Fish is haram 4 Quran Alone adept according to Sunni Cheikh
-
For want of a better label I suppose, also to try to bring some sense back into the Christian community. It can only be changed from the inside.
That is fine - I woud have called myself "Nazarene" after undersanding your position since that was the name of the true deciples of Jesus rather than the fake sect called 'christianity' which sprung-up later
I did have a look at your website and had a couple of questions about your views
- You call Jesus the 'greatest teacher' yet at the same tme see to accept other messengers/prophets. Are they not also 'great' therefeore making none 'greater'?
- You seem to reject the concept of Hell and rather teach that God is love? So, there is no judgement, or is judgement superficial whereby we all end-up in Heaven (or is there no heaven either)?
-
That is fine - I woud have called myself "Nazarene" after undersanding your position since that was the name of the true deciples of Jesus rather than the fake sect called 'christianity' which sprung-up later )
I did have a look at your website and had a couple of questions about your views
- You call Jesus the 'greatest teacher' yet at the same tme see to accept other messengers/prophets. Are they not also 'great' therefeore making none 'greater'?
- You seem to reject the concept of Hell and rather teach that God is love? So, there is no judgement, or is judgement superficial whereby we all end-up in Heaven (or is there no heaven either)?
Very good questions.
-
No, I don't believe that any prophet is any greater than another. Each one brought a message (sometimes the same message but in a different way).
-
Yes I do reject the common concept of hell. I do not believe there is such a "place". I believe that hell is the separation from God. If you imagine being a small child that has done something wrong and your father or mother sends you too your room until you realise your error, that would be hell for that child. But once you come out of your room and apologise, then your mother or father will probably give you a hug. That is how I see our relationship with God.
-
That is fine - I woud have called myself "Nazarene" after undersanding your position since that was the name of the true deciples of Jesus rather than the fake sect called 'christianity' which sprung-up later )
I did have a look at your website and had a couple of questions about your views
- You call Jesus the 'greatest teacher' yet at the same tme see to accept other messengers/prophets. Are they not also 'great' therefeore making none 'greater'?
- You seem to reject the concept of Hell and rather teach that God is love? So, there is no judgement, or is judgement superficial whereby we all end-up in Heaven (or is there no heaven either)?
Sorry I missed your first question.
Most Christians wouldn't know what "Nazarene" meant, most would think it meant I was saying I came from Nazareth.
-
lol john's avatar is...cool.
Not sure what it is, but if it's Apple's version of a reverend, iReverend then that would be friggin awesome. yay
rotfl Nice! Seriously though, it is a cool Av!
-
Peace Layth,
I do not agree with you. Allah refers to those of the People of the Book who say that God is the third of three, and tell them to stop, He did not say they were not any more People of the Book, what they called themselves at the time and now is irrelevant.
What you are talking about are the first cohort who followed Jesus who were of Nazareth.
By the time the Quran was revealed / being revealed the Council of Nicaea had already convened, and priesthood order implemented that the Quran refers to as having been added to please Allah but that He did not ordain it.
So the Christians are indeed part of the People of the Book, and they still have the same problem, abandon the trinity (i.e at same stage as time of the Prophet), even if in some other areas, with Protestantism, there has been some progress where coming back to the Bible itself and stopping relying on Priests is concerned, which by the way we need with our sectarians...
So please Layth, kindly do not go extreme on us...Salam
Noble aka Nabster
salam nabster,
Just to comment, I want to point out that Christians are not 'people o the book', so any meat (other than fish) prepared by this group would be foul.
-
rotfl No it is a photo of me that I made into a silhouette
You look like a mafia don. Hey boss. Got any new missions for me? I your # 1 Mobster!
-
laugh The fish mafia?
I tend to agree with theNabster, Christians are people of the book, just a little misguided.
No! Human mafia
Sorry for this offtopic post.
-
Salam Nabster,
So please Layth, kindly do not go extreme on us...
