The Shahada
-
Btw you have ignored other points I raise are you too scared to utter word Jihad. ???And I think when JIHAD is mentioned many more have panic attack &
rotfl Woman woman woman, they will always remember every thing; but what can you say, we can not live without them; they are the fruit of life.
Now back to the issue you are trying to corner me for; What do you want me to do in Jehad? Should I go to Afganistan to fight with or against AlQaida?
-
rotfl Woman woman woman, they will always remember every thing; but what can you say, we can not live without them; they are the fruit of life.
Goes both ways yes
Now back to the issue you are trying to corner me for; What do you want me to do in Jehad? Should I go to Afganistan to fight with or against AlQaida?
Typical concept of Jihad brickwall
For a start understand true concept of Jihad then you can work out where to apply it, especially since you consider yourself Rijal muscle -
Here is the Solution
The New Comer to Islam should say the Following "I Bear Witness that There is no God worth of Worshiping and Obeying except Allah...waits 15 minutes and say the Following "and to worship him, I have to follow the Guidence that was written by his True Messenger Mohamed, the Quidence of Al-Quran.Should say following to convince who ???
Good night
-
satanic innovations called hadiyth which Allah has clearly condemned and this is why you can't find it in the Qur'aan
If I'm not mistaken you with someone else, are you the one who is promoting 5 prayer (Hadith) instead of 3 Prayer (Quran)? Please forgive me if you are not the one. ;D
-
Secondly please read verse 253 of chapter 2
These messengers; we blessed some of them more than others. For example, GOD spoke to one, and we raised some of them to higher ranks. And we gave Jesus, son of Mary, profound miracles and supported him with the Holy Spirit. Had GOD willed, their followers would not have fought with each other, after the clear proofs had come to them. Instead, they disputed among themselves; some of them believed, and some disbelieved. Had GOD willed, they would not have fought. Everything is in accordance with GOD's will
Peace Raj-ah
I want to clarify that the above verse is telling us that God is the one who can rank his prophets as He wishes; but the believers should not rank or favor any of them over the other, as God commanded us in Quran.
Peace -
If I'm not mistaken you with someone else, are you the one who is promoting 5 prayer (Hadith) instead of 3 Prayer (Quran)? Please forgive me if you are not the one. ;D
That is because the 5 prescribed salaat is in the Qur'aan and Tawhiyd has annhilated your 3 Salaat Theory from the roots on up....
http//www.freewebs.com/tawhiyd/3salaattheoryexposed.htm
According to wakas the majority under Progress Moslems believe that there is only 2 salaat and not 3 so who is right under this sect? But nevertheless both theories are refuted and holds no weight in Al Qur'aan.
-
salam alkhidr. i read the article on the website.
the website claims the following verses for identification of prayer times.
2238, 11114, and 2458the times identified are tarfy anahar, wa zulfi min allayl; salat alfajr and salat alisha; alsalat alwusta.
tarfy anahar is ends of the daytime. fajr is one end of daytime, isha is the other end of daytime. isha is zulfi min allayl.
the other prayer identified is salat alwusta.one must be careful about confusing zikr, salat, and dua. a common error. zikr is speaking of the quran, salat is worship, dua is prayer. i have seen a very common error of people calling salat prayer, it is not prayer, dua is prayer. why? because when you ask allah for something, the act of asking is called a prayer. dua in arabic is asking allah for something, therefore dua is prayer. salat is worship.
the only three worship times i see identified are (1) salat alfajr or the first tarfy anahar (2) salat alwusta or the middle prayer and, (3) salat al isha which is zulfi min al layl and the second tarfy anahar.
therefore, with this information we have three worship times specifically identified as time of salat.
allah is the one worthy of worship.
-
Ahmed Bilal
Peace Raj-ah,
It's not "shirk" to say that Mohammed is the messenger of Allah, and I never said it's shirk to state this.then brother what is the all fuss about!
Ahmed Bilal
So, you're using this verse to justify your idolization of Mohammed, by saying he's achieved a "higher rank" among the messengers? Maybe you haven't noticed, but Mohammed's name isn't even mentioned ANYWHERE in this verse at all. So, who raised Mohammed to this "high rank", YOU?
This is a childish logic, "Muhammad's name or any one else's name is not included". How may times Muhammad's name has been included in Quran in total?, but we know that at many places Muhammad is meant and is the subject of the verses. I will provide deatailed answer to this while answering Mr.Behl.
