The problem with Islam
-
Thanks for the replies guys. It all makes sense, but the problem I pose wasn't really answered. The problem being that Quranic Islam has never existed. From the very start, probably even during Muhammads time there has always been ritualistic prayers and ritualistic Hajj. The Kabah was always associated with Abraham and prayer has always been conducted the Sunni way.
So while the Quran leaves a lot of things open and says the shrine is in Bekaa, Muslims have never practiced a Quranic Islam. All this points to the fact that Muhammad himself never practiced a Quranic Islam and God seemed to be fine that.
-
Salaamun alaikum Riz,
I empathise with your situation. Often when 'quran only' comes and destroys the Sunnism one has conviction in, it leaves nothing but a vaccum.
I would ask you not to give up your quest. Instead, deepen your search by doing the following
a. Omit 'historical documents' from your search. They are conjectural and will mislead you. Read the Quran as if it was revealed to you today.b. Make an effort to learn Quranic Arabic. Use this
http//www.emuslim.com/Quran/Lughat.asp
10 minutes of this for 6 months will allow you the mastery of the Quranic language.c. Acquire an understanding of how the Quran interprets itself. If you know the principles of how this works, you will see that we can only reach one conclusive meaning and this meaning will be in total harmony with the rest of the book (4/82).
d. look at the end shorter chapters. they give you an immediate start to bring islam into your own life.
In this Quranic path, you can't expect to have many people walking alongside you nor can you expect to be spoon-fed. I have to say though, seeing even this little i've seen of al-quraan speak for itself is worth this and more.
thanks and peace.
-
I can agree to an extent there, but I don't think its right to simply discard all historical data just because it doesn't fit with my beliefs. Thats what the Christians seem to do and I don't want to make the same mistake. If everything is pointing to the fact that Quranic Islam has never existed, then thats a really big problem. It either implies that Islam was corrupeted or its a bunch of ideals that not even the founder practiced.
I would like to believe it was corrupted, but theres no evidence of this great corruption. But the problem with the corruption idea is that if there really was such a big change after Muhammads death, what prevented these people from changing the Quran? Nothing, yet it wasn't changed to coincide with their practices, meaning there was no big change to the practices of the early Muslims after Muhammad. Islam has always been the way the traditionalists practice it. A bit troubling, yet its the only logical conclusion I can come up with.
-
These are the ayat of Allah which We recite to you with truth; then in what hadith would they believe after Allah and His ayat? (456)
Woe on that day to the disbelievers! So in what hadith after this will they believe? (7749-50)
Did they not look at the dominion of heavens and earth, and all that God has created? Perhaps their time is drawing near; so in which hadith after this one will they believe? (7185)
And from the people, there are those who accept baseless hadith to mislead from the path of God without knowledge, and they take it as entertainment. These will have a humiliating retribution (316)
God has sent down the best hadith, a scripture that is similar in two ways. The skins of those who reverence their Lord shiver from it, then their skins and their hearts soften up to the remembrance of God. Such is God's guidance; He guides with it whoever He wills. And for whomever God misguides, then none can guide him. (3923)
Let them produce a hadith like this, if they are truthful. (5234)
And when God alone is mentioned, the hearts of those who do not believe in the Hereafter are filled with aversion; and when others are mentioned beside Him, they rejoice!
Is God not enough for His servant?...
-
Peace Riz, all
I would like to make some points in relation to your concerns
1- History is always written by the winning side. So don't expect to find anything saying that the "loosers" were right. For example you can look at the major historical situations of this century (like wars) and try to find your way to understand who was right and who was wrong, even if it's documented in videos, articles and all. So, for 1400 years old events, you can spend a life on it....
2- I don't think that the system of the god is a rigid one. Indeed, it's rigid for one criteria "Don't associate anything or anyone with the god", meaning don't ever consider anything as "sacred" because "sacred" relates to the divine, and everythings already belongs to the god the creator, we don't need to make anything sacred.
3- The system of the god leaves to eachone the choice to experience any other philosophy as long as the previous rule is respected. This is what is refered to as "hanif" meaning "ever changing" or "not static" (I believe that this word have been wrongly tranlated to mean "monotheist").
4- As for "al-quran" been preserved; the hypocrites know the power of the knowledge that this book brings, they try to use it to atract people, and then get them braiwashed by their dogmas, without allowing them time to examine the book for themselves (as sytalls has explained from her experience).
