Reply to Edip Yuksel

yazeed

http//mentalbondageinthenameofgod.wordpress.com/mullah-edip-yuksel/

Edip Yuksel insists on serving Stone Idol carved by the Arabs

From Farukhos@??

To [email protected]

Cc [email protected]

Date Saturday, July 19, 2003 131 PM

Subject Answering Edip Yuksel?s Critics

Salamun Alaikum everyone.

The intelligent thing to do when confronted with anything new would be to study it carefully and then make up our minds if it is true or false. For example when the 19 theory was first put out, we studied it and gave it the due respect. But only upon further study did we realize that it was just a hoax.

A new book has come out. Its called ?The Arab Conspiracies Against Islam?. Edip Yuksel, a long time member of the Rashad Khalifa outfit and a believer of many things have made rather negative and also contradictory comments about this book. His comments are also premature and without much thought.

Its worth seeing his ?reply? and provide some rebuttal.

Edip Yuksel starts his reply by titling it as follows

?Conspiracy Against Conspiracies or Words in the Wonderland? by Edip Yuksel. Edip?s response is marked after three arrows in Italic.

Today, I had the chance to browse part of the 200 plus page ?article? mailed to me by Danish. The author of The Arab Conspiracies Against Islam, Aidid Safar, expresses his position with an eloquent and powerful argument. I agree with some of his arguments and disagree with the most. I find some of his arguments being inconsequential word choice, such as the meaning of DYN being way of life rather than religion, which I think, ultimately means the same thing.>>>

In almost the same breath Edip describes the Article with these words eloquent, powerful, agreeable, disagreeable, inconsequential and ?means the same thing?. These are contradictory terms reflecting an undecided yet hasty thought process.

?Deen? is not and cannot be religion. Religion is pagan and is invariably tied to ritualistic behaviour especially worship rituals that must be repetitive. That is religion.

The Cambridge Dictionary says about religion

(Cambridge Advanced Learner?s Dictionary) religion noun

1 the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship the Christian religion

2 INFORMAL an activity which someone is extremely enthusiastic about and does regularly Football is a religion for these people.

This description is accurate. Religion is also tied to the belief in ?spooks? which comes disguised as ?spirituality?. For example traditionally angels and the devil are ?believed? to be part of the ?spiritual? world. All this has gone into defining religion, across all ?religions? in the world.

Deen on the other hand cannot be worship of a God or gods, and it is not a ritualistic repetitive Process of worshipping anything. Deen is a way of life, an orderly way of doing things. The Cambridge Dictionary says an ?order? can also be a system.

From Cambridge Advanced Learner?s Dictionary) order (SYSTEM) noun

For example when God says, ?Maliki yaum-mid-deen? it just cannot mean ?Master of the Day of Religion?. That is ridiculous. It can only mean, ?Master of the day of Order?, an understanding correctly expressed by Mr Pervez and also Syed Abdul Wadud. That is the day when everything between the heavens and the earth (fii samaa waa ti wa maa fil ardh) will come to Him, and submit to Him, willingly or unwillingly. Everything will fall into line. This includes the stars and the mountains.

Everything will ultimately follow the order that is set by God. Hence God is the Master (Malik) of setting things in order or ?Deen?. And when applied to the actions required to be performed in our daily life, it means the way we should conduct our lives, an ORDERLY way of doing things right. A way of life.

?Deen? is indeed a way of life while religion does not mean the same thing.

Aidid Safar has explained clearly in his book that the word shia?an (shiah) is the correct word for ?ritual and worship? aka ?religion?. Aidid has quoted 3779-87, which says clearly that the people of Abraham (who were serving stone idols) were in a ?shiiaatihi? or religion. Many translators including Rashad say shiaatihi means ?sect?. This is incorrect. The people around Abraham were ritually ?serving? idols. That was their religion or shia?an. There is no indication in the Quran that they were broken up into sects (meaning sects within a larger religion).

However, his argument aiming to eliminate Salaat and Hajj rituals are radical, yet fragile and unsupported. His arguments against rituals occasionally appear strong when they are compared to the traditional corrupt interpretation of some verses. In other words, the strength of his position mostly relies on the weakness of mushrik Sunni and Shiite (mis) translation of Quranic verses.>>>

Here again Edip contradicts himself. Edip himself beliefs in 5 times (or is it 3 times) a day ritual prayer (wrongly understood as salat) and Edip himself believes in performing the haj rituals. How then is Edip different from the ?weakness of mushrik Sunni and Shiite (mis)translation of Quranic verses? which uphold the same beliefs ?

The mushriks believe in salat as prayer and performing the ?pilgrimage? ritual. Edip believes in the same thing. Is it Edip?s contentions that when the mushriks pray ritually (3 or 5 times a day) they are mistranslating but when he prays 3 or 5 times a day it is not mistranslating? When the mushriks perform a pilgrimage to a stone building, it is a mistranslation but when he does the same pilgrimage (perhaps with a different set of movements) then it is not mistranslating?

On the contrary the facts put forward by Aidid Safar are a complete and total departure from the commonality of BOTH Edip Yuksel and the mushriks. Aidid Safar has proven completely that there is no ritual prayer and no ritual pilgrimage. Therefore as a point of accuracy Aidid Safar is not influenced positively or negatively by the commonality between Edip Yuksel and the ?mushrik mistranslations?.

Currently, I do not have time nor desire to evaluate all of his arguments, since it might take a similar book to demonstrate the numerous errors, speculations, and unjustified inferences.>>>

Dear Sir, no one asked you to evaluate anything. But it would be good for your own well being if you try harder to analyse Aidid Safar.

But, I would like to briefly note the following>>>

Aidid asserts that SaLLY means not prayer, but commitment. There is some truth in this statement.>>>

Pray tell what is the meaning of ?some truth?? Truth is truth. There cannot be ?some truth? or half a truth. It is either true or not true. But again as a point of accuracy, Aidid Safar has stated that there is NO one English word to capture the full meaning of salat. Hence Aidid has said that the meaning of salat would include commitment, obligations, ties, links, bonds, undertaking responsibilities etc.

