SECTARIANISM is what's killing us!!!!
-
Salaams Damon,
A very good understanding of the subject matter, if i may say so.
a mumin can work side by side with a muslim and a mushrik in order to establish deen in the land and work for a better society.
but you got to agree that for a mushrik to become your brother - he cannot be a mushrik any longer, so you cannot call such a person mushrik can you?
911
But (even so), if they (mushriks) repent, establish regular prayers (i would say establish counsel), and practise regular charity(....and be forthcoming),- they are your brethren in Faith..........Salaam.
-
Peace,
Okay Damon, maybe I asked the wrong question. Why must we use the Arabic word Muslim, and what do you think this word means?
I guess the issue of translation ad understanding the Arabic is actually key here. It is not a game of seeing who knows more Arabic either or trying to undermine those who know less, but how we should be understanding these Arabic words.So to me Muslim is an Arabic word that does not convey what I know it means in Old Arabic when we use it in English (or in Modern Arabic for that matter). For that reason I do not find it as an accurate descriptive in anyway. The Quran uses the word submissive (Muslim) in context with God. So, in essence what you are saying is that we should just all call oursevles submissives/submitters without qualifying Quran alone etc. Why Muslim when we know that in Old Arabic this word has nothing to do with God on its own and we must add 'to God' to make it have some significance to the Quran's message (as the Quran also gives it reference to God)?
- When you start saying that God calls us Muslims in the Quran you make it a title, not a descriptive. Muslim really has no innate meaning in English. It doesn't mean kind, godly, pious or submissive to God and cannot be used interchangeably with these ideas in any language (not even Old Arabic). So when you say we should call ourselves just Muslims you are in essence saying that this is our title, because whereas Quranist innately describes what a person follows, Muslim does not (in English or in Arabic). And if you think that the Quran calls us Muslims this worries me that you are reading the word Muslim and thinking of it as a title instead of understanding it (translating it) for the idea that is behind it, i.e. submissiveness. It seems like you are seeing Muslim/Islam and not being able to get past the widespread modern meaning of it as a religious system, or our religion. Remember that when the Quran was revealed no such thing existed and this word only meant what we translate into in English (submissive, peacemaker etc). When you try to separate it from these true, original meanings you turn it into a title and not a description. Remember again a description has to have meaning. What does Muslim on its own mean? When you describe someone as kind, nice, godly, pious, submissive to God these all have innate meaning, they communicate ideas. What idea does the word Muslim and the word Islam communicate?
If it does not have innate meaning and has to be given one then it is a title and not a description.
Godbless,
Anwar - When you start saying that God calls us Muslims in the Quran you make it a title, not a descriptive. Muslim really has no innate meaning in English. It doesn't mean kind, godly, pious or submissive to God and cannot be used interchangeably with these ideas in any language (not even Old Arabic). So when you say we should call ourselves just Muslims you are in essence saying that this is our title, because whereas Quranist innately describes what a person follows, Muslim does not (in English or in Arabic). And if you think that the Quran calls us Muslims this worries me that you are reading the word Muslim and thinking of it as a title instead of understanding it (translating it) for the idea that is behind it, i.e. submissiveness. It seems like you are seeing Muslim/Islam and not being able to get past the widespread modern meaning of it as a religious system, or our religion. Remember that when the Quran was revealed no such thing existed and this word only meant what we translate into in English (submissive, peacemaker etc). When you try to separate it from these true, original meanings you turn it into a title and not a description. Remember again a description has to have meaning. What does Muslim on its own mean? When you describe someone as kind, nice, godly, pious, submissive to God these all have innate meaning, they communicate ideas. What idea does the word Muslim and the word Islam communicate?
-
Salaams Damon,
A very good understanding of the subject matter, if i may say so.
but you got to agree that for a mushrik to become your brother - he cannot be a mushrik any longer, so you cannot call such a person mushrik can you?
911
But (even so), if they (mushriks) repent, establish regular prayers (i would say establish counsel), and practise regular charity(....and be forthcoming),- they are your brethren in Faith..........Salaam.
Salaams MZ,
Perhaps you are right, but I do not agree with your rendition of 911. The original text doesn't say that they are our brothers in Faith (Eemaan), it says that they are our brothers in the System/Order/Judgement (Deen). I also do not agree with the understanding of prayer (from salat) in this context.