Ahmed Bilal
This is wrong. No BELIEVER can deny that Mohammed is the messenger of Allah, and nobody is disputing this. Mohammed WAS a messenger of God. Abraham was also a messenger of Allah, and I'm sure he never recited a shahaada about Mohammed; but you obviously still don't understand this basic fact. If we practice Islam/Submission and monotheism, following the "Millat Ibraheem"/Religion of Abraham, that means the rites of our rituals are the same ones that Abraham practiced. This is even confirmed in the Torah, that Abraham's salaat, zakaat, hajj, and even wudhu are practiced by submitters today. So, why are you changing the testimony that applies to ALL submitters, the declaration that there is one supreme god and He is WAAHID, by adding a prophet's name to it? This is what makes it "shirk", and the fact that it is NOT included in the Quran is proof enough that it is a manmade innovation.
What is wrong? Yes no believer can deny, so if one utters "Muhammad is Rasul of Allah" what is the problem there?
Again you are going childish, Why Abraham or any other messenger before Muhammad had to recite "Muhammad Rasul Allah".
At first you say it is not Shirk and at last you say it is Shirk! Boy boy you need help.If you bother I also gave reasons why the new Muslims had to recite Muhammad Rasul Allah at the time of prophet, but dear friend you riding on the horse of RK are not ready to read.
-
Peace Raj-ah,
This is a childish logic, "Muhammad's name or any one else's name is not included". How may times Muhammad's name has been included in Quran in total?, but we know that at many places Muhammad is meant and is the subject of the verses.
I truly hope you're not serious... ) So, you're saying that even though the verse clearly only says, "La ilaaha ila Allah" (There is no god except Allah), it actually is IMPLIED that Muhammad's name is supposed to be there too, and even though it's not stated, it SHOULD also say, "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah"? You've gotta be kidding me, man. If the scripture meant to say, "Ash-hadu an Muhammad ar-rasuwlu Allah" as a second testimony after the testification of God's oneness, then IT WOULD SAY IT. Stop your foolish talk...
What is wrong? Yes no believer can deny, so if one utters "Muhammad is Rasul of Allah" what is the problem there?
Again you are going childish, Why Abraham or any other messenger before Muhammad had to recite "Muhammad Rasul Allah".
At first you say it is not Shirk and at last you say it is Shirk! Boy boy you need help.Ummm... Okay... ) Obviously, you're the one who needs help, "boy boy". laugh I never said acknowledging that Muhammad was a messenger of Allah is shirk; if I did, point it out. What I said is adding Muhammad's name into a shahaada dedicated to God ALONE is shirk, and testifying to Muhammad's messengership is a manmade innovation not prescribed by Allah... And let's be serious, "boy boy". Do you actually believe that Abraham or Moses said, "Ash-hadu an Muhammad ar-rasuwlu Allah"? C'mon, man. Muhammad wasn't even born during their times! Please, stop the madness...
You can quote me all you want, and believe whatever you want to believe, but your beliefs have no basis. After all this time, neither you nor Belalhammad have been able to show JUST ONE VERSE in the Quran that states your shirk shahaada. It's not in the Quran. So, where did you get it from? The hadith and sunna writings? A Sunnite masjid or website? WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR SHAHAADA FROM? It's definately not in the Quran, so you are speaking a manmade innovation of Islam, something not prescribed by God. And based on this, you are among the hypocrites who refuse to repent of their fabrications and blasphemies, those who have broken their oath/aymaan to worship God ALONE
The Sunnis attest to this same shahaada, but they reject Muhammad. How so? Because they disregard his teachings. Bearing witness that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah is a manmade innovation, and it is only done by the hypocrites. When they are told of their wrongdoings, they walk away in pride (635) instead of ask for forgiveness and admit their blasphemy. 632 says they have chosen their oath/aymaan as "deceit" because they have deceived themselves into believing they are righteous worshipers of GOD ALONE, even though they are blasphemers who idolize the prophet Muhammad. Yet, they reject Muhammad by not obeying the message he delivered, and when they are informed of them, they become prideful and arrogant instead of repentant. And just like today's sectarians, their hearts become sealed, and "they do not understand" (633).
I suggest you admit your failure and repent, asking Allah for forgiveness, instead of being stubborn and prideful, sturdy in your manmade foolishness. If you refuse to do this, you are just like the hypocrites mentioned in 631-5 who are rejectors.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace Brothers,
I have not gone through the entire thread... But since I embraced true Islam and promised myself to follow only the teachings of the Quran... One of the first thing I did was to research for the Shahada and I could not find the Sunnite shahadah from the Quran... Definitely, manmade through the hadiths fabrications... So I Stick to La Ilaaha Ilallaah... and this one I am 200% sure that it is the one approved by Allah...
