What is Islam?

muslims

Between two points, there are no relations at all.

Hadith is a "man-made law", whether it is from Muhammad or not.

You used Sunni's translation and the translation is highly Ahadith influences.
Means you follow Sunni but don't know if you actuallfy following it.

Why don't you stick to the fact rather than relying on fallacy and ad hominem to make your point
It is irrelevant, and a waste of time and energy...
In fact, it is not an argument at all

Now... the issue you raise have no merits..
Everything prostate to Allah, including Iblees...
Because Allah is the Creator
and Iblees is quite somebody, because he was with the angels when Allah commanded him to prostrate to Adam..

Bring me a verse from the Quran that says Iblees do not prostrate to Allah
This is your burden of proof

Allah is clearly defined in the Quran.
From the Quran/wahy itself Allah introduce Himself

Allah is clearly defined in the Quran as "One", this is the Muhkamat
and Allay says "Nor is there to Him any equivalent", this is also the Muhkamat

Therefore, the issue you raise have no merits because your argument is.. Allah is God, in Islam
However ..
Christians says, Jesus is God!
Jews says, YHVH is God!
Hinduist says, Lord Shiva is God!
Chinese says.. God!
Buddhist says.. God!
and so on...

There are many God(s)

Therefore, the concept of "God(s)" is equivalent, the One True Creator in all those religions
All those God(s) belong to the same category
They are "equivalent"
But Allah says "Nor is there to Him any equivalent"

David_Saidi

Hadith is a "man-made law", whether it is from Muhammad or not.

Yes, of course

Why don't you stick to the fact rather than relying on fallacy and ad hominem to make your point
It is irrelevant, and a waste of time and energy...
In fact, it is not an argument at all

Yes, and yourself did some "burden of proof".
You keep used Sunni theology to discuss with me, while myself don't recognized it.

Aristoles Fallacy the most hypocryte methodolgy used to divert the issues (to make the users keep for being stubborn).

Ad hominem right ?? In verse 218, 217, Did God Himself also ad hominem

Allah is clearly defined in the Quran as "One", this is the Muhkamat
and Allay says "Nor is there to Him any equivalent", this is also the Muhkamat

Therefore, the issue you raise have no merits because your argument is Allah is God, in Islam
However ..
Christians says, Jesus is God!
Jews says, YHVH is God!
Hinduist says, Lord Shiva is God!
Chinese says.. God!
Buddhist says.. God!
and so on...

There are many God(s)

Therefore, the concept of "God(s)" is equivalent, the One True Creator in all those religions
All those God(s) belong to the same category
They are "equivalent"
But Allah says "Nor is there to Him any equivalent"

Please learn diffences between God and god in english
Allah is singular and the plural form is Alihah, so this is not a proper noun

muslims

Yes, of course

I have proven both the hadith and the statutory laws are "man-made law".

Therefore, the ideology to reject the hadith is totally unrealistic and exhibiting a lack of common sense.

| You | | 7750 So in what narrative (hadith), after it, will they believe?
Hadith = narrations, stories, sayings . Quran is God's hadith and no one else even the Bible you see.

| Me | | What is the context of the whole Quran?
Do you follow the man-made law?

| You | | I don't follow man-made law

| Me | | In that case, you are the first person I know that reject the statutory laws..
and still survive to get your citizenship, proper education, medical benefits, works, electricity, internet etc.

| You | | Between two points, there are no relations at all.

| Me | | Hadith is a "man-made law", whether it is from Muhammad or not.

| You | | Yes, of course

. . .

Yes, and yourself did some "burden of proof".
You keep used Sunni theology to discuss with me, while myself don't recognized it.

