What Constitutes a Muslim?

progod

God bless you Taj,

The word "personally" does not mean that I made the meaning up!

So then what does 'personally' mean when you say

Personally, now I have come to believe . . .

It doesn't mean that you've become convinced of something despite if the evidence is there or not.

Islam has many meanings. Everyone who knows Arabic knows that very well.

Do they?

If I lean towards one of them that does not mean that I made up that meaning. How do you come up with such analysis!?

Because you didn't lean towards one of the meanings of Islam. You made one up. Islam has never meant
the base for every good thing.
as you say it means. Christians think that Christianity is "the base for every good thing", but that does not mean that Christianity means "the base for every good thing." Because a Muslim implies that his religion is the base of every good thing does not mean that that is what Islam means.

So how is it that you think you are leaning towards one of the meanings of Islam, when Islam doesn't mean this? Muslims, Christians, Jews, Orientalists and others have had their opinions about what Islam implies. Some choose to define it by the people (bad or good) who practice the religion, by the morals that its respected or everyday practictioners profess or by the creeds to be found in the religion's holy scriptures. But these implications are not definitions.

Some Christians would imply that Islam is evil but that is not the definition of Islam whether Islam is really evil or not.

When it comes down to what the word really means you've got to look at it objectively. In Classical Arabic it means certain things (Submission, surrender, quitting, abandoning, salvation, being saved, saluting, greeting).

In the post-koranic era everyone who has considered their religion Islam and themeselves Muslim has had belief in Muhammad as God's prophet and messenger and the Koran as God's message as a common point of unity.) So we can only objectively look at Islam in two ways.

It's Classical Arabic meanings
It's post-koranic meaning as a belief system.

What constitutes a Muslim? In the Classical Arabic sense, a Muslim is any person who submits, surrenders, quits, abandons, saves, is saved, salutes or greets. (These things don't have to have anything to do with God or any religion or religious ideas.)

In the post-koranic sense as a belief system, a Muslim is someone who pratices any form of the religion that claims Muhammad as its common prophet and messenger and the Koran as the revelation God gave to him. Scholars have deffered to Imaam Shafi'ee's statement that Islam means 'submission to God' but that was Shafi'ee trying to inventively come up with a reason as to why Muslims began to call themselves that, using ONE of the words real Classical Arabic defintions. His definition is not valid because it seeks to find out WHY Muslims called themselves that, and their religion Islam, not what Islam and Muslim really mean. His statement can be found in Lane's lexicon.

In reality, a Muslim is someone who pratices any form of the religion that claims Muhammad as its common prophet and messenger and the Koran as the revelation God gave to him. This is how the world looks at it, even Muslims. All you have to say is that you believe that Muhammad is God's messenger and they will consider you a Muslim. They will only recant because they have been disillusioned into thinking that you share every belief about Muhammad and the Koran that he does.

Sunnis have considered Koranist Muslims non-Muslim because they believe that Koranist Muslims are denying parts of God's revelation. They think that where the Koran says 'Whatever the messenger gives to you take it' and 'We have sent a messenger that makes clear to you God's signs' and " In God's messenger is an example . . .' and 'Follow God's messenger' it means to follow everything that Muhammad said and did as divine guidance and that all of his actions and sayings explain the Koran, as they believe from the hadeeths that he served as an excellent example by living and breathing the Koran. They also believe by their own reasoning that he fully understood everything in the Koran. Because the hadeeths have been introduced to them as valid they find that those who deny the hadeeths in essence reject the Koran the above sayings in the Koran. So they will deny the Islam of Koranists.

The Koranists Muslims have argued that Muhammad did set an excellent example to be followed but do not hold that everything he did and said was divine. They say that the Sunnis are not looking at the complete picture and are imagining things into the picture. They hold that nowhere in the Koran does it say that Muhammad completely understood the Koran so that he was in a position to explain it, or that he lived and breathed the Koran for that matter. The Koran actually shows that this is not true in chpt. 'abasa. The Koran says that it is not the duty of the messenger to guide or direct anyone, that the duty of the messenger is only to deliver the message. Despite that the Koran is clear on the fact that he had no place to explain the Koran. Koranists also doubt the credibility of Hadeeth (based their origins as popular rumor and how some are claimed to be authentic based on the reputation of their narrators). Koranists will deny the Islam of Sunnis and Shias because they believe that Sunnis and Shias care more for the Hadeeth (which they know is not fully credible) and the opinions of scholars about the Koran and the hadeeth than they do about the Koran (which they know is fully credible.); thereby rejecting the Koran by rejecting what it says about Muhammad and his true role.

