questions on muhammad, sufism, etc.

xrededgex

hello and peace!

i'm completely new to this forum. so please forgive me if i stray into some well covered topics. but my curiosity must be satisfied! er...

well, yeah, anyway...

muhammad i've read several things (unless i'm totally mistaken) in qur'an-only lit equating praying for and praising muhammad as making him equal to god. however, 33.56

God and His angels shower there blessings on the Prophet.
O believers, you should also send your blessings on him,
and salute him with a worthy greeting.

(ahmed ali translation)

the progressive muslims translation

3356 God and His Angels connect with the prophet. O you who believe, you shall connect with him, and yield completely.

and, i don't find it horribly different in essence. i'b be interested in seeing a breakdown of the arabic.

regardless, this would seem to allow for praying for and praising muhammad in salat and even leave room for salawat. not as equal to god, but more allong the lines of while we're connected to god in and immediately after salat, we might as well (should?) talk about the prophet, and "connect" with him, who's revelation we employ, etc. ((this might also indicate that the traditional shahada is not invalid if including "muhammadin rasulallah" (or which ever pronounciation you prefer).))

which brings me to i've noted folks talking about not elevating muhammad above other prophets (which i agree with in essence... i have a very special place in my heart for the prophets lao-tzu, siddhartha, isa, krishna, etc.), but 33.21

You have indeed a noble paradigm
in the Apostle of God

the p.m translation is even more interesting in this regard

3321 Indeed, in the messenger of God a good example has been set for you

so a focus on muhammad is certainly understandable for muslims. this does not necessarily mean that muhammad is superior, only that he kicks arse.

hadith ... i am pretty sympathetic to the arguements put forth that the hadith / sunnah are generally corrupt. but i don't think the more traditional argument (based in part on what i've just quoted and similar passages) is wholly wrong, that hadtih rose out of a desire to understand the life and personality of the prophet so that later muslims could follow such passages as 33.21. so for me the question becomes less "are the hadith valid?" and more "what hadith are useful / helpful and do not contradict the qur'an?" for me its not a matter of literal historical accuracy, but a question of whether or not the hadith contains wisdom which helps me to better understand the qur'an and draw closer to allah.

thus, hadith about stoning people, out the window. while the hadith symbolically describing the prophet's "enlightenment" (for lack of a better word) experience (you know, the one with the horse and all) seems to me important for what it reveals.

sufism ... a bit of backstory what has drawn me to islam is, quite frankly, sufism. not that the mystical tracks within islam can really be contained in one term, but its a useful shorthand... so i'm using it. ... but, yeah sufism is more or less the door thru which i am entering islam, as such. so the few comments i've read on this forum were a little disturbing to me. in that i think a lot of folks misunderstand the intent (which, no need to tell me, is often different from the reality) of the teacher / student relationship within sufism. that is since sufism is basically about techniques for understanding one's nafs, cleansing the heart, drawing closer to god in love, etc. it makes sense that one might need a teacher, in the same sense that i have a teacher for aikido, or wish to aquire one for learning arabic, etc. but like any student / teacher relationship, it can be dangerous because you are giving up a little bit of autonomy by trusting someone to help you in a correct manner. i mean my aikido teacher could be totally teaching me bogus techniques, and an arabic teacher might be teaching me to say "i'm a cornhusking fishmonger" when i think s/he is teaching me to say "all praises to allah", or some such. naturally, in a spiritually charged situation, the stakes are a bit higher, but that does not negate the possible necessity of guidence.

of course one can get totally taken by some fraud, or give in to a cult of personality masquerading as devotion to allah. but, for example, the order in which i am seeking admitance is pretty forthright about the resonsibility of the dervish to check for themselves, and test the teachings, not accepting anything without question -- as per qur'an perscription. service, then, to one's shaykh does not mean the negation of any of these things, but instead is a technique for for learning viserally how to be a servant to allah, and by extention the world. indeed, in this order, one can tell elder dervishes by the fact that they are better at serving the new dervishes than the other way around. one of the sayings in the order (because kissing the ring of the shaykh is a custom) is when one kisses the ring of a shaykh, s/he kisses your feet. that is the shaykh is there to serve the dervish, not the other way around. the reversal of this is evidence that the shaykh in question is a false sufi, and should be abandonded -- they are not practicing humility and modesty.

so, ideally, a sufi order is a place in which everyone is learning how to serve everyone, as well as learning how to cleanse one's heart, etc. in this way it should be a model for any community of muslims.

i'll call it now... any thoughts, etc. would be wonderful!

thanks!!

peace!!!

jeff.

p.s. i've always wanted to be a jedi jedi via la obi-wan kenobi!

arnoldyasin

hello and peace!

i'm completely new to this forum. so please forgive me if i stray into some well covered topics. but my curiosity must be satisfied! er...

well, yeah, anyway...