But, I also have to say that GOD calls them idolaters in the verses before verse 11, but verse 11 doesn't give me any indication that they have given up taken partners with GOD just because they submitted to matters of the System/Order/Judgement (Deen).
Peace,
Damon. -
Peace,
The reason I thought of 911 was that even though they were mushrikeen/polytheists, God commands us to see/treat them as akhw/allies/brothers in the deen/obligation/system if they fulfill certain criteria .
So if one extends this to Traditional Muslims, their beliefs can be thought of as irrelevant as long as they fulfill the criteria to be regarded as akhw/brothers/allies.This is what I was getting at in my response to your first post. I believe that most people misinterpret 911 as meaning that we have to unite with the mushrikeen (traditional so-called muslims) on ALL things including matters of faith in GOD and I don't necessarily see it as so. I believe that we CAN extend this to traditional muslims as well as Christians because 911 says they can fullfill the criteria to be our akhw/brothers/allies in the Deen and being allies in the Deen does not mean (at least to my understanding) having the same faith or spiritual views of GOD. Being allies in the "Deen" is not the same as being allies in "Eemaan". Hence the correction the messenger made to the 'Arabs in 4914. Deen and Eemaan are not the same. Also Muslim and Mumin are not the same either.
As it concerns this I think we should remember the use of the word deen in the context of the king of Egypt in Joseph's time within the Quran, God bless him. Deen has also to do with legal obligation i.e. rule. Rules among people equal civilization/society. This is where madeenah comes from. It is a place of rule (written or unwritten). it is not the wild west where anybody can do whatever they want. That is not a madeenah. Also let's consider Salat. I am of the strict Classical Arabic school when it comes to this word. I see it as Prayer, Petition or Blessing, and that is it (it is not a verbal noun of form II). As it concerns Zakaat I see this as goodness, justness, wholesome growth, & purity, and that it is also not a verbal noun of form II). So to me those who take others as equals to God, polythiests being the most obvious of these, who take asylum with Quranists, who give us their blessing (Aqaamoo (from IV) Alsaalata) and who conform to goodness and justness (Aatoo (form IV & III) azakaata) are to be our brothers in our civilization, our way of life, our rule. That means that although they betray God in their hearts whoever give us their blessings and is just and good we are to treat as brothers as it concerns our rule, our way of life, our civilization. No they are not brothers in our faith. And because the Arabic word Muslim means submissive and peacemaker (Damon we have to translate to understand what this word is really saying. Muslim on its own has no meaning), we must understand that the Arab tribes (Al-A'raabu is plural to refer to Arabs in plural i.e. their different tribes) made peace/were submissive to Muhamamd (God bless him) but they did not have faith in him and his message.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace Anwar,
Okay Damon, maybe I asked the wrong question. Why must we use the Arabic word Muslim, and what do you think this word means?
I guess the issue of translation ad understanding the Arabic is actually key here. It is not a game of seeing who knows more Arabic either or trying to undermine those who know less, but how we should be understanding these Arabic words.Oh bro, I really am not trying to go in that direction. Trust me, It Will eventually detract from the original subject sooner or later. It's a given. But let me give you this answer. I NEVER said that we Must use the Arabic word muslim. I simply said that I am content with being a muslim without any adjectives in front of it, such as quran only or sunni muslim. I can't see how that is equal to saying that we must use the Arabic word muslim. If it will make you all feel better, for the sake of this discussion, we don't have to say muslim. I have no problem saying 'submissive one' or 'one who surrenders'.
So to me Muslim is an Arabic word that does not convey what I know it means in Old Arabic when we use it in English (or in Modern Arabic for that matter). For that reason I do not find it as an accurate descriptive in anyway. The Quran uses the word submissive (Muslim) in context with God. So, in essence what you are saying is that we should just all call oursevles submissives/submitters without qualifying Quran alone etc.
Yes, that's exactly what I am saying.
Why Muslim when we know that in Old Arabic this word has nothing to do with God on its own and we must add 'to God' to make it have some significance to the Quran's message (as the Quran also gives it reference to God)?