With all of that said, I have often denied my being Muslim on this site. Despite that many of you still consider me Muslim because I believe that Muhammad is God's messenger and that the Koran is God's message. And with the above definition of Islam you would be correct. However, I choose to resort to the Koran for how I should define myself. And understanding that it uses the term Islam and Muslim in its Classical Arabic senses, I see that it says that those who follow it, those who are really koranists, follow the religion of Abraham which is being submissive to God, which I like to call being 'pro-God' just to give the message a modern ring.

And when I said that the word "Islam" is a general word, just like the word ?discipline? for example, (check the quote), clearly my sentence does not say that they are the same in meaning.

Now, Now! Easy cowboy! Looks like you're the one who misundertood me. I never said that you implied that they were the same in meaning either. I was saying that discipline has a specific meaning adn always had. When you say discipline has a general meaning that is not true. I explained to you the context in which displine is used and that it is used to imply ' the basis of success' be it success at something evil or good, because of one of its specific meanings. It is not used to imply 'the basis all good things.' Therefore your analogy between the two is not valid. I never said that you implied that they were the same.

Godbless,
ProGod

Hope that wasn't too long. It took me 2 hours to write it. Gotta be real careful wichya words,.Ya know?

mquran

Salaamun alaikum Anwar,

First, thank you for understanding that this issue emotes me. I won't reallly go into why here and now because it is of no relevance to getting this issue cleared up. Maybe one day we will be able to look back and I can say to you why, but right now it would only confuse the issue.

No problem at all. I learnt a lot from your methodology and more importantly, hope to stand beside you in upholding God's laws.

For the sake of brevity (as my time is lacking), allow me to paraphrase your arguments after which I will respond.

You assert that lexicographers were excellent in thier preservation of the language except in the bias of post-koranic religious terminology.

I would answer by saying that my knowledge of 'post-koranic' literature comes from standing also in a post-koranic time zone. In other words, I don't know what is pre or post koranic. Al-qur'aan tells me that it is lisanun arabiyun mubeen. I thus go to a linguistic system called arabic and try to make sense of the book using that system. pre and post koranic arabic isnt part of the quran's world-view.

2.You assert that dictionaries provide the 'objective' meanings of words and that the colouring of meaning according to contexts would 'subjectivise' the meanings.

I would answer by saying that no two people share a language anyway. Even 'self-preservation' has different connotations to different people. However, I find that once you implement Quranic internal principles of interpretation, you can get a fairly conformed shared understanding.

I guess we simply function with different epistemologies, at the end of the day.

thanks and peace.

progod

. You assert that lexicographers were excellent in thier preservation of the language except in the bias of post-koranic religious terminology.

I would answer by saying that my knowledge of 'post-koranic' literature comes from standing also in a post-koranic time zone. In other words, I don't know what is pre or post koranic. Al-qur'aan tells me that it is lisanun arabiyun mubeen. I thus go to a linguistic system called arabic and try to make sense of the book using that system. pre and post koranic arabic isnt part of the quran's world-view.

But it is. It is in the sense that the Koran can only speak from a pre-koranic world view. It was revealed to a people who knew nothing about concepts that were to come after the Koran was revealed. Because the Koran was revealed to them it was revealed in their language.

When an author writes a book and publishes it on May 1 1996 his book has to be revealed in the language of the people who exist in May 1, 1996.
It's language is limited to the language of the people of that date, even if it's message is timeless. Let's call that book 'the Coorany.'

Because the revelation of that book is dated, the language it uses is also dated to the initial audience. Any new definitions of words that this book has in common that come about after this book is written and published cannot be read into "the Coorany." Despite the timeless message of "the Coorany"

If you in 2005 come upon this book and want to read it, to correctly understand it you have to be aware of recent innovations (post-publication of "the Coorany" in your language that can't be read into "the Coorany."

This is the same thing with the Koran. We have to be aware of the linguistic innovations that came about after the revelation of the Koran and be sure not to read them into the Koran. Where our lack of awareness about the language in question causes us to misread certain words in both the Koran and "the Coorany" we cannot help that.

