throat slitting and halal slaughtering methods
-
I want to correct something in my previous post. Nahr is either injuring the area right above the chest, lower neck area called the minhar. Or it is stabbing a camel where the throat comes out from the upper extreme of the chest. Al-nahr bil-labbah or Nahr in the upper part of the chest is also equal to dhabh in the neck. Dhabh as explained earlier is the cut at the point known as the naseel. The word also means 'shaqq' or ripping, cutting or tearing apart. So here nahr is applied to cutting at any point of the front of the neck i.e., throat. So slaughter can be done at the upper portion under the jawbone all the way down to the lower portion right above to the chest.
Please don't go say I am contradicting myself about nahr. Nahr primarily means 'to injur in the chest/or lower neck',
I need not say anything. Your words are proof against you.
Peace.
-
Peace,
Whatever about me incriminating myself. I just gave you some additional definitions and didn't want you claiming I had contradicted myself. As expected you went for the low blow anyway.
My main points are these
- The Quran is written in the Classical Arabic language.
- God said he would preserve the Quran, and he did this through the pens, minds and mouths of PEOPLE.
- In order for God to preserve the Quran so that we all can understand it he also has to preserve the language it was written in.
- The language the Quran was written in was preserved through the pens, minds and mouths of PEOPLE.
- Preservation of the language goes hand and hand with preservation of the Quran.
It is written in a language isn't it?
All I am doing is expounding for you the meaning of the words used in the Quran. You mention scholars who break pacts. which scholars? You can't generalize them all. The defintions of the words I present to you were researched by scholars of old, who did not want to influence anyone's reading of the Quran one way or another. They just set out to provide a resource for people to be able to understand the meanings of Arabic words wherever they are found. The Quran does not define its words. You must know what the words it uses mean before you read the book. Do you pretend to read a book in English without knowing English? Do works in English DEFINE their words through context? No. They use their already KNOWN definitions in context. You ask me to bring proof from the Quran of what I say. Would you ask me to bring proof from the Quran that the sky is blue? Well then don't ask me to bring proof from the Quran that you need to know the language of a book you study before you study it. Don't ask me to bring proof that literary works do not define their own words, but rather use the already known definitions of words in context within their works. As one last thing just tell me this. You don't even have to respond to any of the above (or the following) in my post, just answer me this. How does the Quran (don't use a translation, because the translator used a dictionary, i.e. a work of man/a scholar), how does the Quran define the word 'ism'?
When you figure that one out, then you'll know that dictionaries which are works of men are necessary for understanding ANY literary work, including the Quran and you can't just exclude them and dismiss them as 'works of men.' The Quran does't define 'jinn' or any other word, bro. Literary works don't define their words. They can give you more information about a vague concept or even describe a being, but it doesn't define any of the words it uses. If a book uses the word 'ghosts' and give a description of them, it's not defining the word 'ghosts.' You have to already know the meaning of that word when you read it.
As for the Quran being available to non-Arabic speakers. Translators translated for them and through providence allowed the basic message to get through. Also, as you know, be the person a non-Arabic (or not well educated on Classical Arabic) speaker reading a translation or Abu Lahab, the last prophet's uncle who listened to the Quran himself and spoke and understood the Arabic of the Arabs of the prophet's day that the Quran was composed in, to the unopen heart even the most basics of the message are incomprehensible, more because of a deepseated disinterest than anything else. But the person reading the translation or not educated in Classical Arabic is at a serious disadvantage should they be interested in delving into the nuances and specifics of the Quran. Scholars who just focus on the sciences of hadeeth or shari'ah or only HOW to recite the Quran instead of the sciences of Al-lughah will also be severely deficient. Remember what the Quran has to say about respecting those who have knowledge and using good judgement/wisdom and intelligence. Believe me that had it not been for these linguistic works you would never have been able to open up even a translation of the Quran, because it would not have existed, nor would even any Arab today (or even of 500 or more years ago) have been able to understand it because of how much the spoken language has changed after the fact. The language WAS PRESERVED by works of men. And if God didn't include the preservation of the language that the Quran uses in the same package as the preservation of the Quran, then I don't know what sort of logic you ascribe to, if it's any logic at all.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
Whatever about me incriminating myself. I just gave you some additional definitions and didn't want you claiming I had contradicted myself. As expected you went for the low blow anyway.
I quoted your own words to show the contradiction you uphold based on teachings of scholars. I didn't make you write them. To say pointing out your contradiction is a low blow is disingenuous.
My main points are these
-
The Quran is written in the Classical Arabic language.
-
God said he would preserve the Quran, and he did this through the pens, minds and mouths of PEOPLE.
-
In order for God to preserve the Quran so that we all can understand it he also has to preserve the language it was written in.
-
The language the Quran was written in was preserved through the pens, minds and mouths of PEOPLE.