However, removing the Muhamad rasoolullah from the Shahada does not mean that I have stopped believing in the messengership of the Muhammad Peace be upon him... On the contrary, I have a stronger feeling of love and respect for this Messenger by following and sticking to the true message he brought...
Now I want to point out something, again... I have not gone through this entire thread so if it has been discussed already, just leave it...
When we are to say Laa Ilaaha Ilallaaah There is not God who deserve to be worshipped except the One True God... It implies that this One True God is Living and He hears us bearing this testimony and so on... I mean these types of witness is for a living being... I mean this shahaada is in the PRESENT TENSE...
Now for the part Ash hadou anna Muhammad rasoolullah... I bear witness that Muhammad IS the messenger of God... Well, this part is also in the present tense... How can we bear such a witness when the Messenger is no more and he is dead?? Should not this part be in the PAST TENSE?? Like Ash hadou anna Muhammad KAANA rasoolullah... Why is it in the present tense... Allah is the All-Living, the Eternal One, So it is perfectly logic to testify that He is the Only God in the present tense... However, for the Muhammad part, logically that part should have been in the past tense... Because Muhammad in not alive now.. So we cannot say HE IS the messenger of Allah...
On the contrary, these words would be perfect... Ash hadou anna haazal Quraan Kalaamoullah... I bear witness that this Quran is the Word of God... I said this one just as an example...
Anyone wanna comment on it?
Regards
Allah knows best
-
Peace WayFinder,
Now for the part Ash hadou anna Muhammad rasoolullah... I bear witness that Muhammad IS the messenger of God... Well, this part is also in the present tense... How can we bear such a witness when the Messenger is no more and he is dead?? Should not this part be in the PAST TENSE?? Like Ash hadou anna Muhammad KAANA rasoolullah... Why is it in the present tense... Allah is the All-Living, the Eternal One, So it is perfectly logic to testify that He is the Only God in the present tense... However, for the Muhammad part, logically that part should have been in the past tense... Because Muhammad in not alive now.. So we cannot say HE IS the messenger of Allah...
This is true regarding his messengership, but Muhammad is not dead; he is alive, as the Quran points out. The believers don't die, they move on to the hereafter, being provided for by Allah (3169), but many don't understand this because we can't physically see them. But the believers are certainly alive, not dead (see 2154). So, it would be accurate to say that Muhammad IS a messenger of Allah, but it is blasphemous to place his name alongside God's, making them "partners". In this sense, in the Sunni shahaada, Muhammad becomes "one of the two", like a partner alongside Allah, and Sunnis can't mention the name of Allah without mentioning Muhammad. This is shirk...
On the contrary, these words would be perfect... Ash hadou anna haazal Quraan Kalaamoullah... I bear witness that this Quran is the Word of God... I said this one just as an example...
This would be true and accurate, but it would still innovate God's message. Attesting that the Quran is the word of Allah is good, and we should all bear witness to this fact. However, placing this shahaada in the same abode with the Quranic shahaada (i.e. "La ilaaha ila Allah" is still shirk and innovation. Since the shahaada is a declaration about God ALONE, we have no place in adding our own words and thoughts to it, no matter how true the statement may be. It is still a manmade innovation. Bearing witness that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah is blasphemous, but stating that Muhammad is a messenger of Allah is not, and it's a true statement. It is the partnering him alongside Allah that makes the statement (i.e. Muhammad ar-rasuwlu Allah) idolatrous, and they do this by bearing witness to this as well as by placing his name alongside God's name. Allah condemns them, and He says throughout the Quran that He is "enough as a witness" regarding His messengers and servants. That means we should NOT bear witness to this. As Brother Al Khidr pointed out, in 619, Allah's name ALONE is mentioned in the shahaada, and when asked regarding the partnering of God with anyone, Muhammad is told, "Qul laa ash-hadu" (or "Say I do not bear witness". Likewise, we should not bear witness to anyone or anything being partnered alongside God. The only proper shahaada is
La ilaaha ila Allah (i.e. There is no god except Allah)
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace WayFinder,
This is true regarding his messengership, but Muhammad is not dead; he is alive, as the Quran points out. The believers don't die, they move on to the hereafter, being provided for by Allah (3169), but many don't understand this because we can't physically see them. But the believers are certainly alive, not dead (see 2154). So, it would be accurate to say that Muhammad IS a messenger of Allah, but it is blasphemous to place his name alongside God's, making them "partners". In this sense, in the Sunni shahaada, Muhammad becomes "one of the two", like a partner alongside Allah, and Sunnis can't mention the name of Allah without mentioning Muhammad. This is shirk...