So it is a "Sunni/Shia Theology" simply because it has "" in its translation?
This is your issue?
Find out what is the meaning of bracket () in that translation...

and please be realistic, and less of a sectarian.

| Me | | There is no evidence in the Quran
that Iblees prostrate to any other than Allah
Iblees prostrate to "Allah Alone"
Iblees is "Allah Alone"
"He refused and he was proud and he was one of the unbelievers" (234)
Because Iblees is trying to outsmart Allah's command.

| You | | Iblees was ordered to sujud to Adam but he refused and made a pledge if he will mislead the humans.

| Me | | Therefore, Iblees prostrate to "Allah Alone"

| You | | No verses said this.

| Me | | to Him have submitted those within the heavens and earth (3.83)
Where is Iblees?
Therefore, it is very clear and it includes, Iblees...

| You | | Wrong translation.
The word doesn't exist in Arabic text.
I believe you still follow traditional Sunni-Shia theology.

| Me | | The issue is "those within the heavens and earth", and your issues are

Whether "those within the heavens and earth" is referring to ""?
Whether Iblees prostrate to Allah?
again, no further comment.
By the way, I'm referring you direct ayat from the Quran, and how does it relate to the "Sunni-Shia theology"?

| You | | You used Sunni's translation and the translation is highly Ahadith influences.
Means you follow Sunni but don't know if you actuallfy following it.

| Me | | Now... the issue you raise have no merits..
Everything prostate to Allah, including Iblees...
Because Allah is the Creator
and Iblees is quite somebody, because he was with the angels when Allah commanded him to prostrate to Adam..
Bring me a verse from the Quran that says Iblees do not prostrate to Allah
This is your burden of proof

| You | | Yes, and yourself did some "burden of proof".
You keep used Sunni theology to discuss with me, while myself don't recognized it.

. . .

Aristoles Fallacy the most hypocryte methodolgy used to divert the issues (to make the users keep for being stubborn).

Ad hominem right ?? In verse 218, 217, Did God Himself also ad hominem

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person&quot, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

It usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments.

Why don't you stick to the fact rather than relying on fallacy and ad hominem to make your point
It is irrelevant, and a waste of time and energy...
In fact, it is not an argument at all

. . .

Please learn diffences between God and god in english
Allah is singular and the plural form is Alihah, so this is not a proper noun

The is issue about "Nor is there to Him any equivalent"

Not about the meaning of "God" or "god"
(I hope Muhammad has no trouble to differentiate the pronunciation of "God" and "god" from Gabriel )

There are many God(s)

Therefore, the concept of "God(s)" is equivalent, the One True Creator in all those religions
All those God(s) belong to the same category
They are "equivalent"
But Allah says "Nor is there to Him any equivalent"

David_Saidi

I have proven both the hadith and the statutory laws are "man-made law".

Therefore, the ideology to reject the hadith is totally unrealistic and exhibiting a lack of common sense.

The ideology is based on the QUran.
Meanwhile the hadith is full of contradictions which very untrustworthy

http//asimiqbal2nd.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/contradictions.pdf
http//wikiislam.net/wiki/Contradictions_in_the_Hadith
http//www.irfi.org/general/history_of_hadiths.htm

or u can find many articles in this forum

Hadith contradict the Quran in many aspects both theology and linguistic.
It's methods for collecting it is same nonsense as like this http//www.quran-islam.org/articles/chinese_whispers_(P1155).html

muslims

Hadith contradict the Quran in many aspects both theology and linguistic.

Do you understand the issue?

I'm not denying that many hadith are contradicting the Quran

What I'm saying Muhammad is a man, and therefore the hadith is a "man made law"
Whether it is from Muhammad or not, is irrelevant. . . and there are good and bad hadith

Similarly and as equal to any other "man made law"
There are so many laws which are full of nonsense and contradicting the Quran
but you still obey the laws and accept it as part of your life (e.g. fractional banking system, or 5.51)
simply because it is impossible to reject all these laws, unless you decide to live by yourself in the jungle (hopefully not)

Therefore the ideology to reject the hadith and simply because it is a hadith is a half baked ideology
It is totally unrealistic and exhibiting a lack of common sense

Now.. .how do you explain this situation?

David_Saidi

Whether it is from Muhammad or not, is irrelevant. . . and there are good and bad hadith

Yes there are some good hadith, good Torah, good fabrications...
But if you follow it, the analogy is You already knew if that cake poisonous, but you still dared to eat it.

There are so many laws which are full of nonsense and contradicting the Quran
but you still obey the laws and accept it as part of your life (e.g. fractional banking system, or 5.51)

Please learn again the concept of "iman" in the Quran.
Definition of iman/believe in the Quran is different for "obey", "believe" in other context.

