My problems with Free-Minds (very long post, please read)

Amid

Salam everyone,

This is going to be a long post, so please bear with me. I'd like to present my views on this board. I'm not a Sunni or a Shia, nor do I belong to any cult. I'm also not a follower of Rashad Khalifa, and I don't believe in code 19 either. In this post I won't discuss code 19 or Rashad Khalifa's views, but rather my own views and how they differ from the views of Free Minds. First let me start about what bothers me with Free Minds, then after that I will talk about my personal beliefs. Let's begin

1.) Salaat not being a ritual prayer

I see so many Muslims here with differing views on this VERY important issue. Tons and tons of theories of what Salaat really is. I've even heard many of you say that Salaat simply means "good deeds", which quite honest, I thought was funny, and sad, at the same time.

Let's stick to facts There is simply too much evidence that Salaat is, indeed, a ritual prayer. The evidence is simply overwhelming. To say that every single Hadith that describes Salaat as a ritual prayer is inauthentic is quite an ignorant thing to say. It is irrational and unreasonable. We need to keep in mind that Satan is our biggest enemy and he never rests. He will always try to deceive believers and lead them away from the true path. Now as far as how Salaat should be performed, that is a different discussion. I will make a separate thread for it soon.

2.) Not giving salawat to Muhammad (saw)

It is one thing not to make Muhammad (saw) a partner to Allah, but it is another thing to disrespect him by not giving salawat. Examples Edip Yuksel mentioning the Prophet (saw) several times in his posts and never giving salawat. And it is not just Edip, it is many many posters. Some will even write their whole post normally and then write "muhammad" without even capitalizing the first letter. What is the reason for this? It's like they're not respecting him at all. Fact check The Qur'an instructs us to give salawat when we talk mention the Prophet (saw).

3.) Mistranslations and misinterpretations of the Qur'an

There are many mistranslations and misinterpretations of the Qur'an here at Free Minds. Example of a mistranslation

"We place shields around their minds, to prevent them from understanding it, and deafness in their ears. And when you preach your Lord, using the Qur'an alone, they run away in aversion." (Rashid Khalifa translation)

"And if you mention your Lord in the Quran alone, they run away turning their backs in aversion." (Free Minds translation)

The followers of Rashid Khalifa as well as Free Minds argue that the Sunnis translated this verse incorrectly. Here are the earlier translations

and when you mention your Lord alone in the Quran they turn their backs in aversion. (Shakir)

and when thou makest mention of thy Lord alone in the Qur'an, they turn their backs in aversion. (Pickthall)

when thou dost commemorate thy Lord and Him alone in the Qur'an, they turn on their backs, fleeing (from the Truth). (Yusuf Ali)

waitha thakarta rabbaka fee alqurani wahdahu wallaw AAala adbarihim nufooran (Arabic)

They argue because "wahdahu" (alone) is AFTER "alqurani", therefore it means "the Qur'an alone." They support their views by citing several instances in the Qur'an where "wahdahu" is used in a certain way

Allaha wahdahu = Allah alone 77
Allahu wahdahu = Allah alone 3945
Allahu wahdahu = Allah alone 4012
Allahi wahdahu = Allah alone 4084
Allahi wahdahu = Allah alone 604

However, the reasoning behind this is incorrect, since the Arabic language is not that simple. The word "wahdahu" (Him alone) serves as the modifier/descriptive word to the word "rabbaka" (your Lord) and it doesn't modify the word ALQURANI. Arabic grammar rules can never allow this falsification. The modifier (na't, or descriptive word) needs to be in the same grammatical case as the modified noun. In order for modifier "wahdahu" to modify ALQURANI, it has to agree with it in the grammatical case, but it doesn't. Why? Because WAHDAHU is in the accusative case and ALQURANI is in the gentive case, and is governed by the preposition "fi." The word "wahdahu" must modify the word "rabbaka" (your Lord), which are both in the accusative case, as indicated by the fathah (represented by the letter A in English) on the second syllable. Therefore, this is a mistranslation not by Yusuf Ali or Pickthall, but by Rashad Khalifa and also by Free Minds.

Now an example of a misinterpretation

"And when God Alone is mentioned, the hearts of those who do not believe in the Hereafter are filled with aversion; and when others are mentioned beside Him, they rejoice!" (Qur'an 3945)

This verse is often interpreted by Free Minds to be talking about Sunnis, Shias, etc., underlining the words "God Alone." But they do not underline the most important part of the verse "those who do not believe in the hereafter." The verse in clearly talks about those who don't believe in the afterlife (the hereafter). It is their hearts that shrink. As far as I know, Sunnis believe in the hereafter, therefore this verse cannot apply to them.