-
Preservation of the language goes hand and hand with preservation of the Quran.
Allah also sent satans to cover up the Truth and deter from the righteous path. Allah even warns those people in the Quran as to their reward for their misconduct
"Those who conceal what of the Book God has sent down on them, and sell it for a little price - they shall eat naught but the Fire in their bellies; God shall not speak to them on the Day of Resurrection neither purify them; there awaits them a painful chastisement." Surah 2174
And when the people seek to cover up the Truth by giving false definitions to words, how do you determine when someone is teaching falsehood? You turn to Allah and ask Him to explain the Quran. In the descriptions you will find the words that are given false definitions explained clearly.
However, this is a misdirect from the original point No where in the Quran does it forbid to eat food that Allah's name was not mentioned at the time of slaughter. Your teachings were refuted by the Quran, not some religious text.
It is written in a language isn't it?
All I am doing is expounding for you the meaning of the words used in the Quran. You mention scholars who break pacts. which scholars? You can't generalize them all.
But I can and I will. Allah is Seer, All Knowing. Why do I need to rely on any scholar when I rely on the One whose vision encompasses all things, and whose has knowledge of everything?
Can you answer that question? Why do I need to rely on man when I can rely on Allah - and I am commanded to do so in the Quran?
You beckon me to the Fire by asking me to associate partners with Allah. I will not. Allah is sufficient for me.
There is a reason why I own 22 Qurans, including the Arabic revelation. Man will bring their biases to the translations, but it is in relying on Allah for explanation and guidance that I will be sure of the Truth.The defintions of the words I present to you were researched by scholars of old, who did not want to influence anyone's reading of the Quran one way or another.
Where is proof of this claim? Am I to take your word for it? How can you tell me you know the intent of these men? Do you now profess to know the unseen? Have you researched into all their works to see what teachings they uphold?
Based on the teachings I see brought from Lexicons, I see no reason to take any scholar at face value. I do not trust man, I rely solely on Allah.
If you don't like it, that is your issue to deal with.
Based on your replies here and in various other threads, you rely on the teachings of scholars for your interpretation and teachings from hadith (see below). So be it. To you are your deeds, and to me are mine. In the End we will know who is rightly guided, and who is not. )They just set out to provide a resource for people to be able to understand the meanings of Arabic words wherever they are found. The Quran does not define its words.
No one made you write these words. You did so of your own accord. I am clear of what you set up with Allah.
?And certainly We have explained in this Quran every kind of example, and man is most of all given to contention.? Surah 1854
?And certainly We have made clear for men in this Quran every kind of description, but most men consent naught save denying.? Surah 1789
?In their stories is surely a lesson to men possessed of minds; it is not a tale forged, but a confirmation of what is before it, and a distinguishing of every thing, and a guidance, and a mercy to a people who believe.? Surah 12111
"And this Quran is not such as could be forged by those besides Allah, but it is a verification of that which is before it and a clear explanation of the Book, there is no doubt in it, from the Lord of the worlds." Surah 1037
"And We indeed have revealed to thee clear messages, and none disbelieve in them except the transgressors." Surah 299
So you understand why I disagree with you. )
You must know what the words it uses mean before you read the book. Do you pretend to read a book in English without knowing English? Do works in English DEFINE their words through context? No. They use their already KNOWN definitions in context.
Or, since you bring up English, they create new words or change the meanings to suit their needs. You only need to look up the word 'Gay' to see how it has changed over the years. 'Worship' is another word the English language has changed to suit the needs of those who seek to cover the Truth.
You ask me to bring proof from the Quran of what I say. Would you ask me to bring proof from the Quran that the sky is blue?
I need only look to the sky and see that it is the color blue. Allah tells us to use your heads, our eyes, and our hearts to become men of understanding.
Men of understanding Surah 2121, 37, 3918, 2179, 2197, 2269, 313, 3190, 5100, 12111, 1319, 1452, 1676, 2054, 20128, 2935, 3022, 3528, 3829, 3843, 399, 4054, 5120, 5913, 6510, 895
"Those to whom We have given the Book study it as it should be studied they are the ones that believe therein those who reject faith therein, the loss is their own." Surah 2121
"Those who listen to the word, then follow the best of it; those are they whom Allah has guided, and those it is who are the men of understanding." Surah 3918
?They have taken their rabbis and their priests for lords besides Allah, and the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one God only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up.? Surah 931Yet how do you tell a blind man the sky is blue when they do not know the color?
How do you tell a man to rely solely on Allah for explanation when he refuses to listen and turns to men instead? Are the blind and seeing alike? Surah 1124
Well then don't ask me to bring proof from the Quran that you need to know the language of a book you study before you study it.
But I do read Arabic, as years ago a follower of hadith told me the same thing 'You cannot understand the Quran without knowing Arabic.' I see you take a page from their rhetoric.