But where the dictionaries and lexicons on the language in question let us know that a meaning of a word came about after the revelation of the Koran, or the publication of "the Coorany" we have to take that in mind in our understanding of the book.

2.You assert that dictionaries provide the 'objective' meanings of words and that the colouring of meaning according to contexts would 'subjectivise' the meanings.

I would answer by saying that no two people share a language anyway. Even 'self-preservation' has different connotations to different people. However, I find that once you implement Quranic internal principles of interpretation, you can get a fairly conformed shared understanding.

I agree that there is alot of misunderstanding among people. And people's experience with a word creates a visual picture or feeling that is associated with that word. Where our points of view on a word overlap is where we get a general understanding. But there are alot of words whose meanings we do share, otherwise we would not be able to communicate. Some people have myopic or limited understandings of words, other people have more extensive understandings of words. It is the level of understanding of our language that determines how we can understand each other when we communicate. Some people hear the word 'communicate' and think that it only means 'to speak', other people understand that it is not that specific and just means to present information so that someone else can understand it. So I understand what you mean, but the fact that you can generally understand what I say, and I you, says that we do share a language.

Godbless,
Anwar

mquran

Salaamun alaikum Anwar,

But it is. It is in the sense that the Koran can only speak from a pre-koranic world view. It was revealed to a people who knew nothing about concepts that were to come after the Koran was revealed. Because the Koran was revealed to them it was revealed in their language.Because the revelation of that book is dated, the language it uses is also dated to the initial audience. Any new definitions of words that this book has in common that come about after this book is written and published cannot be read into "the Coorany." Despite the timeless message of "the Coorany"

If you in 2005 come upon this book and want to read it, to correctly understand it you have to be aware of recent innovations (post-publication of "the Coorany" in your language that can't be read into "the Coorany."

This is the same thing with the Koran. We have to be aware of the linguistic innovations that came about after the revelation of the Koran and be sure not to read them into the Koran. Where our lack of awareness about the language in question causes us to misread certain words in both the Koran and "the Coorany" we cannot help that.

But where the dictionaries and lexicons on the language in question let us know that a meaning of a word came about after the revelation of the Koran, or the publication of "the Coorany" we have to take that in mind in our understanding of the book.

Firstly, let me say that the below is my worldview which is the reason why I've reached my conclusions. I don't wish to force my views and your friendship is more important than proving a point.

Ok, well lets call this point in time 'x'. X can never be known to me because I do not believe in history.I agree with you, al-qur'aan was revealed to ppl at X first and so lisanun arabiyun mubeen should refer to thier language. I'll never know what constitutes their language though, because I stand in a post-quranic time zone and I'll never know what came when.

However, all is not lost. To me, all other books than al-qur'aan are laden with conjectural, zanni interpretation. I believe that al-qur'aan contains tools to purify ones understanding so we will get to the message, but only through al-qur'aan itself.

I agree that there is alot of misunderstanding among people. And people's experience with a word creates a visual picture or feeling that is associated with that word. Where our points of view on a word overlap is where we get a general understanding. But there are alot of words whose meanings we do share, otherwise we would not be able to communicate. Some people have myopic or limited understandings of words, other people have more extensive understandings of words. It is the level of understanding of our language that determines how we can understand each other when we communicate. Some people hear the word 'communicate' and think that it only means 'to speak', other people understand that it is not that specific and just means to present information so that someone else can understand it. So I understand what you mean, but the fact that you can generally understand what I say, and I you, says that we do share a language.

Well, I believe this is where muhkamat/mutashabihat system comes in. To me 'muhkamat' refers to something decisive sign in ones horizon and one's soul. Seeing birds in flight gives us a visual of 'salat' and 'tasbeeh' and this transcends sounds and writing communication. To me, this is the start and the end of God's communication.

thanks and peace.

progod

Salaatullaahi alaikum,

Mquran you said

I'll never know what constitutes their language though, because I stand in a post-quranic time zone and I'll never know what came when.

What I have been trying to say is that that language of time x is accessible. It is accessible in the same way that knowledge of God is accessible; through deduction. We deduce that God exists. Do we see God, or hear him, or know that he is one. No. But we look at everything around us and deduce that God is real, we think about the phenomena of God and deduce that he is one. Therefore we know that God is real through deduction.

