Ok ... So what do you people believe (exactly) ?
-
Peace
Seems i posted before reading your last post D
Ahmed Subhi Mansour tends to follow a message he feels would not get him into trouble or would not make ordinary Egyptians shun him. Because the term used by the media( Quraniyoon )he thinks sounds somewhat radical, he uses Ahl AlQuran. He also accepts the rituals of Islam as Muslims follow them with very minor modification. So he does believe the 5 prayers and the rikaats of Sunni/Shia Islam is legit, he accepts the pilgrimage as it is except the black stone he also accepts Ramadan as it is. The problem with him is in doing so and his believing these things are obligatory, he shuned many other Koranist to gain acceptance from the large Sunni world who might feel overwhelmed if these rituals are questioned.
But like Samia here once said, in the end the Koran is the Koran. And the very people he manages to influence would be attracted to different interpretations of the Koran and many will rather take a strick Koranist line refusing to accept anything not explicitly mentioned in the Koran. He can't control how people would respond once they refuse hadiths. In his own website and forum he got nailed by many others who questioned the validity of these rituals and he banned the discussion(he couldn't resond convincingly) but you can't keep conrolling the debate. But he is a good step especially in conservative Arab societies like Egypt who might refuse to question hadiths for the simple fact that it would also question the legitimacy of these rituals. Many Muslims still dream of going to haj and might get intimadated by some of the discussions here.
I do symphatize with some of his concerns, but I think in the end he should represent the people in this forum and many do not accept the legitimacy of these rituals and not try to go after the bigger prize. He tries to use "we got it from our father Ibraheem" argument and to be frank many of those who participated in those discussion with him in his forum pointed out to him is arguments are weak. Its one thing to say we should hold on to these rituals for unity sake, its another to say we got them from prophet Ibraheem. But if he then says that they are obligatory then he shunned most Koranist as most do not accept them as obligatory. In fact I don't think a person can be a Koranist if he believes these rituals are obligatory. But he would find that once these ideas spread most people(especially youths) would rather come here in this forum or set up ones similar to them then remain in his domain.
Other will tell you that they accept the practiced Sunnah rather than hadiths because practiced Sunnah did not come to us from hadiths. I have looked into that argument before and was attracted to it but when you are not able to show how these practiced Sunnah came from the prophet and was ordered by the prophet, when you see many of these practiced Sunnah(haj, 5 salat, qibla, zakat amount, friday prayers, etc) can be found in similar religious traditions of the past, when you are not able to convince those who chose to be skeptical and insist in Koranic proof it won't take you along before you realize its a weak argument. Its an argument for unity but this unity can not be done except at the expense of the other peoples of the Earth who might chose to practice their faith in God differently. Most of all, for me at least, my now acceptance of the previous scriptures as authoritative has rendered these rituals at best just a way among many other ways to worship God, no more no less. The Koran led me to these previous scriptures(Torah and Gospel) and now my thinking is much broader and my understanding of worship is much less dogmatic and rigid. I realize now that its not the rituals thats important, its to whom you are doing them for. But whats interesting is many of those who claim to strictly follow the Koran refuse to accept the Koranic verses regarding the authority of the previous scriptures raising question as to their reasons for that.
This raises an important question as to the intentions and desires of many who were attracted to the Koranist point of view. Many might see themselves as "reformist" of the MUSLIM world or of the ISLAMIC faith and might see the previous scriptures as unnecessary extra baggage. They tend to focus their attention to the Muslim world where the authority of the Koran ia already accepted. Others might see themselves as post modernist and might see the previous scriptures as more problematic than the Koran. The ambiguity and vagueness of many Koranic verses make it easier to interpret these verses in post modernist standards. The previous scriptures can be too detailed to interpret them that way. Others simply are extremely skeptical of anything outside the Koran and they see the previous scriptures are structured similarly to the hadiths of Sunni/Shia sects. And yet others see the Koran as a summary of these previous scriptures and thus no reason is needed to dwell any further since what is needed to be known is all in the Koran. They rely on the fact that the Koran says its fully detailed and an exposition of all things.