And as proven, you cannot refute what was shown so you seek to argue about matters totally off the subject. Who is the one who is astray and who is the one bringing irrefutable proofs from the Quran?
It is in learning Arabic that I am shown by Allah the attempts of your 'scholars' to cover up the Truth with their traditions and idolatry. Proof of this deception is in the teachings you bring forth to this very thread.As well, the Message will be in the language of the people. The Quran is a Message for all nations, not just the Arabs. So to say a person cannot understand the Quran without knowing Arabic goes against the teachings of the Quran itself.
The Quran sent for all nations/beings Surah 3108, 690, 12104, 21107, 251, 3887, 6852, 8127, 3428, 7158, 3340, 4170, 4733, 480, 619, 21107, 479-80
"And We have sent no Messenger save with the tongue of his people, that he might make all clear to them; then God leads astray whomsoever He will, and He guides whomsoever He will; and He is the All-mighty, the All-wise." Surah 144
The proofs from the Quran that refute your scholar's teachings was not in Arabic, but in English. )
Allah leads astray whomsoever He wills, and He guides whomsoever He wills.Don't ask me to bring proof that literary works do not define their own words, but rather use the already known definitions of words in context within their works. As one last thing just tell me this. You don't even have to respond to any of the above (or the following) in my post, just answer me this. How does the Quran (don't use a translation, because the translator used a dictionary, i.e. a work of man/a scholar), how does the Quran define the word 'ism'?
When you figure that one out, then you'll know that dictionaries which are works of men are necessary for understanding ANY literary work, including the Quran and you can't just exclude them and dismiss them as 'works of men.' The Quran does't define 'jinn' or any other word, bro. Literary works don't define their words. They can give you more information about a vague concept or even describe a being, but it doesn't define any of the words it uses. If a book uses the word 'ghosts' and give a description of them, it's not defining the word 'ghosts.' You have to already know the meaning of that word when you read it.Again, I believe Allah explains the Quran. You believe scholars explain the Quran, as proven by your previous replies.
You brought the word of scholars in an attempt to prove a method of slaughter taught in hadith, and your teachings were exposed based on proof from the Quran. It was not proof from the Quran you brought, but tales from poets and scholars and hypocrites. You cannot refute it, so you attack me and my position. I'm used to this behavior by now.
But again, I will not be asked what you did, nor am I responsible for you. I am clear of what you do and who you set up as partners with Allah.
As for your games of interpretation and definition, I thank Allah for another reason to study the Quran. D
I am not surprised by your question, as I hear followers of hadith - Islamists - command people to perform similar stunts in their attempts at Invalidation. It is only manifest proof of the lack of evidence-based rhetoric available to them; a reliance on conjecture instead of proof.As for the Quran being available to non-Arabic speakers. Translators translated for them and through providence allowed the basic message to get through. Also, as you know, be the person a non-Arabic (or not well educated on Classical Arabic) speaker reading a translation or Abu Lahab, the last prophet's uncle
I want to point out that you have no proof that this man was the uncle of Muhammad. You continue to uphold teachings found in hadith, and expect me to accept it. I will not.
Had you studied the Quran you would understand who this is speaking about.Abu Lahab/Father Flame/abee lahabin Archetype figure that represents those condemned due to their belief in their power in this world based on the material gains they have procured; his trust in his wealth is a pass that crushed him; both he and his wife, because each is guilty of something. (Research originators of pagan syncretism Nimrod and Semiramis.)
The one does not drag down the other in their guilt Surah 3431-33, 3450
There have been many as Abu Lahab Surah 6928-29
"My wealth has not availed me, my authority is gone from me.'" Surah 6928-29
Enemies of Al-Islam Surah 471-38All knowledge is due to Allah. Period.
who listened to the Quran himself and spoke and understood the Arabic of the Arabs of the prophet's day that the Quran was composed in, to the unopen heart even the most basics of the message are incomprehensible, more because of a deepseated disinterest than anything else. But the person reading the translation or not educated in Classical Arabic is at a serious disadvantage should they be interested in delving into the nuances and specifics of the Quran. Scholars who just focus on the sciences of hadeeth or shari'ah or only HOW to recite the Quran instead of the sciences of Al-lughah will also be severely deficient. Remember what the Quran has to say about respecting those who have knowledge and using good judgement/wisdom and intelligence.
Please, show me, if you speak truthfully, we are to respect 'those who have knowledge'. The only ones given knowledge we are to respect are the Prophets (pbut).
You continue to get caught up in the teachings of hadith when the Quran refutes your statements.
No where in the Quran does it tell us to respect those who have knowledge. The Quran tells us to become knowledgeable through study of the Book."It belongs not to any mortal that God should give him the Book, the Judgment, the Prophethood, then he should say to men, 'Be you servants to me apart from God.' Rather, 'Be you scholars (rabbaniyyeena) in that you know the Book, and in that you study.'" Surah 379
Allah constantly tells us to use our heads, to reason, to research and examine, and above all confirm the Truth.
