Liberal Islam vs 'Quran-alone' Islam
-
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
-
Actually, that helped me out too as I was forgetting my subsets not that there was an overwhelming need to remember them. Thanks guys.
-
What? That I hate maths?
Actually, that helped me out too as I was forgetting my subsets not that there was an overwhelming need to remember them. Thanks guys.
-
Little homework there is a slight mistake in your last quote savage_carrot
Actually sister Nadia only copied from Wikipedia.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset
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.
I guess I have done the little homework ;D ...How can we report to Wikipedia? Or simply edit the entry by ourselves (I have never edited Wikipedia though)?
-
Peace Sis
I am cheeky, but not that far or that way
The mistake is in here (you know maths is rigorous)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.
But thats unfair because I almost gave you the answer...
Its a bit boring, not challenging enough, but then my brain is currently fried?
Smile dude -
Wow nice going guys, I didn't even pay attention to what was written, just thought since people were having problems, I'd post the definitions. I am not in the least bit interested in math and seeing that stuff again makes my head spin ;D