Typology of quran only people
-
peace
I don't know if this is such a good idea...this is like putting labels on people.
If many ones say it is not a good idea, I will remove my post.
Peace
-
Peace "JM",
I just have to repond to the nonsense im reading hereFree-minds is the carrefour of the quran-only people on the net. Anyway, there are many different kinds of people here, depending of the writers they have been influenced by.
Here are some distinctive characteristics
- Ritualism
Some people are against rituals, some other need rituals (they do the salat ritual every day).
JK- So what, ive mathematical i.e. scientific proof with high probability that the 5 daily ritual salat is true based on a phenomenal non coincidental pattern.
- Literalism
Some people are very literalist (they stick to the letter of the Quran), some others are more eager to understand the big picture or the symbolism of it.
JK- I do both depending on the context.
- Rationalism
Some people are prone to believe in miracles and supernatural phenomena, some others are not, because it contradicts science.
JK- Miracles do NOT necessrily have to be supernatural as ive explained in one of my previous posts at
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=4700.0
Please go through that. A miracle can be defined, infact that is the logical definition, as an extra ordinary event which cannot be reproduced by all the people around during a particular time period. This definition infact makes the term "miracle" look scientific once again.
Here are the 4 major influencing writers I have found
A) Rashad khalifa
Description
Ritualism = yes
Literalism = yes
Rationalism = noPreferred sites
www.quran-islam.org
www.submission.org
www.19.orgJK- Now it is absolutely hillarious of you to say that RKs understanding got no rationalism. As we all know maths is the mother of all science and RK as a scientist used this very exact science to come to his conclusions. Infact he was the one who warned not to put the horse before the cart. He gave everything the benefit of doubt before an incredible interlocking pattern based on no. 19 inevitably emerged inside the Quran. Please check out his video tapes sometime at
http//www.submissiontv.com/B) Gulham Ahmad Parwez
Description
Ritualism = yes and no
Literalism = yes and no
Rationalism = yesPreferred sites
www.tolueislam.com
www.toluislam.com
www.ourbeacon.com/
quranicteachings.co.ukJK- Ive seen MGAs translation. Doesnt make any sense to me and is very far reaching.
C) Aidid Safar
Description
Ritualism = no
Literalism = yes
Rationalism = ?Preferred sites
www.aididsafar.comJK- Makes sense in some parts but is yet to be analysed in more detail. Most of it is speculation and far reaching.
D) Mohammad Shaikh
Description
Ritualism = ?
Literalism = ?
Rationalism = ?Preferred sites
www.iipc.tv
Hope you will develop this typology, so that we may know each other better.
Peace
JK- Overall good but some obvious flaws remain such as the interpretation of 3356. GOD Bless!
- Ritualism
-
Peace jonny_k
You have not understood what I call rationalism.
Before last century, there were 2 attitudes
- The Quran is right and science is wrong (muslim and not rationalist)
- Science is right and the Quran is wrong (rationalist and not muslim)
Then, many muslim have willed to reconcile the Quran with science.
But there are 2 ways of doing that, and I will call these 2 ways rationalism and scientism.
Rationalism is to conform your understanding of the Quran to science => "The Quran is not incompatible with science".
Scientism is to conform science to your understanding of the Quran . => "The Quran is science".Let?s take an example.
The Quran talks about a staff turned out into a snake.
A rationalist will say it is symbolic, because, according to science, a staff cannot be turned into a snake.
But a scientist will say that, according to science, a staff can be very well be turned into a snake (cf http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=4700.0).One may note that this latter approach is not very different of the one of Bin Baz when he declared that whoever claims the earth is round is a disbeliever.
Hope you will get the point
Peace
-
Peace "JM",
I have very well understood you and now let me comment.You have not understood what I call rationalism.
JK- Well what YOU call rationalism is subjective.
Before last century, there were 2 attitudes
- The Quran is right and science is wrong (muslim and not rationalist)
- Science is right and the Quran is wrong (rationalist and not muslim)
Then, many muslim have willed to reconcile the Quran with science.
JK- This maybe so. However i never said that the Quran is right and science is wrong. They both go together. I support point 1 and always have.