This is the same case with the language of Muhammad's day, the language of time X. We can deduce from all of the available evidence that the language of time X was still existent in the later time Y, because we have a book from time X that is consistent with a language of time Y. The pre-Islamic poetries though they were officially written down in time Y it cannot be proven that they didn't originate in time X as it is claimed.

Also the bedouins talk. It was analyzed in time Y, but all the evidence points to the fact that they talked a language that originated in time X and is consistent with the language from time X. Looking at all the evidence we can deduce that we still have available to us the language of time X through the work that was done to write it down and analyze it in time Y.

What we have to be careful to exlude are meanings of words and other words that are dated to specifically time Y (or to later times), but if there is no evidence that says that those meanings originated in time Y (and they are consistent with the language of time X), we have to fairly assess that they could have orignated in time x and view them as meanings that originated in time x.

I hope all that was clear.

Godbless,
Anwar

You also said

Firstly, let me say that the below is my worldview which is the reason why I've reached my conclusions. I don't wish to force my views and your friendship is more important than proving a point.

World views can change depending on how we change in our lives about what we find important, and in the ways that our understanding of the world around us and within us change. So your conclusions are relative to your current world view, as mine are also. But that doesn't mean that our world views are fixed in place, forever. That is called stangancy. I appreciate the fact that you care about maintaining friendships. But I am not on here so much for friendships but for setting the record straight and clearing up issues that have carried with them alot of confusion. Respecting the fact that somone can have their own opinion doesn't mean that you have to, or even should, be their friend. That is not a personal attack either, because I admire you for having the bravery to even discuss and critique this issue. That's just my current world view.

unknownuser

I shall revert back to the original posting, having joined the discussion at a latter stage.

Layth (Lion) put forward the following as suggestions for discussing what constitutes a 'Muslim'

Believing in and upholding the commands of 6151-153.
Believing in and upholding all the social and legal laws of the Quran as per 37.
Believing that the traditional interpretations and rituals must be followed.
Believing in the Quran's text (word for word, verse for verse).
Believing that messengers will come after Mohammed.
Believing in the number 19 as a sign of the Quran.
Believing that 2 verses (128&129) must be removed from the Quran.

In essence, these are all very narrow understandings of alkoran and aleslam. What one should really be asking is this

What is the reason for alkoran?

Why is this text here? For what purpose did this text come into existence? What is it?

This is really the key issue. This takes a much broader approach to the big questions, which is what we should all be thinking of when approaching this subject. Honestly, all this talk about various 'codes' and so forth is really just going way, way beyond the real simplicity and purpose that alkoran is here to serve. Its kind of like an Ocham's Razor thing, if you see what I mean.

So my answer is, the question needs to be redefined totally. Still adhering to the 'Muslim' label perpetuates the narrowness, when width is required in order for us to see the bigger picture.

progod

T.A.F.K.A.G, Salaatallahi alaika,

First let me say, I love the Aramaic text underneath your name. What does it read and mean?

Secondly let me say that I agree with you perfectly. I've been trying to get people on this list to understand this through reading alkoran from the perspective of the language that it was revealed in. I've had dificulty in convincing people (because of their skepticism of early Arabic/Persian scholars) that the language of alkoran can really be discerned from these people's works, and the meanings that are post-koranic in origin sifted out (even though they are dated by these manuscripts as post-koranic when they are post-koranic -although they were not dated with the intent to exclude them from our understanding of the Koran).

All in all, alkoran definitely came with a broader message than what the word Islam has ever meant (and unfortunatley will every mean). Reading alkoran in its original language (in the best way that we can, without resorting to inventing meanings of Arabic words) leads us to understand that the Koran wants us to follow the religion of Abraham, and that religion is not submission (al-islam) all by itself. It is submission (al-islam) to and for God (lillaahi). We should submit (submission/al-islam) to God (lillahi). Al-Islam= Submission. And just as Submission doesn't mean 'submission to God' al-islam doesn't mean that either. If someone asked us our religon and we said 'We submit.' or 'Submission.' What does that mean? Nothing. It means nothing unless we clarify and say 'to God.' When you say your religion is Islam, you are saying that your religion is 'Submisssiveness' and that means nothing. Submissiveness to what? 'To God' you say. 'To whom else would I submit.' "You could submit to a number of other people, things or ideas" i exactly how I answer and how everyone else in the world naturally thinks. As long as you say 'to God' its cool. When you leave out God, you leave 'the submission' open.