--
-
Its true that history is written by the winning side, but in this case, there are sources from non-muslims that also mention the Sunni rituals at very early dates. Here are some examples
"Regarding the dome of Abraham...It took its present name from what it had been, since the memory of the place was preserved with the gernerations of their race. Indeed, it was no new thing for the Arabs to worship there, but goes back to antiquity, to their early days, in that they show honour to the father of the head of their people." ~ Chronicler of Khuzistan around 660 (page 187)
"they kept to the tradition of Muhammad...to such an extent that they inflicted the death penalty on anyone who was seen to act brazenly against his laws." John bar Penkaye 687 (page 197)
Non-Muslim writers of the first century AH attest that it was strictly monotheistic (Sebeos, John bar Penkaye, Anastasious of Sinai) and iconoclastic(anti-Jewish plemicists, Germanus); that its adherents had a sanctuary, their "House of God" (Bar Penkaye), of Abrahamic association (Chronicler of Khuzistan, Jacob of Edessa), called the Ka'ba (Jacob of Edessa), towards which they prayed (Jacob of Edessa) and at which they sacrificed (Anastasius of Sinai) and reverenced a stone (Anastasius of Sinai, Germanus); and also that they followed Muhammad (Thomas the Presbyter, Sebeos, Chronicler of Khuzistan), who was their "guide" and "instructor" (Bar Penkaye), whose "tradition" and "laws" were fiercely upheld (Bar Penkaye) and who prescribed for them abstinence from carrion, wine, falsehood and fornication (Sebeos). It is also recorded that the Muslims conducted their worship in specific places bearing the name masjid (John Moschos, Anastasius of Sinai). ( page 549)
All of these accounts were recorded during the late 7th century and begenning of the 8th. Thats only 70 or so years after Muhammad. So there is a notable gap of about 70 in which a lot can happen. Which is interesting because "before 691 archaelogical evidence is strangely silent about Islam, and this depite the fact that we do have a fair amount of material from this time. A similar problem occurs with regard to the Quran, which seems to have been ignored by Muslims as a source of law until the early eighth century". (page 550)
Looking how quickly Christianity went off track, it isn't hard for me to believe that the same could have happened with Islam, but the two cases are very different because of the way the two were spread while the founder was alive.
So if there really was a big change from Islam of Muhammad to the Islam of the Pagans, it must have happened in those very early years which is about a 60-70 year period. Is there any evidence of this? No. All we have from this period is the Quran which seems to disagrees with the traditional Islam, but that doesn't mean Muhammads way of practice was any different than the modern practice. When Muhammad took Mecca, he would have destroyed the Kaba if he thought of it as a pagan symbol. He didn't. And if he did, it must have been rebuilt after his death which would have caused quite an uproar. There was no such uproar. The Kaba and that stone have always been there.
*All the quotes are taken from "Seeing Islam As Others Saw It A survey and evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian writings on early Islam" by Robert G. Hoyland. Very well researched and documented book. I recommend it to anyone who is interested on the subject of early Islam.
-
Salaamun alaikum brother Riz,
I can see how every one is writing great posts but not really addressing the key question you have on your mind
Thanks for the replies guys. It all makes sense, but the problem I pose wasn't really answered. The problem being that Quranic Islam has never existed. From the very start, probably even during Muhammads time there has always been ritualistic prayers and ritualistic Hajj. The Kabah was always associated with Abraham and prayer has always been conducted the Sunni way.
So while the Quran leaves a lot of things open and says the shrine is in Bekaa, Muslims have never practiced a Quranic Islam. All this points to the fact that Muhammad himself never practiced a Quranic Islam and God seemed to be fine that.
I will make an attempt to answer some of your thoughts. In the end only Allah guides someone if one is really sincere in obtaining guidance.
Let me start from the beginning of your main problem part of the post and try to answer step by step.
It is outragous for anyone here to call any other form of Islam 'fake.' Why is Sunnism or Shi'ism or Ahmedism any more fake or absurd then this movement? For now lets just look at Sunnism. People here claim that Sunnis are idol worshippers because they bow to a man made structure, that Sunnis have invented rituals, that Sunnis don't follow the Quran.
Anything that is in accordance with Al-Qur'aan is the true islam lillah. Everything else is fake. Simple. Islam lillah is submission and surrender to Allah alone, no one else.