Peace and welcome to the forum, i'll give short comments on your post.

muhammad i've read several things (unless i'm totally mistaken) in qur'an-only lit equating praying for and praising muhammad as making him equal to god. however, 33.56

God and His angels shower there blessings on the Prophet.
O believers, you should also send your blessings on him,
and salute him with a worthy greeting.

(ahmed ali translation)

the progressive muslims translation

3356 God and His Angels connect with the prophet. O you who believe, you shall connect with him, and yield completely.

and, i don't find it horribly different in essence. i'b be interested in seeing a breakdown of the arabic.

regardless, this would seem to allow for praying for and praising muhammad in salat and even leave room for salawat. not as equal to god, but more allong the lines of while we're connected to god in and immediately after salat, we might as well (should?) talk about the prophet, and "connect" with him, who's revelation we employ, etc. ((this might also indicate that the traditional shahada is not invalid if including "muhammadin rasulallah" (or which ever pronounciation you prefer).))

First of all, where is this verse connected with salat? Nowhere. You gave an invisible link with salat and this verse. Where is your authority to do so? You have none. It says to honor the Prophet, Where does it say we have to do that in the salat or with prayers? It just says, bless him and support him. Why do you connect that with prayers and salat?

As for the shahada. Again where is your authority to connect 'le illeh illAllah' together with 'Muhammed Rasoolallah'? Again you have none. There are more then 35 shahada's in the Quran, which all are'le illeh ilAllah' or 'Aslamtu li Rabbi alameen'. Did God forget? We both know it is not so. What did all the messengers preach? 'Le illeh il Allah'. You think it is about that we believe that people put Muhammed on the same level as God, but i agree with you this is not so. The thing that is wrong with the 'traditional' shahada is that, there is no authority from the Quran that could have given this idea of the 'traditional' shahada. So this idea is formed outside of the Quran on authority other then the Quran, which is shirk. So it is not that you see 'Muhammed Rasoollah' as an illeh, the shirk is that you follow an authority outside the Quran which makes it shirk. It is this following of outside authority on the Deen which is shirk. All information for the Deen is inside the Quran, see 6112-116 and there are more verses on this. And what did Muhammed say himself? Would he have said his own name? No....He would just have said 'le illeh il Allah'.......

which brings me to i've noted folks talking about not elevating muhammad above other prophets (which i agree with in essence... i have a very special place in my heart for the prophets lao-tzu, siddhartha, isa, krishna, etc.), but 33.21

You have indeed a noble paradigm
in the Apostle of God

the p.m translation is even more interesting in this regard

3321 Indeed, in the messenger of God a good example has been set for you

so a focus on muhammad is certainly understandable for muslims. this does not necessarily mean that muhammad is superior, only that he kicks arse.

The exact same words are used with Abraham, see 604-6. Look at the Arabic, it uses the same words as in 3321 you give here as an example. This refers to the examples given in the Quran, not immediatly in history.

hadith ... i am pretty sympathetic to the arguements put forth that the hadith / sunnah are generally corrupt. but i don't think the more traditional argument (based in part on what i've just quoted and similar passages) is wholly wrong, that hadtih rose out of a desire to understand the life and personality of the prophet so that later muslims could follow such passages as 33.21. so for me the question becomes less "are the hadith valid?" and more "what hadith are useful / helpful and do not contradict the qur'an?" for me its not a matter of literal historical accuracy, but a question of whether or not the hadith contains wisdom which helps me to better understand the qur'an and draw closer to allah.

When you study the history of Hadith, you see it is not about that people were interrested in the Prophet that they collected Hadith, but because they MIS-USED the interrest for the Prophet. The collecters of Hadith were all non-Arabs and most were connected with a certain school or monarchy. This showed they were biased. Before Shafii there was no direct sunna of the Prophet as every city, village and tribe had their own sunna, as sunna just means ways of conduct. Before 200AH, the isnaad(chain of narrators) were not used and suddenly there were perfect isnaads. How did these isnaads appear when there are no written records of those isnaads and they were not told when Hadith were narrated before 200AH? This is why, like you said, it is just history. And we must remember that always the victors narrate the history in their way with their purposes. So i agree with your approach, and then even i'm carefull when i read them. But they are not neccesary to understand the Quran.

sufism ... a bit of backstory what has drawn me to islam is, quite frankly, sufism. not that the mystical tracks within islam can really be contained in one term, but its a useful shorthand... so i'm using it. ... but, yeah sufism is more or less the door thru which i am entering islam, as such. so the few comments i've read on this forum were a little disturbing to me. in that i think a lot of folks misunderstand the intent (which, no need to tell me, is often different from the reality) of the teacher / student relationship within sufism. that is since sufism is basically about techniques for understanding one's nafs, cleansing the heart, drawing closer to god in love, etc. it makes sense that one might need a teacher, in the same sense that i have a teacher for aikido, or wish to aquire one for learning arabic, etc. but like any student / teacher relationship, it can be dangerous because you are giving up a little bit of autonomy by trusting someone to help you in a correct manner. i mean my aikido teacher could be totally teaching me bogus techniques, and an arabic teacher might be teaching me to say "i'm a cornhusking fishmonger" when i think s/he is teaching me to say "all praises to allah", or some such. naturally, in a spiritually charged situation, the stakes are a bit higher, but that does not negate the possible necessity of guidence.

