among the children of Israel, and did not pay heed to your command."

Pretty clear chastisement. Moreover, it's interesting because these verses go to the heart of what you're saying. Moses asks Aaron why he did not stop the children of Israel from creating the idol and he responds, "I was really afraid you may say that I had created a rift among the children of Israel."

From the context, it is clear that Aaron's concerns were misinformed and misdirected. Coincidentally, if I am understanding you correctly, Aaron's concerns are similar to your concerns in this very thread.

unknownuser

It actually is 2092-95.

This is from Ahmed Ali's translation, who you say you agree with

But (Moses) said "O Aaron, when you saw that they had gone astray, what hindered you
From coming after me? Did you not disobey my command?" (And Moses pulled him by the hair).
"O son of my mother," (Aaron cried), do not pull me by my beard or my hair! I was really afraid you may say that I had created a rift among the children of Israel, and did not pay heed to your command."

Pretty clear chastisement. Moreover, it's interesting because these verses go to the heart of what you're saying. Moses asks Aaron why he did not stop the children of Israel from creating the idol and he responds, "I was really afraid you may say that I had created a rift among the children of Israel."

From the context, it is clear that Aaron's concerns were misinformed and misdirected. Coincidentally, if I am understanding you correctly, Aaron's concerns are similar to your concerns in this very thread.

First things first, It is not 92-95, it is 92-94. But I'm glad that you brought this verse up (verse 95) because I will use it to prove my point.

Secondly, you have to get rid of those extra words in the parentheses because they are not in the original Arabic text.

Thirdly, where are you getting the assumption that Aaron's words in verse 94 meant that Moses physically seized him by his head and beard? Are you not aware of figure of speech in the Arabic language?

Fourthly, you claim a pretty clear chastisement in these verses. It is obviously not clear if others do not see what you claim to see. 242 and 244 are examples of what a pretty clear chastisement is. 538 is an example of what a pretty clear chastisement is. There is no mentioning of GOD nor Moses doing Anything to Aaron for allowing Bani Israel to make their idol and he gave his reason as to why he did not stand in their way. He did not wish to be the source of division and discord among the people.

NOW, we can get back to verses 95 and 96. You will notice in verse 87 that it was Samiri who aroused Bani Israel to make the idol. Notice that in verses 92 and 93 Moses questioned Aaron. Notice in verse 94 Aaron replied to Moses and told him Why he did not try to stop them. And notice in verse 95 how Moses questioned Samiri. In the following verse, 96, Samiri also gave his reply to Moses as to why he did what he did. And then we see in verse 97 the chastisement/punishment/consequence Moses lays on Samiri. He expels him from the jama'a and destroys his idol.

But what was done TO Aaron? Or What was done WITH Aaron? What chastisement/punishment/consequence did Moses hand to Aaron? Moses asked Aaron about what he did and Aaron replied to him and gave his excuse. Nothing was done. Moses asked Samiri the same thing as Aaron and, like Aaron, he gave his excuse for which he was excommunicated and his idol destroyed.

Also notice in 254 the verbal lashing Moses gives to Bani Israel for doing this. He told them to repent to GOD and to kill their egos/desires.

He didn't do anything to Aaron and neither did GOD.

You are right about one thing, Aaron's concerns do reflect my own. However, it is because you have not thoroughly studied the entire passage that you came to the conclusion that Aaron's concerns were misdirected and misinformed. Also, you should never rely on an English translation and base your understanding on the translators assumptions placed in brackets and parentheses. Nowhere in the original text does it say that Moses grabbed Aaron by his head or his beard.

If I tell you or anywhere else here not to jump down my throat, how are you going to interpret that? There's only two ways to interpret it. Literally or figuratively.

You decide...

unknownuser

Peace Brother Wakas,

peace brother Damon,

Interesting, although I have not studied the story thoroughly.

When I read your post, I first thought of chapter 9, specifically 911.

I will take some time to ponder on this issue in light of 911, GOD Willing and I would love a civil and honest conversation with you about it.

