Liberal Islam vs 'Quran-alone' Islam

andy

On the other hand, I don?t know how I can live with Quran alone. I am to learn from what I see, I am to learn from what I hear, I am to learn from what others experience, science, history ?

I understand that bro. I also don't know how I can live with quran alone. I need girl, foods, drinks, cars, jobs, education, etc. I cannot even understand arabic quran, I need translations and arabic-english dictionaries. How can I live with quran alone? Quran alone is far from enough for me. Those who claim quran alone is enough must have gone crazy! ;D

OK, joke aside now the serious part ...

In the beginning of my quest for the truth, I was also wondering whether quran alone is really enough for me. And then I came to the verses below

1745 When you read the Quran, we place between you and those who do not believe in the Hereafter an invisible barrier.
1746 We place shields around their minds, to prevent them from understanding it, and deafness in their ears. And when you preach your Lord, using the Quran alone, they run away in aversion.

I believe the verses are one of the criterion whether we truly believe in the Hereafter or only claim to do so. The criteria is simple Those who don't believe in the Hereafter really hate it very much when Islam is represented in quran alone. Interestingly, even after knowing the verses, "some" choose deliberately and knowingly to be among those who don't believe in the Hereafter according to the criterion of quran.

alamak

Peace everyone,

But if I ask one about how to be a Muslim, he shall obviously begin from aqayed, then shall he proceeded with rituals, ablution, etc. At the very beginning, the inquirers head shall be crammed with huge thoughts that he shall have to take without understanding, and this is against the approach of the Quran. He shall be told to accept these as he has not yet attained the requisite qualifications.

A bit off topic, but you raised an interesting point here. I agree that the approach of the religion teaching towards fellow Muslims and non-Muslims alike is all wrong. The first and foremost, paramount point, as stressed in almost every page of the Quran, is submission to God. To become a 'believer', to truly have faith in the existence in God, submitting to his greatness, and reject evil. All other practices come after that. Yet it's always an automatic response by many Muslims, when asked what is Islam about, to desribe the rituals first. I come from a multi-religious/cultural country, and the first things that come to other people's minds are that you have to pray five times a day, and be able to marry up to four wives at a time. And all sense of spirituality takes on a backseat. I mean, sure you can't blame them for having that impression (mostly out of plain ignorance, which I don't blame them for), but let's just step back and think about how the born-again Christians preach. First and foremost is to testify 'Jesus as your lord and saviour'. Makes you think, that as far as preaching and explaining about the religion is concerned, Christians are more muslim than we Muslims are...(Boy, let's see what you guys have to say about this ) ). Disclaimer I'm not trying to create trouble here, just making a constructive argument. ;D

Well since you're Malaysian you might already know that there is a group called the 'Liberal Islam Network' active in Indonesia. I was once attracted to their thoughts but later drifted away because they only pay lip service to the Qur'an, and they seem to be sucking up to their Western sponsors too much. That and the fact that their discussion group is filled with Christians.....Those liberals adopt an 'anything goes' stance over Qur'anic interpretations, trying to fit interpretations to their 'modern' and very Western views.

Yes, I have in fact heard of the movement. Don't know much about them, really. Just curious, who are these 'western sponsors'? And what's wrong with having Christians, they believe in the same God don't they? God never wanted us to make enemies of each other (unless other people or 'unbelievers' threaten our Faith - if they offer peace, then we have no right to come down on them).

In traditional system of Islam, a boy gets these ideas long after the huge list of problems and solutions regarding formalities of rituals. And by that time the boys mind gets obsessed by those and the prime spiritual and social values get only a secondary position.

Yep, refer to my first quote reply.

Peace be upon you alamak,

First of all, I don't call myself "quranist", "quran alone Muslim", "Shia Muslim", "Sunni Muslim". Simply "Muslim", period (I know only God knows I am truly muslim or not but this is what I declare). If I mention a kind of "label", then it is merely to make referencing easier.

Peace be with you all,

I'm new around here. Did a search in this forum and couldn't find a clear answer to this How is Liberal Islam different from the Quran-alone approach? According to wikipedia, most liberals still hold on to the five pillars of Islam and six elements of faith, while free-minds.org describe them as 'myth'.

As far as my observation is concerned, liberal is sometimes linked with westernized Muslims.

Are there any liberals in this forum? Do you identify yourself as a Quran-alone Muslim or do you still believe in some hadith?

I believe in hadiths, neither as source of laws nor source of guidances. In other words, I believe in hadith as it should be corrupted historical texts.

And what about Quran-alone Muslims, do you identify yourselves as liberals? Are the two terms interchangable at all? I realize that neither are formal distinct movements, but I would love to hear your thoughts on this...

Sometimes the terms are interchangeable but in general people perceive them differently.