These are only two examples among many. My biggest issue with Free Minds is number one of course (Salat). I will make a separate thread soon to explain how I perform Salaat, and why I perform it that way. Now, let me present my own views regarding Islam, Qur'an, and Hadeeth/Sunnah. My theory is very simple

The Qur'an is the only source of religious law.

That being said, I believe it is quite an extreme position to say that because the Qur'an is complete and fully detailed, we absolutely cannot under any circumstances look at any other sources in order to understand it better. The keyword here is "better." I see that this extreme position (as I call it) is shared by many on this forum, if not by the majority of posters. Now before any of you attack me, read my entire post please.

A schoolbook is complete and fully detailed too, but in order to understand certain contents of the book better, we look at other sources to help us understand. I hold the same position with the Qur'an. HOWEVER, if we find anything that CONTRADICTS it, it is to be discarded. Examples killing apostates conflicts with several verses in the Qur'an including 2256. Another perfect example is stoning adulterers to death. These two things (among many) are perfect examples of "adding CONTRADICTORY teachings" to God's law as it was revealed in the Qur'an.

In other words, I believe SHARIAH LAW is the biggest problem Muslims face. Creating religious laws outside the Qur'an is a big mistake. Shariah is called "Islamic Law" or "Divine Law," yet it is a combination of Qur'an AND Hadeeth/Sunnah. Shariah is the product of men putting together information from the Qur'an and from various sources (Hadeeth/Sunnah) and calling it God's law. That, I believe, is a great offense. Composing something and calling it "Divine Law" when most of the information contained in it is NOT taken from the REAL Divine Law (The Qur'an) is a very dangerous thing to do.

Now let me ask, what is the harm in looking at other sources to better understand certain aspects of the Qur'an? I gave the example of a schoolbook, which is a perfect example. Keep in mind that the Qur'an was not given in a vacume.

Someone who wants to read the Qur'an and doesn't know Arabic must (whether he wants to or not) go to an outside source - a translation.

Someone who knows Arabic fairly well but not perfectly must (whether he wants to or not) go to an outside source - an Arabic dictionary, to verify certain things and better understand it.

See where I'm going with this? The same goes for the Hadeeth. As long as we're not changing religious law as it is ordained in the Qur'an, there should be no problem with reading Hadeeth. The Qur'an is most definitely the BEST HADITH, and I agree with that one hundred percent. Nonetheless, by looking at some outside sources we can understand certain things better, WITHOUT adding things to the deen, and WITHOUT creating contradictory laws, which is what the Sunnis and Shia have done.

What exactly is SALAT, based solely on the Qur'an and no outside source?
What are the PROHIBITED MONTHS, based solely on the Qur'an and no outside source?
What/when is RAMADHAN, based solely on the Qur'an and no outside source?
Who was taken on the NIGHT JOURNEY, and was it physical or in spirit, based solely on the Qur'an and no outside source?
What is the FARTHEST MASJID, based solely on the Qur'an and no outside source? (Qur'an 171)

As I said, the Qur'an was not given in a vacume. Based solely on the Qur'an and without any outside sources I will get tons of different answers and explanations to the questions above. You could argue that the last two questions are not important to the deen, but the first three most certainly are! The reason I made this post is to warn people not to fall into Satan's trap. Just because you reject Hadeeth as a source of religious law doesn't mean all of them should be discarded and labeled as useless. Just because many Sunnis and Shia have falled into Satan's trap by putting the Hadeeth ON THE SAME LEVEL AS THE QUR'AN doesn't mean that Satan cannot deceive you too, only in a different way. He is the father of lies and the master of deception.

So what do I think about Hadeeth in general? We all know that God did not reveal the book of "Sahih Bukhari." Neither did he reveal or authorize the Hadeeth collections of Dawud, Tabari, or Muslim. Consequently he did not reveal "Shariah" as it is practiced today! What does that mean? It means that we should analyze those books critically and only take from them that which goes with the spirit of the Qur'an, which does not contradict it's laws, and which does not add new teachings. We should look at them as hearsay, some is authentic, some is inauthentic. We judge what is authentic by using the Qur'an. We are to reject them as sources of religious law, because the Qur'an, I state once again, is the one and only source of religious law. Many Hadeeth are outrageous. Some are funny (because they're outrageous), and some are sad (also because of the same reason). Monkeys stoning adulterers, Moses (saw) running around naked, etc. etc. Some contain wisdom, and some contain gross scientific errors in conflict with the Qur'an.