There is also political motivation. Some want a secular Muslim society and see in eleminating hadiths an easy way to render Sunni/Shia shariah law obsolete. Many who suuport Ahmad Subhi Mansour tend to be secularist and see in the Koranic view point a counter to political and legal Islam.
Others may be attracted to science and see the koran as more logical than hadiths. And yet others see the Koranic point of view as a solution to the sectarian problem the Muslim world is afflicted with and the violence that follows that. Many moderate Muslims tend to be sickened by the sectarian violence which they blame on different hadith traditions and see the Koran as a unifier since these sects have the same Koran.
So we all are using the Koran for our own reasons. Because of this nobody owns the right of takfir since in many ways everyone has enough evidence from the Koran to counter the other but never enough to fully justify himself against the other. The Koran is much easier to invoke defensively than offensively.
-
@ Bigmo
In fact I don't think a person can be a Koranist if he believes these rituals are obligatory.
Salam bro,
I totally understand your skepticism, but I think that you will have a hard time proving
your argument. To question the number of prayers, you are not questioning hadiths, but
the practices of people which have been handed down through generations. This is a whole
different ball game. Unless you can prove that this practice of 5 prayers has not always been
uniform throughout the history of the ummah, then you do not really have a case. This is what
Imaam Maliki did for example, if any hadith contradicted the practices of the people of Medinah he
would reject it.3 times for prayer are clearly mentioned in the Quran, and the 2 times that are not mentioned
specifically can be seen to be included in those 3 parts of the day that are mentioned.
The importance of prayer is something which is highlighted over and over again in the Quran.
So this is not even a hadith issue.PeAcE dude
-
@ Bigmo
Salam bro,
I totally understand your skepticism, but I think that you will have a hard time proving
your argument. To question the number of prayers, you are not questioning hadiths, but
the practices of people which have been handed down through generations. This is a whole
different ball game. Unless you can prove that this practice of 5 prayers has not always been
uniform throughout the history of the ummah, then you do not really have a case.3 times for prayer are clearly mentioned in the Quran, and the 2 times that are not mentioned
specifically can be seen to be included in those 3 parts of the day that are mentioned.
The importance of prayer is something which is highlighted over and over again in the Quran.
So this is not even a hadith issue.The 5 pilars of Islam are all mentioned in the Quran as articles of faith.
The problem is not the 5 pillars, it is the additional points of "aqeedah" that
have been introduced through extra-Quranic sources e.g. the belief in the mehdi,
and the return of Jesus PBUH, and the authority granted to these so called "scholars"PeAcE dude
I am not sure about that. I have been there before. I put up a many points but if you try to PROVE that these traditions came to us from the prophet then you face this big problem.
After 30 years after Muhammad passed away the former pagan foes of Muhammad now turned Muslims came to power, the Ummayids. Muawiya who set up the Ummayid empire his mother was Hind who traditions say chewed the liver of Hamza. His father was Abu Sufyan, a big enemy of Muhammad. The Ummayid stayed in power for 100 years before they were overthrown by the Abbasids, also from Mecca and have in their history a long animosity with Muhammad. You know have a situation where Abu Bakr ruled for 2 years, Umar for 10 and was assasinated, Uthman 14 years and was assasinated and in fact at one time tradition say Abu Bakr's son, Muhammad, tried to lead an attack against Uthman. Uthman was an Ummayid and when he was assasinated, Ali supposedly came to power. Aisha(who was an Ummayid) and Muawaiya led a battle against him. Ali was of course was from Banu Hashim. After him one his many sons, Hussein led a battle against Muawiya and co. He lost. The Ummayids then ruled as i said for 100 years. So you have a tricky situation in how these traditions came to us.