As of now though, it appears to me that 911 is concerned with the mushrikeen disrupting the unity of the people trying to establish the deen in the land. I could be wrong though.

Peace,
Damon.

ayman

Peace Damon,

This is only an assertion on your part Ayman. Anybody in the world has just as much oppurtunity to say that you don't understand basic concepts such as Deen for the same reason you say so about Dr. Manzoor; namely that you don't agree with his understanding. I think you would present a more humble stance if you would say that you don't agree instead of saying a person doesn't know a certain thing. You never know when you may have to humble yourself and retract those kinds of statements. He simply has a different understanding than yours Ayman. You can't say that your right, he's wrong and you know more than him. GOD is the ONLY ONE who is flawless in knowledge and wisdom.

Dr. Manzoor wrote an article in English. He then left the most important words on the subject "deen" and "muslim" untranslated. So either he doesn't know their real meanings or he doesn't think that their meaning is important enough to transmit to the English speaking audience that he wrote the article for. Either way, he is wrong and he should communicate those concepts clearly first so that he can adequately address the issue of sectarianism.

There is no need for me to give an independent translation since I have posted two translations with which I agree (Mohamed Ahmed and Ahmed Ali). I share their understanding of 3032.

So what do you think that the word "deenahum" in 3032 means?

It is a "label" that is mutually understood between those who go by it as well as those who do not. I'm sure everyone here already knew that.

This is not reality. Everyone here doesn't know what "muslim" means. The average American thinks that "islamic" means it is somehow associated with terrorism. Sunnis think that "muslim" means following the so-called Sunnah. Shias think that it means following Ahl Al-Bayt. 19ers believe that it means accepting the Code 19 fraud. etc... So the reality is that it is meaningless and not universal. Even the majority of Arabic speakers don't know what it means. The reason they don't know what it means is that this universal concept has been turned into a meaningless label. Those labels is what divides our only acceptable obligation. Such labels is what creates those very sects that you warn about. Yet, you have no problem taking such a meaningless "label" for your own.

Then you must say that GOD is also guilty of this since HE is the one who gave me this description.

As you said, the god gave us this description NOT proper name/label. Like any description, this description should be translated. Why don't Dr. Manzoor or you translate it?

He who does not submit to Him is labeled as Kafir.

No he doesn't. At the time of Abraham there was no such thing as the Arabic language. If the god labeled rejecters of his message as Kafir, people wouldn't know what He is talking about! The concept existed at the time of Abraham. The god translated the word from Abraham's language to Arabic speakers. Since he translated it then it is a DESCRIPTION not a proper name/label.

I did not come with this name. GOD DID!! And it is onbiously not a universal concept as you prematurely claim otherwise there would be no such thing as mushrik, kafir and zaleem, etc.

No, the god gave us a description and not a name. I hope that you know the fact that there is a big difference between a description and a name.

It is a universal concept just as all those are universal concepts. Also, see passages such as 383 which clearly demonstrate that "islam"/peacemaking is a universal concept that even goes beyond humans.

WOW!! o You have to take that up with the quran and the one who revealed it. I guess both of these terms are used in the quran simply to fill up the empty spots of the pages.

As far as those who take those terms as meaningless labels/names that are not translated, indeed those words are just simply filling up spots. If you or Dr. Manzoor think they are important then you must translate them.

This is total nonsense Ayman. How can they seperate their obligation when their is not already a core foundation (be it correct or incorrect) for them to seperate from?

The god tells us that our only acceptable obligation is peacemaking. It is that simple. There is no dispute about what peacemaking is and everyone will agree on this universal concept. Those who separated their obligation started by turning it into a meaningless label so that they can attach other haphazrd meanings that separate it from this UNIVERSAL concept.

And who is upholding this core foundation? What, did they seperate from nothingness? In order to divide and seperate, their has to be something for you to divide and seperate from. That is only plain logic.

They speparated from our only acceptable obligation, peacemaking.