i KNOW THAT THEY ARE NOT DEAD AND THEY ARE ALIVE 3INDALLAH.... BUT CONCERNING OUR LIVES AND OUR EARTH, THEIR MISSION IS OVER... THE MESSAGE IS DELIVERED AND THE TASK OF MESSENGERSHIP IS OVER... THEY ARE ALIVE 3INDALLAH BUT THEY ARE TOTALLY DISCONNECTED FROM US BECAUSE WE ARE NOT DEAD YET... THESE ARE 2 DIFFERENT WORLDS ISNT IT?
THERE IS A VERSE THAT SAYS, THE DEAD CANNOT HEAR AND EVEN IF THEY COULD HEAR, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REPLY...
SO WHAT ARE WE TO SAY? MUSA,ISA AND MUHAMMAD ARE THE MESSENGERS OF GOD OR WERE THE MESSENGERS OF GOD?
This would be true and accurate, but it would still innovate God's message. Attesting that the Quran is the word of Allah is good, and we should all bear witness to this fact. However, placing this shahaada in the same abode with the Quranic shahaada (i.e. "La ilaaha ila Allah" is still shirk and innovation.
YOU MISUNDERSTOOD ME BROTHER, I USED THIS AS AN EXAMPLE ONLY... JUST TO SHOW THE TENSE OF THE VERB... ATTESTING THE VALUE OF SOMETHING WHICH IS PRESENT AND WE CAN INVESTIGATE ON IT... I DID NEVER INTEND TO ADD THIS PART TO THE SHAHAADA LOL ;D
Since the shahaada is a declaration about God ALONE, we have no place in adding our own words and thoughts to it, no matter how true the statement may be. It is still a manmade innovation. Bearing witness that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah is blasphemous, but stating that Muhammad is a messenger of Allah is not, and it's a true statement. It is the partnering him alongside Allah that makes the statement (i.e. Muhammad ar-rasuwlu Allah) idolatrous, and they do this by bearing witness to this as well as by placing his name alongside God's name. Allah condemns them, and He says throughout the Quran that He is "enough as a witness" regarding His messengers and servants. That means we should NOT bear witness to this. As Brother Al Khidr pointed out, in 619, Allah's name ALONE is mentioned in the shahaada, and when asked regarding the partnering of God with anyone, Muhammad is told, "Qul laa ash-hadu" (or "Say I do not bear witness". Likewise, we should not bear witness to anyone or anything being partnered alongside God. The only proper shahaada is
La ilaaha ila Allah (i.e. There is no god except Allah)
Peace,
Ahmad
-
To All from a Lover of Muhammad (PBUH)
If we read in depth and detail the propaganda of RK sect and progressive Muslims, we will find out that they root back to missionaries and anti Muslim writers, as soon as propaganda is published there, RK followers and so called Modern Muslims try to Hijack and bring it forward for dismantling young and new Muslims for obvious reasons.
One of these is about Muhammad, they want to degrade him and show him as an ordinary Human being.
?Shahada? as explained earlier, at the time of Prophet was due to some reasons; but the RK sect does not seem to understand it and keeps on propagating that this practice did not prevail and we have no proof for it, they do not take HAdith in to account because they think these are inventions by hypocrites, however their whole edifice of ?19? depends upon a HADITH.
Well to Silence the propaganda of RK sect let me provide a PROOF from Quran itself, which tells us that this practice prevailed at the time of Prophet, and that too from the very verse they try to use in their favor after distorting the meanings of it.
631 of the Quran tells us
When the hypocrites come unto thee, they say We bear witness that thou art indeed Allah's messenger. And Allah knoweth that thou art indeed His messenger, and Allah beareth witness that the hypocrites indeed are speaking falsely.
Let us not go into the definitions first. This ayat clearly tells us that people at time of Muhammad use to bear the witness of his name.
Allah Ho Akbar.Now after putting a lock on the false propaganda let us see what do RK sect and so called modern Muslims have to say about its definition
They say those who bear witness for Muhammad as a messenger of Allah are hypocrites, this is very poor understanding of the Quran for some, and hypocritical definition by some. The verse is not saying that hypocrites are the ones who bear witness that Muhammad is a Messenger. It is saying that those specific hypocrites are lying when they say that they bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. They say it, but don't mean it inside. The verse would not make sense. How can God accuse them of lying when they say Muhammad is a Messenger of Allah and it is there in the Quran at several places that Muhammad is a Messenger of Allah. Therefore every Muslim is hypocrite according to RK sect who reads the Quran daily and at several places recite Muhammad is messenger of Allah.