The sin is in not confirming the Truth Surah 1736, 496, 7531-32
?And follow not that of which thou has no knowledge. Surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, of all of these it will be asked.? Surah 1736
?O you who believe, if an unrighteous man brings you news, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you did.? Surah 496Seek assistance through patience and prayer Surah 245, 2153, 2186
"And when My servants ask you concerning Me, then surely I am very near; I answer the prayer of the suppliant when he calls on Me, so they should answer My call and believe in Me that they may walk in the right way." Surah 2186I turn to Allah.
You turn to Lexicons and hadith. Proof is given from your own words.Believe me that had it not been for these linguistic works you would never have been able to open up even a translation of the Quran, because it would not have existed, nor would even any Arab today (or even of 500 or more years ago) have been able to understand it because of how much the spoken language has changed after the fact. The language WAS PRESERVED by works of men. And if God didn't include the preservation of the language that the Quran uses in the same package as the preservation of the Quran, then I don't know what sort of logic you ascribe to, if it's any logic at all.
Your scholars had no influence on that matter in the slightest.
"Why, when thou wentest into thy garden, didst thou not say, "As God will; there is no power except in God"? If thou seest me, that I am less than thou in wealth and children," Surah 1839
And how did this all occur? By the will of Allah. All power is due to Him and Him alone. To say a man was responsible for the knowledge coming to us only proves who you associate partners to Allah.
This conversation happened for a reason. I fear Allah and do not associate partners to Him."Follow what has been sent down to you from your Lord, and follow no friends other than He; little do you remember." Surah 73
Allah is the best guidance, Allah explains Surah 373, 426, 487,179, 2532, 346, 3923, 4144, 456. 5417,22,32,40, 5675-81, 7516-19, 7750, 1035, 73, 2779, 333, 1689
?And thus have We made for every prophet an enemy from among the guilty, and sufficient is thy Lord as a Guide and a Helper." Surah 2531
?Allah desires to explain to you, and to guide you into the ways of those before you, and to turn to you, and Allah is Knowing, Wise.? Surah 426
"Move not thy tongue therewith to make haste with it. Surely on Us rests the collecting of it and the reciting of it. So when We recite it, follow its recitation. Again on Us rests the explaining of it." Surah 7516-19Allah is sufficient for the believers Surah 3173, 445, 470, 479, 481, 4132, 4166, 4171, 862, 864, 959, 9129, 1029, 1343, 1796, 2952, 333, 3339, 3936, 3938, 4828, 653
?Belongs not sincere religion to Allah? And those who take protectors, apart from Him -- 'We only serve them that they may bring us nigh in nearness to Allah' -- surely Allah shall judge between them touching that whereon they are at variance. Surely Allah guides not him who is a liar, unthankful.? Surah 393Proof is given. Where is your proof?
Explanation is not proof."So We have appointed to every Prophet an enemy -- Satans of men and jinn, revealing tawdry speech to each other, all as a delusion; yet, had thy Lord willed, they would never have done it. So leave them to their forging," Surah 6112
You had three opportunities to bring proof from the Quran to support your claims. You didn't, but you attempted to divert from the Truth and beckoned me to associate partners with our Lord, Allah, Seer.
Proof is given why I won't believe as you believe. This conversation is over."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 all beings." Surah 4066
I bid you 'Peace'.
-
-
Jack..
So people who kill animals to eat are worried the animal is going to feel pain from a halal/kosher slaughter?
Yes. Bloody hippies.
is stunning supposed to be pain-free? what benefits other than less pain is there in stunning..
It makes it so that the animal doesn't feel pain when slaughtered, etc.
no known visible sign of blood retention? i think the time from stunning and slaughter matters, e.g. if you stun it and kill it a few mins or hours later what difference is there?
No difference, as far as I know. Stunning makes it so that the animal is unconscious. Unconscious but not 'dead', thus not feeling any pain when killed .
I am not for/against Halal, as a slaughtering method.
-
raginggaijin,
I did not read all of your post. You are overflowing with words and say so much, but very little of it reaches the point. I'm sure it does for you, but not for me. It is good that you read Arabic. How did you learn Arabic? I'm sure the Quran did not teach you Arabic, because you learned Arabic in order to read the Quran(although through reading it it may have shown you some grammatical, orthographic and stylistic usages that you were not familiar with). It was through the teachings of human beings, i.e. men, that you learned Arabic. Teachings that would not exist if were not for Lisanul-Arab. Claiming that lisanul-Arab is really based on teachings of the hadeeth and is among the works of satan covering up the truth is like saying the teachings that were given to you for you to learn Arabic in order to read the Quran are the works of Satan trying to cover up the truth and keep you from the truth of the Quran. What you learned in order to read the Quran is a direct result of Lisanul-Arab. If the definitions of those words happen to coincide with what is in a hadeeth that just goes to show you that even though hadeeth are not necessary they are not always wrong or lies.