First direct answer I had all week! sun

unknownuser

Liberal islam,'secular islam,or islam re-interpreted to mean serving 'god' by doing good deeds to all human beings/ upholding the human rights of all,is the only way i see islam as being a 'reasonable religion,otherwise its just mainly rituals,sectarianism,superstitions,culturalisms,and the abuse of human rights.... muscle handshake

prashant_kumar

In the beginning of my quest for the truth, I was also wondering whether quran alone is really enough for me. And then I came to the verses below

1745 When you read the Quran, we place between you and those who do not believe in the Hereafter an invisible barrier.
1746 We place shields around their minds, to prevent them from understanding it, and deafness in their ears. And when you preach your Lord, using the Quran alone, they run away in aversion.

I believe the verses are one of the criterion whether we truly believe in the Hereafter or only claim to do so. The criteria is simple Those who don't believe in the Hereafter really hate it very much when Islam is represented in quran alone. Interestingly, even after knowing the verses, "some" choose deliberately and knowingly to be among those who don't believe in the Hereafter according to the criterion of quran.

Others translated the verse as below

T.B.Irving
"When you mention your Lord Alone in the Quran they even turn their backs in disgust!"

Pickthall
"And We place upon their hearts veils lest they should understand it, and in their ears a deafness; and when thou makest mention of thy Lord alone in the Qur'an, they turn their backs in aversion."

And many others like Yusuf Ali etc. did the same.

If a philosopher like Spinoza, Kant, Rousseau or anybody makes, on the basis of his wisdom, an appeal to me to serve God alone and I avert from his appeal, the same thing - that I actually am not ready to perceive and consider my life as a totality that extends toward eternity, that there is a hidden barrier - is also applicable for me.

Your way of concluding seems to me to be similar to Sunni or Shia scholasticism.

I believe in your core idea that the Koran should be the fundamental source of our guidance having the topmost priority.

Alen

As salamu alaykum wr wb.
Respectfully.

I gotta say that we shouldn't be dividing now that we know the ultimate truth.
I am a muslim who follows Quran and i don't need any sunna and hadith.
Are there five pillars, six or 11, it doesn't matter, what does matters is this just follow the Quran and you'll succeed, inshaAllah.

May The God Almighty bless us all.
As salamu alaykum wr wb.

andy

Others translated the verse as below

T.B.Irving
"When you mention your Lord Alone in the Quran they even turn their backs in disgust!"

Pickthall
"And We place upon their hearts veils lest they should understand it, and in their ears a deafness; and when thou makest mention of thy Lord alone in the Qur'an, they turn their backs in aversion."

And many others like Yusuf Ali etc. did the same.

If a philosopher like Spinoza, Kant, Rousseau or anybody makes, on the basis of his wisdom, an appeal to me to serve God alone and I avert from his appeal, the same thing - that I actually am not ready to perceive and consider my life as a totality that extends toward eternity, that there is a hidden barrier - is also applicable for me.

Actually "God Alone"/"Allah Alone" has been mentioned in quran. Below is the verse

3945 And when God Alone (Allahu wahdahu) 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!

So I prefer the translation "Quran Alone" for 1746 and I am of the opinion it is the correct one (despite my read-only arabic).

1746 We place shields around their minds, to prevent them from understanding it, and deafness in their ears. And when you preach your Lord, using the Quran alone (Alqurani wahdahu), they run away in aversion.

Your way of concluding seems to me to be similar to Sunni or Shia scholasticism.

I don't understand what you are talking about here since I don't know about sunni or shia scholasticism. Just read quran, ponder its verses, relate the verses to daily live, ask Allah for guidance ...that is how I got my understanding.

AspeRin

aslm handshake
little birdyare u a quran alone muslim?
meno,im a god alone muslim!(which follows only quran as law manual)
rotfl
a muslim(submitter to god only) cant be liberal(pro-homo,pro-fornication,pro-alcohol,ect ect ect) it doesnt match.... muscle
aslmualaykm handshake

Layth

Peace Alamak,

Really? I've been browsing this forum for quite a while now and I was under the impression that most people here are not that comfortable calling themselves 'just Muslims', since this would also suggest that they are related to the majority backwards society who follow the authority of the hadith, fatwas, 'self-appointed' religious leaders, etc?

God calls us Muslims through our great father Abraham...It would be unwise to forsake such a name and take in its place any other. Also, the sects that you speak of cannot bring themselves to be called Muslims and they will always add the name of their sect Sunni / Shia / Dirzi, etc. Qural alone is another sect name which has its origins not with the Muslims but with those from the sects who oppose our way and hence try to use a lebel that we can fit under.

Once you accept any label other than Muslim, then your apponant will no longer have to deal with your arguments or take them seriously (oh, he/she is a Qurani! or a Quran alone person).