I believe many of them insult Muhammad (saw), and other prophets as well like Moses (saw), and some of them even insult God. The Hadith that talks about God ordaining 50 daily prayers, and then a Prophet talking to God to try to convince him that this is too much, and succeeding in doing so, is simply insulting to God (in my opinion). I believe that they can make us understand SOME things better, but they're also a tool of misguidance, as I demonstrated with the Shariah law. The Qur'an is the only source of religious law. Therefore whatever is in contradiction to the Qur'an, and in conflict with the spirit of the Qur'an, has to be rejected, even the most "Sahih" Hadith!

My thoughts about Sunnis, Shia, and Sufis? The fact that all three of these groups blindly accept Hadeeth and follow Shariah Law as "Islamic Law" is bad to begin with. The Shia teach some outrageous things, such as Mutah (temporary marriage) or "marriage for pleasure." Nothing Quranic there at all. You just have to watch one video of them screaming like lunatics, with their faces soaking in blood from cutting themselves and their children, to see they've completely gone astray. However I would have to say that some Sufis are the biggest idolators that I've seen so far. A friend of mine who is a Sufi invited me to their temple. I went two times, and that was enough for me. Maybe not all Sufis are like this, but this particular group is unbelieveable. Here's what's going on

They have someone who they idolize, literally. He is a "Sultan", Shayh Seyid something or other (don't know the full name), who lives in Istanbul, Turkey. They say he is the direct descendant of Prophet Muhammad (saw), and they idolize him in ways you never thought possible. One of them who was leading the prayer gave a speech afterwards where he said that everything that happens in our cosmos goes directly through the Sultan, and that one of Satan's main goals is to lead people astray by convincing them to disbelieve in the Sultan. They also have his picture downstairs on the wall, which is covered with a cloth, so you have to lift the cloth in order to see him. When someone converts to Sufiism (or their form of Sufiism), he pronounces certain phraises, that he's sorry for his sins, etc., and also that he accepts this Shayh into his life or something like that. The most unbelieveable thing they do, which shocked me and left me speechless, is a ritual where for 10 minutes or so all of them sit down and meditate, imagining that they're in "His" presence. I thought it was Allah's presence they were talking about. Nope, it's the Sultan's presence. As I said, two days with them was enough for me.

In terms of idolatry I'd say Sufis are number one, at least the group I met, but then again they're much more peaceful than Sunni or Shia. Just go to the "Ummah Forum" and you'll see almost every single Sunni will support Bin Laden and Zarqawi, saying they're "true Muslims." They'll justify the 9/11 attacks and London Bombings. Not just the men but the women, too. Therefore I'd say that hardcore Sunnis and Shia are not idolators in the sense that Sufis are, but they're certainly the most DANGEROUS Muslims. Then again, maybe this particular Sufi group is not like other Sufis, so I'm not saying that all Sufis are idol worshippers, far from it.

What's the purpose of this long post? I was shocked, disappointed, and saddened, when I saw so many people discarding Salaat as worship, or ritual prayer, however you want to call it. It looks like the reason is simply because they don't want to go to a source outside the Qur'an under any circumstances whatsoever. It seems they believe that doing so makes them a "Sunni" instead of a "Qur'an only Muslim." It doesn't make you a Sunni. A Sunni is someone who takes Hadeeth as sources of religious law BESIDES the Qur'an, no matter how twisted or contradictory they are to the Qur'an.

Salaat is what motivated me to make this post and share my beliefs. Here is the most important point

Don't fool yourself into thinking that because you're not a Sunni or a Shia that you're immune to Satan's influence, immune to his tricks and deceptions. Satan is your enemy. He never rests.

In other words...

Don't neglect your prayers! Don't fall into Satan's trap!

I will soon make a thread and explain how I perform Salaat, and why I do it the way I do it.

And God knows best!

SarahY

Asalamu alaikum

Thanks for sharing your opinion I have some questions for you

Let me ask you, you say you are not a follower of any sect yet you say that because of numerous ahadith in support of prayer as a ritual couldn?t be an innovation? it couldn?t be anything else?