I'm not attacking you at all. I'm just trying to show you that your line of thinking is hypocritical. You learn the definition of many Arabic words in an attempt to learn Arabic, definitions that are in essence based on the works of the linguistic scholars you damn and condemn. Yet you reject these scholars and trump up all sorts of false charges on them when a word in the Quran can be defined in a way that might coincide with a hadeeth or what it says about a related issue. You ARE to take these lexicons at face value unless you have some sort of evidence to the contrary. I believe in innocent until proven guilty. The hadeeth in how they try to teach us our religion outside of the Quran are in general the words of satans. Although some hadeeth may be accurate, they are still completely unnecessary in order for us to observe the Quran. But the fact that you learned Arabic through teachings of men which are derived from Lisanul-Arab and other ancient dictionaries and lexicons and then you reject these dictionaries when you come across a meaning that you don't like or that coincides with some hadeeth, is disingenuous on your part. In the end the Quran does not define Arabic words, MEN DO. And in order to get the correct definitions you must consult with the works that represent the ARAB MEN closest to the time of the last prophet. Hadeeths don't define words either. All the Quran and the hadeth can do is act as supporting sources for already understood words or explicitly refer to how the Arabs of that time used those words. And that last part is what the lexicons do. The word 'gay' is a good example of what I am saying. How would you know that a book from the 1930's doesn't mean homsexual when it uses gay? By consulting a dictionary appropriate to that time or one comprehensive enough to include the time frames and/or origins of the meanings of diffrent words. And that is my whole point. I would only accuse a dictionary of dishonesty or subterfuge with real evidence, not just pure accusations and Quranic verses that don't apply. It's one thing to say that a certain dictionary is inappropriate because of its limited scope and how much in depth it goes into the origins and meanings of a word. I've found Lane's Lexicon very deficient or innaproppriate in many cases for these reasons, and have only rarely found this to be the case with Lisanul-Arab. In the case of the hadeeth there IS some real evdience of disingeniousness, error or dishonesty (but this has to do with their messages, not their use of the language), starting from how most hadeeth were preserved to the fact that many of them contradict each other and what the Quran has to say, the Quran being the most authentic source for the teachings of the last prophet because it IS the teachings of the last prophet. But this is not the case for lexicons like lisanul-arab that don't intend to offer up teachings of the prophet besides the Quran, but rather how the Arabs of that time understood the very language they used and which the Quran borrowed to communicate its teachings and messages. And it is their linguistic works that allowed you to learn the Arabic that you learned in order to begin to read and understand what you understand of the Quran in Arabic. So how can you equate these works with the teachings of the hadeeth as a whole and the works of satan that many hadeeth are (as they purport to offer up extra-Quranic teachings, not define words) , just because they may coincide with a hadeeth here or there. Please take into consideration that just because it's a hadeeth doesn't make it automtically untrue, although it DOES make it altogether unnecessary.
I hope you get this with everything I've said here, but if you don't oh well. I've done what I can to impart wisdom to into the ranks of the Quranists (whether you like that word or not it applies)
Godbless,
Anwar -
Jack,
i don't see any problem with stunning either, as long as the animal doesn't die by stunning and God's name is mentioned over it. Then it should be cut at the neck or in the chest to let the flowing blood of the veins run out and then it is good to go. I do not know if the blood can be let out just by washing the meat once it is cut up. But God's name is to be mentioned over it at slaughter.
Godbless,
Anwar -
raginggaijin,
I did not read all of your post.
Of course not. I'll make this brief then.
You are overflowing with words and say so much, but very little of it reaches the point. I'm sure it does for you, but not for me. It is good that you read Arabic. How did you learn Arabic? I'm sure the Quran did not teach you Arabic, because you learned Arabic in order to read the Quran(although through reading it it may have shown you some grammatical, orthographic and stylistic usages that you were not familiar with). It was through the teachings of human beings, i.e. men, that you learned Arabic. Teachings that would not exist if were not for Lisanul-Arab. Claiming that lisanul-Arab is really based on teachings of the hadeeth and is among the works of satan covering up the truth is like saying the teachings that were given to you for you to learn Arabic in order to read the Quran are the works of Satan trying to cover up the truth and keep you from the truth of the Quran. What you learned in order to read the Quran is a direct result of Lisanul-Arab. If the definitions of those words happen to coincide with what is in a hadeeth that just goes to show you that even though hadeeth are not necessary they are not always wrong or lies.
Actually, you are incorrect.
I do not read Lexicons. I own the Arabic revelation and 21 Quran translations.