Whoa are you serious? My impression on liberalism isn't 'liberal' as in 'free' as you are suggesting (might as well don't follow any religion ), but rather 'liberated' from arab culture, and islamic culture which don't have quranic basis, and 'liberty' to interpret the Quran on a more personal point of view. But I believe most liberals agree with you on the stance on homosexuality, though.

I am just recalling what I have read and heard from people like Irshad Menje and others who use this term (liberal islam). They do not take the Scripture as a book of law and simply view religion as a culture that they have inherited (i.e. Muslim American) which has its rituals but nothing else. Therefore, the laws of zina, homosexuality, riba, divorce, war, etc. are all treated as null & void.

wildguest1956

God calls us Muslims through our great father Abraham...It would be unwise to forsake such a name and take in its place any other. Also, the sects that you speak of cannot bring themselves to be called Muslims and they will always add the name of their sect Sunni / Shia / Dirzi, etc. Qural alone is another sect name which has its origins not with the Muslims but with those from the sects who oppose our way and hence try to use a lebel that we can fit under.

Once you accept any label other than Muslim, then your apponant will no longer have to deal with your arguments or take them seriously (oh, he/she is a Qurani! or a Quran alone person).

100% agreed !

This is what I have desperately tried to explain to Progod in this thread
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=6114.0

Peace

prashant_kumar

Assalamualykum, brother andy and all.

Verse 3945 and 1745 say the same thing.
When you mention that God is one ?
When you recite from the Quran that your Lord is one ?.

In my opinion, wahdahu should be related to rabbaka. The Quran, intrinsically, was not the cause of their aversion. They opposed the Koran not because it was the Koran. They opposed the Prophet not because he preached with the Koran or the Koran alone. They did not raise any demanded to the Prophet that they were ready to accept his call, to submit to God alone if the Prophet renounced the Koran or if he preached by anything other than the Koran, or if he added some other source along with the Koran. All their opposition was to, all their mocking was at the message that God alone should be worshiped, i.e. mentioning of oneness of God, oneness of Lord, oneness of worship-worthy-entity. When the Prophet did it by reciting the Koran, they averted, mocked; they reacted in the same fashion whenever the Prophet preached the same thing in his language.

In Shia/Sunni arguments for their belief, I have come across some arguments like this
A is a SUBSET of B.
So whoever denies anything from B, denies A.

Anyway, my brother Andy, please forgive me. I take back my comments on your arguments.

Just read quran, ponder its verses, relate the verses to daily live, ask Allah for guidance ...that is how I got my understanding.

May Allah provide you with all good in return to your good wishes for me.

Al-Quraishi

Peace
This is my position on hadith and sira of Prophet Mohammed as an answer to Bro. Al-Quraishi, and maybe others might find my little contribution useful.

In his day, and before the revelation there is no mention of Prophet Mohammed past actions in the Quran, apart from him being of the heedless.
In the Quran, it also states that in the Prophet is for us a good example to follow.
In no way was the Prophet described as looking for other sources to improve his guidance.
His only source of guidance was the Quran, even if there was other sources of information from the People of the Book on the Bible.
The Information he got on the Prophets was revealed to him, and he was not encouraged to seek any other information but what was revealed to him (within certain historical boundaries).
Since the Quran was revealed in stages, there were times when the Prophet grew impatient and tried to speed up the revelation by reading it faster, he was admonished for that.
Now I go back that we are told that in the Prophet is a good example for us to follow.
As for him, we must only rely for our guidance on the revelation he received, ie The Quran.
By not doing so, this would amount as if for him having looked for other source of guidance than he was revealed (such as finding out about Jesus how he lived, or John the Baptist, or Zakariah, etc)
By looking into finding how he lived his life, what he was doing as an individual, all of these are distracting us from what Allah revealed to us and him, ie The Quran, and we are therefore not following his example...
Only what Allah cared to convey in The Quran should we be concerned with.
As a result, the Hadith collection issue is settled...
It was done but was not ordained by Allah, therefore is not binding on the ones who want to be guided by Allah...
The only revelation we have, as the Prophet had, is The Quran.
Take care Bro/s
Salam
Noble

Salam Brother,

You really haven't read post properly, not once did I say that the Hadith was a guidance; I said the Qur'an was the Guidance.

The hadith I put in a secular position for the reasons of historical understanding and the context to which the Qur'an was revealed, no intelligent person can say that the hadith cannot be used for this, for the historian knows that all reports have a degree of reliability under 100% and that there is a lot can be learned from taking in all available information, doing otherwise would be an act of great ignorance.

As a result, the Hadith collection issue is settled...

If you had actually bothered to read the post you would have realised that there was no 'issue' in the first place.