We have had this disussion before. You already know that everyone is familiar with the context this word is used in when it comes to the quran and the understanding that is obtained from that usage.
- When you start saying that God calls us Muslims in the Quran you make it a title, not a descriptive.
I disagree that I am making it a title. It is not my intention to make it a title nor is it the mindset that I am operating under. GOD uses that description for a reason. When I use it, I stick to that reason.
Muslim really has no innate meaning in English. It doesn't mean kind, godly, pious or submissive to God and cannot be used interchangeably with these ideas in any language (not even Old Arabic).
So when you say we should call ourselves just Muslims you are in essence saying that this is our title, because whereas Quranist innately describes what a person follows, Muslim does not (in English or in Arabic).Bro, how can you say that me using the word 'muslim' is making a title when it is used in the quran, but you want to erect a title of your own that is not in the quran? (the word quranist).
And if you think that the Quran calls us Muslims this worries me that you are reading the word Muslim and thinking of it as a title instead of understanding it (translating it) for the idea that is behind it, i.e. submissiveness.
You totally misunderstand me if you do think this. You have to read my posts to Ayman to see where I'm coming from and where you are misunderstanding me.
It seems like you are seeing Muslim/Islam and not being able to get past the widespread modern meaning of it as a religious system, or our religion.
Okay, here you are Dead Wrong!! This is a bad assumption on your part bro.
Remember that when the Quran was revealed no such thing existed and this word only meant what we translate into in English (submissive, peacemaker etc). When you try to separate it from these true, original meanings you turn it into a title and not a description. Remember again a description has to have meaning. What does Muslim on its own mean? When you describe someone as kind, nice, godly, pious, submissive to God these all have innate meaning, they communicate ideas. What idea does the word Muslim and the word Islam communicate?
If it has not innate meaning and has to be given one then it is a title and not a description.These things I am already aware of.
Peace,
Damon. -
Salaams MZ,
Perhaps you are right, but I do not agree with your rendition of 911. The original text doesn't say that they are our brothers in Faith (Eemaan), it says that they are our brothers in the System/Order/Judgement (Deen). I also do not agree with the understanding of prayer (from salat) in this context.
But, I also have to say that GOD calls them idolaters in the verses before verse 11, but verse 11 doesn't give me any indication that they have given up taken partners with GOD just because they submitted to matters of the System/Order/Judgement (Deen).
Peace,
Damon.Hearts of brothers are joined ? not physically.
3103
And hold fast, all together, by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah's favour on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus doth Allah make His Signs clear to you That ye may be guided.The brothers of unbelievers are unbelievers.
3156
O ye who believe! Be not like the Unbelievers, who say of their brethren??.From above;
The brothers of you, believers can only be believers.
So how can your brother be a mushrik ? in 911?
but verse 11 doesn't give me any indication that they have given up taken partners with GOD
Was it ever anything to do with setting up partners with any God?!
God Bless All.
-
Peace Anwar,
Thank you for attempting to clarify the issues for Damon.
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.
I disagree. Mohamed didn't invent a new thing that was not already very well known to the people of the book since the time of Abraham. The fact is that the noun "submission" is NEVER mentioned in the Bible while peace/peacemaking/peacemaker are mentioned no less than 450 times in the Bible. Also, "submission" is incomplete and thus can be taken to mean very bad things, including a sexual fetish, while peacemaking is complete, self explanatory and is inherently good.
Peace (not submission),
Ayman
-
Peace everyone,
Dear Ayman and Anwar,
You have proven my point that I was making all along about how the thread will eventually go from sectarianism into Arabic language, translation and rules of grammar. Look at your posts that you have made in this thread and see how it digresses from the topic of the thread. This is exactly what I was talking about.
If it's all the same to you guys, I will only respond to posts that are dealing with the topic of the thread. I think maybe you guys should start a seperate thread dealing with issues of translation.
Salaam,
Damon. -
Peace Wakas,
The reason I thought of 911 was that even though they were mushrikeen/polytheists, God commands us to see/treat them as akhw/allies/brothers in the deen/obligation/system if they fulfill certain criteria .