That is the same case with Islam. When you leave out the word 'Allah' you leave the question of to who your 'Islam' is for open.

Now Islam on its own can mean 'Salvation' and I believe that is the most appropriate when the Koran says that God has chosen for us 'Islam(salvation) deenan(as our deen).' The question will come up what does 'deen' mean. Well besides ONE of its meanings which is 'system/order/rule' it can also mean 'judgement/dues/just deserts.' So 'This day God will chose salvation (al-Islam) for us(God's loyalists) as our due, our just deserts.'

So the Koran promotes 'submissiveness to God' and 'Salvation'. Those are its messages. However you translate the message of al-islaamulillaahi and Al-Islaam into another language doesn't matter, as long as you translate it and make the message comprehendible to everyone. That's what we have translators for, because the messages that foreign words communicate are lost on those who don't understand the foreign languages. Trying to convince them to prefer the Arabic word over an equal wording in their languages fosters a feeling that the Arabic language is superior and doesn't take into account all of the other people who haven't been convinced of this but who would still agree with message if it were said to them in a comprehendible way.

Godbless,
Anwar

unknownuser

Peace bro Goinsy

First let me say, I love the Aramaic text underneath your name. What does it read and mean?

It reads, from right to left of course, as follows

mkyl@ mls

I am sure that you can pick out the Arabic likeness from the final mym, as well the initial ayn, lam and syn . This is the script from which classical Arabic drew upon, I am quite sure.
Although in correct Aramaic the phrase would read shlma lykn. There is no definite article at all in Aramaic hence the absence of an 'al'.

I actually believe that the 'Pro-God' label is the one that fits best at present. The purpose of alkoran was really to do away with the rife bickering and schismatism that was prevalent during that part of history when various establishments made declarations that went against the true spirit of alktab.

hlatif

Salam all,

I believe that I need to venture into explaining how I understand and explain the word Islam. I think that the word Islam can be a little confusing since the meanings of words derived from the root S-L-M include delivery, safety, peace and submission. Therefore, my way of explaining this meaning is first to see how those different meaning connect with each other and therefore explain them all.

I feel that the essence of the meaning of the Root S-L-M is To receive no harm or to receive someone or something with no harm depending on the situation. Here are words that may explain it

Salam or salem with short vowels means He received no harm or he received something with no harm. This basically means he became safe.
Salaam Means Cause of reception of No harm and that is peace.
ASLAM
means To make receive (someone or something) No harm which basically means to deliver no Harm or to deliver something with no harm
therfore Muslim is the one that delivers No Harm or that delivers (something) with no harm
As for ASLAM WAJHAHU LILLAHI then it means HE DELIVERED his Face/Front/Direction/Acceptance TO GOD, basically For everything he/she does, GOD is the focus. Submission is included in this meaning, but is only part of the meaning of the word.

Since the word ISLAM comes alone and in relation to ASLAM WAJHAHU LILLAH then the meaning of Islam as I understand it is the following

One that delivers No Harm to ALL, and One that delivers his direction to GOD, and his accpetance to GOD.

I hope that this makes sense and is understandable. Take care all and have a good day

Hussein

progod

Hussein,

You have to be damn good to translate Arabic thinking into English, as in salima being an active verb in Arabic but translating into English as a passive state.

Wajh can mean more than just face, it can mean 'self, soul, countenance, presence and a number of other things in Cl. Arabic.' So be wary of interpreting things with a limited understanding of the Classical Arabic language, despite fluency in your own modern Arabic languages.

Aslama can mean 'to cause peace (no conflict or harm)' as well as 'to enter into a state of peace (no conflit or harm).' That translates into 'submission.' or 'salvation.' However Aslama also has meanings that have nothing to do with peace. It has the meanings o 'to quit/abandon, to give over and to salute.' Don't be myopic in your understanding of Classical Arabic roots.

Godbless,
ProGod

hlatif

Salaam Anwar,

You have to be damn good to translate Arabic thinking into English, as in salima being an active verb in Arabic but translating into English as a passive state.

