Problem in the Muslim world
-
Peace
If I may interject again, Islam (the way of life, the straight path to God) has been around since the time of Adam. They all were commanded to perform ZAKAT, SALAT, submit to only one God and condone the good and forbid the bad. The idea that there are 3 monotheistic religions is a creation of man, not God. Mankind altered the message of the torah, altered the message of injeel, etc and thus altered God's Unchanging Way (Islam) to make it 'judaism' (following the tribe of Judah) and 'christianity' (following the Roman empire's tall tales of 'christ' and 'islam' (following bukhari and company). Quran as a final message did come down at the time of the Prophet Mohamed but, to say Islam and its message (quran) only came down to man when the Prophet Mohamed was around, would be a misunderstanding.I also think, if we are speaking from a quranic perspective, there are many who call themselves Christians, Jews etc who lead a very Muslim way of life i.e. follow the percepts of quran - even if they don't know it. Therefore, while they may call themselves any label, God will take them as ones who submitted (sallamo) to Him i.e. Muslim.
Peace -
Peace mquran and others.
Iqbal, Maududi, Parwez and Shariati etc. belong to the Muslim community, they thought on the basis of Quran. They may be labeled as Muslim Thinkers. You probably agree with this.
But what about others like Maimonides, Spinoza, Descartes, Kant, Goethe, Tolstoy, Rabindranath, Gandhi, Newton, Einstein etc? Are they my brothers in ?deen?? I do not think so, or more clearly, I do not care about it. I see this aspect from different angle. I believe in two different streams of knowledge that spring from two different sources. One is revelation from Allah (Quran). The other is human experience and intellect (Philosophy and Science). Muslims require both of the two streams. Here lies the value of Maimonides etc. To benefit from the second source I do not need to recognize clearly who belongs to ?deen? and who not. We shall probably differ in the definition or meaning or implication of ?deen?. But that is a different issue.
If I did everything as al-quraan commanded yet I'd never read it, would God judge me a kafir?
I am not the attorney of God, brother. My problem is related with the limitations of my knowledge system and the possible principles of sociology and behaviorism when I communicate and associate/disassociate from other individuals or groups to promote the movement of Muhammad.
-
S2SThe idea that there are 3 monotheistic religions is a creation of man, not God. Mankind altered the message of the torah, altered the message of injeel, etc and thus altered God's Unchanging Way (Islam) to make it 'judaism' (following the tribe of Judah) and 'christianity' (following the Roman empire's tall tales of 'christ' and 'islam' (following bukhari and company).
Another person freed from the tyranny of the tri-religion myth. Congratulations, soul2squeeze.
-
PrashantIqbal, Maududi, Parwez and Shariati etc. belong to the Muslim community, they thought on the basis of Quran. They may be labeled as Muslim Thinkers. You probably agree with this.
Prashant, did you know that among themselves, christians refer to themselves as 'believers'. Does this mean that when we study al-quraan, whenever it uses the word 'mu'min', we should think of people who think Jesus is God?
Iqbal, Maududi, Parwez and Shariati did think with the Quraan in the background and foreground but what does that prove?
Iqbal Nubuwwat is so perfected that it obliterated itself.
Maududi Women should remain in purdah in the home
Parwez Islam needs a state to function.
Shariati The hajj rituals are an enactment of prophetic stories.
All these things are contradictory to the Quraan.
To me, the 'muslim community' is a socio-culturo-pan-ethnic group. Whether it has anything to do with Al-Islaam from Al-Quraan is not a matter of necessity. Indeed, at the moment, 'the west' has a closer affinity with al-quraan than they.
-
The judgment of relation between a thinker and Quran is not very easy affair. Thinkers make mistakes. Mistakes may be taken as correct interpretation or exposition of Quran. One thinker may be competent in jurisprudence, but he may not have the capability of explaining the philosophical contents of some verses of the Quran. The philosopher type theoretician of Islam may not be capable of explaining some verses that deal with cosmological propositions available in the Quran which a physicist may explain in better way. Iqbal etc. are Muslim thinkers in different spheres of Islamic ideology. It is not impossible that Maududi is insufficient when spiritualism is concerned, Parwez may be unacceptable if he totally rejects the need of history when problems of implementation of Quran is concerned etc. and etc. But nonetheless they are Muslim thinkers.