This is exactly the point that Damon and many people are still missing. Since we know that the only acceptable obligation is "islam"/peacemaking then when we substitute "deen" for "peacemaking" we can easily get the message of the passage. We can't get anything real when we substitute "submission". We are brothers in peacemaking with all peacemakers, even those who setup partners.
So if one extends this to Traditional Muslims, their beliefs can be thought of as irrelevant as long as they fulfill the criteria to be regarded as akhw/brothers/allies.
The criteria is that they make peace with us by upholding their agreements and bringing forth betterment. So if a Sunni tries to improve his understanding and the understanding of others (bring betterment) and renounces the idea that we should be killed for rejecting Hadiths then he is our brother in peacemaking. The same goes for people who promoted peace such as Ghandi, Martin Luther King, etc.
Unfortunately, most sectarians are not interested in peacemaking. I remember having a discussion with some people at a Mosque about the punishment for stealing and when I explained why the hands shouldn't be amputated, one of the guys there said that if I didn't believe that the hands of the thief should be amputated then this makes me a Kafir and I should be killed. Everyone there seemed to agree. Those sectarians cannot be our brothers in peacemaking. In fact, we should follow the example of the messengers and separate from them and not look for any kind of unity with them as Damon seems to be suggesting.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Salaam mz,
Hearts of brothers are joined ? not physically.
3103
And hold fast, all together, by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah's favour on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus doth Allah make His Signs clear to you That ye may be guided.The brothers of unbelievers are unbelievers.
3156
O ye who believe! Be not like the Unbelievers, who say of their brethren??.From above;
The brothers of you, believers can only be believers.
So how can your brother be a mushrik ? in 911?
Was it ever anything to do with setting up partners with any God?!
God Bless All.
I think where you and I differ is the way we understand ikhwanukum (your allies/comrades/brothers) in 911. I see it as meaning allies or brethren in the establishment of the laws of Deen. I do not see it to mean allies or brethren in matters of faith or belief in GOD. I see this as two seperate arenas. But you raise a really good point though because it does say in 3031-32 that the ones who split this Deen into sects/factions/partisans are actually mushrikeen. And yet, mushrikeen are who is being talked about in 91-11.
Hhmmm. hmm
-
Arnold wrote
Salaam Aleikum,
The sects are formed because of their approach to the Quran, and this counts also for people at Freeminds and "19ers". The religious approach is what creates these rifts as everybody is busy with the game called "Who can acknowledge God in the best way".
This is not the goal of the Quran and not of the Deen, it is about who can benefit Mankind the most. As God does not give thumbs up or down which we can see, this game will go on forever without a clear answer. But benefitting Mankind can be directly seen in this Life as people can give thumbs up or down.
Those that create sects are the ones who are busy with "pleasing God" instead of pleasing Humanity.
1317 He sends down water from the height causing the riverbeds to
flow according to their measure and the flood bears on its surface
swelling foam. And, when they use fire to refine metals for their jewelry
or equipment, foam is produced like it. In this way, God is citing for you
the example of the truth and Falsehood. For, as far as the foam is
concerned, it passes away as scum upon the riverbanks - While what is
of benefit to mankind, abides on earth. This is how God uses analogies
for you to understand.1026 Those who benefit humanity get rewarded manifold. No dust of
sadness and no trace of humiliation will overshadow their faces. Such
are the rightful dwellers of the Garden; they will abide therein.3110 (Since you have been empowered by the Qur?an), you are indeed the best suited Community that has been raised up for the good of mankind. You shall enjoin the Right, by example and close the doors to Wrong, by example, since you have conviction in Allah (and accept His Final Word as the Criterion of Right and Wrong 34. The Qur?an educates you on the Permanent Moral Value System and distinguishes clearly what the otherwise vague terms of ?right? and ?wrong?, and ?good? and ?evil? would mean). Now if the People of the Scripture had attained this kind of belief, it would have been for their own good. Some of them do embrace belief, while most of them continue to drift away.
BINGO!! You hit the jackpot, my friend. You have placed your finger on the wound. This is the real reason why the so-called "Muslims" have been left behind, while other nations (the "Kafir West" has gone ahead in terms of civilization.
The reason is because they have dwarfed the true meaning of submission to God, and restricted the "Deen" to a set of rituals.
