It is finaly out
-
Salaam Brother Edip (I assume that I am a brother in humanity rather than in true Islam according to you);
Firstly note that the phrase you quoted me on was construed out of context and misinterpreted. I said that our belief in the unseen and acceptance of the Message made us Muslims. That does not say anything about why we do these things! Iblis acknowledges/believes but he does not accept. It is also why both the traditional and Khalifite shahadas fall short of the Qur'anic example (unless it can be argued otherwise).
You ignored/missed a lot of what I said (in your eagerness to pounce on a phrase) but it does not matter because it is still there. I also do not need to take your words personally since they were uttered without base. For instance, you openly declare that I am no better than a wishful-thinker although I never actually told you what my rationale for belief was (beyond general Qur'anic arguments). The Qur'an provides arguments but it is not just the point of the arguments, but the argument themselves (as is implied). You therefore demonstrate prejudice and prove what I was saying. Now if I wanted to demonstrate that Code 19 is irrelevant (as is my arguing for or against it since I do not feel that I need to) then I would ask you to answer the question posed by the Qur'an (considering the context of the Revelation)
"They said, "If only signs would come down to him from his Lord!" Say, "All signs are with God, and I am but a clear warner." Is it not enough for them that We have sent down to you the book, being recited to them? In that is a mercy and a reminder for people who acknowledge."
Qur'an 2950-51
I used your translation since that is your tafsir. The Qur'an is asking if you think that the recitation of the Qur'an itself (i.e. the plain Arabic and the arguments it contains) is not enough to make someone believe. If you can answer Allah's (SWT) question then I can make mention of the list of scientific observations contained in the Qur'an which you placed at the beginning of "A Reformist Translation" (though it is not just this!). Unless you wish to argue with your own words or claim that still I am no better than a wishful thinker (simply because I believe that the Qur'an presents the necessary case for Allah (SWT) without Code 19) and therefore that the Qur'an is not enough without Code 19, then I am not quite sure why you responded to me in such a fashion (especially since you don't know how much I know or have studied). After all, I never said that I rejected Code 19 (how could I?); I am only taking the advice in 20114.
I am curious as to your opinion on Muslims who believed before 1974 which is the same as asking why 2950-51 is less applicable today than it was then.
Also whether we use the word "believe" or "acknowledge" is (as per lines 2-4) irrelevant since people can believe on evidence or they can acknowledge on evidence. Moreover it is more logical to believe in what one cannot see than to acknowledge it. One would find it easier to acknowledge the existence of the unseen than to acknowledge something about which they can know nothing. It is not good to think that we know something when we are only supposed to believe in it according to separate arguments.
Anyway, my point is about judging something or someone without sufficient evidence or knowledge. If you can find something in my original message that makes me a hypocrite, then please let me know. You rejected good advice, but it is still there!
Peace and best wishes and thankyou for your efforts.
P.S. 7146 was a part of the reason for avoiding absolutist views Ayman's way (but even then it is simply talking about every sign and not one particular sign - thus implying that one does not have to see every sign to believe). Nevertheless/likewise its relevance is only sound if you can answer the above. One is free to possess absolutist views, but beyond presenting one's evidence it is unwise to label others (for both religious and social reasons!).
-
Salam Mazhar,
And lets him get murdered, obviously in breach of His Promise, if he was a messenger. Allah does not betray. It is His self assumed obligation to help His Messengers. Since He did not help him throughout his life, and he earned his life through deceits, as has been pointed out by his class fellow and country fellow, it is evident that he is a lier and flase claimant of messengership.
Sorry to jump in on this thread, but where in the Quran does it say that messengers can't get killed?
Prophets and messengers were murdered on several occations (3183, 291).
I think you are mixing between God's victory (which is guaranteed to His followers) and mortality.
-
Salam Mazhar,
Sorry to jump in on this thread, but where in the Quran does it say that messengers can't get killed?
Prophets and messengers were murdered on several occations (3183, 291).
I think you are mixing between God's victory (which is guaranteed to His followers) and mortality.
Thanks Layeth,
It is a lengthy issue. Though I have written about it in Urdu covering all occurrences of Root Qaaf Ta Laam, but that will take some time to translate it in English. Your qerry remains due upon me for clarification.