I am not clear if you agreed or disagreed. In case you disagreed, then I have an example

Ana Salimtu min alkhatar means nothing dangerous happened to me and not necessarily because of my work. In case you agreed, then I thank you.

However Aslama also has meanings that have nothing to do with peace. It has the meanings o 'to quit/abandon, to give over and to salute.

Please give examples in sentences so that I can think and meditate on it some more. Please note that I wrote no harm and not peace.

Thanks Anwar for your response and I look forward to more. Salaam

Hussein

progod

Aslam on its own as ?to submit?is a reflexive sense. Other ones like asbaha (to pass through morning) ah'sana (to become exellent or better) and others I would have to research. Im in the Domican republic right now and I cannot reach my grammar book. You can grab a Classical Arabic grammar book for yourself and there are given plenty of examples.

Salimtu is better rendered in Arabic as (I was safe). IT is passive like hazina (he was said), alima(he was discerning) and ghadiba(was angry). In Arabic they are considered active these are not things that you do, they are thinks that overtake you. Ahzana can mean ?he became said? or deemed someone else to be sad, like kadh-dhaba is to declare or think that something is false kadhib.

Please grab an extensive Classical Arabic grammar book and all this will be explained to you. This is not the Modern Arabic that you learn in school. You have to go out and research this Arabic. You intuitions do not work with this Arabic because this Arabic is foreign to you.

What you are doing is the same thing that scholars do which leads us to all of these deficient translations and understandings of the Koran and even the hadeeth.

Does anyone remember the debate about the age 40. Everyone was translating it as -when a man reaches forty he says ?. . . When understanding the grammar of Classical Arabic better renders it ?When a man reaches forty may he say . . .? I have seen time and time again how understanding the language of the Koran opens up our understanding of the Koran, even with the issue of ?beat your women.? Understanding Classical Arabic better allows us to understand that the word can mean ?to ignore?. I guess the burden is to hard to bear for the so called ?reformers?here to accept and learn Classical Arabic completely to render better understandings of the Koran. But this is the only way, and all of the Arabic speakers need to stop confusing the issue more with their own confusion about Arabic, believing that the Arabic that they learn in school is really Classical Arabic. It is not, nor do the books that you consult teach Classical Arabic. Look and think harder. You are still far from the mark and that is why you are still so confused.

Godbless,
Anwar

hlatif

Salaam progod,

Thank you for responding to my note. However, I have some disagreements with you.

Progod wrote

Aslam on its own as ?to submit?is a reflexive sense

I disagree because Aslama needs a Mafool bihi that is either in the sentence or that is understood. The word that could stand on it's own to mean Submit is ISTASLAMA

ah'sana (to become exellent or better)

I also disagree because the verb means To make/do Good (To someone or something including oneself). What you wrote above is an adjective and not a verb. exapmles

ANA AHSAN MINKA adjective= I am better than you
ANA AHSANTU ILAIKA verb = I made/did good to you

Salimtu is better rendered in Arabic as (I was safe).

I also disagree because the way you explained it you remove the sense that there was a possibility of harm. It is better to translate it as I became safe or I received no harm. The reason that I used the receive because clearly there is the Receive and deliver aspect in the derivatives of the root. As in

ASLAMTUKA AL KITAB which I will translate as I made you receive the book (with the sense that the book is intact and that I delivered it in an amicable manner. That is the no harm component)

Please grab an extensive Classical Arabic grammar book and all this will be explained to you. This is not the Modern Arabic that you learn in school. You have to go out and research this Arabic. You intuitions do not work with this Arabic because this Arabic is foreign to you.

Thanks and I am actually working on it.

Salaam and have a great visit to the Dominican republic

hussein

progod

I understand your misunderstandings. But check an intensive grammar book on the form IV in Cl. Arabic. Your meanings are valid but they are not the only ones. My meanings are also ways in which the form of the verb can be used. Arabic forms have more than one shade of meaing that they can give to a root. But you have to check an intensive grammar book to get past the popular understanding. You gave popular usages of the word and popular understandings of the words in use, which happen to be correct. But consider the form. The form can mutate the meaning of the root in a number of specified ways. THose ways are specified in intensive grammar books. Look for one and read it and then you will know what Im talking about. The one I have is not in hand but I list it as a source in some of the articles on my site, if you look at the bottom of some of those articles you will be able to find the grammar book that Im using. If you can get your hands on it then you will know what im talking about a little better.