As far as the 5 salat are concerned, it is still hard to explain why the Koran never mentioned the 5 salat. Its one thing to say we need the Sunnah to know how to pray but its another thing when the number 5 is never mentioned anywhere in the Koran. This given the fact that salat is mentioned 50 times in the Koran but the 5 salat is never mentioned. We have verses about how to make Wudu yet we have no verses about the number 5. I have had discussions with Muslims who would insist the 5 salat are mentioned. They can't believe that its never mentioned.
As far as Haj is concerned its probably the biggest problem here and this is why. The Ummayids and later the Abbasids were both from Mecca. If they were from Medina than there would be no susipicion but given the fact that they are from mecca, the Ummayids especially have a vested economic inters to create an obligatory pilgrimage there. Especially if you believe they were already using the Ka'ba as a form of worship. The political division between the Ummayids and the civil wars betwen them when a rival tried to built another ka'ba says a lot about the political implications of the Ka'ba for the political dynasty. You also had a situation when one ummayid ruled jerusalem while another Mecca and the various hadiths where on says pilgrimage is only to Mecca and Medina and another saying pilgrimage can be made to all three. In fact Western scholars believed that the ruler in Jerusalem released the hadiths that pilgrimage is to all three while his rivals in Hejaz came up with a counter hadith saying pilgrimage is only to Mecca and Medina and therefore cutting off his pilgrimage revenues.
I guess what i am trying to say is in a historic climate such as the Islamic one where you have all these conflicts and differences and wars and where you have tribes who were known to be the enemies of the prophet raisng quickly to power and thus controlling the discourse from early on you end up with a tricky situation. And I am here only scratching the surface, its no coincidence that Sunni scholars forbid the discussion about these conflicts since they change your perception about Islamic history.
Yes you are right that these rituals did not come through hadiths, but the rise of former Meccan pagans to power so early on in Islamic history makes that history suspect to many. If there were no partcilur rituals initially then it wpould have been easy to make on eup. If there were then it would have been somewhat more difficult. This is a point I missed earlier where I always assumed that there were uniform rituals and it would have been hard to eleminate them without some kind of revolt. But if there weren't any then it would have been easier to make one up or to modify them somewhat for political reasons.
If there was all those rikaas and all these Haj rituals established by Muhammad and his companion then it would heve been a challenge to change them, but if there weren't and the earlier Muslims were less rigid about them then its easier to make one up to create a uniform society thats much easier to control. Just look at Al Saud and how their capture of Mecca and Medina benefited them both politically and econimically. Imagine if people stoped performing the pilgrimage there. What status will Saudi Arabia have? And I have not even talked about the similarities these rituals have with Zoroastrianism(5 salat), arab paganism(ka'ba) and friday prayers(Judaism and Christianity) etc.
So you right that these rituals did not come from hadiths but its harder to go beyond that. Those over here who question these rituals however can only just question them. They have tried to prove that but to no avail. They have tried to come up with a Koranic interpretation but to no avail. So where do we go from here? Are we to try to come up with answers we can't come up with. Or should we accept that perhaps its not that important.
Righteousness does not consist in whether you turn your faces towards the east or the west; what is righteous is to believe in Allah and the last day, and the angels, and the Book, and the messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practise regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which you have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and in times of war. Such as do so are people of truth. Such are the Allah-fearing. (Al-Baqara, 177)
Maybe its wise to leave it at that.
-
peace,
@ Wakas
Whoa, relax bud. Whats with all this passive aggressiveness huh? police peace
Perhaps I could have been less blunt/abrasive, sorry.
Unless you can prove that this practice of 5 prayers has not always been
uniform throughout the history of the ummah, then you do not really have a case.Appeal to Popularity fallacy
http//www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html3 times for prayer are clearly mentioned in the Quran, and the 2 times that are not mentioned
specifically can be seen to be included in those 3 parts of the day that are mentioned.I strongly recommend re-reading The Quran. A minimum of two times for upholding the salat/bond has clearly been proven in this forum. As far as I'm aware no long term active forum member disagrees with this.