Aidid has also provided the linguistic examples of ?sabiq and musalli? where a horse that comes in a close second is a ?musalli?. Other examples given are ?salat? is the hinge on the door. One more is ?salat? is the vertebrae that links an animal?s tail to its backbone. All this mentioned in Aidid?s book. The meaning portrayed is clearly that salat is a word that ties, binds, holds, commits, obliges one thing to another.

And Aidid also states clearly that nowhere in the Quran are humans required to ?salat? to God. The closest is ?fa solli li robbika? which means ?therefore (uphold) your commitments FOR God?. There is never a verse in the Quran, which says, ?you shall Salat TO God?.

The word SaLLY, when it is not used together with the verb IQaMa, usually means support and encouragement.>>>

This is an exercise in uncertainty. What is meant by ?usually means?? Is there a ?not usually? also, when it could mean something else? Then do we go about separating the ?usually? occurrences from the ?not usually? occurrences?

We are reminded of the ?fat on the back? versus the ?fat on the stomach/front?. Even a veterinary surgeon would not know where the ?fat on the back? ends and the ?fat on the stomach? begins.

What about ?idzaa qum tum ila-s-solaati? in 56? How or why would one ?stand? or ?uphold? TOWARDS (ilaa) prayer? Or is it ?stand TOWARDS support or encouragement?? Please do not forget the ?ila?. It is NOT an inconsequential word.

For instance, I translated the verse 7443 in my Turkish translation, Mesaj ?They will say ?We did not support??. Similarly I translated the verse 7531 in Mesaj ?He neither accepted the truth, nor he supported.? I also translated the word Salla to mean support in verses 2157; 999,103; and 3343,56. Furthermore, I agree with Aidid that in verse 5106 the word Salla may not mean the salaat ritual.>>>

That is quite a lot of agreement, seven verses in all. Yet you say, ?his argument aiming to eliminate Salaat and Hajj rituals are radical, yet fragile and unsupported.? Well at least for seven verses Aidid Safar is supported by Edip Yuksel?s translation too (or closes to it anyway).

However, when the word Salat is used with verb IQaMa it refers to a timely ritual preceded by ablution. His arguments on those verses are not convincing.>>>

Dear Sir, and the cow jumped over the moon. Where in the Quran does it say that ?when the word Salat is used with verb IQaMa it refers to a timely ritual preceded by ablution?? Please show us what is the word in the Quran for ablution? This is a new discovery for me and please inform me so that I too may know the correct word in the Quran for ?ablution?.

Until today I am searching for the word ?wuduk? in the Quran which the ?mushrik mistranslators? say is ablution but I still cannot find this elusive word. Please tell us what is the word in the Quran for ?ablution??

In page 19 he provides a list of words claiming that their meanings have been distorted. Though I agree with him partially, for instance that the meaning of SaLLY has been distorted in verses I listed above, and the meaning of the word MaQaM (in re Abraham) is mistranslated as footprint; however he goes extreme in his fight against the conspiracy theory and reaches to bizarre conclusions.>>>

The Quran states clearly that the Arabs conspired against the Prophet and Rasul. They took to secret counsel. They whispered among themselves. They schemed against the Messenger. All this is in the Quran. They plotted, planned, and schemed against the messenger. They conspired against the Messenger.

For instance, Aidid want us stop ?worshiping God? and start ?serving God? on the basis that God does not need our worship. But, he ignores the validity of the same question for serving God. Surely, God does not need our service either. When a wrong question is asked you can be sure that the answer will also be wrong. We worship God not because God needs our worship, but because we need it.>>>

This is twisting the words around. God does not need anything from us. And Aidid Safar is quite clear about this too. Never in the book does Aidid say that God needs our ?service?. But it is we who need to serve God. It is we who must uphold His commandments. In the Quran the human being is obliged to ?aqeemud deen? or ?establish the way? prescribed by Him.

In 6162 the human being is commanded ?Say, my commitments, my actions, my life and death are for God, the Lord of the Universe?.

God does not need our salat, our actions, our life and death but yet all these are FOR God. Again please note that we do not serve up on a platter our life and death TO God. They are always FOR God (LILL-LAAH). We never serve up our lives and deaths TO God. Similarly we never perform a salat TO God. Our salat is always FOR God.

If you say TO God, then you need rituals like ?praying? 5 times or 3 times a day TO God. Or doing ?worship? to God exactly like how the mushriks pray TO their deities.

Aidid asserts that the word el-BaYT (singular form) which has been traditionally translated as THE HOUSE, usually referring to the public building raised by Abraham and his children in Mecca, should be translated as SYSTEM. He claims that HaJJ, the annual PILGRIM to the House in Mecca, should be understood as CHALLENGE OR DISCOURSE. He is suggesting new meanings to old words. I would welcome such a radical move if he had provided a substantial Quranic and logical reason to do so.>>>

You have failed to comment on the verses where Aidid has indeed explained hajj and bayt. It would have been better to analyse the verses quoted. Try this, in 2226 the Quran says Abraham was given a place in God?s ?Bayta?. Are you saying Abraham was sharing the ?house? with God?

Where did you get the idea God? is staying in Mecca? Are you suggesting God?s house is a symbol similar to those in the temples?

The traditional meanings of the word BaYT and HaJJ explain all the verses where they occur without forcing our imagination, but the so-called ?fundamental meanings? suggested by Aidid are usually beyond my imagination.>>>

Excuse me sir, just earlier you said the traditional meanings would be those put out by the sunni and shiah mushrikins. Now you are saying that the ?traditional meanings? explains everything. You cannot call them mushrikin one minute and then agree with their explanation another minute.

Let me explain 2127 is about raising the foundation of the House. Like Aidid, I can imagine this to be about laying the foundation of a new system.>>>

I am unsure here. You agree this Bayti here is ?system?? You seem to know Arabic well but why do you ignore the prefix ?Minal? before the word ?Bayti? in this verse? Abraham did not raise the foundation ?OF? the system, but he raised the foundation ?From? the system. The system was already there!

2158 is about visiting the House. I cannot imagine this to be about ?challenging or discourse to God?s system? (al-BaYT in the context of Hajj does not carry a negative connotation, but is associated to Abraham and God in the Quran.>>>

There is no such thing as the word ?visiting? in this verse. The mushrikin mistranslators have said ?visiting?. Which one are you following?