Ayman, I am telling you the same thing that I told Samia. Read my post before coming up with baseless accusations like that. You either did not read my entire posts in this thread or you wish to flip my words around to come to your conclusion that I am implying that you should be happy with the practices and views of the current group. I addressed the practices and views of the current group more than once in this thread and not one time did I say that we should be happy with them. I asked how many people here frequent other forums that are not quran alone forums or who here totally shun the traditional way of Salat. Do not try to use that and say That I am implying that you be happy with the practices of the current group because the current group has thousands of views and practices that I am not happy with and will not uphold.

Here is what you said

"Sects are always started when there are enough people that are dissatisfied with the practices and views of the current group and wish to seperate themselves from that group and become their own ideal group."

Here is what the god says

3031-32. "And do not be from those who setup partners. Those separated their obligation and were sects, each group happy with what they have".

Where does the god say that "sects always started when people are dissatisfied with the practices and views of the current group and wish to seperate themselves from that group"?

There is nothing in 3031-32 about being dissatisfied with the practices and views of the current group.
There is nothing in 3031-32 about separating from the other group.

In 3031-32, we hear about separating our OBLIGATION NOT separating from the CURRENT GROUP.

In 3031-32, we hear about people HAPPY with what they have NOT people DISSATISFIED with current practices and views.

We can also empirically verify that being SATISFIED with the practices and views and STAYING with the CURRENT GROUP doesn't eliminate sectarianism (this is what most Sunnis and Shias, etc. do by default).

So what you are saying is a hypothesis that has nothing to do with 3031-32 and reality.

No, the great reading agrees with me completely. I say that people here have established themselves as a group apart from the rest and are happy and rejoice in it. Now read 3032 and you will notice that it says that Kulluu Hizb/EACH party rejoices in what is with it. EACH GROUP Ayman. That includes the group who call themselves quraniyyoon.

Who says that I am happy with what I have? If I were then, like most sectarians, I would have the same understanding now as 10 years ago. The fact that most people understanding on this forum keep evolving is empirically verifiable proof that they ARE NOT HAPPY WITH WHAT THEY HAVE.

Can you please give me the chapter and verse where he does so? It certainly isn't 2092-94 which are the verses that I am speaking of. Which verses are you speaking of where Moses chastised Aaron?
If Aaron was wrong and his excuse lame then GOD could have chastised him for it.....but he didn't!!!

Is Moses pulling Aaron from his beard and hair not being chastising enough??!!! I think that CavemanD already addressed this issue better than I can and your reply to him was unconvincing.

Again with the unwarranted and premature assumptions. I can tell that you not only assume that I have not studied those root words, but I get the feeling that you think that you are lingusitically superior to me when it comes to the quran and it's language. is this your attitude towards me Ayman?

We are having this conversation in English. Is English not your native language? You seem to have very good command of English. On the other hand, you are the one who keeps bringing up untranslated Arabic words as if saying them in Arabic somehow makes your point more valid and your argument more superior. All I ask is for you to tell us the meanings of those words in simple plain English and their implications to your understanding of 3031-32. How is this being linguistically superior? I would say quite the opposite.

I end my post with another piece of advice for everyone here. My understanding of 5679 is that it is the purifed heart that GOD teaches. Arrogance is not becoming of a true muslim. It is usually the arrogant ones who I have learned don't even know half of what they think they know.

What do you call talking about a "true muslim" to an English audience and taking it as a label as opposed to a true description and therefore not translating it?

What do you call objecting to other sects labeling themselves and then doing the same exact thing by turning the word "muslim" from a true description to an untranslateable label? They all think that the god authorized their labels. Why is it OK in this case? I hope it is not because it is YOUR label, while the others is THEIR label because that is somewhat "arrogance" and I know that you are not the arrogant type.

Peace,

Ayman

progod

Peace,

Damon, you and I talked about this before I think. I understand where you are coming from but I think you are coming at it from the wrong angle.