It was in reading the Arabic Quran along with the English translations that Allah has taught me Arabic. I have been slowly learning by the leave of Allah for years; since that first encounter with an Islamist who told me I did not understand. I turned to Allah and asked Him to teach me. And He has taught me, as proven in this thread alone. The teachings from the Quran refute the teachings of your associate guide.Any teaching that exists is due to the power of Allah. No man is the cause. Your own words prove your idolatry. I will not follow the hadith you promote as guidance. I seek refuge in Allah from the whispers of accursed satans.
I reject all hadith except the best Hadith The Quran.
I'm not attacking you at all. I'm just trying to show you that your line of thinking is hypocritical. You learn the definition of many Arabic words in an attempt to learn Arabic, definitions that are in essence based on the works of the linguistic scholars you damn and condemn.
You make assumptions and profess to know the unseen. You don't know me or how I was taught Arabic. Yet as proven what Allah has taught me has refuted the teachings of hadith you uphold. So why should I believe you are rightly guided and know what is proper when your teachings are refuted by Allah's revelation?
Who is the hypocrite One who follows teachings proven true by the Quran, or one who continues to uphold teachings refuted by the Quran?
Yet you reject these scholars and trump up all sorts of false charges on them when a word in the Quran can be defined in a way that might coincide with a hadeeth or what it says about a related issue. You ARE to take these lexicons at face value unless you have some sort of evidence to the contrary. I believe in innocent until proven guilty.
This very thread proved your teachings wrong - the teachings of your scholars.
Your scholars are guilty.The hadeeth in how they try to teach us our religion outside of the Quran are in general the words of satans. Although some hadeeth may be accurate, they are still completely unnecessary in order for us to observe the Quran. But the fact that you learned Arabic through teachings of men which are derived from Lisanul-Arab and other ancient dictionaries and lexicons and then you reject these dictionaries when you come across a meaning that you don't like or that coincides with some hadeeth, is disingenuous on your part.
Why would I follow your teachings when they are proven wrong?
Why would I follow your teachings when they are based on hadith?
Why would I follow your teachings when I follow the best Teacher Allah?In the end the Quran does not define Arabic words, MEN DO.
Manifest proof of who your god is.
We will see who is rightly guided on the Day of Judgment, won't we?And in order to get the correct definitions you must consult with the works that represent the ARAB MEN closest to the time of the last prophet. Hadeeths don't define words either. All the Quran and the hadeth can do is act as supporting sources for already understood words or explicitly refer to how the Arabs of that time used those words. And that last part is what the lexicons do. The word 'gay' is a good example of what I am saying. How would you know that a book from the 1930's doesn't mean homsexual when it uses gay? By consulting a dictionary appropriate to that time or one comprehensive enough to include the time frames and/or origins of the meanings of diffrent words. And that is my whole point. I would only accuse a dictionary of dishonesty or subterfuge with real evidence, not just pure accusations and Quranic verses that don't apply. It's one thing to say that a certain dictionary is inappropriate because of its limited scope and how much in depth it goes into the origins and meanings of a word. I've found Lane's Lexicon very deficient or innaproppriate in many cases for these reasons, and have only rarely found this to be the case with Lisanul-Arab. In the case of the hadeeth there IS some real evdience of disingeniousness, error or dishonesty (but this has to do with their messages, not their use of the language), starting from how most hadeeth were preserved to the fact that many of them contradict each other and what the Quran has to say, the Quran being the most authentic source for the teachings of the last prophet because it IS the teachings of the last prophet. But this is not the case for lexicons like lisanul-arab that don't intend to offer up teachings of the prophet besides the Quran, but rather how the Arabs of that time understood the very language they used and which the Quran borrowed to communicate its teachings and messages. And it is their linguistic works that allowed you to learn the Arabic that you learned in order to begin to read and understand what you understand of the Quran in Arabic. So how can you equate these works with the teachings of the hadeeth as a whole and the works of satan that many hadeeth are (as they purport to offer up extra-Quranic teachings, not define words) , just because they may coincide with a hadeeth here or there. Please take into consideration that just because it's a hadeeth doesn't make it automtically untrue, although it DOES make it altogether unnecessary.
You continue to bring proof of why I will not believe as you believe. You are welcome to do as you choose, but I will not follow what you follow.
I follow the revelation of Allah, not the teachings of Lisanul-Arab.I hope you get this with everything I've said here, but if you don't oh well. I've done what I can to impart wisdom to into the ranks of the Quranists (whether you like that word or not it applies)
Your sect does not apply to me, as I follow only what Allah revealed, the word of an honored Messenger The Quran.
You call me a Quranist, just as the Islamists call me kafir, but in the End it only matters what Allah knows. To Him I will be called to account, and I won't be asked what you did or said.But you will be called to account for all you did and all you said. So pay heed I am not a Quranist, I am a Muslim.