595 asks us making sure that offerings reach the KA?Ba.>>>

There is no word for ?offerings?. Please research ?hadyan? carefully. Aidid Safar has dealt with this word quite well. This is shooting from the hip without checking.

I cannot imagine it to be about ?to determine the ?ankles?? or ?guides maturity the ankle? meaning ?they must determine the maturity of the deer on its ankles? as suggested by the author. I do not even understand what the author means by these words.>>>

That is your loss. This is getting to be boring. Here is a little hint. There is a word ?baliigha? there. Please pay close attention to the word ?baliigha? which means ?maturity?. Please note that there is no ?hajj? in this verse. I hope your Turkish translation has not slipped in a ?hajj? in this verse. Rashad certainly has. That is called creating new words out of thin air.

There is no pilgrimage or even any hajj here. If you believe this verse talk about pilgrimage, please tell us what is the meaning of ?baliigha? you have used in your Turkish translation? And how does Rashad handle the word ?baliigha?? Simple. He lets the earth swallow it up. The word ?baliigha? has disappeared from Rashad?s translation of 595. Very convenient.

What does your Turkish translation say? I hope you don?t say ?It is a mature Kaabah? or something like that!!

597 tells us that God has consecrated the Ka?bah, the sacred House as a safety for people. But, Aidid wants us to understand it as ?God has set the ?ankles? (ka?bata) the sanctioned in the system (baytil-harami) to be upheld for mankind?. If the word ?ridiculous? or ?nonsense? has a reference in human language and in real life, then Aidid?s translation of this phrase is one of them.>>>

597 did not say ?the ka?bah, the sacred House as a safety for people?. This is Edip?s conspiracy to twist the verse like the rest of the Arabs. Why don?t you read the verse properly? It says, ?Ja-?alal-lahhul-ka?bataal-baytal-harama-qiyaman-linnas?. Where does it says ?safety for the people? Is the word qiyaman-lin-nas meaning ?safety for the people? to you?

In 52, wildlife conservation is a decree from God. Please read it together with 595 and 597 to see the link. Determining the maturity of the animal which someone deliberately killed after agreeing that the animal is prohibited (hurumun) for hunting (so?idi), by looking at its standing on ?its ankles?, is a guidance from God to safeguard animal conservation. This is part of the harmony in the sanctioned system ?Baytal-harama?, a decree prescribed by God mentioned in 52 and punishing illegal hunting in 595. In 597 it simply says it was set by God to be upheld for mankind (qiyaman-lin-nas). Systematic hunting is imposed ?For? the benefit of people as a test to the hunters. Please read 594-98.

But now please try this. If you think bayt is house, then the people are only guaranteed safety if they squeeze ?inside? (dakhalahu) this house (397). So let the entire world become believers, go on ?pilgrimage? to the ?house? and then squeeze inside it to get safety. This is like people wanting to get into Noah?s ?house? to be forgiven. Noah?s physical ?house? becomes a temple of forgiveness.

835 tells us that the prayer of the mushriks by the House was merely hypocrisy (muka) and repulsion from truth (tasdiya). But Aidid Safar wants us to understand it as ?their commitment to the system,? The author does not care about INDA (nearby) or other propositions. He ignores or distorts their meaning to fit his theory.>>>

?Indal bayti? means ?by? the system? not ?Near? the system. The word ?inda? appears all over the Quran and my dear Edip Yuksel, remove your ego. All I can see, perhaps others too, Aidid Safar?s work is a checkmate. The game is over for everybody. Every one of us has to repent and ask forgiveness from our Lord for associating Him with a stone house. Don?t waste your time defending the rock idols carved by the hands of the Arabs.

Let me show you one example. Allah says ?Inaladeena indalaahil Islam? which means ?the only deen ?by? God (indallaah) is Islam?. Also ?indatal shuhuri ?idatal-lah? which means ?the counts of months ?by? Allah is twelve. Perhaps you want everybody to believe ?The Only deen ?Nearby? Allah is Islam? or ?The counts of months ?nearby? Allah is twelve. I don?t get your point. Where did you get the idea the word INDA means ?nearby??

1793 informs us about the demands of disbelievers from Muhammad, including his having a luxurious/adorned house (mansion). Though Aidid does not translate this verse, according to his ?fundamental meaning? we should understand that mushriks expected Muhammad have a luxurious (zukhruf) system! Perhaps, Aidid will change the meaning of ZUKHRUF too, since he does not need much justification as long as it serves his pre-conceived conclusions.>>>

?baytin MIN zukhruufin? means ?system made FROM glitter / perfection / beauty?. In 1793 the rejectors say they will not believe even if the Prophet does all sorts of things, like causing a spring to gush forth, bring gardens, the angels or even God Himself. Even if the Prophet brings a system made from perfection (baytin min zukhruufin), climbs to the sky, or brings a book down from the sky, they will still not believe.

2812 tells the story of Moses being returned to his home/family and quotes his sister saying ?May I show you a people of a HOUSE (family/home) that can raise him and take care of him for you?? >>>

The sister of Moses said, ?adullukum alaa ahli baitin yakfuluunahuu lakum wahum lahuu naasihuun? which means ?let me indicate to you upon members of a ?system? who will take care of him for you, and they will be good for him?. Obviously she was promising them a good set of babysitters. That is all. There is no rocket science here.

According to Aidid this is an Arab conspiracy. The ?fundamental meaning? suggested by Aidid, Moses? sister is talking about a people of a SYSTEM. In Aidid?s imagination, all the individual BAYTs (house/building) are destroyed to build a SYSTEM with no rituals. BYUT (Houses), on the other hand, are spared. They are houses!>>>

I believe Aidid has given sufficient examples where buyut differs from bayta and bayat.

In Aidid?s fundamentally non-Arabic semantic world, Pharaoh?s wife prayed not for a place in paradise/ garden (jannah) but a system in paradise (6611).>>>

So according to you Pharaohs wife asking ?robbi ibni lii indaka baytan fil jannati? would mean ?Lord build for me a house beside You in the Garden?. Pharaoh?s wife was perhaps thinking that the Lord also lives in the Garden. And she would like her house in the Garden to be built right beside the Lord. Imagine how lucky Pharaoh?s wife is going to be (In 6611 God already made her an exemplary ? mathalan ? woman!! ). God is going to be her neighbour! They will play tennis together.