of course one can get totally taken by some fraud, or give in to a cult of personality masquerading as devotion to allah. but, for example, the order in which i am seeking admitance is pretty forthright about the resonsibility of the dervish to check for themselves, and test the teachings, not accepting anything without question -- as per qur'an perscription. service, then, to one's shaykh does not mean the negation of any of these things, but instead is a technique for for learning viserally how to be a servant to allah, and by extention the world. indeed, in this order, one can tell elder dervishes by the fact that they are better at serving the new dervishes than the other way around. one of the sayings in the order (because kissing the ring of the shaykh is a custom) is when one kisses the ring of a shaykh, s/he kisses your feet. that is the shaykh is there to serve the dervish, not the other way around. the reversal of this is evidence that the shaykh in question is a false sufi, and should be abandonded -- they are not practicing humility and modesty.

so, ideally, a sufi order is a place in which everyone is learning how to serve everyone, as well as learning how to cleanse one's heart, etc. in this way it should be a model for any community of muslims.

i'll call it now... any thoughts, etc. would be wonderful!

thanks!!

peace!!!

jeff.

p.s. i've always wanted to be a jedi jedi via la obi-wan kenobi!

I also wanted to be a jedi D As for the Sufi-way of handling things. The original Sufi's as you probably know where mystici's. In every culture, dogma and religion, you have the mystici who have a certain feeling and approach towards God. They feel a seperation between them and God they want to fill. The Sufi of the Islam nowadays is mostly influenced by the Hindu and Budhist mystici. The idea of a guru is an ancient tradition in those religions. The idea of a teacher is not neccesarely bad. The problem is, that the teacher can only be responsible for certain things that lay outside the Deen. The Quran contains all the laws, wisdoms of the Deen. So what can a guru teach you? Seperation between you and God and how to solve that? God says in the Quran that He is near and hears you, He also says in 2115 that He is everywhere. So what is left? Peace in your soul? The Quran says it contains the keys to reach your inner djenna, the hidden garden. So a guru can only give his wisdom about his view on life and spirit. His wisdom is the same as any other wise man. He doesn't hold the keys to any 'secrets of life', as God says that the Quran contains all you need for this. So the concept of a guru is in my eyes a bit unneccesary, as i learn from all kinds of people. He can teach you meditation and other techniques, and some wisdoms, but if you think he can teach you more, then sorry.......i don't agree.....i believe we can learn that everywhere on earth. So i would never close my view and make the sufi's my dominate base for information. I would pay attention to them as much as i do with a native american indian....

Islam is not a religion based on dogma's. It is upholding the truth and research this life with an open mind, to learn that God is everywhere and we are all connected.

Peace

xrededgex

hello and peace arnoldyasin!

thanks for your comments. for now i'm going to focus on the issues surrounding muhammad, since we don't really seem to be disagreeing on any substantial level about the other two topics. i'm going to try to edit down a bit what we both said so as to take up less bandwidth, and really focus our discussion. i hope this is alright!

muhammad i've read several things (unless i'm totally mistaken) in qur'an-only lit equating praying for and praising muhammad as making him equal to god. however, 33.56

God and His angels shower there blessings on the Prophet.
O believers, you should also send your blessings on him,
and salute him with a worthy greeting.

(ahmed ali translation)

the progressive muslims translation

3356 God and His Angels connect with the prophet. O you who believe, you shall connect with him, and yield completely.

regardless, this would seem to allow for praying for and praising muhammad in salat and even leave room for salawat.

First of all, where is this verse connected with salat? Nowhere. You gave an invisible link with salat and this verse. Where is your authority to do so? You have none. It says to honor the Prophet, Where does it say we have to do that in the salat or with prayers? It just says, bless him and support him. Why do you connect that with prayers and salat?