How can you accept this evidence? If you don?t follow their books? Anyway you say there is simple too much evidence, can you share?
What is your definition of salawat? Also people get lazy typing i?m sure people don?t mean disrespect if they type ?muhammad? without a capital.

Let me pose an argument about my perception of how you perceive salawat.

Sunnis/shias etc will argue salawat is a must, ok so what is this salawat? Is it simple saying blessings and peace of God be upon him, sallah Allah 3alahi wa salem?

Let?s see the verse attributed to salawat

(3356)

? 3356 (Asad) Verily, God and His angels bless the Prophet O you who have attained to faith, bless him and give yourselves up in utter self-surrender!

Let?s take it step by step

God and the angels yasalou `ala nabi

Then the verse address the believes

Ya ayyuha allatheena aminou sallou ?aalayhi

So we are required to Salou 3ala nabi, just like God and Angels, however only the believers are told to ?wasalmou tasleema?

Now traditionalists will say this is saying the blessing after his name.. but look at another verse with the same terminology (465)

(465)

? 465 (Asad) But nay, by thy Sustainer! They do not believe unless they make thee a judge of all on which they disagree among themselves, and then find in their hearts no bar to an acceptance of thy decision and give themselves up in utter self-surrender.

So wasalmou tasleema is used here, and it?s interpreted us "utter self surrender." maybe you don't like asad's translation let's see someone else

465 (Y. Ali) But no, by the Lord, they can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction

465 (Picktall) But nay, by thy lord, they will not believe (in truth) until they make thee judge of what is in dispute between them and find within themselves no dislike of that which thou decidest, and submit with full submission.

maybe you prefer a shia's translation

But no! by your Lord! they do not believe (in reality) until they make you a judge of that which has become a matter of disagreement among them, and then do not find any straitness in their hearts as to what you have decided and submit with entire submission

So it means surrender/full submission/ full conviction here but sending blessings in another? Doesn?t add up. To me it emphasises submission. Not sending blessings. Besides remember only the believers are to yaslimou taslima, so if God sends salam/salawat, and we do it, we?re still missing a component.

So what is sallou? What would God and angels do? They support the nabi, they help the nabi.

Read the verse after 3356, 3357 it talks about those who hurt the nabi, how can one hurt the nabi by not uttering specific words? They would rather, hurt the nabi by not submitting by not supporting, by causing mischief.

Anyway i just wanted to see your opinion on this, i didn?t read all of your post.

How do you follow the Quran? Mistranslations happen off course you must understand language isn?t as simple as getting one word and putting the equivalent in another language.

BTW i haven?t read free-minds translation, nor do i follow or agree with Rashad Khalifa?s views. I mainly read in Arabic and read translations of Muhammad Asad. Lately also i have been looking up words based on their root, as words can be cuffed when translated and lose their true meaning. If you know another language i?m sure you would be able to empathise with that.

Also its difficult to just pigeon label everyone based on your perception. It?s quite normal for you to disagree with things. Lots of things i disagree with that people think is true. But inevitability my deeds are mine, as are yours and to our Lord we will return.

So wait are you supporting hadith?

?Now let me ask, what is the harm in looking at other sources to better understand certain aspects of the Qur'an? I gave the example of a schoolbook, which is a perfect example. Keep in mind that the Qur'an was not given in a vacume.

Someone who wants to read the Qur'an and doesn't know Arabic must (whether he wants to or not) go to an outside source - a translation.

Someone who knows Arabic fairly well but not perfectly must (whether he wants to or not) go to an outside source - an Arabic dictionary, to verify certain things and better understand it.

See where I'm going with this? The same goes for the Hadeeth. As long as we're not changing religious law as it is ordained in the Qur'an, there should be no problem with reading Hadeeth. The Qur'an is most definitely the BEST HADITH, and I agree with that one hundred percent. Nonetheless, by looking at some outside sources we can understand certain things better, WITHOUT adding things to the deen, and WITHOUTcreating contradictory laws, which is what the Sunnis and Shia have done.?

Ok as a human i?m weak, dumb and stupid. To gain knowledge i read, i live, i ask. Because of my lack of ability in understanding words i look at external sources to understand words. This doesn?t mean the book is incomplete imperfect but rather my lack of understanding language/meaning/concepts is. This is what ?external? sources are used for because of my lack of ability, once i have that ability why would i need external sources?