Islam is based on 5 things they say. And when we analyse these 5 so-called "pillars", we notice that they are nothing but rituals that contribute absolutely NOTHING to the benefit of humanity and society.They measure the rightiousness of a man by the length of his beard, and the number of "duas" he performs. In their yellowed and diseased tradition books we see hundreds of hadiths that distribute ownership deeds to acres of land in heaven to whomever says 100x per day "Allahu Akbar wa Subannallahi, wal hamdulillahi". Do you catch my drift?? Their entire religion is based on nothing but rituals and empty spoken duas.
Now I ask you What more does the tyrannical Sultan want from the masses?? What stronger opium is there than saying "Pray 5 times, circle a cloth-covered cubical structure 7 times, pay 2.5% annually of your annual savings (straight to the pocket of the Sultan of course- proof increasing poverty and ignorance all over the "Muslim" world ), fast Ramadan, and say the Shahada with your tongues, and PRESTO!! you are guaranteed heaven".
Crying on the tomb of Imam Hussain = ticket to heaven, no questions asked.
Say 33 times per day so and so, before and after bedtime = castle in Janna, no questions asked.As for doing things which actually benefit mankind - PROGRESSIVE THINGS - finding cures for diseases, establishing scientific research centers, GOD FORBID!! The Sultan doesn't like these things. Because progress is HARAM according to the Sultan ( and the pack of "Sheikhs" and "Mullas" who work for him).
In their Islamic libraries you will find hundreds of "Volumes of Knowledge" which discuss the "science of Wuduu" and "proper way of urinating according to Sunna", but you will not find a single volume which discusses the real sciences that actually benefit mankind. These are not important. Let the "Kafir West" take care of these. In the end, they will burn in Hell, and we, who have done nothing but sit on our asses for 14 centuries, are guaranteed Heaven, because we say 33x per day so and so "dua".
Do they ever ask themselves where is the credibilty of the above verse, in light of the current situation of the "Muslim" world?
Perhaps the most horrific corruption of the Deen comes from the definition their hadiths give you of the word "3amal" (work). They confuse "a3mal" (works) with rituals. To them, Salat= 3amal. Moving one's head from side to side like hypnotized sheep as the Shaiekh recites the Koran = 3amal. Murmuring 99 prayers while holding the rosary = 3amal.
What can you expect from such a religion? How does it benefit mankind?
The sadness of the situation is mind-boggling.
-
Peace Ayman,
This is exactly the point that Damon and many people are still missing. Since we know that the only acceptable obligation is "islam"/peacemaking then when we substitute "deen" for "peacemaking" we can easily get the message of the passage. We can't get anything real when we substitute "submission". We are brothers in peacemaking with all peacemakers, even those who setup partners.
Where are you getting the idea that I am missing this point?? Read my last three posts to Wakas, mz, proGod and Arnold Yasin and you will see that this is exactly my point. What are you talking about? I get the feeling that you are not reading my posts thoroughly but are merely looking for certain things to key in on and argue with me about them. I Never Once through out this entire thread said that "Deen" means "submission" or that I equate "Deen" with the idea of religion.
Unfortunately, most sectarians are not interested in peacemaking. I remember having a discussion with some people at a Mosque about the punishment for stealing and when I explained why the hands shouldn't be amputated, one of the guys there said that if I didn't believe that the hands of the thief should be amputated then this makes me a Kafir and I should be killed.
Everyone here should be well aware of this, hence my statement of how delicate and tricky it would be to work with the traditional so-called muslims in establishing the Deen in it's purity while Not becoming guilty of seperatism/divisionism ourselves.
Everyone there seemed to agree. Those sectarians cannot be our brothers in peacemaking. In fact, we should follow the example of the messengers and separate from them and not look for any kind of unity with them as Damon seems to be suggesting.
Only in matters of Deen as GOD says in 911. That is, if they mend their ways and stand firm in the salaat and the purification/betterment. In that case we are not only permitted to unite with them, but as per my understanding of 911 we are indeed obliged to do so.
-
Peace Pazuzu,
Arnold wrote
BINGO!! You hit the jackpot, my friend. You have placed your finger on the wound. This is the real reason why the so-called "Muslims" have been left behind, while other nations (the "Kafir West" has gone ahead in terms of civilization.
