Liberal Islam vs 'Quran-alone' Islam
-
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
-
Before I add my input to this may I say how good the replies were from Adley, Jankern and Layth, kudos guys - it feels good that there are others who think in such a way.
My views are the same as the people who have posted previously. And on my views regarding you main question, although this may not be the case for all those who call themselves 'Liberals' from what I have seen Liberal Islam seems to be a movement for the sake of fitting in with Kuffar values and the general 'western world' whatever that may be.
From what I have seen of many people who are considered leaders of this liberal movement especially a certain foreign individual who operates in the United Kingdom is that their and his intentions are severely misplaced and they seem to be openly and not ashamed to say they are doing it for the sake of fitting in the Western World whatever these individuals see that as.
We all understand how a person's intentions lie at the heart of the consequences of their actions, if someone's intentions are to change Islam to please others in the dunya of this world then we obviously know what their fate will be and what their works will amount to in the end.
What I see in what is considered as the 'Qur'an Alone' movement is something totally different, I see people who have had various experiences and have been exposed to certain things that have led them to believe that the current practise of Islam is not how God deemed us to practise. Only God knows best, but what I see from a lot of people in this situation is a sincere intent to try and find the truth regardless of how futile or misplaced this may be.
They tend to have less dealings with non-Muslim organisations and don't seem to have this Muslim Apologetic approach many liberal organisations do, they; quite rightly, are more involved with themselves, their own actions and each other instead of a Christian-style missionary movement because they know the importance of finding the truth and rooting out the mistruths for their own beliefs before inviting others to them. This said, when they are clear in finding something that they see as wrong they waste no time in telling each other about it.
Concerning myself, I have the same views as my brothers who have previously posted and I think the majority of Muslims around the world have a similar attitude. I am a Muslim, I am not a 'Sunni Muslim', I am not a 'Shi'i Muslim', I am not a 'Qur'an Only Muslim', I am not a 'Liberal Muslim' I am simply a Muslim. I submit myself to the Ruler of Existence and I am a brother to those who do not associate others with the Almighty and who uphold the same moral code as I, the criterion delivered to mankind by God, which is the Qur'an.
This alone, I am a Muslim, whether 'Sunni', 'Shia' or whatever puts us all in union, in a united ummah, if upheld, this guarantees respect towards other Muslims and surely will guarantee our progression as one ummah, in our beliefs, our practises and our obligations toward each other. Alhamdullillahi Rab Al-'Alimeen, I thank God for softening my heart towards all Muslims.
With regards to Hadith, as intelligent beings, we cannot disregard them completely; scrutiny must still be in place, as it is still a source valuable information. May the individual who managed to reconstruct Sirat Rasulollah be rewarded for his services as we would not have the historical information about our prophet. The distinction is simple, our religious source is the Qur'an - this contains the important stuff - with it we have a guidance, a historical source is the assorted hadith and whatever other reports we can get our hands upon, with these, we have a context, even though it is not as important as the guidance, it is helpful for certain things.
Without it, we would not know about the actions of the prophet and his wonderful behaviour, we would not know about all the hardships he endured, and with this knowledge, it has made me love and respect him, I believe he was the most noble human being, who less would God send as the seal of the prophets?
This is the conclusion I have come to, I am a Muslim, I uphold the Qur'an, I am not going to throw away hadith but I will scrutinise it and use it to learn more about a greater context. With this, I believe, the people born into or living amongst all various sects may be united.
Ameen Ya'Rabbi!
Mohamed