I obey the Quran but when I participate in this forum, of course I must obey the forum rules.

Therefore the ideology to reject the hadith and simply because it is a hadith is totally unrealistic and exhibiting a lack of common sense

Please give me some proofs

muslims

I obey the Quran but when I participate in this forum, of course I must obey the forum rules.

You are still unable to give the justification for your ideology, and instead.. asking irrelevant question
Your ideology is inconsistent, and it is unreliable. . .

Whether it is from Muhammad or not, is irrelevant. . . and there are good and bad hadith

. . .

There are so many laws which are full of nonsense and contradicting the Quran
but you still obey the laws and accept it as part of your life (e.g. fractional banking system, or 5.51)
simply because it is impossible to reject all these laws, unless you decide to live by yourself in the jungle (hopefully not)

Therefore the ideology to reject the hadith and simply because it is a hadith is a half baked ideology
It is totally unrealistic and exhibiting a lack of common sense

Now.. .how do you explain this situation?

I'm not asking again.

David_Saidi

There are so many laws which are full of nonsense and contradicting the Quran
but you still obey the laws and accept it as part of your life (e.g. fractional banking system, or 5.51)

I think I already answered this.
Another Example I obey the Quran, but when I work in a firm which has many non-muslim employees in here, so I must believe the non-Quranic rules that firm provided to us.

Please see the context, Quran is not book of economy, mathematic nor constitutions , it's the guide to how to became good believer and how to reach HIS salvation.Quran is to those who believe on it

Ok if I'm a chairman in a firm and some of my employees are non-muslim and it's a wrong way to implement Quranic rules in my firm (Read surah Al Kafeerun).

Do you understand??

muslims

I think I already answered this.
Another Example I obey the Quran, but when I work in a firm which has many non-muslim employees in here, so I must believe the non-Quranic rules that firm provided to us.

My point is if you can accept bad "man-made law" from the firm's policy and statutory law etc
(e.g. fractional reserve banking. . . creation of money and a usury system to exploit the world for bankruptcy - see. 2.279)

Then why you cannot accept "bad/good hadith", which is also a "man-made law"

Your ideology is inconsistent since both the hadith and statutory law are "man-made law". . .

Is it simply because it is a hadith, and the other is statutory law?

What is your justification for this double standard?

David_Saidi

My point is if you can accept bad "man-made law" from the firm's policy and statutory law etc
(e.g. fractional reserve banking. . . creation of money and a usury system to exploit the world for bankruptcy - see. 2.279)

Then why you cannot accept "bad/good hadith", which is also a "man-made law"

Your ideology is inconsistent since both the hadith and statutory law are "man-made law". . .

Is it simply because it is a hadith, and the other is statutory law?

What is your justification for this double standard?

No double standart for me.It's you mister, don't understand what I say.

I never said if I follow that bank system.

Then why you cannot accept "bad/good hadith", which is also a "man-made law"

Because it's pointless and has no effect for me whatever I follow hadith or not.Please see the context
Why I believe the rules in the company I work for?? because I'm in the situation that I must follow that unless I will get fired.

When I spoke about hadith, mean I speak in the context of theology.

muslims

Because it's pointless and has no effect for me whatever I follow hadith or not.Please see the context
Why I believe the rules in the company I work for?? because I'm in the situation that I must follow that unless I will get fired.

Simply because it is "pointless"... and simply because you don't want to get "fired"

i.e. it is simply personal reasons . . .

Your ideology is inconsistent since both the hadith and statutory law are "man-made law". . .

. . .

What is your justification for this double standard?

If you feel like to follow the rules, you follow
If you don't feel like to follow the rules, you don't follow. . .
So as others, simple . . . personal ideology and dogmatic belief
since there is no principle which and when to follow the rules, and which/when not to follow the rules

and

That's what I said..

Double standard principle
Half baked ideology
No justification

. . .

I never said if I follow that bank system.

I never said that too
I guess you don't understand the system for money creation, nevermind . . .