Ok, I agree that Sunnis bow down to a man made structure, but Muslims have done that since the very start of Islam.
Please produce the historical evidence to support what you are asserting as a fact. Even you admitted later on in your post that the earliest evidence you could find was 30 years after prophet Muhammad. 30 years is a long time. IMO in the time of prophet Muhammad, no one bowed to a man made structure, and islam lillah was being practiced EXACTLY according to Qur'aan. God willing I will produce historical evidences to prove what I am saying, but please bear with me for now.
You people have great conspiracy theories about how pagan beliefs were added into Islam at a later date. You try to back up your statements by showing similarities between certain symbols and practices in Islam to pagan beliefs. Those are interesting and all but still not convincing, and either way you are forgetting about the biggest thing, these practices and symbols have been around in Islam since the very start. Rituals and practices such as kissing the black stone at the Kabbah have been recorded by outside sources as early as 720 and again around 765. Accounts of Arabs performing pilgrimages and associating the Kabah have been around since as early as 660, thats less than 30 years after Muhammad. Simple fact is, the Kabbah, the pilgrimage, the black stone were not later add ons, they were always there
Brother, what you are calling a SIMPLE FACT is not a fact. Please see my above reply. Please produce any historical evidence from the time of prophet Muhammad that shows that. Later evidence is later, and is not proof of what was going on at the time of prophet Muhammad.
What you are asserting as facts, were non existent at the time of prophet Muhammad. God willing, I will prove that from historical accounts.
unless all the Muslims went back to their pagan beliefs immediatly after Muhammads death. This is hard to believe considering that during this time the Khalif was still a disciple of Muhammad.
You got it !! That is exactly what happened.
Just because it is hard to believe, does not mean its not true. You mean that disciples cannot make mistakes?. Disciple of Muhammad is still a disciple, not Muhammad himself. Look at what Judas did to prophet Isa; he was a disciple too.
So where is your evidence that Sunni beliefs are all invented by later generations? From the looks of it, Islam always had these 'pagan' beliefs in it.
The biggest evidence is Al-Qur'aan itself. LOOKS can be deceptive. Islam lillah DID NOT ALWAYS have these pagan beliefs in it. Islam lillah did not start with prophet Muhammad but at least with prophet Ibrahim. I will, God willing, produce the historical evidence later on, proving that the beliefs of the so called muslims were fabricated later on.
If the Quran really is the uncorrupted word of God, then we can fully rely on it.
There is no doubt about that. That is the only sanity left in this insane world.
According to the Quran, Abraham built the first shrine in Bekka. Now, although the tradition holds that Bekka is none other than Mecca, there is simply no evidence of this claim. Mecca was never called Bekka or anything equivalent. If you are able to find proof that Mecca was Bekka, please point it out to me.
You are absolutely right. Bakkah is not Makkah. The God does not misspell. God willing I will show you historical evidence that Bakkah was where prophet Muhammad used to perform Hajj and Makkah was where the pagans had their center of idol worshipping and used to perform THEIR PAGAN VERSION of the Hajj. Later Muhammad destroyed that center, only to be re-invented 30 years later by the pagans, and incorporated into the so called Islam.
Where is Bekka? Who knows. In my opinion Bekka is Beqaa valley in Lebanon. Did Abraham pass through Beqaa in Lebanon? Maybe. In the Bible he passes through places very close to Beqaa, but never really in Beqaa. Nevertheless, Becca/bekka/beka of the Quran being Beqaa in Lebanon would be much less of a stretch than it being Mecca if the Bible is to be taken for anything.
The Bible is not a one hundred percent true word of The God. It has been corrupted and you cannot one hundred percent rely on its historical evidence. If the Qur'aan says Ibrahim built the first house in Bakkah, then Ibrahim of course went to Bakkah. But Makkah was never Bakkah.
Well, the Kabah has apparently always been a part of Islam. So one can assume these stories of Muhammad, and later the early Khalifs, making pilgrimage to Kabbah as being somewhat credible. Anyone see the problem here? According to the Quran, the Kabah isn't the shrine built by Abraham. It was probably a pagan shrine. So why didn't Muhammad destroy this along with the other statues when he conquered Mecca? Obviously it meant something to him. According to Muhammad, this Shrine was a shrine to which the pilgrimage was made. What about the stone? Why wasn't that removed? Did Muhammad really kiss this stone even though that seems to be idol worship? Both tradition and historical evidence would say yes.