But there are 2 ways of doing that, and I will call these 2 ways rationalism and scientism.
Rationalism is to conform your understanding of the Quran to science => "The Quran is not incompatible with science".
Scientism is to conform science to your understanding of the Quran . => "The Quran is science".JK- I agree with the 1st part i.e. the Quran is NOT incompatible with science but unlike you and some so called "rationalist" i do not force meanings to get these results/understandings of the Quran. I had these alll along.
Let?s take an example.
The Quran talks about a staff turned out into a snake.
A rationalist will say it is symbolic, because, according to science, a staff cannot be turned into a snake.
But a scientist will say that, according to science, a staff can be very well be turned into a snake (cf http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=4700.0).JK- To be honest this sounds like a contradiction to me. First you say science says that a staff cannot turn into a snake and then you say that a scientist will say that according to science it can very well do. I dont know wht you mean by this. Please make up your mind can it or not. As for myself please read my post reagarding miracles not necessarily being supernatural. Now theres one important point to remeber. Just because something ststaed in the Quran has NOT YET BEEN OBSERVED by science doesnt mean we have mark it as unscientific, get it? Thats the pt. Maybe in future well find out something in this regard too. An eg is 2130. What would a "rationalist" say a 100 yrs ago or so. He would probably have distorted it's meaning thinking to rationalize it and if he lived now he would see what great blunder hed done since now that verse is proven by sceince. Lemme make one thing very clear. There is not a signle verse in the Quran which goes against PROVEN scienctific observations(theories is different). This btw is another pt which gives the QUran HIGH PROABAILITY, rem the term, of being the Truth.
One may note that this latter approach is not very different of the one of Bin Baz when he declared that whoever claims the earth is round is a disbeliever.
Hope you will get the point
Peace
JK- Now this is laughable. This deduction was not entirely Quranic but comes from hadith. I never read anything in the Quran where it says the earth is flat. Some stupid missionaries twist verses to make it appear so however thts total crap. The Quran is so accurate to even say tht the earth is egg-shaped. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "JM",
I have very well understood you and now let me comment.I fear you have totally missed my point.
I have edited my last post with colors so that you may understand.Peace
-
Free-minds is the carrefour of the quran-only people on the net. Anyway, there are many different kinds of people here, depending of the writers they have been influenced by.
Here are some distinctive characteristics
-
Ritualism
Some people are against rituals, some other need rituals (they do the salat ritual every day). -
Literalism
Some people are very literalist (they stick to the letter of the Quran), some others are more eager to understand the big picture or the symbolism of it. -
Rationalism
Some people are prone to believe in miracles and supernatural phenomena, some others are not, because it contradicts science.
Here are the 4 major influencing writers I have found
A) Rashad khalifa
Description
Ritualism = yes
Literalism = yes
Rationalism = noPreferred sites
www.quran-islam.org
www.submission.org
www.19.orgB) Gulham Ahmad Parwez
Description
Ritualism = yes and no
Literalism = yes and no
Rationalism = yesPreferred sites
www.tolueislam.com
www.toluislam.com
www.ourbeacon.com/
quranicteachings.co.ukC) Aidid Safar
Description
Ritualism = no
Literalism = yes
Rationalism = ?Preferred sites
www.aididsafar.comD) Mohammad Shaikh
Description
Ritualism = ?
Literalism = ?
Rationalism = ?Preferred sites
www.iipc.tv
Hope you will develop this typology, so that we may know each other better.
Peace
Salam JM,
I think Brother the above attempt to classify people into groups/parties is wrong and not Quranic based on my understanding of the following Quran verses
Faaqim wajhaka lilddeeni haneefanfitrata Allahi allatee fatara alnnasaAAalayha la tabdeela likhalqi Allahi thalikaalddeenu alqayyimu walakinna akthara alnnasila yaAAlamoona
So set thou thy face steadily and truly to the Faith (establish) Allah's handiwork according to the pattern on which He has made mankind no change (let there be) in the work (wrought) by Allah that is the standard Religion but most among mankind understand not.Muneebeena ilayhi waittaqoohuwaaqeemoo alssalata wala takoonoomina almushrikeena
Turn ye back in repentance to Him, and fear Him establish regular prayers, and be not ye among those who join gods with Allah,-
32.