I hope Edip realizes how ridiculous this sounds if a woman who is quoted BY GOD Himself as an example for us (mathalan) asks that God become her neighbour in Paradise!! There is no evidence in the Quran that God even lives in Paradise or that God can even live in the Garden or that we will even have houses in Paradise. Why would we need houses in Paradise when God says we will suffer no heat, cold or hunger in Paradise?

?Robbi ibni lii indaka baytan fil jannati? means Lord make / favour (?ibnii?) for me by Your side a system in the Garden? She is merely asking that God favour her with a good position in the Garden by His reckoning. That is all. No rocket science needed again. Unless of course you insist that God lives in a Garden and that you can be His next door neighbour. Imagine getting up in the morning (well if you have a house you must sleep at night and get up in the morning right?) and chatting with God your neighbour over the fence?? That is cool.

I suppose, Aidid has all the skills to change the meaning of every word in the Quran, including the word Jannah.>>>

Aidid has lots of common sense.

The house of the lady transforms to the lady?s system dwelled by Joseph (1223),>>>

The lady in 1223 had certain ?jahil? habits or habits from the days of ignorance, similar to what is stated in the Quran as the ignorance of the ?ahlul bayt? in 3333-34. Aidid has quoted this in the book. In 3333 Allah tells the wives of the prophet to give up their jahiliyah or ignorant characters or habits. Then in the next verse He says ?Innama yuriidullaahu liyuzhiba ankumu rijsa ahlal bayti wayuthahhiraakum tathiiran? which means ?Surely Allah wants to take out / cleanse you of the dirt / filth of the ahlul bayt (people of the system).

God merely wants to cleanse the prophet?s wives of their old ignorant or jahiliyah habits, which they had when they were part of the jahiliyah system or bayt.

In 1223 the lady who seduced Yusof was also part of this type of jahiliyah system where rich ladies seduced handsome young men to entertain their desires. How do we know this? Please see 1231-33. In 1231 the lady commanded Yusof to ?go out? to the women. This was not to go out and serve them tea. This was to do something else. They all said, ?Yusof is a handsome angel?. Then in 1232 the lady commands Yusof to ?perform? something (in front of all the women). Yusof refuses. What was this performance required of Yusof. The next verse says

Yusof complained to God ?My Lord, the prison is a better place than what they invite me to do. Unless you divert their evil from me, I may desire them and I will be from the the JAHIL (minal jaahiliin)? SURAH 1233.

This was the system or bayt the women were indulged in. Similar to the jahiliyah system of the ahlul bayt in 3333-34.

and God?s system needs to be cleaned by people (2125; 2226).>>>

God?s system is perfect. God?s command about the solaah is also perfect. But just like upholding the solaah, it is up to the human to cleanse or maintain in good order the system designed for us by God. God has created a perfect earth but it is up to us NOT to corrupt the earth.

The Quran too is perfect. We have to uphold the Quran and not give lies to it.

Again, according to Aidid?s dictionary, God caused the Prophet get out of his system with the truth>>>

Excuse me, I suppose your understanding is that ?God took you out of your house with the Truth? ?kamaa akhrajaka rabbuka min baytika bil haqq?.

Question Why would God want to take the Messenger out of the house? Is there something bad in the house? And why does God need to use the truth to get him out of his house? Was there some falsehood inside the house or was the Messenger using some falsehood as an excuse NOT to come out of his house to do something God wanted him to do? Perhaps Edip can answer this question.

From 81 till 86 talks about believers who have come to believe God and obey the Rasul. They are those upon whom is forgiveness and they have earned a high station by their Lord (84). And in 85 that is also how God took out (kamaa akhrajaka) the Messenger from his own system with the truth and made him believes and obeys God. It was a migration from an old bayt or system to a new one.

In short, in Aidid?s Wonderland, place of worships (masaajid) transforms to submissions (yes, plural!); timely prayers transform to timely commitments; ?worshiping God? is rejected and replaced by ?serving God?; the Sacred House Ka?ba vanishes into ?the ?ankles? the sanctioned in the system? (the ankles are literally the ankles of deer and goats!); verbs and proverbs are ignored whenever they do not conspire with Aidid against Arab Conspiracies; nouns and verbs act like transsexuals in a ?fundamental? way where the meanings are freshly assigned by Aidid to justify his bizarre theories. This is another abuse and exploitation of the Quran Alone message. Aidid is not the first nor will be the last brave warrior who will use the powerful message of the Quran Alone against tradition to justify esoteric and absurd claims. In an overpopulated world any conspiracy theory and any absurd idea will find some followers. We should let the Arab conspirators and non-Arab counter-conspirators deal with each other. As long as there are wind mills there will be Don Quixotes and their admirers. Peace for all of them! Thank God, I do not own any wind mill.>>>

I believe Edip Yuksel is the owner of a large windmill called the Theory of the 19. There certainly is a lot of wind in that mill. If you believe that solat is prayer, please let us have some basic info. For example, what is the literal meaning of ?solat? in your understanding?

Every arab word must have some meaning. So what is solat? If you say solat is ?prayer? please show us.

Who do you pray to, because God just forgot to mention that you should ?solat TO Him?.

Please show just one verse from the Quran.

What do you do in this ?solat? prayer? What would you say? Why would you do or say what you do and say? Did the Quran tell you to face the stone house in Mecca when your pray?

Please show just one verse from the Quran.

If you believe the Kaaba is God?s house, and that you must go to this Kaaba, then what do you do once you get there? Please explain from the Quran because if true then we must all do it too. Such information if presented intelligently and properly will be of great benefit to mankind. Who would want to miss out on a pilgrimage to the desert to walk around a cubical piece of stone.