As for the shahada. Again where is your authority to connect 'le illeh illAllah' together with 'Muhammed Rasoolallah'? Again you have none. There are more then 35 shahada's in the Quran, which all are'le illeh ilAllah' or 'Aslamtu li Rabbi alameen'. Did God forget? We both know it is not so. What did all the messengers preach? 'Le illeh il Allah'. You think it is about that we believe that people put Muhammed on the same level as God, but i agree with you this is not so. The thing that is wrong with the 'traditional' shahada is that, there is no authority from the Quran that could have given this idea of the 'traditional' shahada. So this idea is formed outside of the Quran on authority other then the Quran, which is shirk. So it is not that you see 'Muhammed Rasoollah' as an illeh, the shirk is that you follow an authority outside the Quran which makes it shirk. It is this following of outside authority on the Deen which is shirk. All information for the Deen is inside the Quran, see 6112-116 and there are more verses on this. And what did Muhammed say himself? Would he have said his own name? No....He would just have said 'le illeh il Allah'.......

okay so i couldn't clip it down as much as i thought... oh well.. heehee

but notice that i said "allow". by this i do not mean to suggest that allah commands us to put the prophet into our prayers (as some sunnis would seem to suggest). instead what i mean is that by telling us that we "should" praise muhammad, it could be understood that allah has allowed us to put him into our salat prayers and to perform salawat. it is not necessary that we do so, but since god has asked us to praise him, the most convinient time to do so would be during salat.

as for shahada, of course muhammad would not have said "muhammadin rasulallah" because it would have been silly for him to do so as he was muhammad. however, for us non-muhammads this phrase, to me and some others i know, basically amounts to affirming with / witnessing to allah that we believe in muhammad's prophethood and thus the validity of the qur'anic revelation thru him. again, the qur'an does not make this compulsory, because all that is really important is contained in "la ilaha illa'llah" -- that, like you said, is the message. but as a testiment to faith in the qur'anic revelation it falls short because many people i know who do not follow islam and the qur'an would certainly agree with "la ilaha illa'llah" while competely denying the validity of muhammad's prophethood and the qur'anic revelation.

so combining what i have said about being allowed to praise muhammad with the possible necessity of affirming his prophethood and the qur'anic revelation, "muhammadin rasulallah" ceases to be shirk and becomes something that can bring us closer to allah thru validating the qur'an and the prophet.

i hope i have made sense and stimmulated your thoughts as you have stimmulated mine!

peace!!

jeff.

arnoldyasin

Peace Jeff,

No i don't mind. Debating elevates understandings on both sides. The thing on the shahada is, why then did God leave that out? You say it is not compulsorary. Ok, let's say sunnism never excisted and all other sects never excisted, no hadith or sunna. You live on the North-pole and are thaught perfect classic-arabic. You get the Quran. Would you have ever made up to connect 'Muhammed Rasoolallah' with 'le illeh Allah'. Would you have ever thought of that? Would you ever think to say Muhammed in the shahada? You would read 'le illeh il Allah' more then 35 times, but never 'Muhammed rasoolAllah' connected with it, and you read verses as 3945 and other verses as 4012, 364, 4083-85, 4146, 320. Would you have ever by yourself thought of connecting these two as allowed to be connected?

As for blessing Muhammed during the Salaat, you must read the Quran carefully as it clearly mentiones that the salaat is for God alone.

6162 Say "My contact-method, and my offerings, and my life, and my death, are all to God the Lord of the worlds."

4012 This is because when God Alone was mentioned, you rejected, but when partners were associated with Him, you believed. Therefore, the judgment is for God, the Most High, the Most Great.

3945 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!

7218 And the temples are for God, so do not call on anyone with God.
7219 And when God's servant stood up to call on Him, they nearly banded to oppose him.
7220 Say "I only call on my Lord, and I do not associate anyone with Him."

This is why i don't connect the blessing of Muhammed together with salaat, plus, where does it say you have to do it everytime? It only says to bless him. Not to do it everytime with salaat. This idea is purely originated from the sunni-sufism. Again, if you would live on the North-pole, with only knowing arabic. Would you have blessed Muhammed everytime with salaat and even connect it with salaat reading the verses above? Or would you have just done it while reading those verses?

Think about it.............

Peace bro.....

rafia

salam / peace .

thank you xrededgex/jeff ? very interesting discussion imho ? my approaching islam was/is mainly through sufism as well.. .

InSearchOf

Peace folks,

Posted by arnoldyasin

As for the shahada. Again where is your authority to connect 'le illeh illAllah' together with 'Muhammed Rasoolallah'? Again you have none. There are more then 35 shahada's in the Quran, which all are'le illeh ilAllah' or 'Aslamtu li Rabbi alameen'. Did God forget? We both know it is not so. What did all the messengers preach? 'Le illeh il Allah'. You think it is about that we believe that people put Muhammed on the same level as God, but i agree with you this is not so. The thing that is wrong with the 'traditional' shahada is that, there is no authority from the Quran that could have given this idea of the 'traditional' shahada. So this idea is formed outside of the Quran on authority other then the Quran, which is shirk. So it is not that you see 'Muhammed Rasoollah' as an illeh, the shirk is that you follow an authority outside the Quran which makes it shirk. It is this following of outside authority on the Deen which is shirk. All information for the Deen is inside the Quran, see 6112-116 and there are more verses on this. And what did Muhammed say himself? Would he have said his own name? No....He would just have said 'le illeh il Allah'.......

Who are you to question this?