Godbless,
Anwar

jonny_k

The reason I am asking is to have a clear vision to share (according to brother Damon's suggestion) that will be the foundation of the new "Islamicreform.org" site and the base of all unity.

Khi- Salam. I dont like 2 see the term Islmic Reform coz this wld indicate tht it was not true or outdated in it's original form n thus needs 2 be adjusted 2 society. No our way of life shld be according 2 the Quran not vice versa. We r 2 search 4 the logical meaning in the context of the Quran. I wld call it the revival of true Islam based on Quran Alone.

Here is a list for discussion on what you may think constitutes a Muslim

Believing in and upholding the commands of 6151-153.

Khi- Yes i believe thts correct.

Believing in and upholding all the social and legal laws of the Quran as per 37.

Khi- Absolutely, 2 the best of our ability.

Believing that the traditional interpretations and rituals must be followed.

Khi- Traditional interpretations if they suit the context in the Quran correctly then yes otherwise no. Fundamental traditional meanings of Arabic Quranic words shld however be used in context. Inventing new meanings wld destroy the meaning of the Quran. Regarding the rituals tht issue cld be debated.

Believing in the Quran's text (word for word, verse for verse).

Khi- Absolutely.

Believing that messengers will come after Mohammed.

Khi- Absolutely n strictly messengers only who r NOT Prophets(those coming with a new scripture/law).

Believing in the number 19 as a sign of the Quran.

Khi- Absolutely.

Believing that 2 verses (128&129) must be removed from the Quran.

Khi- Actually the correct phrasing wld be 'removed from the Mushaf' where the Mushaf doesnt equal 2 Quran. Ive written an article on this at
http//19.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&goto=4320&rid=222&S=3ce3468246c5d1bff0138642f8fac4f3#msg_4320
N yes i believe those two verses NEVER BELONGED 2 THE QURAN N NOW WE HAVE CLEAR MATHEMATICAL EVIDENCE 2 SHOW THIS.

This post is addressed to everyone...Those for the unity, and those against it, and those who could not care one way or another.

Let your voices be heard...

Khi- U heard mine bro. Now it's upto u wht u make of it. GOD Bless!

Fahad1

salam.

Here is a list for discussion on what you may think constitutes a Muslim

Believing in and upholding the commands of 6151-153.

yes . and believing in and upholding the all the cammands in the koran .

Believing in and upholding all the social and legal laws of the Quran as per 37.

yes .

Believing that the traditional interpretations and rituals must be followed.

traditional interpretion is not necessarily true . and since the details of some rituals are not in the koran , this issue is debatable.

Believing in the Quran's text (word for word, verse for verse).

yes.

Believing that messengers will come after Mohammed.

messengers like the angels of death ,yes .

Believing in the number 19 as a sign of the Quran.

ppl can have different understanding about how exactly number 19 is a sign .

Believing that 2 verses (128&129) must be removed from the Quran.

no.

progod

There is no need for us to be Muslim anyway. Yes Islam is outdated and it was always an inappropriate religion as it concerns the Koran.

Godbless,
ProGod

unknownuser

Peace Anwar,

There is no need for us to be Muslim anyway. Yes Islam is outdated and it was always an inappropriate religion as it concerns the Koran.

That depends on how one words Muslim and Islam to begin with, no?

Personally, by understanding these words by the very nature of discussions previously held on these words and how their usage and application pertains to Quran, I believe these are not proper nouns. Any thoughts?

And by the way, islam has never been outdated nor becoming a muslim. The underlying fundamental principals of GOD's System has always been the same throughout history.

unknownuser

Here is a list for discussion on what you may think constitutes a Muslim

Believing in and upholding the commands of 6151-153.

You must also be willing to kill and be killed for Gods cause to be a Muslim... cant forget that one

That's one that sets it apart from the two major religions

Fahad1

Here is a list for discussion on what you may think constitutes a Muslim

Believing in and upholding the commands of 6151-153.

You must also be willing to kill and be killed for God?s cause to be a Muslim... cant forget that one

That's one that sets it apart from the two major religions

yes . we must not forget that one.
its better than turning the other cheek .
SLAP!