Farook Hossein

Footnote Edip Yuksel is the successor of the late Rashad Khalifa the founder of the Code 19 sect. Rashad?s claim of the miraculous numerical code was proven to be a hoax.
13 Responses

Kemal, on June 5, 2010 at 0030 said

Salamun Alaikum Aidid

I came across Edip?s claims of your wonderland through a friend by email a few weeks back. I had many questions in my head about why he agreed on some things and rejected the majority as he said. After reading your replies I have come to the conclusion that people are still holding onto the traditional meanings but simply trying to change its face, thus the problems between the sects of how many prayers there are, how you perform it etc is a barrier to their understanding of how they will fit in the rituals behind their man made religions. Its a bit like they have taken an old house and trying to patch it up, when clearly the foundations are too weak. Break it down and build the house again I say.
I have just this week finished reading your book ?Mental Bondage? and it has been such an eye opener. Being a muslim all my life although not a practicing one, I embarked on a journey last september to research into Islam and find out more as I was getting conflicting view points through family members. After going through many books and view points, I went through a complete circle and ended up more confused than when I had first started. The main sticking point was the rituals/traditions and the different intepretations of them. But having read your book I am more in line with your view of Islam than any sect or denomination of Islam out there. I therefore, thankyou and may Allah be pleased with you for making this site and all the hard work that has gone into it.

Peace

Kemal
faisal, on June 7, 2010 at 2014 said

The Submitters sect is a bit obsessed about the 19 code miracle. Now I haven?t checked through all the facts but it is true that they are 114 chapters in Quran which is a multiple of 19. On the other hand I have also checked their claim that in Surah Noon, the number of letter noon?s is a multiple of 19 ? this is incorrect. They also claim that they are two false verses in the Quran which can be proven to be false by the 19 code. The irony is that they base their claim on a HADEETH, which is remarkable since they reject Hadeeth ( and rightly so ) of the Prophet and also despite God saying that he will protect the Quran and that no falsehood can enter it. They also claim that the number of units from the ritual prayer, when put side by side, is a number which is divisible by 19. I think this is one reason why again they believe in the ritual prayer. But one has to first of all prove that ritual prayer is discussed in the Quran ? which it isn?t. They believe in the rituals also because they say that it was handed down from Abraham through the generations. However, we know what God has to say about following your forefathers ? not good at all.
Anon, on June 8, 2010 at 0809 said

Since we are talking about ?Submitters?, I?d like to share my discovery which runs contrary to one of their claims. The supposed first revelation, Q 961-5, they say, has 19 Arabic words. Last time I checked, there were 20 words in that 5 verses of sura 96 (not 19)! Somehow the Arabic words ?Mim-alif? and ?lam-mim? in verse 4 are combined. Are they supposed to get combined as one word? (Is that even a question worth asking anyway?)
Anon, on June 8, 2010 at 0812 said

*Correction Somehow the Arabic words ?Mim-alif? and ?lam-mim? in verse 5 are combined.
Aidid Safar, on June 8, 2010 at 0850 said

I am still wondering how ?19 can change a man or woman to become a better person in doing good deeds according to the Quran. And most importantly, how can the 19 prevent them from worshipping the stone idols in Mecca?
Sajid Koroth, on June 8, 2010 at 1758 said

Dear Aidid,
The dialogue between Edip Yuksel and Farook Hossein found to be very interesting . Farook has represented the quranic meaning very well to Edip in line with Aidid?s thought, Now , undoubtdely going to be the thought of humanity. Indeed Edip had a reasonable restrictions which was developed of his own to accept the truth, but I beleive he is almost near to the truth and will accept the truth one day. Since he is also a Quran transalator and well read person he may get the real quranic values one day. Insha Allah. These types of discussion will certainly help people like us and should be encouraged. We want more and more dialogue which is unfortunately forbidden in the the Muslim world, especially on Quran. We need to disect and compare word by word traditional and actual meaning to reach the most logical meaning. While reading the dialogue we have travelled with Abraham , yousaf , byti , kaa?ba and pharoh?s wife and ofcourse the most hot topic traditional ?Solaa?. Infact I beleive the traditional Solaa is making the Muslim world so lazy and confined soceity. Due to the traditional solaa and other traditional rituals the 50 plus nations become so backward comparing to the other counter parts of the world. Look at the Muslim world there is no interruption never ever for their 5 times prayer, fasting etc since more than 1000 of years. They are very much committed to prayer rituals rather than actual commitmence . I am sorry to compare such way . But being a part of society we have to analize ourselves to see what impact or change brings your ideology with in you. If this book cannot reform you then there is a big problem with our understanding. Because quran is everlasting and pure and the best guideline to living. Lets reserach and find out what Allah really wants from us.
Quran 5728 assures you double benefit.
Wa Salam
Allahu Nooru Samawathi Wal Arlu.
Mohammad Ali, on June 19, 2010 at 0755 said

I admire Edip?s courage to a great deal to challenge the old views. However, there were other big parties playing in the game of conspiracies against Islam and unfortunately Man?s vested interests always plays an upper hand. Most of the cooked history i.e. Hadith literature were not cooked by Arabs but by Persians. In fact the collection of so called Hadiths occurred 200 years after Muhammad (PBUH) death. Moreover, they (Persians read the history of all the Imams and Mohadis) began to write volumes over volumes of Tafseers on the basis of cooked literature which was the biggest debacle against Islam or Humanity as Whole. As Quran rightly said that they think that they have become Muslim but rather Muhammad (PBUH) they have subdued. Regarding Edip?s view of Batullah and its irrelevance with Kabbah is correct but one have to consider Kabbah was the first Symbol of Monotheism which is quite rightly the basis of Islam. Moreover, Sufism and other alien crap associated with Islam has its roots in Christianity (Byzantine Empire) hand Sub-continent. Now where is the essence of the problem?? The problem occurred when Khalifat was toppled and turned into Monarchy in early ages of Islam, and consequently every Monarch knew the threat of Islam to his powers so naturally they had to ask their courtiers to corrupt the Ideology by fabricating alien literature and associate it with Islam like King is Allah?s Shadow on earth and other crap. As time progressed more idiotic and illogical material was associated and later on Jews, Majoosees and other were asked for help to corrupt it so no one can point finger on the Kings. Most of these monarchs had great help from Persians Majosees.