The shahada known today could be a common phrase in the time of prophet, a common sentence like today, bush is the president of usa. It could not be shirk since it took 23yrs to complete quran. The shahada/id fits those circumstances very well. Also isnt there an aya which reads, 'laillah ha illillah mohammedd rasool Allah'?

You are good in writing Yasin but no different than a big-mouth mufti giving fitwas. Calling it shirk and bashing others is the easiest way out. Its a shirk only for those who understand this matter like you, BUT not for those who have no knowledge of it.

Why dont you address this in detail, how it got into islam/muslims and its time which made the phrase shirk and not the people or the tradition is to blame. Also to note there are more important issues to be addressed 1st., Now to see and know is, what gain/loss happens to community and how you play this.

ta da!

arnoldyasin

Peace,

Dear insearchof, there is NO AYAT saying 'le illeh il Allah anna Muhammed Rasoolallah'. You again are the living proof of the ignorance of the muslims about the message of the Quran. There are more then 35 shahada's in the Quran, NONE say 'Muhammed Rasoolallah' after 'le illeh il Allah'.

4012 This is because when God Alone was mentioned, you rejected, but when partners were associated with Him, you believed. Therefore, the judgment is for God, the Most High, the Most Great.

3945 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!

318 God bears witness that there is no god but He, as do the Angels, and those with knowledge, He is standing with justice. There is no god but Him, the Noble, the Wise.

This is not meant in a bad way, you probably grew up with it and never thought of it. But if that was the real shahada, it would have been in the Quran. Every shahada spoken by any prophet was 'le illeh illah Huwa' or 'le illeh il Allah wahdoo la shariekala'. The Quran doesn't only focus on the Oneness of God, but also that we have to focus on Him alone. Of course the Quran tells us to acknowledge Muhammed and all other prophets, just as we have to have faith in the unseen and next life. But these are all NOT part of the Testimony of faith as declared in 318. You can say, i believe in God as the only illeh, and i believe in all the prophets and the unseen and the next life in one sentence, no problem with that. What the problem here is, that they made saying 'Muhammed Rasoolallah' obligatory to put it next to 'le illeh il Allah', this is the wrong thing. That people say it everytime together with 'le illeh il Allah' is the problem, as this is certainly not meant in the Quran to do that.

Peace

InSearchOf

Peace again to you Arnold,

Mama mia! You again are the living proof of the ignorance of the muslims thanks for the input.

Can you also be kind to tell more on source of 'le illeh il Allah anna Muhammed Rasoolallah'. Meanwhile Ill try to reconfrim wht you mentioned abt shahada.

I thought you will ask, why I called you bigmouth mufti. But you didnt. Anyway reason is those folks use arabic to make their point and you use english else I see no reason to quote 40.12, 39.35, 3.18 which you did. I pray Allah gives you more understandings. Last are you a muslim ?

ta da!

unknownuser

3356 God and His Angels connect with the prophet. O you who believe, you shall connect with him, and yield completely.

and, i don't find it horribly different in essence. i'b be interested in seeing a breakdown of the arabic.

Peace mate

just a quick note regarding your comment above, you say that Allah ordered us to connect with the prophet in the Quran, well, the prophet was ordered by Allah to do the exact same to all the beliveres "hint sura no 9", also the verse you posted says that Allah and the angels connect with the prophet, again we read in the Quran the same exact thing regarding the believers, i.e. Allah and the angels coneect to all the believers as stated in the Quran, i think it is also sura no 9 but not sure, will try to find the verses for you based on two things

your interest
your acceptance to drop this allegation for good if I show the verses I mentioned

Salam

unknownuser

Peace again to you Arnold,

Mama mia! You again are the living proof of the ignorance of the muslims thanks for the input.

Can you also be kind to tell more on source of 'le illeh il Allah anna Muhammed Rasoolallah'. Meanwhile Ill try to reconfrim wht you mentioned abt shahada.

I thought you will ask, why I called you bigmouth mufti. But you didnt. Anyway reason is those folks use arabic to make their point and you use english else I see no reason to quote 40.12, 39.35, 3.18 which you did. I pray Allah gives you more understandings. Last are you a muslim ?

ta da!

Peace

I would like to tell you that I disagree with Arnold in many many things but before you slam him regarding the Shahada, i have to say that he really has a strong point, so the best way to get around this problem is to only use the Quran to prove any of the views regarding the shahada

btw, i'm not a hadith rejector however I accept the hadith that has been qualified by the Quran, for me there is no such thing that "a hadith qualifies the Quran"

Salam

arnoldyasin

Peace,

I don't mean the ignorance thing in a wrong way, but you proved it by saying the traditional shahada is in the Quran, which is a big no no. I meant it a good way, never meant to be offending. As the mufti thing, calling names is the easy way out. Instead of disproving my ideas with proofs from the Quran or just asking objective questions, you show you took it personal. In debates things must never become really personal, and this is hard. I see you still have to learn a lot. I use the Quran for my points as we are talking about the Deen. The Quran explains the Deen, so it is logical to use the Quran to give a point. How else can you discuss matters concerning the Deen? I use the Quran to understand history, i don't use history to understand the Quran, just like Ahmed Baghat, although we differ on things, i agree with him on this.