Please, brother, this is not the first time this has happened, learn to use your skill of reading and understanding before you decide to 'Answer' one of my posts, presumptuous judging will get one nowhere in the search for truth.

noble

Peace Bro Al-Quraishi,
It is ok bro.
One thing I wish to share is that if the muslims would try and unravel and study the discoveries made by their scientists over the centuries, this will be probably more fruitful than just being obsessed with the hadiths.
The westerners took over and expolited all the discoveries made by muslim scientists, whereas the Muslims chose to fixate with the superstitious aspects of hadiths.
I think this is the core of the problem...
Take care Bro
Salam
Noble

Al-Quraishi

Salam Brother,

I am getting pretty sick of people replying to my posts without paying attention to what I say, it seems that a few people see me as a certain kind of person with a certain set of views without bothering to listen to what I have to say.

An apology would be nice Brother...

noble

Salam Bro Al-Quraishi
I apologise for whatever offended you,
I think you misunderstood me as well,
this was not a finger-pointing exercise,
but a clarification exercise,
meaning you either agree with what I put forward (my position) or you do not.
Not worth fighting about really... (apart from the barbecue issue rotfl )
Take care bro
Noble out

Al-Quraishi

Salam Bro Al-Quraishi
I apologise for whatever offended you,
I think you misunderstood me as well,
this was not a finger-pointing exercise,
but a clarification exercise,
meaning you either agree with what I put forward (my position) or you do not.
Not worth fighting about really... (apart from the barbecue issue rotfl )
Take care bro
Noble out

Whatever, I explained to you exactly what was wrong.

Peace

noble

Peace Bro Al Quraishi
I used to think you had tougher skin than this... What happened?
Are you going to complain like some of the sissies/drama queens in here and get me banned by a mod? rotfl
Take care brother, its only life...
Salam
Noble

Al-Quraishi

Listen, if you're too proud to admit when you were wrong, and when you have wronged, then...whatever...

noble

Ya akhi Al-Quraichi, Wa alaikum assalam
It is not a question of my pride, I have not the faintest idea what you have been upset with.
Besides, being right or wrong does not mean anything to me.
What makes me tick is if I am incurring Allah's wrath or not...
Peace
Noble

andy

Waalaykumsalam brother prashant_kumar,

Assalamualykum, brother andy and all.

Verse 3945 and 1745 say the same thing.
When you mention that God is one ?
When you recite from the Quran that your Lord is one ?.

In my opinion, wahdahu should be related to rabbaka. The Quran, intrinsically, was not the cause of their aversion. They opposed the Koran not because it was the Koran. They opposed the Prophet not because he preached with the Koran or the Koran alone. They did not raise any demanded to the Prophet that they were ready to accept his call, to submit to God alone if the Prophet renounced the Koran or if he preached by anything other than the Koran, or if he added some other source along with the Koran. All their opposition was to, all their mocking was at the message that God alone should be worshiped, i.e. mentioning of oneness of God, oneness of Lord, oneness of worship-worthy-entity. When the Prophet did it by reciting the Koran, they averted, mocked; they reacted in the same fashion whenever the Prophet preached the same thing in his language.

I beg to differ in this case. When I read quran, I always try to relate the verses in our daily live. These are my observations

sunni and shia will not runaway in aversion when called to submit to God alone (oneness of God, avoid shirk).
sunni and shia will not runaway in aversion when called to uphold quran (I guess you already know that shia and sunni always say they are upholding quran).

The cause of aversion is quran ALONE. This is exactly the thing that they hate very much causing them to run away in aversion.

For those who understand quranic arabic (Samia, Ayman, Anwar, Layth, etc), could you please give some explanations for verse 1746 whether "wahdahu" should be related to "God" or "quran"?

In Shia/Sunni arguments for their belief, I have come across some arguments like this
A is a SUBSET of B.
So whoever denies anything from B, denies A.

Anyway, my brother Andy, please forgive me. I take back my comments on your arguments.

No problem at all my brother prashant_kumar ...the thing is I just don't know about shia/sunni scholasticism. Mathematically speaking, if A is a subset of B, and when a member in B is removed then for sure a member in A is also removed. But I am not sure how you relate this to people's understanding of quran.

Just read quran, ponder its verses, relate the verses to daily live, ask Allah for guidance ...that is how I got my understanding.

May Allah provide you with all good in return to your good wishes for me.

Actually, I was explaining how I got my understanding just read quran, ponder its verses, relate the verses to daily live, ask Allah for guidance.

Anyway my brother prashant_kumar, may Allah provide you with all good in return to your good wishes for me.

noble

Peace Bro Andy
Nothing to do with your argument, but since I am a mathematician, please allow me to correct your mistake

Mathematically speaking, if A is a subset of B, and when a member in B is removed then for sure a member in A is also removed. But I am not sure how you relate this to people's understanding of quran.

The above statement is incorrect...
Salam
Noble