I will say that we our for-fathers were all equally to be blamed for what was a great movement created by Muhammad (PBUH) and his followers for the sake of Humanity but the movement was ransacked and crippled. But it is Allah?s Law that as you sow so shall you pay and we as so-called-Muslims are paying price through misery, defeat, calamities and dis-honor in all fronts of Human beings and Nations.
faisal, on June 19, 2010 at 0818 said

Talking about history is fine ? if you were a witness to it that is. Since we believe and know the Quran to be true, the ?essence of the problem? as you say really lies with the distortions of the Quran by the Arabs which God calls the biggest hypocrites and disbeleivers. The answer lies in the same book whose meanings they have attempted to distort, but which God has promised to protect despite their scheming.
Syafiq Iskandar, on November 26, 2010 at 1021 said

Salam to Kemal & everybody,

You?re right, people still hold the old traditional beliefs, whatever proof come to them, they?re still not believe.

Religion is the bigest trap. Im facing same situation as you. Nobody in my family members believe when I show to them many proof from Quran alone.

I grew up in religious family, first time when I read MBITNOG, it?s not easy to accept. Since I was a small boy, I always doubt whatever my parent doing related to this Arab religion. Ritual prayer, worship box building in Mecca and so on.

But i afraid to question all of these. I realize that all religion in the world are same. Their followers simbolize God. But each religion claimed their are right and others are wrong.

After study carefully through Quran, what Aidid wrote and what I doubted my lifetime are make sense.

In my country(Malaysia) it is very sensitive to discuss this topic; not only openly in public also through internet.

You will be jailed under Security Act 2 years without trial if discussing or questioning about this Arab religion. The Arab-centric mind is very strong among the muslims here. My x-PMs and current also worship that stone.
No chance to wake up the people.

The central goverment has blocked few blogs that discussing these matters.

To Aidid, there are no more http//www.tolokminda.wordpress.com. Do you know any other blogs?
nazzri, on November 27, 2010 at 1032 said

Salam Syafiq Iskandar

You have to change your DNS setting to OpenDNS.
Preferred DNS server 208.67.222.222
Alternate DNS server 208.67.220.220
nazzri, on November 27, 2010 at 1037 said

Salam

Once changed, you can now browse to that site.
There is one forum I know that is quite active, but you have to change your DNS setting to OPenDNS before you can reach to that site.

http//www.e-mindakita.com/

HTH.
Syafiq Iskandar, on November 28, 2010 at 1441 said

thanks brother nazzri,

may Allah guides us??.
Jang Hertog, on October 4, 2011 at 2334 said

Edip don?t have courage to free him self from old wrong view, he claimed that way of life is religion??.oh common?.way of life could be anything not only religion?..stupid!

Layth

Salam,

I am in agreement with Edip on this.

Many of the findings in this book are "sloppy" at best "misleading" at worst.

yazeed

Mr.lyth,
it been more then 4 yrs almost of aidid safar book's.....
now if any misleading is there as you supposed, it need to be exposed esp on topic of sallat

Layth

Dear Yazeed,

it been more then 4 yrs almost of aidid safar book's.....
now if any misleading is there as you supposed, it need to be exposed esp on topic of sallat

There already exists on this site more than one article that deals with "Salat" with its relevant verses from the Quran.

As for Aidid's work - just because there is no article or page here on Free-Minds dedicated to its refutation does not mean that the work holds water (there are thousands of works which do not have a peep from us here - does that mean they are credible?).

yazeed

"There already exists on this site more than one article that deals with "Salat" with its relevant verses from the Quran.

As for Aidid's work - just because there is no article or page here on Free-Minds dedicated to its refutation does not mean that the work holds water (there are thousands of works which do not have a peep from us here - does that mean they are credible?). "

Dear Lyth,

Show anyone one article/ page which can refute Aidid Safar claim`s logically n from Qur'an, Since both your group ( Aidid + you n ur group) claim to be Muslims n Closer to Qur'an, so it is necessary on your part to expose if any valid argument is there

Edip_Yuksel

I did not have chance to read this response, but the author of the article appears to be commiting logical fallacies left and right.. Here are just two examples

"In almost the same breath Edip describes the Article with these words eloquent, powerful, agreeable, disagreeable, inconsequential and ?means the same thing?. These are contradictory terms reflecting an undecided yet hasty thought process."

This is called EITHER/OR fallacy. The author expects me either reject the entire article or accept it entirely. He cannot fathom that an article or a book might have some valid and even excellent arguments, while also, at the same time have some invalid and terrible arguments.

Now read my introductory paragraph that the critics consider hasty "Today, I had the chance to browse part of the 200 plus page ?article? mailed to me by Danish. The author of The Arab Conspiracies Against Islam, Aidid Safar, expresses his position with an eloquent and powerful argument. I agree with some of his arguments and disagree with the most. I find some of his arguments being inconsequential word choice, such as the meaning of DYN being way of life rather than religion, which I think, ultimately means the same thing."

It is obvious that my introductory paragraph is furthest from being hasty since it acknowledges the the shades of color, rather than white or black.

The author commits another logical fallacy when states the following

""The mushriks believe in salat as prayer and performing the ?pilgrimage? ritual. Edip believes in the same thing."

Let me employ the same fallacy The mushriks beleive in the Quran and the critic believes in the same thing. The mushriks beileve in helping the poor, and the critic believes in the same thing. The mushriks consider walking nude is bad idea, the critic believes the same thing. So what? The mushriks drink orange juice and the critic drinks it too.

Here, I would like to commit the fallacy of hasty generalization in retailation to my critic

I have no time for a critic who have problem with critical thinking.

Peace,
Edip

yazeed

Dear Edip Yuksel,

Tell me weather you agreed "commitment" term for word "Solaat" as used by Aidid Safar ?

Rgds

Yazeed

yazeed

.......... and if not then kindly provide logical ans pls

KDC501

Tell me weather you agreed "commitment" term for word "Solaat" as used by Aidid Safar ?

I have heard this argument before and I am sorry to say that this is a failed argument. By using simple context anyone with a little common sense can see that Salat is a PHYSICAL RITUAL prayer. You cannot use the word Salat to mean commitments since the context doesn't fit.

2238 Preserve the contact prayers, and the middle contact prayer, and stand devoutly for God.

2239 But if you are in a state of worry, then you may do so while walking or riding. If you become secure, then remember God as He has taught you what you did not know.

If salat meant commitments then why would anyone worry about doing it in cases where they are preoccupied. Wouldn't they do it some other time??? confused Also did you notice the phrase "state of worry".