As for the traditional shahada history, this comes from hadith.

"One day Abu Hurairah went to the people and told them that the Messenger had authorised him to go and tell them to recite the Shahadah "ash hadu anlaa ilaha illallhu wa ash hadu anna muhammadar-rasulullah". Another version reads " muhammadan abduhu wa rasuluhu". The first person Abu Hurairah came across to give the Shahadah was Saidina Omar (later the second caliph). When Omar heard it he promptly punched Abu Hurairah in the chest and knocked him to the ground. Then Omar put his foot on Abu Hurairah's neck and asked him how dare he utter such a blasphemy. "

http//www.free-minds.org/articles/hadith/testimony.htm

And the muslim question i take as sarcastic as i can't imagine you really ask it........

Peace

InSearchOf

Peace Arnold, the great AB,

arnold...
I don't mean the ignorance thing in a wrong way, but you proved it by saying the traditional shahada is in the Quran, which is a big no no

I proved ?

AB, about strong point on shahada. It gives a flawless view but after seeing how people twist the meanings to fit their lifes and since I know nothing, I wont agree until I have clearer view. It cld get clearer easly, if ppl like Arnold stop mystifying, conjectureing and labeling.

arnold again )
I use the Quran to understand history, i don't use history to understand the Quran, just like Ahmed Baghat, although we differ on things, i agree with him on this.

I agree ''You would read 'le illeh il Allah' more then 35 times, but never 'Muhammed rasoolAllah' connected with it, and you read verses...'' but what ever else you mentioned and shirk/shrek you mentioned sounds egoistic or agenda oriented.

As far as you and AB is concerned, I see you have knowledge like he does but AB is full of wisdom and very pragmatic, whereas you have little or no wisdom and talk logic. So to differ or not to differ is a far cry.

And the muslim question i take as sarcastic as i can't imagine you really ask it........

Dont imagine, its the impression of your posts which made me asked that.

May Allah be with you!

arnoldyasin

Peace Arnold, the great AB,

arnold...
I don't mean the ignorance thing in a wrong way, but you proved it by saying the traditional shahada is in the Quran, which is a big no no

I proved ?

AB, about strong point on shahada. It gives a flawless view but after seeing how people twist the meanings to fit their lifes and since I know nothing, I wont agree until I have clearer view. It cld get clearer easly, if ppl like Arnold stop mystifying, conjectureing and labeling.

What has lifestyles to do with the shahada? Nothing. My arguments come from the Quran, i didn't make this up myself. It is wiser to not accuse people till you have gained that clearer view.

arnold again )
I use the Quran to understand history, i don't use history to understand the Quran, just like Ahmed Baghat, although we differ on things, i agree with him on this.

I agree ''You would read 'le illeh il Allah' more then 35 times, but never 'Muhammed rasoolAllah' connected with it, and you read verses...'' but what ever else you mentioned and shirk/shrek you mentioned sounds egoistic or agenda oriented.

Please give me an idea of what agenda that would serve? Also i recommend you to read more Quran of what shirk is, as this is a wide subject.

As far as you and AB is concerned, I see you have knowledge like he does but AB is full of wisdom and very pragmatic, whereas you have little or no wisdom and talk logic. So to differ or not to differ is a far cry.

This is a personal observation, which has nothing to do with the subject. And till know you haven't shown any good approach to this debate. No arguments from the Quran, only personal comments and personal view on what Islam is based on upbringing. You have a lot to learn....

And the muslim question i take as sarcastic as i can't imagine you really ask it........

Dont imagine, its the impression of your posts which made me asked that.

May Allah be with you!

And i recommend you to read more Quran......

Peace

Layth

Peace,

From my understanding, the Shahada is wrong for two reasons

It makes a distinction amongst the messengers by giving greater weight to Mohammed (making his name part of the proclamation of faith).
It was a sign of the hypocrates who bore witness to the messengership of Mohammed while God had already said that He is sufficient as a witness (hence they were challenging God`s assertion by making this testimony).

InSearchOf

Peace folks,

arnold

This is a personal observation, which has nothing to do with the subject. And till know you haven't shown any good approach to this debate. No arguments from the Quran, only personal comments and personal view on what Islam is based on upbringing. You have a lot to learn....

Most of people are here to learn and so am I, but I cant believe you at 1go until I verify whatever doubts I have about any subject.

As far as shahaha is concerned, AB, Layth both agree to yr defination, so do I. But certainly I have the right to question and I will keep doing so in order to understand the truth.

Ta da!

arnoldyasin

We all have to learn till we die brother, please next time react a bit less tempered so we can have a good debate.