The importance of prayer is something which is highlighted over and over again in the Quran.
No, the importance of upholding the "salat" is highlighted over and over again in The Quran. You may find the following simple challenge interesting
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597919.msg194459#msg194459The above is open to all.
-
Bigmo + Wakas
Before I respond specifically to the points in your post, I would like to
point out that the number of 5 prayers can be very soundly supported
through the Quran itself. First of all...Prayer indeed has been enjoined on the believers at fixed times.
4103This verse makes it clear that there are fixed times and therefore a fixed number
of the contact prayers, (i.e the number is not arbitrary). Then there is the verse 1778
which broadly defines all the 5 times together"Keep up prayer from the declining of the sun till the darkness of the night and
the morning recitation; surely the morning recitation is witnessed."Notice that the words "from" and "until" are used, which indicate that the number
of prayers must be more then 3. And since there is another verse in the
Quran which mentions a "middle prayer" (223 it is clear that this number must
be an odd number. So we know that it must be more then 3, and and odd number.
This is Quranic evidence for the number 5. Taken together with the unbroken practice of
Muslims over generations (unless you can prove otherwise) is proof enough that
the established number of prayers is 5.@ Bigmo
Yes you are right that these rituals did not come through hadiths, but the rise of former Meccan pagans to power so early on in Islamic history makes that history suspect to many.
Is this mere suspicion enough to reject the practice? As I said, you would have to provide
evidence that there was a time when the Muslims used to pray any more or less then 5 contact prayers.
Also, you will have to admit that your argument is completely based on circumstantial evidence. This is what
I meant when I said that you will have a hard time proving the number 5 is wrong. I do appreciate the detail
and effort. But you have admit that it is basically all speculation.@ Wakas
I strongly recommend re-reading The Quran.
I "re-read" pages of it every mourning.
Appeal to Popularity fallacy
Not when there is evidence within the Quran. Then the popularity becomes
supporting evidence, and not a fallacy.No, the importance of upholding the "salat" is highlighted over and over again in The Quran. You may find the following simple challenge interesting
Observe the following verses which were part of the list you gave.
The first two verses clearly mention bowing down and standing as part of the contact prayer.
And the last verse clearly indicates that there is a set form and length to each prayer,
as we are allowed to shorten it during travel.And Keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and bow down with those that bow down.
243Guard strictly your (habit of) prayers, especially the Middle Prayer; and stand before Allah in a devout (frame of mind).
2.238And when you journey in the earth there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer...
4101Basically, there is a lot of stuff that is not based in the Quran which you can challenge,
but the 5 contact prayers, their methods, and timings, this is not extra-Quranic. It is
a very essential obligation mentioned in the Quran.Perhaps I could have been less blunt/abrasive, sorry.
No worries bro handshake
-
Bigmo + Wakas
Before I respond specifically to the points in your post, I would like to
point out that the number of 5 prayers can be very soundly supported
through the Quran itself. First of all...Prayer indeed has been enjoined on the believers at fixed times.
4103This verse makes it clear that there are fixed times and therefore a fixed number
of the contact prayers, (i.e the number is not arbitrary). Then there is the verse 1778
which broadly defines all the 5 times together"Keep up prayer from the declining of the sun till the darkness of the night and
the morning recitation; surely the morning recitation is witnessed."Notice that the words "from" and "until" are used, which indicate that the number
of prayers must be more then 3. And since there is another verse in the
Quran which mentions a "middle prayer" (223 it is clear that this number must
be an odd number. So we know that it must be more then 3, and and odd number.
This is Quranic evidence for the number 5. Taken together with the unbroken practice of
Muslims over generations (unless you can prove otherwise) is proof enough that
the established number of prayers is 5.@ Bigmo
Is this mere suspicion enough to reject the practice? As I said, you would have to provide
evidence that there was a time when the Muslims used to pray any more or less then 5 contact prayers.