What is nowadays known as Kabah WAS NOT ALWAYS part of islam lillah. the stories that you are talking about are not from prophet Muhammad's time, but according to your own information at leat 30 years after Muhammad. Muhammad did destroy the pagan shrine at Makkah and performed Hajj in the original house at Bakkah. How certain are you that the current stone that is kissed is really the same stone from 1500 years ago?
He did apparently consider both of these as important parts of the religion.
That is pure conjecture brother.
Now, one could argue that Muhammad was only human and could have wrongly interpreted the revelations he was recieving.
Muhammad never did what you are saying.
Problem here. Kissing a stone, bowing down to a stone structure, and continuing to perform pagan rituals is quite a big deal. If he really did misinterpret the Quran accidently, then logically God would have stepped in and corrected him. This doesn't happen in the Quran
Exactly, that is the proof that he did not do it. If Muhammad would have done it, The God would have severed his artery as He says He would have done in Al-Qur'aan.
6944 A revelation from the Lord of the worlds.
6945 And had he attributed anything falsely to Us.
6946 We would have seized him by the right.
6947 Then, We would have severed his life-line.
6948 None of you would be able to prevent it.And besides, weren't the Muslims to take anything Muhammad gave them? I always interpreted this as only the Quran, but if God wanted to say Quran, he would have done so.
The relevant ayat is as follows
598 And whatever God provided to His messenger from the people of the townships, then it shall be to God and His messenger, and the relatives, and the orphans, and the poor, and the wayfarer. Thus, it will not remain monopolized by the rich among you. And you may take what the messenger gives you, but do not take what he withholds you from taking. And be aware of God, for God is mighty in retribution.
How much more clear The God can be, yet people keep misinterpreting His words.
If you read the previous few ayaat you will realize that The God is talking about the disbelievers from the people of the scripture who The God drove out of their homes.
Clearly according to the context The God is talking about "whatever He provided to His messenger FROM THE PEOPLE OF THE TOWNSHIPS" i.e. left behind by the disbelievers who were driven out. The God is telling the believers that OUT OF THESE PROVISIONS LEFT BEHIND they may take what the messenger gives them. Nowhere is this referring even to Qur'aan itself or the so called hadith of Muhammad.
So what about prayer? For the most part, the Quran is mute on the subject. Its as if it assumes people know what prayer is and how to perform it. Would that include bowing down to the Kabah? Sure if thats how the people had been performing prayer. Would you like to argue that these were later inventions? I would really love to believe you because bowing down to a man made structure seems very blasphemous to me, however is there any evidence that this practice was added post-Muhammad? No. None. Muhammad probably prayed the same way.
The evidence that the current practice was added post Muhammad is THE QUR'AAN ITSELF !! Muhammad never prayed the same way as so called muslims pray nowadays.
Al-Qur'aan does give all the details of how to uphold the salat. Please see the following link on my understanding of exactly how IQAM AL-SALAT is supposed to be according to Al-Qur'aan, and all the details
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=44264&highlight=#44264
What about fasting? Well we all know the traditional way, but some of you might also know that this method is not very Quranic. The Quran says the fasting should only be for a few days and should continue until night. So is tradition wrong or did Muhammad and the early Muslims simply perform fasting in a different way than that prescribed in the Quran? Hard to imagine the a prophet of God would have done that, yet that is exactly what everything points to.
As I said earlier, looks can be deceptive. I have no doubt whatsoever that Muhammad fasted exactly according to Al-Qur'aan. The tradition is man-made and fabricated and is wrong.
Another point is that the Qur'aanic night starts at sunset, and not at complete darkness. Please see the following link for details about the Qur'aanic day and night
http//free-minds.org/articles/science/quranic.htm
So whats going on? Was Islam corrupted right after the death of Muhammad or did Muhammad just practice Islam differently than the Quran and continued performing pagan rituals of his forfathers? Being a Muslims I find the latter hard to believe yet those are the choices I am faced with.
Islam lillah was corrupted right after the death of Muhammad.