Peace

xrededgex

peace arnold, peace all!

wow! i don't check this forus for a day, and look at this! thanks everyone for joining in the discussion!

Peace Jeff,

No i don't mind. Debating elevates understandings on both sides. The thing on the shahada is, why then did God leave that out? You say it is not compulsorary. Ok, let's say sunnism never excisted and all other sects never excisted, no hadith or sunna. You live on the North-pole and are thaught perfect classic-arabic. You get the Quran. Would you have ever made up to connect 'Muhammed Rasoolallah' with 'le illeh Allah'. Would you have ever thought of that? Would you ever think to say Muhammed in the shahada? You would read 'le illeh il Allah' more then 35 times, but never 'Muhammed rasoolAllah' connected with it, and you read verses as 3945 and other verses as 4012, 364, 4083-85, 4146, 320. Would you have ever by yourself thought of connecting these two as allowed to be connected?

this in an interesting point. but if i am correct, and the second half of the shahada come out of the need for muslims to testify their faith in the qur'an and the whole prophetic message, then our north-pole pals (santa's elves, perhaps? i hope so, because the idea of santa's elves being muslims makes me very happy for some reason!) might have come up with some phrase or something similar. again, just because its not in the qur'an doesn't make it wrong. it would only be wrong if it flies in the face of the qur'an. which, from what i can tell, it doesn't, given the passages i quoted in my initial post. the problem then, is not the shahada itself, but the idea that the second half is compalsory.

As for blessing Muhammed during the Salaat, you must read the Quran carefully as it clearly mentiones that the salaat is for God alone.

6162 Say "My contact-method, and my offerings, and my life, and my death, are all to God the Lord of the worlds."

4012 This is because when God Alone was mentioned, you rejected, but when partners were associated with Him, you believed. Therefore, the judgment is for God, the Most High, the Most Great.

3945 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!

7218 And the temples are for God, so do not call on anyone with God.
7219 And when God's servant stood up to call on Him, they nearly banded to oppose him.
7220 Say "I only call on my Lord, and I do not associate anyone with Him."

This is why i don't connect the blessing of Muhammed together with salaat, plus, where does it say you have to do it everytime? It only says to bless him. Not to do it everytime with salaat. This idea is purely originated from the sunni-sufism. Again, if you would live on the North-pole, with only knowing arabic. Would you have blessed Muhammed everytime with salaat and even connect it with salaat reading the verses above? Or would you have just done it while reading those verses?

again, and interesting point. but, at least in the salat as i practice it, the mentioning of muhammad takes place in two instances one is in the recounting of the meeting between allah and muhammad, in which i join with allah in praising muhammad and affirming him as prophet, join with muhammad in praising allah, and join in the angels in saying the shahada. next is in praying to allah for muhammad and his family (and for ibrahim and his family). from what i understand, this is more or less the basic sunni prayer. no where in here am i "calling" on anyone but allah. i'm praying for muhammad, and joining with allah and the angels in praising him (just as the qur'an says i should). just as in my du'a afterwards i tend to pray for my partner, my friends and family, the whole world and everyone / everything in it, etc. in all of this, i'm calling on allah, and allah is entirely the focus.

so, again, to me the question is not whether or not the qur'an contains this, but whether or not the qur'an forbids it... which it does not seem to do. the qur'an says to praise muhammad, and then leaves it up to us to decide how to do that. alhudilallah, s/he has left room for our creativity, imagination and growth, which we were clearly endowed with by her/him.

From my understanding, the Shahada is wrong for two reasons

It makes a distinction amongst the messengers by giving greater weight to Mohammed (making his name part of the proclamation of faith).
It was a sign of the hypocrates who bore witness to the messengership of Mohammed while God had already said that He is sufficient as a witness (hence they were challenging God`s assertion by making this testimony).

peace layth!

i ask you to refer back to my initial post, and the passages from the qur'an i quoted... particularly 3321 for your point "1". that is it seems to me this passages points out that its proper for muhammad to be singled out by capital "M" Muslims as our guide. this doesn't make him, or even necessarily give him greater weight, in the grand scheme of things.

and i again refer you to 3356 in which we are asked to praise muhammad to answer part of your point "2". as for the rest of it, the word "sufficient" here can have various shades of meaning. it could also mean, like the way my father used to use it, that allah's witness is sufficient for us as proof that we should believe join with him in witnessing. the interpretation that says this "sufficient" means what you say it means is conjecture. as is what i just said. these are both interpretations. which means that neither are inherently wrong. to me the question then becomes which interpretation brings you closer to god? as allah is all-wise, i suspect that he left bigs chunks of the qur'an vague like this so that we could use our god-given creativity, intuition and reason to figure out the best way for us to come to him/her.

fun!

ba-ba-ba baa baa bababa baa baa jedi

peace!

jeff.

arnoldyasin

Peace,

Quote
the problem then, is not the shahada itself, but the idea that the second half is compalsory.