Think twice before adding burden upon your soul by slandering me with the title of your sect.Your own words and actions bear witness to your beliefs and who you serve.
Peace.
-
Ragingaijin,
I stated in an earlier post.
Believe me that had it not been for these linguistic works you would never have been able to open up even a translation of the Quran, because it would not have existed, nor would even any Arab today (or even of 500 or more years ago) have been able to understand it because of how much the spoken language has changed after the fact. The language WAS PRESERVED by works of men. And if God didn't include the preservation of the language that the Quran uses in the same package as the preservation of the Quran, then I don't know what sort of logic you ascribe to, if it's any logic at all.Where do you think those 21 translations got their understanding of the Arabic of the Quran? Give me a break. You are not using logic, and are being blind and extreme. Maybe you are a genius and were only able to learn Arabic by comparing translations with the Arabic text (even the text you had to learn from the teachings of a human being, maybe the indexes and commentaries of your Quran translations WRITTEN BY MEN), but I'm sure you are still quite deficient in Arabic even with those 21 translations.
Your sect does not apply to me, as I follow only what Allah revealed, the word of an honored Messenger The Quran.
You call me a Quranist, just as the Islamists call me kafir, but in the End it only matters what Allah knows. To Him I will be called to account, and I won't be asked what you did or said.So now non-Quranist Muslims are Islamists and not even Muslims? HAHAHAHA. That is good. Do yo even understand what Quranist means? It means Quran-centric or Quran-alone, or a follower of the Quran. Quranist, Quranite, Quran-alone . . .it's all the same. Here is the defintion of 'ist' in English
a suffix of nouns, often corresponding to verbs ending in -ize or nouns ending in -ism, that denote a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc. apologist; dramatist; machinist; novelist; realist; socialist; Thomist.
QURAN + IST, is not the name of a sect it is A name for those who concern themselves with only following the Quran. I personally wish those who are Quran only were actually united enough as a group to be considered a sect, as that would be a good thing.
Calling you a Quranist Muslim is no slander and is no different than calling you a Quran-alone, Quran-only or Quranite Muslim.
My own words bear witness that i only serve Allah with knowledge, sound logic, honest intelligence and whatever wisdom and good jugement God gives me.
It is unfortunate that the Quranist/Quran-alone/Quran-only/Quranite community has to be divided on such issues. But unfortunately it is because of the likes of you who base their religion on pure emotion instead of knowledge and sound judgment that this divide exists.
My being a Quranist Muslim means that I only follow the Quran for my religious guidance as well, the word of an honored messenger, Gabriel, given to another honored messenger, Muhammad (sas). But instead of guessing at the meaning of Arabic words and claiming that is how the Quran defines them or accepting translations of translators who also used MEN'S work to understand the Arabic of the Quran and then rejecting those very works of men (which formed the basis of their translations) when I don't like a certain meaning or when it behooves me, then claiming that these mens' work are some how only fabrications of men just because I don't like the meanings (and again still accepting the various translations based on these same works where I am comfortable with them), instead of doing all of that, I actually study the Quran understanding that it borrowed the language of the Arabs of old and therefore must be understood using this language. And I will not hypocritically accept a translation based on the sources of the language and then reject the sources as fabrications of men when I don't like something it says. Rather I will try to distinguish between a linguistically valid meaning, a theological meaning or a later meaning inappropriate to the Quran's time context. The fact that those 21 different translations you have exist is because not only do different Musilms stick their different theological ideas into the text redefining Arabic words, but many times the sources like Lisanul-Arab also have a number of meanings that are omitted from the translation due to that translator's school thought. Going to the original souces ensures that one can distinguish better between any theological meanings and how the Arabs of old actually used the language as a whole despite sects and schools of thought.
The Quran calls for the use of wisdom, intelligence and logic in order to gain a better understand of it, not ignorance, conjecture and emotion.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Ragingaijin,
I stated in an earlier post.
Where do you think those 21 translations got their understanding of the Arabic of the Quran? Give me a break. You are not using logic, and are being blind and extreme. Maybe you are a genius and were only able to learn Arabic by comparing translations with the Arabic text (even the text you had to learn from the teachings of a human being, maybe the indexes and commentaries of your Quran translations WRITTEN BY MEN), but I'm sure you are still quite deficient in Arabic even with those 21 translations.
Allah is All Knowing, Seer. When it came to the topic of this thread, who is the one who refuted with clear proof from the Quran, and whose teachings of man were proven wrong?
So now non-Quranist Muslims are Islamists and not even Muslims? HAHAHAHA. That is good. Do yo even understand what Quranist means? It means Quran-centric or Quran-alone, or a follower of the Quran. Quranist, Quranite, Quran-alone . . .it's all the same. Here is the defintion of 'ist' in English
QURAN + IST, is not the name of a sect it is A name for those who concern themselves with only following the Quran. I personally wish those who are Quran only were actually united enough as a group to be considered a sect, as that would be a good thing.