If Islam was corrupted so soon after Muhammad, one would expect great turmoil within the Islamic community during this time. Do we see this? Yes, kind of the civil wars. Now according to tradition and history, these wars were caused by different people wanting to become Caliphs, but could there really have been more behind this? Perhaps, but there is no record of that. According to all records, these battles were mostly political and had little effect on religion.
History is but fiction agreed upon !! The winners destroyed all the evidence that would point out to their being wrong and rewrote fabricated accounts of everything. The same happened in Council of Nicea 350 AD when the original Injeel was burned and destroyed.
To sum it all up, the biggest evidence that islam lillah was corrupted soon after death of Muhammad is Al-Qur'aan itself. Prophet Muhammad would never have done anything contrary to Al-Qur'aan otherwise his "wateen" would have been severed by The God. Simple.
Now, please go through the following LONG LONG link that gives all the historical evidence about where the original house built by Ibrahim is, where Muhammad actually used to perform Hajj, and how Makkah is not that place. This evidence will, God willing, prove that the original Kabah was at Bakkah, and will tell you the location of Bakkah.
Be forewarned that the person who wrote the article is biased against islam lillah and Muhammad and still ends up proving what Al-Qur'aan says. INCREDIBLE.
http//www.geocities.com/spenta_mainyu/Bakka-1.htm
Hope all that helps. Once again, only Allah guides.
Regards,
Tanveer
-
Dear Riz,
I understand that the loss of ritualistic conformity is difficult to handle, most of us here have been through it, or should I say, are still affected by it.
One problem you take up is the ritual of prayers. It seems impossible to pray without some kind of ritual involved.
Mainly this is due to the fact that human beings fail to ?see? God, and therefore has to represent God by some kind of physical appearance, i.e. to ?concentrate? God into something tangible. brickwallIf we find an understanding of God being everything there is and ?sees? God in everything we observe with all our senses and our minds, then we may come to understand prayer differently. We are not praying to a deity, we are fixing our minds on ?all there is?, we are concentrating our minds on what is and how we would like things to be; on what and how we can play a part in this, and try to understand the guidance from God in scriptures, nature, and so on.
Ritual prayer to a deity is a pagan custom and has nothing to do with Islam. This is why it is so difficult to find details of ritual prayers in the Qur?an. It is just not a part of God?s system. ?
This and other pagan practices have been implemented into the teachings of what many people call Islam, but from what I can see in the Qur?an, no prophet ever followed these practices. However I do not think Islam has changed from the practices of the Prophet, but the various religious sects have changed in order to try to pass themselves off as Islam, thereby being able to continue their pagan rituals under the shield of Islam.
They have been very successful, so far! fxWhat we try to do here is to find a way out of this mess and back to the teachings from God, to reality.
This is a long and difficult process where we are going to make many mistakes, but, hopefully, will get closer to the ?real thing? given time.Best regds
Ali Omar
-
Salaamun alaikum Riz,
I can agree to an extent there, but I don't think its right to simply discard all historical data just because it doesn't fit with my beliefs. Thats what the Christians seem to do and I don't want to make the same mistake. If everything is pointing to the fact that Quranic Islam has never existed, then thats a really big problem. It either implies that Islam was corrupeted or its a bunch of ideals that not even the founder practiced.
It's not a question of it not 'fitting in with your beliefs'. It's a question of you looking through the Quran, understanding how it explains itself. If you've honestly gone through the Quran, then fair enough. However, from your post, you've implied that you've not studied the language. Studying through the medium of translation isn't adequate, in my experience.
Of course the Sunnis would say that Muhammad ibn Abdullah did everything according to thier religion. Would they tell you that he never did their rituals? The key is to begin with the Criterion, not with some sayings and doings people CLAIMED he did and if he did, Allah declared that He would kill Muhammad (69/40-47).
I would like to believe it was corrupted, but theres no evidence of this great corruption. But the problem with the corruption idea is that if there really was such a big change after Muhammads death, what prevented these people from changing the Quran? Nothing, yet it wasn't changed to coincide with their practices, meaning there was no big change to the practices of the early Muslims after Muhammad. Islam has always been the way the traditionalists practice it. A bit troubling, yet its the only logical conclusion I can come up with.
So the Quran itself isn't evidence, brother? Isn't it unfair that you are ready to accept human sources but where Allah's book is concerned, you relegate it to being a historical phenomena?