Exactly! The thing is that people made this obligatory while neglecting the rest. You cannot say it is compalsory, as otherwise they would be connected in the Quran. Since 'le illeh il Allah' is mentioned more then 35 times, and that believing in the Prophets, angels, YaumweDeen and the unseen is only mentioned a few times. Which will be the real testimony? You can say all the above in one sentence, no problem with that. But what is the main focus in the Quran. I believe the 35 times mentioned sentence.....

Quote
again, and interesting point. but, at least in the salat as i practice it, the mentioning of muhammad takes place in two instances one is in the recounting of the meeting between allah and muhammad, in which i join with allah in praising muhammad and affirming him as prophet, join with muhammad in praising allah, and join in the angels in saying the shahada. next is in praying to allah for muhammad and his family (and for ibrahim and his family). from what i understand, this is more or less the basic sunni prayer. no where in here am i "calling" on anyone but allah. i'm praying for muhammad, and joining with allah and the angels in praising him (just as the qur'an says i should). just as in my du'a afterwards i tend to pray for my partner, my friends and family, the whole world and everyone / everything in it, etc. in all of this, i'm calling on allah, and allah is entirely the focus.

so, again, to me the question is not whether or not the qur'an contains this, but whether or not the qur'an forbids it... which it does not seem to do. the qur'an says to praise muhammad, and then leaves it up to us to decide how to do that. alhudilallah, s/he has left room for our creativity, imagination and growth, which we were clearly endowed with by her/him.

The problem with this is, that the salaat is to remember God. He never said it was meant for anything else. That you do it because the sunni's do it is a bit dangerous. The Quran gives a perfect complete prayer, but this is ignored. You cannot get a salaat from the hadith as they all contradict each other. The Quran itself gives a simple salaat, which cannot be doubted. Where does it say 'praise Muhammed'? It says bless him. Why pray for the dead? God says that no one can take away the deeds of another person. So your prayers are futile. Bless him, means respect him. The salaat is to remember God alone, you bring in a whole bunch of people.....That you pray for friends and all after your salaat is fine. But salaat is for God alone...

Peace

lovelymoslems

hello and peace!

muhammad i've read several things (unless i'm totally mistaken) in qur'an-only lit equating praying for and praising muhammad as making him equal to god. however, 33.56

God and His angels shower there blessings on the Prophet.
O believers, you should also send your blessings on him,
and salute him with a worthy greeting.

(ahmed ali translation)

the progressive muslims translation

3356 God and His Angels connect with the prophet. O you who believe, you shall connect with him, and yield completely.

and, i don't find it horribly different in essence. i'b be interested in seeing a breakdown of the arabic. regardless, this would seem to allow for praying for and praising muhammad in salat and even leave room for salawat. not as equal to god, but more allong the lines of while we're connected to god in and immediately after salat, we might as well (should?) talk about the prophet, and "connect" with him, who's revelation we employ, etc. ((this might also indicate that the traditional shahada is not invalid if including "muhammadin rasulallah" (or which ever pronounciation you prefer).))
nabiy as referred to in this verse is not only Muhammad but all prophets, it is a concept of of how men should devote to God shall not direct but thru nabiy. Both translations shall be regarded as not relevant, shollu is not salawat neither connect but a legal commitment (QS.48/10 and QS.33/7).

Then question is have we had nabiy now ? The answer is "none" as Muhammad's sovereeignity was over since Islam was out ruled by western imperialism, means Islam as a deen and nabiy as a system for devotion to God has no more in operation

which brings me to i've noted folks talking about not elevating muhammad above other prophets (which i agree with in essence... i have a very special place in my heart for the prophets lao-tzu, siddhartha, isa, krishna, etc.), but 33.21

You have indeed a noble paradigm
in the Apostle of God

the p.m translation is even more interesting in this regard

3321 Indeed, in the messenger of God a good example has been set for you

so a focus on muhammad is certainly understandable for muslims. this does not necessarily mean that muhammad is superior, only that he kicks arse.
Islamism believes that Muhammad is a great prophet amonst others, but Al Quran forbides us to make difer of them.

unknownuser

The problem with this is, that the salaat is to remember God.

Peace

As far as I believe Remembering Allah is totally differnt to the Salat, your statement above incline that both are the same, while in the following verse we see Allah deffrentiated between the two "Zikr Allah and Salat"

Recite that which hath been inspired in thee of the Scripture, and establish worship. Lo! worship preserveth from lewdness and iniquity, but verily remembrance of Allah is more important. And Allah knoweth what ye do.

(45)

-> See, Zikr Allah "Rememberence of Allah" is a different thing to the Salat, because It is "Akbr" from the Salat as 2945 is telling us

Therefore to say that the Salat is equal to the rememberance of Allah is inaccurate statement according to the Quran

Salam