(e.g. fractional reserve banking. . . creation of money and a usury system to exploit the world for bankruptcy - see. 2.279)

David_Saidi

What I discuss is about Quran and it's theology, intepretations. not anything else!!
So this discussion is between muslim and muslim not muslim and non muslim.

In theological context, I discard the hadith not because personal reasons, but because it's contradict the Quran and 7750 also said to discard it.
So in term of theology/faith all statinory laws must be expelled and follow the Quran only.

When I told you about why I believe in company rules, because I'm not talking in the context of theology, but talking in the context of work ethic.
Why?? It's to respond your post which mixing different contexts into single issue.

Like this one

In that case, you are the first person I know that reject the statutory laws..
and still survive to get your citizenship, proper education, medical benefits, works, electricity, internet etc.

Look!! This is very misslead the issue.
I reject statutory laws teologically, but it doesn't mean I reject it in other situations.

and my following example

I obey the Quran Only but when I participate in this forum, of course I must obey the forum rules.

I make distinct this sentence into blue and red.
In the blue sentence I'm talking in the context of theology, and in the red one I talking in the contex of my position as member of this forum.

Do you understand??

muslims

What I discuss is about Quran and it's theology, intepretations. not anything else!!
So this discussion is between muslim and muslim not muslim and non muslim.

So am I... and my point is clear..

unless you indirectly regarded Muhammad as God
(ie. the issue of Muhammad and the hadith is a theological issue)

What I'm saying Muhammad is a man, and therefore the hadith is a "man made law"
Whether it is from Muhammad or not, is irrelevant. . . and there are good and bad hadith

and I believe you interpret the word hadith in "7750" wrongly..
the word hadith can refer to anything. . . including statutory law, ie. man-made law etc.

David_Saidi

unless you indirectly regarded Muhammad as God
(ie. the issue of Muhammad as a theological issue)

I believe Muhammad as a Nabi not as a deity.

and I believe you interpret the word hadith in "7750" wrongly..
the word hadith can refer to anything. . . including statutory laws, ie. man-made laws etc.

Read the Quran again in what context rejecting hadith/statutory law.
If I'm a soccer player then follow FIFA law (manmade hadith law), then am I disobey 7750 in the Quranic contex?? The answer is NEY.

muslims

If I'm a soccer player then follow FIFA law (manmade hadith law), then am I disobey 7750 in the Quranic contex?? The answer is NEY.

That's my point. . . it is okay to follow some hadith, since it is a man-made law. . .
as equal to the above example of FIFA law

What I'm saying Muhammad is a man, and therefore the hadith is a "man made law"
Whether it is from Muhammad or not, is irrelevant. . . and there are good and bad hadith

Similarly and as equal to any other "man made law"
There are so many laws which are full of nonsense and contradicting the Quran
but you still obey the laws and accept it as part of your life (e.g. fractional banking system, or 5.51)
simply because it is impossible to reject all these laws, unless you decide to live by yourself in the jungle (hopefully not)

Therefore the ideology to reject the hadith and simply because it is a hadith is a half baked ideology
It is totally unrealistic and exhibiting a lack of common sense

However, you reject all hadith simply because it is the hadith

The hadith is a "theological issue" ? Nope . . . .
Muhammad is a man, and he is not God
Therefore, the hadith is a "man made law", as equal to other laws etc

David_Saidi

This mean you follow the hadith but not for teological/religious purposes.

But how?? Please can you give me the example....

The hadith is a "theological issue" ? Nope . . . .
Muhammad is a man, and he is not God
Therefore, the hadith is a "man made law", as equal to other laws etc

Because for this the hadith is created.
But still, please answer my bold question.

muslims

This mean you follow the hadith but not for teological/religious purposes.

But how?? Please can you give me the example....

Refer here Where does Allah prohibit all hadith?

Yes. on the basis of

just, or
unjust

regardless of it is from the hadith, sacred texts, man-made laws or other resources etc.