What about Solomon and his horses....

3831 When, during dusk, well trained horses were displayed before him
3832 He said, "I enjoyed the good of materials more than I enjoyed remembering my Lord, until it became totally dark!"
3833 "Send them back." He then rubbed their legs and necks.

In the case above it is my view that Solomon missed the middle pray. If Salat meant commitments than why couldn't Solomon do it some other time. Why is he so obsessed about the fact that it became totally dark and he forgot to 'remember' or 'give commemoration ' to God . Also shouldn't his uneasiness about missing 'remembrance' or 'commemoration of God' during a specific time of the day imply that commitments is not what he was talking about.

What about this verse....

4102 If you are with them and hold the contact prayer for them, then let a group from amongst them stand with you and let them bring their weapons; when they have prostrated then let them stand guard from behind; let a group who has not yet contacted come and contact with you, and let them be wary and let them bring their weapons with them. The ingrates hope that you would neglect your weapons and goods so they can come upon you in one blow. There is no sin upon you if you are impeded by rainfall, or if you are ill, that you keep from placing down your weapons. Be wary. God has prepared for the ingrates a humiliating retribution.

How can salat here mean commitments in the above verse. Doesn't this verse imply Salat is a physical ritual prayer that has to done? Why would any solider guard someone during war time to do a simple thing like commitments??? Doesn't this show that Salat is something more than commitments?

The above verse when when read and thought through carefully should be sufficient proof that Salat does not mean commitment. Salat is a physical ritual prayer. The history of the people of the Book should also be a clear proof that Salat is a physical ritual that has be in existence for centuries.

2278 Strive in the cause of God properly. He is the One who has chosen you, and He has made no hardship for you in the system, the creed of your father Abraham; He is the One who named you 'those who have peacefully surrendered' from before as well as in this. So let the messenger be witness over you and you be witness over people. So hold the contact prayer and contribute towards betterment and hold tight to God, He is your patron. What an excellent Patron, and what an excellent Supporter.

I have argued this case on the forum before and so far no one has been able to give me a straight answer to refute the proofs which I gave from the Quran. So if you are serious about debating the issue then I welcome it.

Peace,

Kevin

Mr_Q

Salam,

I read the beginning of this thread but had to leave town and these are some of the exact same examples, posted above, were ones I was thinking of posting when I came back. I agree, Salat is a ritual prayer, along with ablution with and without water. The Rites and Rituals decreed by God, and also the Commandments on our Code of Conduct are not meaningless actions, nor are they symbolic nor are they "optional" for believers.

Our Religion is the totality of our practices, our righteous works, both physical and mental.

KDC501

Salam,

I read the beginning of this thread but had to leave town and these are some of the exact same examples, posted above, were ones I was thinking of posting when I came back. I agree, Salat is a ritual prayer, along with ablution with and without water. The Rites and Rituals decreed by God, and also the Commandments on our Code of Conduct are not meaningless actions, nor are they symbolic nor are they "optional" for believers.

Our Religion is the totality of our practices, our righteous works, both physical and mental.

Mr.Q makes a good point. I have been reading some of threads on this forum about those who don't believe in ritual prayers or any ritual practices. Two of there most famous arguments are that God doesn't need rituals and rituals have no real purpose so why should we do them. What they fail to realize is that it has absolutely nothing to do about God. Rituals are not meant for God, they are meant for us. God commanded us to do them. If you want to call yourself a true servant of God you do as you are commanded to do. You don't do what you feel when you feel like it. The only people that do those sort of things are disbelievers.

Peace,

Kevin.

Bigmo

I am going to say something here as I think that this is a very important subject and strikes at the heart of how many Koranist interpret the Koran. I am not going to dwell on the specifics but iw ant to say something abouyt the strategy used by many Koranist when they approach the Koran.

First of all Aidid strikes me as a linguistic, that is he tends to interpret the Koran only through linguistic understanding. That is always problematic because the way the Koran uses language varies from verse to verse. So when the Koran says "they have a sickness in their hearts" this is very different than how a doctor or surgeon understands heart sickness. Trrying to interpret the Koran only on a linguistic basis is very tricky. We know the Koran can use the same term variantly, sometimes allegorically and sometimes literally. It is always best to interpret the Koran linguistically but also contextually and also logically. By looking at how the Koran sees things in general, and how it fits with human logic we can understand the Koran better. The Koran should be seen as a whole and not in parts and pieces.

Second. Their seems to be a misunderstanding what rituals are. Rituals are a means to an end but not an end by itself as the Sects believe. Sunnis or Shias generally see rituals as an end to itself which is why they tell you that you must pray this way or that. They can say your prayers in "batil" meaning wrong and won't be accepted. They also believe in time frames and so on. So a monotheist and a polytheist could both be doing identical rituals but for a different theology. There is nothing called a "pagan ritual". Its only pagan when its dedicated to many gods.

Third, I think its always wise to take a glance at the previous scriptures to see how these scriptures understood religion and then compare that with the Koran. Too many Koranist simply ignore the previous scriptures. The previous scriptures can offer many insights as to how religion was understood. And this can gives us insights into what the Koran generally means and how the Koran understands rituals.

Koranist who come from a Muslim background generally struggle with the issue of legalism and ritualism. Paul was the same thing. he came from a Pharisaic background and probably was the only Gospel character who came from that background. he struggled with the law. Pharisaic Judaism (Rabbinic Judaism) is very simlar to Islam in that its very legalistic and ritualistic. Jesus's disciples did not have the same issues that Paul had. They did not come from this very legalistic and ritualistic background. Often many Koranist generally tend to shun ritualism as they see it void of any spirituality. But this could be only because of the Islamic background they come from and how they see Muslims practice rituals. Rituals are a very human thing and exist in almost all societies and religions. They are a convenient way for people to have a collective faith.

But their is a problem how many here see paganism. Pagnism is very differnt than how many people think it is. There is a very good lecture by a professor from yale that outlines the main difference between paganism and monotheism. As can be seen in this lecture, paganism is a theological process and not just rituals and legalism.

http//academicearth.org/lectures/biblical-religion

This lecture is absolutely crucial in understanding paganism. Too many Koranist throw the pagan label and shirk label without understanding what it all means.