I no longer call myself Quran Only Muslim, Quran Alone Muslim or Quranist or Quraniyy. I am simply a Muslim.

Well, the first question is this Why do you believe that Muslim or Islam is a Quranic title we should use to refer to ourselves?

This has to do with Ayman's comments below

"As you said, the god gave us this description NOT proper name/label. Like any description, this description should be translated. Why don't Dr. Manzoor or you translate it?"

"No, the god gave us a description and not a name. I hope that you know the fact that there is a big difference between a description and a name.

It is a universal concept just as all those are universal concepts. Also, see passages such as 383 which clearly demonstrate that "islam"/peacemaking is a universal concept that even goes beyond humans."

Although peacemaking is only ONE meaning of Islam it is still only one. The other, most important in my opinion is 'submission' which in most places in the Quran referred to God who is mentioned in the context. That submission can validly be understood as making peace with God, however.

So, again my question is why do you believe that Islam is a divinely appointed title that we should adhere to?

The second question we will go for after that is

Where is the line drawn between a description and a sectarian title?

Godbless,

p.s. Bro, I think you overeacted on Samia because of her use of naif (spelled naive). If it was to insult you or not, I don't know. However, I did not find her post insulting or condescending when she first responded to you.

unknownuser

Peace Ayman,

Dr. Manzoor wrote an article in English. He then left the most important words on the subject "deen" and "muslim" untranslated. So either he doesn't know their real meanings or he doesn't think that their meaning is important enough to transmit to the English speaking audience that he wrote the article for. Either way, he is wrong and he should communicate those concepts clearly first so that he can adequately address the issue of sectarianism.

Well first of all, I didn't bring up his article in order to defend him and act as his spokesman. I am not going to sit here at my computer and debate you about Manzoor ul Haque's article in this manner. However, I will address this one thing for you and be done with it. I'd much rather stick to my original topic which is sectarianism and how people who call themselves quran only muslims are as guilty of it as anybody else.

As far as his article being written in English and him leaving "Deen" and "Muslim" in Arabic, you make the mistake of assuming that he doesn't know their Arabic meanings or he doesn't deem it important enough to translate them. Has the thought ever occured to you that this article is written specifically for those identify themselves as muslims and because of that he thought that this audience knows the meanings of these two terms? At least that's what came to my mind when I read it. I could be wrong, but that issue is not pressing enough for me to harp on it and bicker with someone else about it.

So what do you think that the word "deenahum" in 3032 means?

I'll bet that you think that I believe "deenahum" means Their Religion. That's why you keep asking me in different ways to translate 3032. Instead of playing the translation and word games, I'd much rather stick to my topic and talk about those issues...sectarianism and the sectarian mindset. Anyone here who knows the word "deen" as well as the root that it comes from and the suffix "hum" all know what that word is. But that's a distraction which I have learned once it gets started it doesn't end and there will be a new debate going in this very thread over Arabic language, what sources and dictionaries people are using, accusations of not understanding the word or context, etc. Waste of time.

The average American thinks that "islamic" means it is somehow associated with terrorism.

Okay, so I guess you've gotten an official consesus on this. You were able to speak to enough Americans in the U.S. to come to that conclusion. The average American thinks that "islamic" means it is somehow associated with terrorism. Including the ignorant ones who do not watch the news, do not read the newspaper and haven't got a clue as to what is going on over seas right now. Okay Ayman.

Those labels is what divides our only acceptable obligation. Such labels is what creates those very sects that you warn about. Yet, you have no problem taking such a meaningless "label" for your own.

As I said to you in my last reply, if it's meaningless, then GOD must be in the habit of using meaningless words in His Book, because is HE who called us MUSLIMS. Don't hate the messenger bro, take it up with GOD.

As you said, the god gave us this description NOT proper name/label. Like any description, this description should be translated. Why don't Dr. Manzoor or you translate it?