If hadith,sunna, seera and so on were so accurate, why are there so many differences? Think about it, the Prophet is reported to have said 'pray as u see me pray' and prayer is supposedly 'the pillar of deen' but the Malikis and Hanafis cant even agree whether to leave ones hands at the side or to clasp it. Think of how VISUAL that differnces is. Even if you were myopic, surely u could visually differentiate. But they can't and that reflects on how real thier history is.
thanks and peace
-
Salaamun alaikum Riz,
But the problem with the corruption idea is that if there really was such a big change after Muhammads death, what prevented these people from changing the Quran? Nothing, yet it wasn't changed to coincide with their practices, meaning there was no big change to the practices of the early Muslims after Muhammad. Islam has always been the way the traditionalists practice it. A bit troubling, yet its the only logical conclusion I can come up with.
The reason they could not change Qur'aan is because The God Himself is protecting it
1510 Indeed it is We who have sent down the Reminder, and indeed it is We who will preserve it.
-
PEACE, ZENJE,
Excellent post! I would just like to add the following to it
Main Entry COMPLETE having all necessary parts, elements, or steps.
Main Entry NECESSARY an indispensable item logically unavoidable that cannot be denied without contradiction
Main Entry DETAIL to report minutely and distinctly specify marked by abundant thoroughness in treating small items or parts.
Main Entry GUIDANCE comes from Allah Al-Quran is that guidance from Allah for mankind and fully details the instructions on how to live a righteous life in this world (especially, not to do shirk) , so that, one may successfuly pass the test of conduct , so that, one may avoid the destiny of Hell and gain the destiny of Paradise .
238 We said "Get ye down all from here; and if, as is sure, there comes to you Guidance from Me, whosoever follows My guidance, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
2185 The month of Ramazan is that in which the Quran was revealed, a guidance to men and clear proofs of the guidance and the criterion...that you should exalt the greatness of Allah for His having guided you and that you may give thanks.
187 That which is on earth we have made but as a glittering show for the earth, in order that We may test them - as to which of them are best in conduct.
18110 Say "I am but a man like yourselves, (but) the inspiration has come to me, that your Allah is one Allah. whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner.
649 The Day that He assembles you (all) for a Day of Assembly,- that will be a Day of mutual loss and gain and those who believe in Allah and work righteousness,- He will remove from them their ills, and He will admit them to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, to dwell therein for ever that will be the Supreme Achievement.
Hence, Allah, did not leave out from Al-Quran any detail, relative to/specific to/pertinent to--guidance, which could result in an individual going astray and thus going to HELL.
Hence
Is God not enough for His servant?...
These are the ayat of Allah which We recite to you with truth; then in what hadith would they believe after Allah and His ayat? (456)
Woe on that day to the disbelievers! So in what hadith after this will they believe? (7749-50)
Did they not look at the dominion of heavens and earth, and all that God has created? Perhaps their time is drawing near; so in which hadith after this one will they believe? (7185)
And from the people, there are those who accept baseless hadith to mislead from the path of God without knowledge, and they take it as entertainment. These will have a humiliating retribution (316)
God has sent down the best hadith, a scripture that is similar in two ways. The skins of those who reverence their Lord shiver from it, then their skins and their hearts soften up to the remembrance of God. Such is God's guidance; He guides with it whoever He wills. And for whomever God misguides, then none can guide him. (3923)
Let them produce a hadith like this, if they are truthful. (5234)
And when God alone is mentioned, the hearts of those who do not believe in the Hereafter are filled with aversion; and when others are mentioned beside Him, they rejoice!
Is God not enough for His servant?...
-
The reason they could not change Qur'aan is because The God Himself is protecting it
Thats not what Riz is talking about
so he/she decided to change all of the words.
"gathering, and markets, and support centers, and temples where the name of God is frequently mentioned..." So now we bascially went from the classical translation of " monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques," to "monastries, synagogues, assemblies" to "gathering, and markets, and support centers"He is saying you have been changing the meaning of classical Arabic.
-
Hello Albion,
He is saying you have been changing the meaning of classical Arabic.
- My comment was not directed to what you quoted.
- I never changed the meaning of any classical Arabic word.
-
tanveermd, great post. To be honest, those are pretty much the answers I give myself right now, thats why I continue being a Quran only believer. I posted all of this to see what other people think about these issues.