The reason is because they have dwarfed the true meaning of submission to God, and restricted the "Deen" to a set of rituals.
Islam is based on 5 things they say. And when we analyse these 5 so-called "pillars", we notice that they are nothing but rituals that contribute absolutely NOTHING to the benefit of humanity and society.They measure the rightiousness of a man by the length of his beard, and the number of "duas" he performs. In their yellowed and diseased tradition books we see hundreds of hadiths that distribute ownership deeds to acres of land in heaven to whomever says 100x per day "Allahu Akbar wa Subannallahi, wal hamdulillahi". Do you catch my drift?? Their entire religion is based on nothing but rituals and empty spoken duas.
Now I ask you What more does the tyrannical Sultan want from the masses?? What stronger opium is there than saying "Pray 5 times, circle a cloth-covered cubical structure 7 times, pay 2.5% annually of your annual savings (straight to the pocket of the Sultan of course- proof increasing poverty and ignorance all over the "Muslim" world ), fast Ramadan, and say the Shahada with your tongues, and PRESTO!! you are guaranteed heaven".
Crying on the tomb of Imam Hussain = ticket to heaven, no questions asked.
Say 33 times per day so and so, before and after bedtime = castle in Janna, no questions asked.As for doing things which actually benefit mankind - PROGRESSIVE THINGS - finding cures for diseases, establishing scientific research centers, GOD FORBID!! The Sultan doesn't like these things. Because progress is HARAM according to the Sultan ( and the pack of "Sheikhs" and "Mullas" who work for him).
In their Islamic libraries you will find hundreds of "Volumes of Knowledge" which discuss the "science of Wuduu" and "proper way of urinating according to Sunna", but you will not find a single volume which discusses the real sciences that actually benefit mankind. These are not important. Let the "Kafir West" take care of these. In the end, they will burn in Hell, and we, who have done nothing but sit on our asses for 14 centuries, are guaranteed Heaven, because we say 33x per day so and so "dua".
Do they ever ask themselves where is the credibilty of the above verse, in light of the current situation of the "Muslim" world?
Perhaps the most horrific corruption of the Deen comes from the definition their hadiths give you of the word "3amal" (work). They confuse "a3mal" (works) with rituals. To them, Salat= 3amal. Moving one's head from side to side like hypnotized sheep as the Shaiekh recites the Koran = 3amal. Murmuring 99 prayers while holding the rosary = 3amal.
What can you expect from such a religion? How does it benefit mankind?
The sadness of the situation is mind-boggling.
I agree with everything you said here and of course I agree with Arnold Yasin as well. The question now is, how do WE work to establish the Deen in the land, extend a hand of unity towards the traditional muslims (as well as Christians and Jews for that matter ) without drawing a line in the sand and setting up our own camps and becoming guilty sectarianism as they have?
Remember, sectarianism is not merely a school of thought within traditional so-called islam. It is dividing the Deen and GOD's message in His Book into different man-made religions (traditional islam included) that is the idea behind sectarianism as far as what the quran is talking about.
Salaam,
Damon. -
Peace Damon,
What about the hindus? Should we unite with them as well? And the atheist?
Nadeem
Peace Nadeem. I would say yes, as long as our union is strictly based on working together in establishing laws in the land that come from the quran. As far as their idol worship of many gods (Hindus) and their rejection of GOD entirely (atheists) are not our concern. That is between them and GOD. He is the one who will judge them on matters of Eeman (faith/belief). We are only dutybound to work with whoever is willing to work towards establishing quranic laws in the land for the benefit of humanity. It has nothing to do with faith or their religious beliefs.
-
Peace Damon,
I agree. How about possible positions in society?
Can for example a hindu participate in the legislative branch of the government?
Can a hindu be 'head of state' in an islamic country?
Would a hindus reading of the quran be of any regard?
Nadeem
-
Peace Nadeem,
Can for example a hindu participate in the legislative branch of the government?
I would say so because the constitution of the government (if implemented correctly) would not allow space and loopholes for people to impose their religious ideas into it. So that means a Christian or a so-called traditional muslim can participate as well, because the constitution will not and should not include ideas coming from hadeeth books, The Bible or The Vedas.