It is also possible to define Islam in some fashion where Marx becomes a Muslim thinker and Iqbal becomes Deviant Mushreek. So the primary definitions of deen, iman, islam, wilayyah are most important things here. Probably we two will differ here with wide gap.
-
Iqbal Nubuwwat is so perfected that it obliterated itself.
Maududi Women should remain in purdah in the home
Parwez Islam needs a state to function.So ?muslims? should keep on waiting for more prophets... Their women should remain in bikini even at outdoors, 'muslims' should give up States, and surrender their freedom to west and keep on leaving as ?better muslim? under their rule... I don?t understand...
-
So ?muslims? should keep on waiting for more prophets...
I withdraw that point, if I may as its too controversial and will divert us. Iqbal also said that 'laa ilaha illallah' without 'muhammadar rasulullah' is an ibleesian tawheed (see 'hadith and sunnah ideals and realities). This is certainly against al-quraan.
Their women should remain in bikini even at outdoors,
Is it just bikinis or burkas? Over here, clothing stores sell other fashions too
'muslims' should give up States, and surrender their freedom to west and keep on leaving as ?better muslim? under their rule... I don?t understand...
The concept of the state is not in al-quraan but why does that entail surrendering of power to others? Al-quraan speaks about acquirement of power (24/55 for example) but that doesnt necessitate a state mechanism.
My point is, these 4 guys have gone against al-quraan. Nothing except racist tendencies keeps them being called 'muslim scholars'.
-
The judgment of relation between a thinker and Quran is not very easy affair. Thinkers make mistakes. Mistakes may be taken as correct interpretation or exposition of Quran. One thinker may be competent in jurisprudence, but he may not have the capability of explaining the philosophical contents of some verses of the Quran. The philosopher type theoretician of Islam may not be capable of explaining some verses that deal with cosmological propositions available in the Quran which a physicist may explain in better way. Iqbal etc. are Muslim thinkers in different spheres of Islamic ideology. It is not impossible that Maududi is insufficient when spiritualism is concerned, Parwez may be unacceptable if he totally rejects the need of history when problems of implementation of Quran is concerned etc. and etc. But nonetheless they are Muslim thinkers.
This being the case, that it isn't easy to define who's a muslim thinker, why not interrogate the term itself? Quranically, there are no muslim thinkers, only muslim doers. As I've not met these people, to me, only their ideas remain.
It is also possible to define Islam in some fashion where Marx becomes a Muslim thinker and Iqbal becomes Deviant Mushreek. So the primary definitions of deen, iman, islam, wilayyah are most important things here. Probably we two will differ here with wide gap.
Lets take the absolute truth to be 'x'. Marx was trying to reach X as much as Iqbal was (if we believe historical resports about both. If you accept history, accept it properly). Perhaps Marx was inspired to believe that the end of dialectical materialism was the absolute truth of man. The only reason you wouldn't think so is that Marx was a german whilst iqbal was whats known in the world as a 'muslim'.
-
Who do you think are the best of the Muslim (submitters to God as per your understanding) ?doers?? Can you name some of them, so that I may read their books in order to know what real Islam is or what their ideas are?
-
I know some Muslim doers in my life but they haven't written any books. If you wish to deepen your knowledge about al-quraan, i suggest reading anything expounding an adventure of ideas, like philosophy, psychology, religion and using those ideas as to bring the verses of al-quraan life. As my good friend said, that'll push al-quraan to show its true performance in the field of ideas.
-
I withdraw that point, if I may as its too controversial and will divert us. Iqbal also said that 'laa ilaha illallah' without 'muhammadar rasulullah' is an ibleesian tawheed (see 'hadith and sunnah ideals and realities). This is certainly against al-quraan.
I see. What about those submitters to One God from the Jews and Christians who only agree with ?La ilaha illallah?. What about those inspired philosophers like Marx and others from the West who only agree with ?La ilaha????
I don?t know Arabic. All my understanding of Quran is from the translators who probably belong to the racist group. Can you name some translators who are among the ?submitters??
what do you mean by "their women"? the "muslims" women ? or do you mean "muslim" women.... sorry this is the feminist breaking loose
Peace Elke. Sorry... I shud hv been more careful...
brickwall )