One thing that still troubles me however is the lack of any historical data. Its true that the winners right history and the truth can be hidden, but there is always some evidence left over. A great example is Christianity. There was a lot of corruption soon after Jesus, but the politicians and the Church were never able to cover things up. Anyone who looks into the early Church politics can see what really happened. This however is not the case with Islam. Everything seems to fit with the Sunni story of Muhammad. There is no cover up to be seen. The Quran is evidence, true, but it isn't as good of evidence if you are to take the traditional interpretation, mostly everything will still work out. Which brings me to what Albion said.
I find it troubling that after 1400+ years, people are suddenly trying to reinterpret the Quran without bringing any evidence that what they interpret is true. tanveermd, I have read that article actually. I read it a while ago. It is interesting, but that guy makes assumptions and just keeps building from there. Plus, placing Muhammad in the Palestine area would make no sense. Sure it might answer one question, but it would leave everything else unanswered. People have suggested that Muhammad wasn't from Mecca before on free-minds also because the Quran talks about Muhammad being close to the community of Lot and all that, but no one really knows where Lot or Abraham even were. Its all speculation. The Palestine geography doesn't even fit that well with Abrahams journey when looked at closely. Places have been named after Biblical locations rather than them always being there. Kamal Salibi in "The Bible came from Arabia" and "Secret of the Bible People" talks about this. Interesting stuff. If what he says is slightly true, then it certainly is possible that Abraham was indeed in Arabia for most of his life.
What I am suggesting through all of this is that there certainly is a possibility that traditional Islam isn't very far from the truth. There were probably things added, like saying Amen during prayer and such, but there is simply no evidence of a vast conspiracy. I find that very odd. As I mentioned earlier, nothing in history is every fully covered up. There are always factions that break off, outside accounts, conspiracy theories, and so on when such a big change in religion happens. No branch of Islam for the past 1400 years has suggested anything of the sort. Strange? I certainly think so.
-
Hello All,
Koran Alone proponent's rejection of hadiths as a basis for "doctrine" is to be commended because they are unreliable oral traditions that have been written long time after the actual events. Also these traditions are no longer relevant to our modern way of life and how could they be anyway? The human society and consciousness has evolved since the 6th Century Arabia. And I think any sensible person with an open and objective mind having read the hadiths will reach this conclusion.
But hadiths do provide valuable insights to historians and scholars into the early Muslim community. Religions do not pop into existence in a vacuum. They come to address the malaise affecting a group of people in a point in time. All religions have a history, to reject history, however unreliable it is, is to have the view of a "fundamentalist" mind. To say history is not important, to say life and character of the messenger is not important is not helpful. Without understanding the humanity of the messengers monotheistic religions would not have taken root in our human consciousness.
It is always very human need to admire and venerate those that had a contact with the divine or the unknown. That is why the "Sunnah" was invented to cater for that need. To suppress or deny this human yearning is not healthy. To suppress any natural human need is very damaging to the growth of that individuality. Individuals need to "grow" out of their needs on their own and on their own steam. All we can do is try to encourage individuals to think for themselves so they can outgrow their need for a ritualised religion or any form of organised religion.
All religions are indeed man-made and they can be nothing more than that, and nothing to do with the "ineffable" reality that many have called "God", "Nirvana", "Brahman", "Tao" etc. Therefore, in order to incorporate that "reality" into our lives we must, as individuals, go beyond hadiths, traditions and even scripture because "God" is beyond all these things...
Problem with Islam? I would say the Problem is with All Organised Religion! -)
Regards,
-
Salaamun alaikum Riz, all,
The way I think is that whatever happened in the past does not make any difference to me. No one bears the burden of anyone else. Whatever the previous generations did, their matter is with The God and they are accountable to Him and He will deal with them on the Day of Judgement.
The important thing is that we should focus on the present and lead our lives righteously and walk the straight path so that we can be successful in the life hereafter, which is the real life. Good news is that The God preserved Al-Qur'aan to guide us, and it contains all the relevant details, examples of the messengers, and historical lessons necessary for our guidance.
The God knows what is in the hearts and He guides whomever He wills, provided we make the right choice. Everyone should make a sincere effort to understand the word of The God and spend our lives according to its guidance. As long as we stick to its guidance and walk the straight path we have nothing to fear.
My understanding of the word of The God could have minor differences from yours, but as long as I am sincere in my efforts to find the truth and make my best effort to understand the word of The God and walk the straight path, I am confident that I will be rewarded on the Last Day.