Then why do you uphold teachings of hadith and scholars, as proven in your replies above?
Calling you a Quranist Muslim is no slander and is no different than calling you a Quran-alone, Quran-only or Quranite Muslim.
It is slander. I do not take the name of a sect, and I call myself by the name Allah gave us Muslim.
My own words bear witness that i only serve Allah with knowledge, sound logic, honest intelligence and whatever wisdom and good jugement God gives me.
As well as hadith and teachings of scholars, which are not authorized to be followed in the Quran.
"Follow what has been sent down to you from your Lord, and follow no friends other than He; little do you remember." Surah 73
It is unfortunate that the Quranist/Quran-alone/Quran-only/Quranite community has to be divided on such issues. But unfortunately it is because of the likes of you who base their religion on pure emotion instead of knowledge and sound judgment that this divide exists.
My being a Quranist Muslim means that I only follow the Quran for my religious guidance as well, the word of an honored messenger, Gabriel, given to another honored messenger, Muhammad (sas). But instead of guessing at the meaning of Arabic words and claiming that is how the Quran defines them or accepting translations of translators who also used MEN'S work to understand the Arabic of the Quran and then rejecting those very works of men (which formed the basis of their translations) when I don't like a certain meaning or when it behooves me, then claiming that these mens' work are some how only fabrications of men just because I don't like the meanings (and again still accepting the various translations based on these same works where I am comfortable with them), instead of doing all of that, I actually study the Quran understanding that it borrowed the language of the Arabs of old and therefore must be understood using this language. And I will not hypocritically accept a translation based on the sources of the language and then reject the sources as fabrications of men when I don't like something it says. Rather I will try to distinguish between a linguistically valid meaning, a theological meaning or a later meaning inappropriate to the Quran's time context. The fact that those 21 different translations you have exist is because not only do different Musilms stick their different theological ideas into the text redefining Arabic words, but many times the sources like Lisanul-Arab also have a number of meanings that are omitted from the translation due to that translator's school thought. Going to the original souces ensures that one can distinguish better between any theological meanings and how the Arabs of old actually used the language as a whole despite sects and schools of thought.
The Quran calls for the use of wisdom, intelligence and logic in order to gain a better understand of it, not ignorance, conjecture and emotion.
Then to you are your deeds and to me are mine. On the Day of Judgment it will be decided between us on who is rightly guided, and who is led astray.
Since you cannot bring anything to refute what was given from the Quran, and you insist on attacking me, I see no reason to continue discussion with you at all.
You made your choice.
Peace.
-
raginggaijin,
God will judge us in the end indeed. You did not bring anything from the Quran that goes against my approach, so i don't need to refute those verses. Why would I refute verses from the Quran anyway, if I follow it in its entirety? It is through following the Quran in its entirety and heeding its call to follow al3aql, all-3ilm, al-albaabu and an-nuhaa and what it has said about being written in an Arabic that was clear to whom it was first revealed that i have adopted my approach. There is no need to refute the Quran, if I am fully complying with it. Whereas you are using translations based on linguistic works when you are comfortable with what they say and rejecting those works and relying on your conjecture where you are uncomfortable with what they say, instead of seeking to understand the matter in its entirety. I do not uphold the religious teachings of hadeeth and I do not uphold the teachings of all scholars (it is idiotic to generalize all scholars throughout time, when they don't even agree with each other in MANY, MANY matters. And what about the Quran-alone scholars of the past???? Is it not okay to been in agreement with them either without being accused of following them). I uphold the correct understanding of the Arabic language in order to fully understand the Quran, without which we are only left to conjecture and guessing, and you should know well enough what the quran has to say about those who adopt conjecture as a basis of their belief. I, like you, follow the Quran-alone and reject the hadeeth as having any religious guidance. So your view, and seeming ultimatum to me, as if this were a choose or loose situation, as if we were talking about the fabrications about what we are to believe and where we are to find our guidance that are found in hadeeth, is quite myopic and based on a complete and seemingly willful ignorance of the matter. Your hatred of hadeeth has led you to be unjust. Reject the hadeeth as a source of religious guidance, YES. But understand that just becuase it is a hadeeth does not automatically make it untrue, especially when we have non-hadeeth linguistic sources that can confirm a meaning of a word. The hadeeth are not necesary, but that doesn't mean that each and everyone one of them is a lie. So there are two issues here. One is whether to consider them in our practice of the religion. And the other is if each and everyone of them is a lie. We need not even consider them in the pratice of our religion. But that does not mean we have to consider each and every one of them to be a lie. Reject hadeeth, YES. But do not paint such a broad brush that you may be involved in an unnecessary lie. that would be considered prejudice and unjustified hatred.
You have made your choice as well.
Godbless,
Anwar