Mazhar

So when the Koran says "they have a sickness in their hearts" this is very different than how a doctor or surgeon understands heart sickness.

This changes the subject and predicate of Arabic sentence. The subject is "a disease", and the prepositional phrase is relating to the elided predicate, in the inverted Arabic sentence.

Word by Word-210

kamking

I agree with Kevin,

You shall settle down in your homes, and do not mingle with the people excessively, like you used to do in the old days of ignorance. You shall observe the Contact Prayers (Salat), and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), and obey GOD and His messenger. GOD wishes to remove all unholiness from you, O you who live around the Sacred Shrine, and to purify you completely.

Remember what is being recited in your homes of GOD's revelations and the wisdom inherent therein. GOD is Sublime, Cognizant.

It seems Salat is a ritual, Wives of the Prophet were oredered told to stay at home , as much as possible or most of the time , and Observe Salat and Give Zakat . if salat is not ritual then what is it ? some believe that salat means to go out and do good deeds. was Prophet's Wives's salat different from the rest of us or the same , i trust its the same salat which has been ordained to mankind.

Bigmo

Mr.Q makes a good point. I have been reading some of threads on this forum about those who don't believe in ritual prayers or any ritual practices. Two of there most famous arguments are that God doesn't need rituals and rituals have no real purpose so why should we do them. What they fail to realize is that it has absolutely nothing to do about God. Rituals are not meant for God, they are meant for us. God commanded us to do them. If you want to call yourself a true servant of God you do as you are commanded to do. You don't do what you feel when you feel like it. The only people that do those sort of things are disbelievers.

Peace,

Kevin.

I don't like this talk of disbelievers. Its a disrespect for that term. A disbeliever will not waste time with the Koran. And if religion was just a tradition, a disbeliever will follow the Sunni/Shia sect as that is what the tradition follows. He or she would not waste their time here. If people find that there are other ways to worship God and if that is what they feel moves them closer to God then why should we criticize them?

Whatever they believe salat is, if they do it consistently and do it sincerely then why should it matter? After all the Koran did command people to follow a Qibla only to downplay it later on. Its not cool running around calling others disbelievrs. That is what brought down the salafi persuasion. Trust me, a disbeliever will not waste their time except to critique the Koran.

Edip_Yuksel

.......... and if not then kindly provide logical ans pls

I will inshallah. I need to read the article, which is too long and has a bad format.

Peace,
Edip

GODsubmitter

I agree with KDC501, the Salat, as a contact prayer, is a gift from God, and it is good for us!
God doesn't need anything from us, we came down to this Earth to repent and correct our subconscious doubt about God Alone!

KDC501

I don't like this talk of disbelievers. Its a disrespect for that term. A disbeliever will not waste time with the Koran. And if religion was just a tradition, a disbeliever will follow the Sunni/Shia sect as that is what the tradition follows. He or she would not waste their time here. If people find that there are other ways to worship God and if that is what they feel moves them closer to God then why should we criticize them?

Whatever they believe salat is, if they do it consistently and do it sincerely then why should it matter? After all the Koran did command people to follow a Qibla only to downplay it later on. Its not cool running around calling others disbelievrs. That is what brought down the salafi persuasion. Trust me, a disbeliever will not waste their time except to critique the Koran.

I never called anyone on this forum a disbeliever. I said those who don't do what God commanded them to do and do whatever they feel when they feel like it are disbelievers.

Peace,

Kevin

Mr_Q

Salam,

We dont need to call anyone a disbeliever. God describes them by their actions and ways of thinking. It is He alone who defines what a disbeliever is.

For example, God calls the devil a disbeliever, even though the devil certainly "believes" in God. He knew Him personally! But he is a disbeliever because he disobeys God and does not lead a righteous life by upholding and following Gods Commanments.

They, "disbelievers", are also described in the Quran, as those who do not respond to God, or do not worship God in the manner He decreed, or do not obey Him, or do not believe in His Revelations, or do not uphold His Commandments or practice the Religion He has decreed. This description includes people who say "I believe" yet fail to become "Righteous" and fail to follow His Path or practice their religion seriously. That's a huge point to understand; that many people who say they "believe" are classified by God as "disbelievers" because of what they do and do not do.

God just defines and describes these terms and categories of people but it is our choices and behavior in our lives that put ourselves into any of them. Its the Test of this life and we will invariably choose where we will end up.

Bigmo

Salam,

We dont need to call anyone a disbeliever. God describes them by their actions and ways of thinking. It is He alone who defines what a disbeliever is.

For example, God calls the devil a disbeliever, even though the devil certainly "believes" in God. He knew Him personally! But he is a disbeliever because he disobeys God and does not lead a righteous life by upholding and following Gods Commanments.

They, "disbelievers", are also described in the Quran, as those who do not respond to God, or do not worship God in the manner He decreed, or do not obey Him, or do not believe in His Revelations, or do not uphold His Commandments or practice the Religion He has decreed. This description includes people who say "I believe" yet fail to become "Righteous" and fail to follow His Path or practice their religion seriously. That's a huge point to understand; that many people who say they "believe" are classified by God as "disbelievers" because of what they do and do not do.

God just defines and describes these terms and categories of people but it is our choices and behavior in our lives that put ourselves into any of them. Its the Test of this life and we will invariably choose where we will end up.

The devil is not a good example as he is not invloved in faith as humans are. Plus it was not just Satan's disobedience that put him in a conflict with God but also the reasons he gave why he disobeyed God. Mainly arrogance and envy. We meanwhile have only faith to go by. That is the whole point of the devil's contract with God. The criteria God gave for humans is believing that God is one and the hereafter. Trying to move away from that criteria will lead us all astray as it had with the sects who introduced other concepts and criteria for faith. We are in fact to them disbelievers, not because we deny God and the hereafter, but because we are "deniers of the Sunnah and outside the consensus of the Ummah".

We come from many backgrounds, but many of us come from religious background where terms like kufr, haram and shirk are used generously. But a glance at the Koran reveals to us that these terms are very heavy terms not to be used casually whenever someone disagrees with us or has an alternative interpretation of the Koran than us. We must not start interpreting kufr the way we think, but how the Koran uses that term.