Let me guess, if I don't translate it as peaceful one or peacemaker as you do, you will tell me that I translated it wrongly. I am not about to have a back and forth with you about translation issues. Let's stick to what this thread is about which is the human tendency to break off from one another to do their own respective sectarian thing. By the way, I NEVER said that it is a proper name and I definately don't call it a label that I take on.

No he doesn't. At the time of Abraham there was no such thing as the Arabic language. If the god labeled rejecters of his message as Kafir, people wouldn't know what He is talking about!

Alright now, c'mon with the nonsense Ayman. You know Full Well what is meant by this. The people of Abraham's time were Rejectors, period. Whatever language they spoke does not matter. The Arabic Quran calls them and those like them kafir. I know you are aware of the real point here Ayman. Please, let's not get into this.

No, the god gave us a description and not a name. I hope that you know the fact that there is a big difference between a description and a name.

And I hope you realize the fact that there is a big difference between the people who He gave this description to and those he gave another description to which is used as a barometer of rightly guided and those who are straying. He used this description of MUSLIMS for a reason you know. Not to merely take up space on paper.

It is a universal concept just as all those are universal concepts

How can it be a universal concept when He uses terms for others who do not wish to walk this path? Are you sayinh that some one can be a mumin and a kafir at the same time? Or can one be a muslim and a mushrik at the same time? I guess so since the description "muslim" is a universal concept.

Here is what you said

"Sects are always started when there are enough people that are dissatisfied with the practices and views of the current group and wish to seperate themselves from that group and become their own ideal group."

Here is what the god says

3031-32. "And do not be from those who setup partners. Those separated their obligation and were sects, each group happy with what they have".

And here's what else GOD says

So be not like those who BECAME disunited and differed AMONG THEMSELVES after clear proofs had come to them. For them is great suffering.
He has laid down for you the way of life and belief which He had commended to Noah, and which We have enjoined on you, and which We had bequeathed to Abraham, Moses and Jesus, so that they should maintain the order and not be divided AMONG THEMSELVES. Heavy is to idolaters what you invite them to. God chooses whom He please for Himself, and guides to Himself whoever turns to Him.
Yet they did not differ about it until knowledge came to them, through rivalries AMONG THEMSELVES. If the Word of your Lord, (staying) it for a time ordained, had not preceded it, the matter would have been settled among them. But those who came to inherit the Book after them are also in doubt and disturbed about it.
Verily this your order is one order, and I am your Lord, so fear Me.
But then THEY divided up THEIR order into different creeds, each section rejoicing in what it had come to have.

Where does the god say that "sects always started when people are dissatisfied with the practices and views of the current group and wish to seperate themselves from that group"?

I am convinced that the verses mentioned above allude to that. It is the details that need filling in and I do that by studying and observing the formation of sectarian factions that have sprung up in the name of islam. Those are the verifiable details and I am convinced on what I have learned of this.

Is Moses pulling Aaron from his beard and hair not being chastising enough??!!! I think that CavemanD already addressed this issue better than I can and your reply to him was unconvincing.

And you NOT REPLYING to it at all is even less convincing. When and Where does it say that Moses seized Aaron by his hair and beard. I expected better from you Ayman. Since you believe that Moses actually physically seized Aaron's beard and head (even though quran DOES NOT SAY he did so), then you can also believe that the stars, trees, mountains and planets physically prostrate to GOD in the same manner some people do when they make their salat. You can believe that there was a man named Soloman who literally understood the language of ants. You can believe when Bani Israel had entered the new town in sujud, they literally crawled their way in while laying on their chins and faces, scraping them on the ground. Like I said, I expect better from you Ayman.

What do you call objecting to other sects labeling themselves and then doing the same exact thing by turning the word "muslim" from a true description to an untranslateable label?

I can very easily translate the words "muslim", "deen", "Islam" and any other word in the quran from Arabic to English. But the points that I wanted to bring up in this post have nothing to do with how one wishes to translate words of the quran. It is a distraction that will quickly turn this thread from the issue of sectarianism to no, no, no..you're translating it wrong.....no, you're the one translating it wrong, something is wrong with your understanding.....no, you're the wrong understanding it wrong, look at the context of the verse, etc. If you want to talk about translation issues you should start a seperate thread for that.