This is so since the Quran speaks about "just" or "unjust"
and Islam is not a "religion" (the fallacy of hasty generalization). . .
but a "way of life" (ad-deen)

The "way of life" is naturally an act of every human beings. .
with or without religion

The Quran as a Confirming Book

this is a Confirming Book
in an Arabic tongue

to warn those who have wronged <- unjust
and as good tidings to the doers of good <- just

(46.12)

http//1.bp.blogspot.com/-_ghCpHM1Yi4/Uqvd_yGyraI/AAAAAAAAARM/pwDqWu2kVwU/s1600/confirm.png

However, if you reject hadith simply because it is the hadith
Then what difference does it make between you and them?

No difference . . . and it is also a religion (sectarianism)

David_Saidi

but a "way of life" (ad-deen)

The "way of life" is naturally an act of every human beings. .
with or without religion

I agree with your view except this part.
Deen ul Islam is not "way of life" like Buddhist, because Islam has clear definition of the Deity.

Buddhist is yes it's the way of life, because it has no god, but follows Budha's way of life.

muslims

I agree with your view except this part.
Deen ul Islam is not "way of life" like Buddhist, because Islam has clear definition of the Deity.

Buddhist is yes it's the way of life, because it has no god, but follows Budha's way of life.

Buddhism is not a complete system of life. . .
so as other religions. . .
they are focusing on one aspect, and ignoring other aspects of life . . .

and the illustration from my philosophical statement..

http//carigold.com/portal/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=147013&stc=1&d=1394108281

http//s16.postimg.org/h375brtmt/venns.png

However and in Islam, I believe the "ad-deen" is a "way or system of life"
and when we read the "ad-deen" together with "Islam"...
It is a system of life that corroborates with the Sunnatullah. . . ie. justly balanced system of life

and more precisely .. .

I believe the true meaning of Islam is not "Submission"
The true meaning of Islam is "Assimilation"

This is so since Allah's commands and prohibitions have its awwaliyah (priority)
it takes time for its implementation
and it has no end or beginning

Looks around and see
How a seed grows into tree
How baby grows into an adult
How a drop of water becoming rivers and oceans
How Allah creates this universe etc...

It all has its steps and takes time to be implemented

Contradictorily, submission will create tension in the society for conflict of human values
Submission will creates sectarianism, religions, conflicts and wars etc
Submission is focusing on compliance and targeting the end or perfection
Submission is religion

On the other hand, "assimilation" are focusing on the value of balance and justice in the society
Assimilation will create peace and harmony
Assimilation is not conformity, and it is not uniformity
Assimilation brings new elements to mix and neutralize other elements
Assimilation has no end, and it has no beginning
It is beauty and perfection, and it is the deen (system of life)
It is the Deen of Islam

the percentage of right/wrong (just/unjust) in every religions . .

and the process of "assimilation" into . . .

Mankind was one single nation (ie. from Prophet Adam)
2.213

http//s11.postimg.org/hq4ht9ic3/humanunity.png

And thus we have made you a just community
that you will be witnesses over the people
2.143

These were my views.

David_Saidi

I disagree your view if Islam is Assilimilation.

For me Islam is pure from God, not assimilation from some other religions.

I believe you follow the pluralism idea (all religion is same).Yes it sound peaceful, because all religion is same, salvation can be found in all Scriptures etc.
Something like Islam, Christian, Hindhu, Budha will ascending the same heaven

The example of pluralism is moslems allowed to used Vedha as their Scripture in order to go to heaven.

But if we little bit critic actually it's dangerous idea, because each own religion has different theology and it's a step toward the liberalism.

Pluralism is idea created by some secularist in order to create peace between humanity, but avoid the true essential of Allah and His teaching itself.

Myself is not pluralism but pluralistic means I'm a muslim but hold tolerance with other people from any backgrounds

Mankind was one single nation (ie. from Prophet Adam)
2.213

You get wronged to understand this verse.

2213 talking about people/group who disputed about religious teaching then God sent down the Phrophets to them in hope to make clear for what they had been disputed before.
So they will discard the disputation and follow God's teaching together and became the single umat (community/group).

Adam according to the Quran is not the first human but the first person appointed as khalifa.

Adam and his khalifa succesor can be read in this verses

333 God has selected Adam, and Noah, and the family of Abraham,
and the family of Imran over the worlds.
334 A progeny each from the other, and God is Hearer, Knower.

Adam the most commonly knows actually came from Biblical story