This was also pointed out by Behl.
Now after exposing the hidden intentions of RK sect let us see to their next allegation, they say to mention the name of Prophet with Allah is Shirk? Though one of them admitted it is not and after few lines he retreated and said it is.
They think that by putting Muhammad's name in the shahada means that we are not keeping the religion absolutely to Allah alone?
Putting Muhammad's name in the same sentence where there is Allah?s name does not mean they are equal.
If I say that; "Akber was a great king and beerbal was his minister." Am I showing equality between the two?
The fact is that jealousy with Muhammad (PBUH) is not new in the hearts of missionaries and so called messengers who have no authentication from Quran.To Behl,
You agree that Allah has blessed some messengers over others and exalted some to higher rank. I hope so. The proof provided by me in the verses mentioned in my previous post.
Dear, please take this example
There is a school and it has classes ranging from grade 1 to grade 10, there are 10 teachers 1 for each class, pupils have to respect all the teachers equally because they all are teachers, BUT these teachers differ in their qualifications some are assigned for 1st graders and some for 10th grade.If you read the Quran in detail you will come to know that Muhammad was the seal on prophets, and the Final book which is for all Humanity was revealed un to him. You will also come to know that Muhammad is for ALL the Worlds.
If you want to discuss this, I recommend first you read the thread ?Praise be to Muhammad Rasul of Allah? and still you think that Muhammad is not the one who is on the higher ranks, we can debate it start another thread for it please, and inform me.To wayfinder;
It is not that you say ?Muhammad Rasul Allah? or not it is not even if you say ?Allah is one? that means nothing absolutely nothing for an individual. If keep on saying ?Allah is one? for the whole day and I am not practically proving it what is the use for it? Actually the Shahada used by the people at time of prophet had some reasons which were explain earlier, they lived in a society and Islam is not individual as the Christians have made it, it is the concept for UMMAH.
May be I have difficult time explaining you due to my weak English, But I recommend you read some articles by Arnold Mol, a member of the forum or some articles by Allama Pervaiz on unity of UMMAH.At last for
Those, who tell us that there are two, three or five salaat?
A question?What is Salaat?
-
Salaaman Hammad,
Peace Raj-ah
I want to clarify that the above verse is telling us that God is the one who can rank his prophets as He wishes; but the believers should not rank or favor any of them over the other, as God commanded us in Quran.
PeaceTrue! Same as Allah created heavens and the earth, but we cannot. No comparission.
Khan
-
Peace WayFinder,
You said
i KNOW THAT THEY ARE NOT DEAD AND THEY ARE ALIVE 3INDALLAH.... BUT CONCERNING OUR LIVES AND OUR EARTH, THEIR MISSION IS OVER... THE MESSAGE IS DELIVERED AND THE TASK OF MESSENGERSHIP IS OVER... THEY ARE ALIVE 3INDALLAH BUT THEY ARE TOTALLY DISCONNECTED FROM US BECAUSE WE ARE NOT DEAD YET... THESE ARE 2 DIFFERENT WORLDS ISNT IT?
THERE IS A VERSE THAT SAYS, THE DEAD CANNOT HEAR AND EVEN IF THEY COULD HEAR, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REPLY...
SO WHAT ARE WE TO SAY? MUSA,ISA AND MUHAMMAD ARE THE MESSENGERS OF GOD OR WERE THE MESSENGERS OF GOD?
Even though their messages have been delivered, it is still proper to refer to them as messengers, even though it wouldn't be wrong to call them "past messengers". I guess you can call it either way...
YOU MISUNDERSTOOD ME BROTHER, I USED THIS AS AN EXAMPLE ONLY... JUST TO SHOW THE TENSE OF THE VERB... ATTESTING THE VALUE OF SOMETHING WHICH IS PRESENT AND WE CAN INVESTIGATE ON IT... I DID NEVER INTEND TO ADD THIS PART TO THE SHAHAADA LOL
Oh, okay. I thought you were talking about adding that part into the Quranic shahaada... ;D In this case, you are correct. If the hypocrites were going to testify regarding the messengers, then it would be more appropriate to testify regarding the truth and the message, which were sent down from Allah. Testifying regarding the messengers themselves, partnering them alongside God, is shirk... Sorry for the misunderstanding...
Peace,
Ahmad