Why is it OK in this case? I hope it is not because it is YOUR label, while the others is THEIR label because that is somewhat "arrogance" and I know that you are not the arrogant type.

Well, I try not to be arrogant because if I am proven wrong, then I will be the one with egg all over my face. It is not a label in my estimation, it is the description that GOD has given me and one which I humbly accept. Whatever other people wish to do concerning how to describe their position in life and their relationship with the Creator is totally out of my control. To you your way and to me my way. I have no problem with agreeing to disagree if that's what it will eventually boil down to.

Peace,
Damon.

CavemanDoctor

First things first, It is not 92-95, it is 92-94. But I'm glad that you brought this verse up (verse 95) because I will use it to prove my point.

Secondly, you have to get rid of those extra words in the parentheses because they are not in the original Arabic text.

Thirdly, where are you getting the assumption that Aaron's words in verse 94 meant that Moses physically seized him by his head and beard? Are you not aware of figure of speech in the Arabic language?

Fourthly, you claim a pretty clear chastisement in these verses. It is obviously not clear if others do not see what you claim to see. 242 and 244 are examples of what a pretty clear chastisement is. 538 is an example of what a pretty clear chastisement is. There is no mentioning of GOD nor Moses doing Anything to Aaron for allowing Bani Israel to make their idol and he gave his reason as to why he did not stand in their way. He did not wish to be the source of division and discord among the people.

NOW, we can get back to verses 95 and 96. You will notice in verse 87 that it was Samiri who aroused Bani Israel to make the idol. Notice that in verses 92 and 93 Moses questioned Aaron. Notice in verse 94 Aaron replied to Moses and told him Why he did not try to stop them. And notice in verse 95 how Moses questioned Samiri. In the following verse, 96, Samiri also gave his reply to Moses as to why he did what he did. And then we see in verse 97 the chastisement/punishment/consequence Moses lays on Samiri. He expels him from the jama'a and destroys his idol.

But what was done TO Aaron? Or What was done WITH Aaron? What chastisement/punishment/consequence did Moses hand to Aaron? Moses asked Aaron about what he did and Aaron replied to him and gave his excuse. Nothing was done. Moses asked Samiri the same thing as Aaron and, like Aaron, he gave his excuse for which he was excommunicated and his idol destroyed.

Also notice in 254 the verbal lashing Moses gives to Bani Israel for doing this. He told them to repent to GOD and to kill their egos/desires.

He didn't do anything to Aaron and neither did GOD.

You are right about one thing, Aaron's concerns do reflect my own. However, it is because you have not thoroughly studied the entire passage that you came to the conclusion that Aaron's concerns were misdirected and misinformed. Also, you should never rely on an English translation and base your understanding on the translators assumptions placed in brackets and parentheses. Nowhere in the original text does it say that Moses grabbed Aaron by his head or his beard.

If I tell you or anywhere else here not to jump down my throat, how are you going to interpret that? There's only two ways to interpret it. Literally or figuratively.

You decide...

First thing, calm down a bit. You're getting on others here about "assuming" and yet you did the exact same thing with me. I did not assume one single bit. You go on and on about how I don't understand what "figure of speech" is and how I use parentheses.

The truth is......

ready for it.......?

I pasted it exactly from the Ahmed Ali translation. I did not add those parentheses. I did not say anything about Moses "physically" grabbing Aaron. I merely pasted a translation. And why did I do it? In one of your posts, you said you agree with Ahmed Ali's translation. So I pasted the very translation you agree with. All these problems you have, take them up with Mr. Ali, not me.

Stop assuming.

Now onto the non-attacking substance of your post

But what was done TO Aaron? Or What was done WITH Aaron? What chastisement/punishment/consequence did Moses hand to Aaron?