Mina allatheena farraqoo deenahum wakanooshiyaAAan kullu hizbin bima ladayhim farihoona
Those who split up their Religion, and become (mere) Sects,- each party rejoicing in that which is with itself!Wa-inna hathihi ommatukum ommatan wahidatanwaana rabbukum faittaqooni
And verily this Brotherhood of yours is a single Brotherhood, and I am your Lord, therefore fear Me (and no other).
53.
FataqattaAAoo amrahum baynahumzuburan kullu hizbin bima ladayhim farihoona
But people have cut off their affair, between them, into sects each party rejoices in that which is with itselfPeace.Myr.
-
-
Peace all. Of all the translations i have seen so far,the most realistic is by shabbir ahmed at galaxydastak/beacon forum...His translation has evolved beyond the ritualistic,and become much less literal and much more rational...If you look at his different editions of the quran he has changed his mind on salat from being 'ritual/physical' to a more realistic view of following universal laws. As humans progress and science goes forward then so must our understanding of the world and our concepts of metaphysics... Specific Morality has to go in line with the conditions and times in which we live,no one translation can be valid for all times and circumstances,...rather than fit the reality with the quran,why not fit the quran with reality...?
Peace. ps; rk,muhammed sheikh and aspects of ghulams work are so far behind the times as to be archaic and irrelevant....Much too much literalism and ritualism without the correct application of rationalism...
-
Enquirer, so good to see you back. You still have answers you need to give, 'brother', if you've done your shopping that is.
Peace all. Of all the translations i have seen so far,the most realistic is by shabbir ahmed at galaxydastak/beacon forum...His translation has evolved beyond the ritualistic,and become much less literal and much more rational...If you look at his different editions of the quran he has changed his mind on salat from being 'ritual/physical' to a more realistic view of following universal laws. As humans progress and science goes forward then so must our understanding of the world and our concepts of metaphysics... Specific Morality has to go in line with the conditions and times in which we live,no one translation can be valid for all times and circumstances,...rather than fit the reality with the quran,why not fit the quran with reality...?
Currently, the 'reality' is that Israel is bombing the heck out of innocent civilians. How do we deal with this 'reality' please?
Peace. ps; rk,muhammed sheikh and aspects of ghulams work are so far behind the times as to be archaic and irrelevant....Much too much literalism and ritualism without the correct application of rationalism...
Very insightful. Can you please give examples of this please?
-
Peace "enquirer"
..rather than fit the reality with the quran,why not fit the quran with reality...?
JK- In that case we dont need to use the Quran at all. This is what atheists/agnostics may prefer to do so as to convince the fanatical radicals of their views but it is definitely not a reasonable approach. I always wanted to learn from the One who created me and everyone else i.e. GOD. I believed He has sent us a preserved scripture through one of His messengers proved in this time by another and this continues. I have found this to be the case that the Quran is, with HIGH PROBABILITY, remember the term, the Word of GOD. Hence it is logical to believe that anything the Quran says even if not understood properly as yet will prove itself in the future. GOD Bless!
-
Easy JK. I respect your view,but dont agree with your 'high probability' conclusion...
Each to their own my man... -
As you can see Jonny, this guy will never deal with the issue. He comes, he defecates and he runs. He raves to us
Specific Morality has to go in line with the conditions and times in which we live,no one translation can be valid for all times and circumstances,...rather than fit the reality with the quran,why not fit the quran with reality...?
but does HE HIMSELF know what it means? Doubtful..highly doubtful.
-
Peace "enquirer",
Easy JK. I respect your view,but dont agree with your 'high probability' conclusion...
Each to their own my man...JK- You dont agree because you proably didnt caare to study or analyse the pattern. Therafter denying that the Quran is with high probability the Word of GOD is equal to denying that the earth is round, the big-bang and other important scientific discoveries. GOD Bless!
-
Easy JK. Thanks for the psychology lesson,and the assumptions about what i have studied....
Didnt you say the quran says the earth is 'egg shaped' rather than round? From space satellites it looks pretty round to me...