Can a hindu be 'head of state' in an islamic country?
Anyone who abides by the constitution and implements it correctly can be head of state. I think the quran speaks of two seperate things Deen and its implementation is one thing and Eemaan is another thing.
Would a hindus reading of the quran be of any regard?
Can you elaborate on this question?
Peace,
Damon. -
Peace everyone,
Dear Ayman and Anwar,
You have proven my point that I was making all along about how the thread will eventually go from sectarianism into Arabic language, translation and rules of grammar. Look at your posts that you have made in this thread and see how it digresses from the topic of the thread. This is exactly what I was talking about.
If it's all the same to you guys, I will only respond to posts that are dealing with the topic of the thread. I think maybe you guys should start a seperate thread dealing with issues of translation.
Salaam,
Damon.If you are going to be honest to yourself, it was very clear that would happen from the beginning, and inevitable, in any case. It's not a bad thing at all. Is he not correct?
You are using the logic "Muslim is left untranslated because everyone understands what it means" whereas the counter-logic is "everyone differs on its meaning but not its common noun meaning". Very simply, the terms should never be left untranslated otherwise it ITSELF creates sectarian division.
What are you, a Christian, Jew, or a "Muslim"? This is the equivalent of asking, by using the common noun, "What are you, a muslim, a muslim, or a muslim?". By using the proper noun and leaving it untranslated, you automatically attach your own perceptions to the word and CREATE SECTARIAN DIVISION. This is not a hard concept to understand, and your original article preaches exactly against this. Stand up to the truth
There is no need to differentiate ourselves as "Muslim" in comparison to the vast majority of humanity who submit willingly, or unwillingly to the creator.
"Muslim" itself, other than being a ridiculous proper noun, does not seem to have been used in Pre-Sunni times. They are described as Moors, Muhajers, Muhammadans, Saracens, and other names, but NEVER "Muslims" - clearly "Muslim", or to non-Arabs, "Blah blah", the ridiculous sectarian term of distinction came into use after the Moors were crippled (silly geese, Spain is nice and my Muslimhood would have gotten me cheaper travel there, sigh).
Onto the original topic, the common noun vs proper noun debate is intertwined in any case, because the very labels of "Islam" and "Muslim" cause disunity between mankind. Many people on Earth aside from the true rejectors will claim/act as believers described in the Quran - those who do good works, and take responsibility for their own actions (this is directly related to believing in the last day, but obviously not the same thing) - it is human nature to do good, it is not human nature to call yourselves "Muslim". You attempted to use the "God assigns us this description" argument - when you show a quran not in Arabic where God calls us "Muslim", you can use your terms untranslated. Until then, please do not distort the meanings - because every untranslated word turns it into a proper noun, and remember, the overwhelming majority of "Muslims" are not Arabic and have not been since early "Islam" - BUT, the overwhelming majority of submitters to God have any language, and have existed since mankind, dare I say, prior to. The language barrier makes it a proper noun, when it is a common noun, the same as for words such as "deen", "salam", "jinn", "salat", "hajj", "zakat" and so on, and so on, and opens the doorway for exploitation of the language barrier and hence, mass stupidity (though that's a "<=>" relationship).
Do me a favour, find your local "Quran hafeez" and tell him to a) recite a surah and b) give the meaning. Most fall straight down on b).
This causes far worse than any percieved sectarian division, because it changes the percieved master copy of "Islam" into a religion full of rituals to an unpercievable God, when the scripture is for the benefit and guidance of mankind, and has always been.
What's killing "us" literally is stagnation of the mind, and in certain cases where people claim to be the "true us", JDAMs.
-
If you are going to be honest to yourself, it was very clear that would happen from the beginning, and inevitable, in any case. It's not a bad thing at all. Is he not correct?
Correct about what? And if you are going to be honest with yourself, you should know that any thread can be allowed to digress from topic or the participants can choose to stay on course. And it is a bad thing when the original topic is completely lost and certain people take a thread into an altogether different direction. Why do you think we have the offtopic icon?