You go on and on about "figure of speech" yet you've failed to understand it yourself. A "chastisement" does not have to be anything physical, nor does some "consequence" have to befall Aaron for it to be a chastisement. It can simply mean to "criticize severely" and that's how most of us, I would think, are using it. Moses did not have to execute his brother to chastise him. He did criticize him, obviously. If not, then why would Aaron even have to make an excuse in the first place?

Also notice in 254 the verbal lashing Moses gives to Bani Israel for doing this. He told them to repent to GOD and to kill their egos/desires.

He didn't do anything to Aaron and neither did GOD.

This is simply not true. I'll paste again from Ahmed Ali's translation (which you like). Note I did not add anything. This is purely from Ahmed Ali's translation. This is from surah 7

"150. When Moses returned to his people, indignant and grieved, he said "How wickedly you behaved in my absence. Why must you hasten the decree of your Lord?" And he cast aside the tablets, and pulled his brother by the hair. "O son of my mother," said (Aaron), "these people took advantage of my weakness and almost killed me. Do not let my enemies rejoice at my plight, and do not put me down among transgressors."
151. (Moses) said "O Lord, forgive me and my brother, and admit us to Your grace, for You are the most compassionate of all."

Did Moses not repent here? Did he not ask for forgiveness from God for he and his brother?

CavemanDoctor

Peace Damon,

I apologize for the emotions in my last post. I got ahead of myself and reacted, in a way I shouldn't have.

unknownuser

Peace Anwar,

Damon, you and I talked about this before I think. I understand where you are coming from but I think you are coming at it from the wrong angle

Yes, I remember our conversation. But why do you think that I'm coming at it from the wrong angle?

Well, the first question is this Why do you believe that Muslim or Islam is a Quranic title we should use to refer to ourselves?

Quranic Title? No. Quranic Description? Yes. Descriptions are used to Describe how and where an individual or group of people differ from another individual or group of people. It just so happens that GOD has given the description of muslim to those who Submit and follow the laws laid out in His Book.

Although peacemaking is only ONE meaning of Islam it is still only one. The other, most important in my opinion is 'submission' which in most places in the Quran referred to God who is mentioned in the context. That submission can validly be understood as making peace with God, however.

Like anybody else here who studies or have studied Arabic I am well aware of the many different meanings of 'islam' and the root that it comes from 's-l-m'. But remember when we last talked that I told you how it irks me that people can start going into "well, what does this word mean?....how do you translate that word? etc" and next thing you know we have been taken way off the original topic. Remember You, Tanveer, Samia and myself when back and forth in that one ramadan thread about translation and context issues, but that's what that thread was about to begin with. So I don't mind it if that is the pretext that a thread is started in. But I do mind it when a thread is not about translation, but about a concept or idea or understanding that is derived from many verses of the quran in general and not from one or two words that people want to translate and to make as the new topic.

So, again my question is why do you believe that Islam is a divinely appointed title that we should adhere to?

Islam? Title? I didn't say that bro. I said that I am content with calling myself a muslim without the adjectives of quran alone or quran only added to it. And I wouldn't tell people that it's divinely appointed because that is not my understanding.

The second question we will go for after that is

Where is the line drawn between a description and a sectarian title?

This is only my understanding and I can only speak for myself. But for me the line is drawn when one starts adding adjectives to the description. Hence Islam and Quran only Islam. Muslim and Quran only Muslim. Sunni Islam. Sunni Muslim. Ibadi Muslim. Ismaeliyy Muslim. Maliki. Shafee'e, Kharijite, Free-minder, 19'er, etc. This is where I personally draw the line as of late. Rembember that I used to take on those labels myself, but I no longer do so.

p.s. Bro, I think you overeacted on Samia because of her use of naif (spelled naive). If it was to insult you or not, I don't know. However, I did not find her post insulting or condescending when she first responded to you.

That's possible. Maybe she didn't mean it as an insult. She never corrected me and told me that I misunderstood her post either.

To me it was condescending and out of place because she went into things I did not go into myself.

Peace,
Damon.