As for you using hadith, that?s your choice. However you looking at hadith to understand how to do a certain task is accepting the sociocultural contexts of how muslims lived back then and following their interpretation. It?s not changing a law necessarily but it?s you putting your convictions that this is how to do something. might i add with the weakness of accepting a so called "science" of hadith.

It could be a possible way for you to do something however it doesn?t mean it is the ?right? and ?only? method. Do what you are comfortable with. Outside sources such as hadiths don?t make us understand things better, it just gives a label to an act that was supposedly practiced. Sunnis and shias have added things in their salat, you ask any sunni scholar to find a hadith about how many ruku one must do in a salat, you wont find any. Why is there salat for different purposes? Salat for rain for example? There is a whole fiqh on salat. Alot of this basis is on scholarly opinion. Why are companions, family of prophet praised? This is an innovation.

They have a concept which suits peoples comfort, although not necessarily correct. As i said, do what you are comfortable with but remember haqq. I look forward to seeing your salat theory

Salam.

san

Peace.

You have some very important points. However, you might want to put each topic on its own thread under its own subject instead of sweeping 'em out with "My problems with Free-Minds". That would ease us to discuss about it and would more benefit the later observers.

2.) Not giving salawat to Muhammad (saw)

It is one thing not to make Muhammad (saw) a partner to Allah, but it is another thing to disrespect him by not giving salawat. Examples Edip Yuksel mentioning the Prophet (saw) several times in his posts and never giving salawat. And it is not just Edip, it is many many posters. Some will even write their whole post normally and then write "muhammad" without even capitalizing the first letter. What is the reason for this? It's like they're not respecting him at all. Fact check

I don't intend to defend anyone, each person has his own reason. However, please don't judge people as disrespecting the Prophet just because they don't put (saw). Why don't you ask Edip, for example? Did he meant to disrespect the Prophet?

And your "Fact check", sorry but where is the fact? Read it yourself

Fact check The Qur'an instructs us to give salawat when we talk mention the Prophet (saw).

3.) Mistranslations and misinterpretations of the Qur'an

Where's the fact, mate? Have you provide us readers of your very long post even a verse of the Quran on this matter?

I will soon make a thread and explain how I perform Salaat, and why I do it the way I do it.

And God knows best!

You are welcome. And do you realize that your Salaat "the way you do it" might not be free from error, just like anyone else's? Isn't that why other people here is trying to share and discuss? What makes their position any worse or better than yours?

"..., but rather my own views and how they differ from the views of Free Minds."

Test this statement

There are no such things as "the views of Free Minds".

Or if you insist that there are such things, then your view has been one of the views of Free Minds

Peace.

abdalquran

Salaamun alaikum Amid,

You've had a few responses here so don't worry if you don't answer this one.

I'd like to ask you some questions which I feel you should ponder before you even undertake this research

What would you say is the basic teaching of Quran?
By 'basic teaching', i mean its overall purpose, its most fundamental creed. What does it ask of you as a human being?
From this basic teaching, how congrous is the ritual prayer?
Assuming you got this basic teaching articulated, does the ritual prayer fit into its overall scheme of things?
What do you get from saying salawat to the Prophet?
Since his job is done, he was praised by God himself, does he or God need anyone to tell them to bless him further? Can blessings be procured by mere words? Connect it back to the 'basic teaching', is it congrous to that?

Have a think about these things. These questions would have really helped me expedite things in my own journey, I think. Good luck!

Amid

You have some very important points. However, you might want to put each topic on its own thread under its own subject instead of sweeping 'em out with "My problems with Free-Minds". That would ease us to discuss about it and would more benefit the later observers.

Sure, but I've seen others too make long posts with different topics swooped together. Either way the point of this post was mainly Salaat and why using outside sources is OK as long as they don't add contradictory laws to the Qur'an.

I don't intend to defend anyone, each person has his own reason. However, please don't judge people as disrespecting the Prophet just because they don't put (saw). Why don't you ask Edip, for example? Did he meant to disrespect the Prophet?

And your "Fact check", sorry but where is the fact? Read it yourself

"Undoubtedly Allah and His Angels send blessings on the Prophet. O' you who believe! Send upon Him Blessings and salute Him with all respect." (The Qur'an 3356)

Where's the fact, mate? Have you provide us readers of your very long post even a verse of the Quran on this matter?

Are you blind? ??? I even went into a detailed analysis of a Qur'anic verse which was mis-translated, and that is only one example among many. Here it is for you again, and the explanation