And what if science retracts its view that the big bang is probable? Or worse,the 19 'code' is proved wrong by science? What comes first,the belief or the science...?
Peace. -
Free-minds is the carrefour of the quran-only people on the net. Anyway, there are many different kinds of people here, depending of the writers they have been influenced by.
Here are some distinctive characteristics
- Ritualism
Some people are against rituals, some other need rituals (they do the salat ritual every day). - Literalism
Some people are very literalist (they stick to the letter of the Quran), some others are more eager to understand the big picture or the symbolism of it. - Rationalism
Some people are prone to believe in miracles and supernatural phenomena, some others are not, because it contradicts science.
Here are the 4 major influencing writers I have found
A) Rashad khalifa
Description
Ritualism = yes
Literalism = yes
Rationalism = no
Preferred sites
www.quran-islam.org
www.submission.org
www.19.org
B) Gulham Ahmad Parwez
Description
Ritualism = yes and no
Literalism = yes and no
Rationalism = yes
Preferred sites
www.tolueislam.com
www.toluislam.com
www.ourbeacon.com/
quranicteachings.co.uk
C) Aidid Safar
Description
Ritualism = no
Literalism = yes
Rationalism = ?
Preferred sites
www.aididsafar.com
D) Mohammad Shaikh
Description
Ritualism = ?
Literalism = ?
Rationalism = ?
Preferred sites
www.iipc.tv
Hope you will develop this typology, so that we may know each other better.
PeaceSalam.
When you said that some people on this forum do their rituals very day, like salat, well, that would be because we are told to do so by the Almighty Allah Most Powerful in His Qur'an.
Here's the proof
Prayer, 245, 9103, 5118, 7022-23, 7531, 9610, 1082
beautify (adorn) yourselves for, 731
content, 2285-286, 38-9, 316, 3147, 3191-194, 1780-81, 17111, 23118, 5910, 668
day of congregation (Friday), 629
for the right reasons, 1074-6
of Abraham, 2126-129, 9114, 1435-41, 2683-89
of Joseph, 12101
of Moses, 2025-35
of Noah, 2326, 26117-118, 7126, 7128
of Solomon, 3835
of Zachariah, 198, 1910
not while drunk, 443
prostration, 3113, 7206, 9112, 1598, 1648, 1649, 2218, 2226, 2277, 2560, 2564, 26219, 3215, 399, 4137, 4829, 5040, 5362, 7626, 9619
restrains one from loathesome deeds, 2945
sacred duty linked to time of day, 4103
standing, 399
style of, 2238, 17110
times of day of, 11114, 1778, 1779, 20130, 2436, 2458, 3017-18, 3216, 3818, 5039-40, 5117, 5248-49, 732-4, 7625-26
while in danger, 2239, 4101-102.Okay?
No one here didn't say that he or she doesn't believe in miracles. We all believe in miracles and they are happening every day to every human being on Earth.
No offence and may The Almighty Allah Most Powerful, Most Merciful helps us all, gives us good luck, best health and rewards us with Heaven.
Salam.
- Ritualism
-
Peace "enquirer",
Easy JK. Thanks for the psychology lesson,and the assumptions about what i have studied....
JK- Your welcome, lol D
Didnt you say the quran says the earth is 'egg shaped' rather than round? From space satellites it looks pretty round to me...
JK- If youve studied a bit of geographical science you would know that the earth is not a perfect sphere but slightly bulged at both north and south poles thus making it look like an egg, an ostrich NOT A CHICKEN egg and this is what the Quranic term "dayana(from Duhya i.e. Ostrich egg)" refers to.
And what if science retracts its view that the big bang is probable?
JK- Then we would have to rethink abt the validity of the Quran, simple. Thats what i said earlier ive given the Quran the benefit of doubt but im quite sure this will not happen.
Or worse,the 19 'code' is proved wrong by science? What comes first,the belief or the science...?
