Liberal Islam vs 'Quran-alone' Islam
-
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. -
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.
-
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 -
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
Muslimsthrough 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 calledMuslimsand they will always add the name of their sectSunni / Shia / Dirzi, etc. Qural alone is another sect name which has its origins not with theMuslimsbut 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
culturethat 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. -
God calls us
Muslimsthrough 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 calledMuslimsand they will always add the name of their sectSunni / Shia / Dirzi, etc. Qural alone is another sect name which has its origins not with theMuslimsbut 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=6114.0Peace
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 -
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...
-
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 -
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 outWhatever, I explained to you exactly what was wrong.
Peace
-
Listen, if you're too proud to admit when you were wrong, and when you have wronged, then...whatever...
-
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 -
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.
-
Peace Bro Andy
Nothing to do with your argument, but since I am a mathematician, please allow me to correct your mistakeMathematically 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 -
Salaam brother Noble and Adley,
Thanks for the correction. Yes, what I wrote was incorrect.
The correct one should be (I hope this is really the correct one - please CMIIW again peace )
If A is subset of B, and when a member in A is removed then for sure a member in B is also removed.PS Oh my God, I am "losing" my mathematics faster than I thought (
-
If A is subset of B, and when a member in A is removed then for sure a member in B is also removed.
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.
If you replace "for sure" with "might" then it's okay.
A set A is considered to be a subset of a set B, if A is "contained" inside B. Every set is a subset of itself. In this example, B would then be considered a superset of A.
More formally, If A and B are sets and every element of A is also an element of B, then
A is a subset of (or is included in) B, denoted by A B,or equivalently
B is a superset of (or includes) A, denoted by B A.If A is a subset of B, but A is not equal to B, then A is also a proper (or strict) subset of B. This is written as A B. In the same way, B A means that B is a proper superset of A. If A is a proper subset of B, then there exists at least one element x of B which is not an element of A.
Click here. Peace. I think I'm OT ;D