Also, you will have to admit that your argument is completely based on circumstantial evidence. This is what
I meant when I said that you will have a hard time proving the number 5 is wrong. I do appreciate the detail
and effort. But you have admit that it is basically all speculation.@ Wakas
I "re-read" pages of it every mourning.
Not when there is evidence within the Quran. Then the popularity becomes
supporting evidence, and not a fallacy.Observe the following verses which were part of the list you gave.
The first two verses clearly mention bowing down and standing as part of the contact prayer.
And the last verse clearly indicates that there is a set form and length to each prayer,
as we are allowed to shorten it during travel.And Keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and bow down with those that bow down.
243Guard strictly your (habit of) prayers, especially the Middle Prayer; and stand before Allah in a devout (frame of mind).
2.238And when you journey in the earth there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer...
4101Basically, there is a lot of stuff that is not based in the Quran which you can challenge,
but the 5 contact prayers, their methods, and timings, this is not extra-Quranic. It is
a very essential obligation mentioned in the Quran.No worries bro handshake
Not all of them are alike of the People of the book are a portion that stand (for the right); they rehearse the signs of Allah all night long and then prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong; and they (hasten in emulation) in (all) good works; they are in the ranks of the righteous. Of the good that they do nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right.
And there are certainly among the people of the Book those who believe in Allah in the revelation to you and in the revelation to them bowing in humility to Allah they will not sell the signs of Allah for a miserable gain! for them is a reward with their Lord and Allah is swift in account.
16.48. Do they not look at Allah.s creation, (even) among (inanimate) things,- How their (very) shadows turn round, from the right and the left, prostrating themselves to Allah, and that in the humblest manner?
So we see that prostration is mentioned in the Koran but we see no specific standard for the salat you say. Its not whether the 5 salat are Sunnah or not its the question whether its the only way.
-
If the acting salat is so important than the salat in action, then it is never possible. Muhammad accepted from Allah, the 50 times salat per day on his ascent to heaven to meet Allah. Only for the people's sake who will never follow the prophet Muhammad in this regard, he had to scale 50 down by heavily bargaining through nine meetings with Him reducing each time by 5 waqts. Then also Musa says the followers cannot pray so much. But muhammad was only ashamed to go to Allah again; had he done so definitely Allah would have removed the last remaining 5 waqts also. So it is not at all wrong to do away with the ritual, acting - the salat.
But one thing is definite! Muhammad would have surely followed 50 waqts every day because he had accepted the same from Allah and never bargained for reduction for himself but did so only for the fake people at large who will claim to follow him. What do the hadith followers have to say about the timings that muhammad observed daily for his 50 waqts prayer, if it is acting salat?
.
-
If the acting salat is so important than the salat in action, then it is never possible. Muhammad accepted from Allah, the 50 times salat per day on his ascent to heaven to meet Allah. Only for the people's sake who will never follow the prophet Muhammad in this regard, he had to scale 50 down by heavily bargaining through nine meetings with Him reducing each time by 5 waqts. Then also Musa says the followers cannot pray so much. But muhammad was only ashamed to go to Allah again; had he done so definitely Allah would have removed the last remaining 5 waqts also. So it is not at all wrong to do away with the ritual, acting - the salat.
But one thing is definite! Muhammad would have surely followed 50 waqts every day because he had accepted the same from Allah and never bargained for reduction for himself but did so only for the fake people at large who will claim to follow him. What do the hadith followers have to say about the timings that muhammad observed daily for his 50 waqts prayer, if it is acting salat?
.
If people complained that 5 is too much then it is useful to tell them " be happy, it should have been 50".
-
It is 50, if you are a true follower of Muhammad. 50 is ordained! 5 is bargained.
Bro the discussion on this issue has been moved to the following thread
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597936.msg194613#msg194613
Btw, this discussion is not about who is a "true follower" of the Prophet.