However, I may clarify the specific point, the charge with the use of word made from Root Qaaf Ta Laam is only on the Jews. And they still keep doing it as charged in Qur'aan. No other nation or community has been alleged this charge.
-
Peace Asana;
SHAHADA
?When his (Abraham?s) Lord said to him, Be a Muslim, he said I submit myself to the Lord of the worlds.?
Qur?an 2131
?Allah bears witness that there is no god but He, and (so do) the angels and those possessed of knowledge, maintaining His creation with justice; there is no god but He, the Mighty, the Wise.?
Qur?an 318
?But if they dispute with you, say I have submitted myself entirely to Allah and (so) every one who follows me; and say to those who have been given the Book and the unlearned people Do you submit yourselves? So if they submit then indeed they follow the right way; and if they turn back, then upon you is only the delivery of the message and Allah sees the servants.?
Qur?an 320
?And We made the children of Israel to pass through the sea, then Firon and his hosts followed them for oppression and tyranny; until when drowning overtook him, he said I believe that there is no god but He in Whom the children of Israel believe and I am of those who submit.?
Qur?an 1090
?And return to your Lord time after time and submit to Him before there comes to you the punishment, then you shall not be helped.?
Qur?an 3954
?Say I am forbidden to serve those whom you call upon besides Allah when clear arguments have come to me from my Lord, and I am commanded that I should submit to the Lord of the worlds.?
Qur?an 4066
Therefore the recommended Shahada is
?There is no god but Allah; I submit to the Lord of the Universe.? It is interesting that despite ?Islam? meaning ?Submission? and ?Muslim? meaning ?Submitter?, the traditional Muslims do not submit in their declaration of "Muslimship". Even Iblis can say "there is No God but The God (and Muhammad is His Messenger)". It does not make him a Muslim because he does not make intention to submit. They make intention to perform salaat, but no intention to follow the rest of the Message (i.e. intention to submit).
-
Mesmorial, are you saying that there are no good traditional muslims? Are you saying that they are all going to Hell or what ever you might believe Hell to be?
Peace and Thanks
-
Dear Pel;
Did I say that? I think I said something was interesting. I also made a recommendation.
Take care and peace.
P.S. You could ask Edip Yuksel or any other Qur'an-alone Muslim the same question with justification for a lot of other reasons (i.e. ignoring the fact that they might have a different shahada or maybe not think that a shahada is necessary!). You should open a thread to obtain a broader response. Also remember that intention to be a Muslim simply by intending to do one's best to follow others is not quite the same as making an honest attempt to do it as best as one can according to one's brain (and if it truly (logically) leads to accepting sources of religious law besides the Qur'an, then so be it). However social fear is the argument against that. I call it "sunniformity", but it is not my business to label people as this or that.
-
Thanks Mes for your enlightnening views. You are right about laws, I mean they are all based on the ten commandments wich is an"Older scripture" acording to my belief.
By the way, I think that sunnis will be alright in next life. Ofcourse, the sinciere ones, so I disagree with you in that they are not following the system as a general statement.
Peace and Thanks
-
Thanks Mes for your enlightnening views. You are right about laws, I mean they are all based on the ten commandments wich is an"Older scripture" acording to my belief.
By the way, I think that sunnis will be alright in next life. Ofcourse, the sinciere ones, so I disagree with you in that they are not following the system as a general statement.
Peace and Thanks
To clarify
I believe generally anyone who believes and does good whilst not judging others based on religion and does not advocate the killing of apostates will "definitely" be alright. I myself accept ahadith as examples (some of which are true, false, good or bad, contrary or not to the Qur'an) because I think that community cohesion is important in big things such as the sacred months (which are not in the Qur'an) (I say that because the ahadith confirm what I already thought, explained in the article "The Five Pillars of the Qur'an Alone". Now we ask are all traditional Muslims going to Hell according to those who follow different sacred months?) and the number of salaat (my reading of the Qur'an being confirmed again by ahadith). If there is no real reason not to take something as an example (whether people believe it is obligatory or not is no-one's business and people need to be satisfied with their own reason/system of faith and respect that) then for the sake of community cohesion I will follow that. For example I will pray like others as far as it does not contradict the Qur'an, but obviously there will be some differences. A Qur'an-alone Muslim cannot argue with that because the actual length of prayer is determined by how much of the Qur'an one chooses to recite whilst standing!