So let us not focus on what others did, or what the people in the past did and be obsessed about finding out who did what in the past. Let us focus on the present and on ourselves for that is what really matters to each one of us.
-
Salaamun alaikum,
RizI find it troubling that after 1400+ years, people are suddenly trying to reinterpret the Quran without bringing any evidence that what they interpret is true. ...
MQ False. Shafiee , the main formulator of Sunni fiqh, acknowledges the existence of those who say the Quran was explaination of all things (16/89). The Shia categorically accuse Umar of denying hadith when he said 'enough for us is the book of Allah'.
As for 'not giving evidence', I am starting to doubt whether you have done any research. Al-Quraan has about 10 verses stating its sufficiency. It provides other verses to explain how to how interpret it and you claim there's no evidence. Very strange indeed.
What I am suggesting through all of this is that there certainly is a possibility that traditional Islam isn't very far from the truth. There were probably things added, like saying Amen during prayer and such, but there is simply no evidence of a vast conspiracy.
So when Al-Quraan gives full freedom of religion and Sunnism demands one life on the crime of apostacy, that's 'not very far off' ? I call that a 'diametrical opposite'.
LoteTreeTo say history is not important, to say life and character of the messenger is not important is not helpful. Without understanding the humanity of the messengers monotheistic religions would not have taken root in our human consciousness.
This statement is based on the assumption that the books of hadith etc are correct. We have only Al-Quraan to verify that and frankly, it does not.
-
LoteTreeTo say history is not important, to say life and character of the messenger is not important is not helpful. Without understanding the humanity of the messengers monotheistic religions would not have taken root in our human consciousness.
This statement is based on the assumption that the books of hadith etc are correct. We have only Al-Quraan to verify that and frankly, it does not.
That assumption was not made.
This is whats been written
Koran Alone proponent's rejection of hadiths as a basis for "doctrine" is to be commended because they are unreliable oral traditions that have been written long time after the actual events. Also these traditions are no longer relevant to our modern way of life and how could they be anyway? The human society and consciousness has evolved since the 6th Century Arabia. And I think any sensible person with an open and objective mind having read the hadiths will reach this conclusion.
This is what is been said
"All religions have a history, to reject history, however unreliable it is, is to have the view of a "fundamentalist" mind. To say history is not important, to say life and character of the messenger is not important is not helpful. Without understanding the humanity of the messengers monotheistic religions would not have taken root in our human consciousness.
good try chap -) -) -)
Regards,
-
Riz This is the exact question that I wanted to ask when I asked how we should treat historical hadith. I fully agree that there is no evidence for quran alone Islam. There is however plenty of evidence for Sunni Islam, minus some bits that even Sunnis disagree upon. Even previous scholars or those who felt that hadith were corrupt did not stray that much from Sunnism. Why is that? Sometimes I feel that in trying to interpret the quran, we disregard the text and apply our own judgements. I also feel that many questions are not honestly addressed on this forum. For example, questions on the authenticity of the quran are rarely answered with as much thoroughness as we give the issue of ex. salat. These things cannot be skimmed on considering that these issues are the foundation of Iman. The issue that Riz raises is also fundamental to Iman. Personally, I have serious issues with Sunnism and that method of life, however, Quran alone method seems to be a shot in the dark a lot of the time, especially for those who are not as adept at arabic. I have no concrete answers to your question, but it is an issue that deserves a lot of attention, especially on this forum.
My remedial answer to the question I think that for example, when it comes to the issue of salat, we can accept that salat was a physical prayer, but not necessarily that it was aimed towards Mecca. We can accept that hajj was physical, but not necessarily that it was a pilgrimage to mecca. The reason I think that this is maybe a remedial answer is that some historical data must be used in order to prove Islam correct. For example, there is hadith that hundreds of people memorized the quran. We would not know this if we did not believe in those hadith. We also believe in the hadith that Abu Bakr collected the quran, etc. These are important hadith and they help to prove that the quran has been preserved. Of course someone will state that the quran self proclaims and proves itself, but I personally think that extrinsic evidence is needed to prove the authenticity of the quran as a preserved book. I still do not think that hadith are accruate as a whole and I shun them as a spiritual source, but I think there is a difference between using a source for historical value and using it for spiritual value.