Peace.JK- Well then the Quran is not the Word of GOD and thats why bro Bahman has posed this qs as to what wed do if code-19 wasnt there or is proven wrong. The honest ones replied that they wouldnt be sure of the Quran's authenticity, at leat as a whole, anymore but this brings it down to pick and choose and thus would renders it useless as a whole. To answer your 2nd qs ofcourse my answer is "science" and if you are "lote tree" im amazed if you wouldnt agree with that since you were the one so in favor of science. It is only through scientific observation that an honest and rational belief can be estblished. Any claims to the contrary are absurd and irrational. Infact this is the problem with most of the religions and why most scientists are hesitant to even use the term religion anymore. GOD Bless!
-
Easy JK. You seem a bit more 'rational' than some folks,thats good... )
I will test your intelligence and scientific/analytical skills now johnny....From this site their is irrefutable (or probable in your language.!!!.) proof that i cannot be lote-tree.....I will let you as a 'scientist collect and correlate the vital data on this forums previous posts that show that indeed enquirer cannot possibly be lote-tree...
Lets see how good you are.....You up for a challenge?
Peace. ps; i like the fact you choose to use the scientific method and try to be rational....However,you must see the defeasibility of some of your conclusions,and the fact that if god/quran/code 19 etc were so 'objective' and conclusive as you suggest,then everyone would believe in these things as much as they believe that gravity operates on planet earth... -
Peace "enquirer",
Easy JK. You seem a bit more 'rational' than some folks,thats good...
JK- If this comment is not meant to be a sarcastic remark i thank you.
I will test your intelligence and scientific/analytical skills now johnny....From this site their is irrefutable (or probable in your language.!!!.) proof that i cannot be lote-tree.....
JK- Oh then im sorry. I just saw a post today where i believe it was "mquran" addressed ur post with "lote tree". Thats how i thought you were.
I will let you as a 'scientist collect and correlate the vital data on this forums previous posts that show that indeed enquirer cannot possibly be lote-tree...
JK- Why is this so important? Anyways proving a -ve is irrational and incorrect. In science we do not prove a -ve.
Lets see how good you are.....You up for a challenge?
JK- Oh so you wanted to test me. lol.
Peace. ps; i like the fact you choose to use the scientific method and try to be rational....However,you must see the defeasibility of some of your conclusions,and the fact that if god/quran/code 19 etc were so 'objective' and conclusive as you suggest,then everyone would believe in these things as much as they believe that gravity operates on planet earth...
JK- No, Consider it more like this. It is the same as many dont believe in the big bang or evolution(i.e. atoms self assembled) despite the evidence especially the evangelcical Christians and they cover a large population on earth. People dont tend to accept even the scientific evidence if it goes against their motives. However i can tell you that mathemticians whom bro Edip consulted all were amazed at the pattern in the Quran but most remained silent because of the reasons i stated. Martin Gardener, one of the most famous mathematicians associated with JREF till at least 2003, himself described the phenomenon that the opening statement consists of 19 letters, and each word occurs in multiple of 19, though it represents a minute portion of the code, in the Scientific American as "ingenious" (September, 1981, p. 22-24). GOD Bless!
GOD Bless!
-
JonnyKJK- Oh then im sorry. I just saw a post today where i believe it was "mquran" addressed ur post with "lote tree". Thats how i thought you were.
Well, Lote-Tree may be good at disguising his ip, but his crappiness comes forth all too easily. Lote-Tree is exactly the same as enquirer. Both loves the superficial 'sophistication' of modernist arguments. Both can't read beyond the first sentence and NEVER give a detailed answer and both are regularly surprised when given 'new' facts about AQ even after years of study. Enquirer studied TWENTY-FIVE years and LT for 2, yet neither one of them knew that AQ never accepted brigandage.
-
Peace
Didnt you say the quran says the earth is 'egg shaped' rather than round? From space satellites it looks pretty round to me...
It's funny that you embarass yourself saying that, and still have the audacity to "challenge" JK. Now, it is clear why you dislike people "quoting scientists" so much.
the fact that if god/quran/code 19 etc were so 'objective' and conclusive as you suggest,then everyone would believe in these things as much as they believe that gravity operates on planet earth...
He said it's objective and conclusive? The fact is that within these things lies scientific and mathematical evidence. Depending on one's opinions, they will either choose to believe in it or they will choose to not believe in it. This is how it is.
Peace