You are using the logic "Muslim is left untranslated because everyone understands what it means"
Wrong again!! I am using the logic of "Muslim is left untranslated because 1). I know that people will always choose how to word their translation and understanding of the word and when they come across others who word it differently or understand how to apply its translation differently than them, then we have the disagreement that we are seeing from Anwar and AYman in this very thread. You can see this for yourself. They are not going to carry a debate how each of them understand "Deen" and "Islam" and whether Islam means submissiveness (Anwar's understanding) or if Islam means peacefulness (Ayman's understanding). Go back to page three of this thread and witness this for yourself. THIS is EXACTLY what I was talking about and lo and behold it came true.
My second reason I leave it untranslated is because unlike you, it is not a big deal at all to me. It's not important. The understanding and application of the concept behind the word itself is more important to me. So in all actuality I have no problem with the terms "submitter", "submissive one", "peaceful one" or "one who surrenders", but depending on which of those terms I use, someone will come crawling out of the woodwork and argue me down about the usage of these particular terms for the Arabic word 'muslim'. Look at those words. Ayman and Anwar are at odds on just those words alone. A total waste of time in a thread that is not about translations of Arabic terms.
whereas the counter-logic is "everyone differs on its meaning but not its common noun meaning". Very simply, the terms should never be left untranslated otherwise it ITSELF creates sectarian division.
Like I said, pick your English rendition of this word and there will ALWAYS be someone who will disagree with your word choice and will want to debate you about it and ask you which sources and Arabic dictionaries you are using, etc, etc. I have no time for that crap. To me it is somewhat childish because it can go on endlessly and nothing is accomplished by it.
What are you, a Christian, Jew, or a "Muslim"? This is the equivalent of asking, by using the common noun, "What are you, a muslim, a muslim, or a muslim?".
I am a Believer in the quran and I try my best to be one of the people Abraham speaks to GOD about in 2128
By using the proper noun and leaving it untranslated, you automatically attach your own perceptions to the word and CREATE SECTARIAN DIVISION.
This is nonsense to me. You create division and sectarianism when you decide to attach yourself to a particular camp or school of thought. A simple experiment. Go to a Sunni Mosque and tell them that you are a muslim. You will probably get an Al Hamdullillah response. Then tell them that you don't believe in hadeeth and their scholars and that you go by the Quran Alone and Then see what kind of reaction get. They proudly call themselves Ahlul Sunnah. Tell them that you are from the Ahlul Quran and see what happens. The reaction you will get will be a manifestation of sectarianism...the group vs. group mentality. You can use the word 'muslim' with them all day with no problems. But start going into how you differe from them and then you'll see. Don't kid yourself.
This is not a hard concept to understand, and your original article preaches exactly against this. Stand up to the truth
And what article would you be speaking of?
There is no need to differentiate ourselves as "Muslim" in comparison to the vast majority of humanity who submit willingly, or unwillingly to the creator.
4914 shows a differention between "Muslim" and something else in comparison. The quran also says that the vast majority of humanity not only follow conjecture, but that the majority of them will not believe and come to this way. Humanity is not one as you are trying to claim. Otherwise there would be no clear lines drawn between believers vs disbeleviers and submitters vs rejectors, etc.
"Muslim" itself, other than being a ridiculous proper noun, does not seem to have been used in Pre-Sunni times. They are described as Moors, Muhajers, Muhammadans, Saracens, and other names, but NEVER "Muslims" - clearly "Muslim", or to non-Arabs, "Blah blah", the ridiculous sectarian term of distinction came into use after the Moors were crippled (silly geese, Spain is nice and my Muslimhood would have gotten me cheaper travel there, sigh).
None of this concerns me as my usage and understanding of the word I strictly get from the quran. Not from sunni books or sunni history or from free-minds or 19.org understanding either.
Onto the original topic, the common noun vs proper noun debate is intertwined in any case, because the very labels of "Islam" and "Muslim" cause disunity between mankind
No, it is People who cause disunity between mankind. Post your quranic references proving what you say and I'll post mine.
What's killing "us" literally is stagnation of the mind, and in certain cases where people claim to be the "true us", JDAMs.
I agree with you on this note but I have to add that free-minds forum is not innocent of this. It's a difficult pill to swallow but pretty much undeniable. I'm not saying all members here are guilty of the sectarian US vs THEM mentality, but the responses I have gotten from certain people in this thread solidified my original belief of this mindset existing here.