So in short my attitude to ahadith is that those which overtly support Shia and Sunni doctrines (or else are just misogynistic etc.) are false, distorted or taken out of context (not that I would need to worry if I knew the Qur'an well enough) whilst the others are examples or interpretations. After all it is natural that there would be ahadith to support different views because of the Final Sermon. Although there are a lot of weird ahadith, there are also a lot of nice ones which gives credence to the belief that the others are false or distorted. Notice I do not accept any ahadith as obligatory, but there is no reason for me (for example) to not circumambulate the Kaaba 7 times anyway so I would do so (though it could be argued you need only do it once). Besides, the religion was passed down so there is more evidence for that (and blatant denial of (i.e. aversion to) recorded history when it comes to such things is not constructive). Islam is really a personal thing but Muslims are kept together by the simple Message (in the Qur'an!) of prayer, charity and belief etc.. That is why death for apostasy and other nasty things are wrong. I talked about Jizya in the articles "Does Islam Intend to Conquer the World Part II" and "Picking Up the Pieces" to demonstrate that even if the traditions are true, the people who impose it must follow the message and be fair since the ahadith had their own context. E.g. I would argue that the Jizya if accepted as tax must be (since we have no more information from the Qur'an) a normal state tax the name of which derives from verse 929. There is ideally no problem except aggressive and judgemental Muslims (and the Islamophobes!). The problem is that Sunni Islam is based on two absolute sources of religion which gives some the self-righteousness to judge others (hence "sunniformity" and do what they choose regardless of the Qur'an. That seed is why am I going through every relevant ayah of the Qur'an (though the debate is now foregone for me).
The other reason that I recommend a moderate and open attitude from all (besides that it is a part of truly appreciating one's religion) is that overcoming one's insecurity will mean that people will not feel they must defend their own opinions and points of view by attacking others. When someone says something, someone reacts and eventually both accuse each other of being bigots. Remember that no-one knows everything, and as long as one tries their best and follows what they think is right (if this causes inevitable conflict then it must be supported by the Qur'an) then InshaAllah that will be fine.
Peace.
-
However, I may clarify the specific point, the charge with the use of word made from Root Qaaf Ta Laam is only on the Jews. And they still keep doing it as charged in Qur'aan. No other nation or community has been alleged this charge.
One of the popular logical fallacies. The Quran NEVER states "ONLY" for Jews on this issue. Just because the Quran gives only ONE example, that does not make it the ONLY
The Quran mentions banana, grape and pomagrade, but it does not mention orange. Thus there is no such a fruit called orange.
The Quran mentions messengers that were sent to Arabs and Jews, but not to Chinese and Greek. Thus, Chinese and Greek did not receive messengers.I recommend brother Mazhar to study logic and learn about common logical fallacies. I have learned that many of our futile arguments are caused by lack of critical thinking and lack of skills in recognizing logical fallacies.
Peace,
Edip -
How can I delete this one?
Somehow it posted a duplicate message.
Peace,
Edip -
Salaam Layth,
Salam Mazhar,
Sorry to jump in on this thread, but where in the Quran does it say that messengers can't get killed?
Prophets and messengers were murdered on several occations (3183, 291).
I think you are mixing between God's victory (which is guaranteed to His followers) and mortality.
Sorry to interfere in here. I could not find any aayat in AlQuraan that says about murdering or killing THE MESSENGER(S).
291 is about "Ambiyaa Allah"
3183 is about "Rasool" NOT "Al + Rasool" i.e., The Messenger because AlRasool are protected by Allah.
567
567 O The Messenger, deliver what was sent down to you from your Lord, and if you do not then you have not delivered His message; and Allah will protect you from the people. And Allah does not guide the rejecting people.
AlRasool or Rasool Allah are the one who is appointed by Allah
Rasool is self-made and not appointed by Allah
May Allah guide us all towards the truth pr
Mohammed M. Khan -
One of the popular logical fallacies. The Quran NEVER states "ONLY" for Jews on this issue. Just because the Quran gives only ONE example, that does not make it the ONLY
The Quran mentions banana, grape and pomagrade, but it does not mention orange. Thus there is no such a fruit called orange.
The Quran mentions messengers that were sent to Arabs and Jews, but not to Chinese and Greek. Thus, Chinese and Greek did not receive messengers.I recommend brother Mazhar to study logic and learn about common logical fallacies. I have learned that many of our futile arguments are caused by lack of critical thinking and lack of skills in recognizing logical fallacies.
Peace,
EdipDear, but which book calls it logic what you have said?
A specific charge when alleged against a particular nation is never generalized to consider it or presume it to be against all. A charge of misconduct can be corelated to description of fruits in some logic theory, I have yet to find it.
-
(A useless note)
"And when Allah made a covenant through the prophets Certainly what I have given you of Book and wisdom-- then an messenger comes to you verifying that which is with you, you must believe in him, and you must aid him. He said Do you affirm and accept My compact in this (matter)? They said We do affirm. He said Then bear witness, and I (too) am of the bearers of witness with you."
Qur'an 381
I always wondered how or why the Prophets would have to help a Messenger (not denying!). I thought it might mean enjoining their people to follow the Messenger or Message so that later generations would. Anyway if Khalifa was supposed to be aided then it would be unexpected that he should die. He did what he did but then he was killed. He would not have been killed had he not already accomplished "what he was meant to" (assuming for a moment that he was a Messenger). He did not need assistance from the other Prophets to do what he did (since it is Allah (SWT) that makes events happen). He was not assisted much by traditional Muslims and the few that assisted him were only those who accepted his claims.
This is another point about which we probably should not harbour an absolute conclusion. Khalifa appears shady but then I never met him personally!
Peace.
-
Peace MesMorial
Thanks for the reply.
I?m a submitter and do not testify the second part of the traditionalist Shahada.If you meant Khalifiti by Submitters in message 26 then you should know you were wrong.Submitters are submitters .
Asana
Peace Asana.
I was only talking about the Shahada but I mention "Khalifite" since it defines the particular interpretation/belief that you suggested you hold. I assume in one use of the word that you mean submitters as in Muslims and not "Submitters" as defined by your interpretation (by which I identify it as "Khalifite" whether you are correct or not). I consider myself a Muslim also because I do my best to submit to the Message without attempting to define the ins-and-outs of everything. It is not necessarily superior but then it is the natural way for me. We can get so far with the interpretation, but still it is as if we knew nothing. I still offer my recommendation but nevertheless all the best.
Peace to you.
-
Salaam Layth,
Sorry to interfere in here. I could not find any aayat in AlQuraan that says about murdering or killing THE MESSENGER(S).
291 is about "Ambiyaa Allah"
3183 is about "Rasool" NOT "Al + Rasool" i.e., The Messenger because AlRasool are protected by Allah.
567
567 O The Messenger, deliver what was sent down to you from your Lord, and if you do not then you have not delivered His message; and Allah will protect you from the people. And Allah does not guide the rejecting people.
AlRasool or Rasool Allah are the one who is appointed by Allah
Rasool is self-made and not appointed by Allah
May Allah guide us all towards the truth pr
Mohammed M. KhanPeace MMKhan
Is there a verse that says messengers cannot get killed specifically? Because everyone dies somehow. Protection from the people does not entail protection from assisination. It could be protection untill message delivered for exmaple or from people trying to prevent the deliverence of the message. If Rashad was the messenger, he did discover and deliver something important (message wise)
Peace
-
Salaam nimnimak_11,
Is there a verse that says messengers cannot get killed specifically?
I don't know any such aayat bro, and it is not required cause the aayat quoted includes it.
Because everyone dies somehow. Protection from the people does not entail protection from assisination. It could be protection untill message delivered for exmaple or from people trying to prevent the deliverence of the message. If Rashad was the messenger, he did discover and deliver something important (message wise)
I could not find such explanation of yours in the aayat 567. How did you get to such conclusion, can you please explain for us here?
When Allah said "Hurrimat 'alaikum almaitatu..." 53 that means "Forbidden to you is that which is dead...". What and which dead are haraam?
Dead goat, dead sheep, dead cow, dead camel, dead fish, dead prawns, what? Who died in accident by a vehicle, died by beating it with stick, died by falling from ceiling, which one is haraam?
The aayat includes all, cause, the aayat was said without any condition. In same way, when Allah said "...Allah will protect you from the people..." in 567, it cover all areas, be it a murder or by poisoning or anything else.
May Allah guide us all to His path pr
Mohammed M. Khan