Here is my evidence, if you still think I am 'extreme' after this, then I will be glad to bear such label
572 Rejecters indeed are those who have said ?God is the Messiah, son of Mary.? And the Messiah said ?O Children of Israel, serve
God, my Lord and your Lord. Whoever sets up partners with God, then God will restrict the Paradise from him, and his destiny will be the Fire; and the wicked will have no supporters.?573 Rejecters indeed are those who have said ?God is a trinity!? There is no god except One god. If they do not cease from what
they are saying, then those who reject from among them will be afflicted with a painful retribution.1988 And they said the Almighty has taken a son!
1989 You have come with a gross blasphemy.
1990 The heavens are about to shatter from it, and the earth crack
open, and the mountains fall and crumble.
1991 That they claimed that the Almighty had a son!You see, the verses above tell us that there was a blasphemous pagan sect that emerged from the people of the book who used to make these false and idolatress claims - these people were never 'people of the book' but are clearly labeled by the Quran as kuffar/rejecters (refer to 572-73).
Now 1,400 years later, we have it that this blasphemous and deviant sect has become the prominent and loudest voice for claiming to be the original message of Jesus - so, do we follow along and falsely support what they say by repeating their lies that they are indeed 'people of the book' and 'followers of christ', or, do we call them out for the blasphemous pagans/rejecters that they are?
The Quran is very specific and sometimes prophetic in its choice of words...God used the word 'hadith' to describe works that will be followed other than His word, and men went and called their lies 'hadiths. I am of the firm belief that the true followers of God and the Quran will only call themselves 'Muslims' as God named us, and we see in-front of our eyes how the sects are somehow forbidden from using this name alone without adding their sect name 'sunni/shia/derzi, etc.' as if by force.
Now, this takes me back to my discussion with brother John...I am looking at his rational for using the word 'christian' when it is a word/name used by a deviant sect...My rational is that a follower of christ would hold to the name 'nazarene, as God has taught us in the Quran, even if that name is no longer well known or liked (I did look it up on wikipedia, and it still seems to be used in small circules).
So to sum up all this chatter
'nazarenes' = people of the book
'christians' = deviant/blasphemous rejecting sect -
'nazarenes' = people of the book
'christians' = deviant/blasphemous rejecting sectSo I guess Rev john is a nazlim then?
-
Salam Nabster,
Here is my evidence, if you still think I am 'extreme' after this, then I will be glad to bear such label
572 Rejecters indeed are those who have said ?God is the Messiah, son of Mary.? And the Messiah said ?O Children of Israel, serve
God, my Lord and your Lord. Whoever sets up partners with God, then God will restrict the Paradise from him, and his destiny will be the Fire; and the wicked will have no supporters.?573 Rejecters indeed are those who have said ?God is a trinity!? There is no god except One god. If they do not cease from what
they are saying, then those who reject from among them will be afflicted with a painful retribution.1988 And they said the Almighty has taken a son!
1989 You have come with a gross blasphemy.
1990 The heavens are about to shatter from it, and the earth crack
open, and the mountains fall and crumble.
1991 That they claimed that the Almighty had a son!You see, the verses above tell us that there was a blasphemous pagan sect that emerged from the people of the book who used to make these false and idolatress claims - these people were never 'people of the book' but are clearly labeled by the Quran as kuffar/rejecters (refer to 572-73).
Now 1,400 years later, we have it that this blasphemous and deviant sect has become the prominent and loudest voice for claiming to be the original message of Jesus - so, do we follow along and falsely support what they say by repeating their lies that they are indeed 'people of the book' and 'followers of christ', or, do we call them out for the blasphemous pagans/rejecters that they are?
The Quran is very specific and sometimes prophetic in its choice of words...God used the word 'hadith' to describe works that will be followed other than His word, and men went and called their lies 'hadiths. I am of the firm belief that the true followers of God and the Quran will only call themselves 'Muslims' as God named us, and we see in-front of our eyes how the sects are somehow forbidden from using this name alone without adding their sect name 'sunni/shia/derzi, etc.' as if by force.
Now, this takes me back to my discussion with brother John...I am looking at his rational for using the word 'christian' when it is a word/name used by a deviant sect...My rational is that a follower of christ would hold to the name 'nazarene, as God has taught us in the Quran, even if that name is no longer well known or liked (I did look it up on wikipedia, and it still seems to be used in small circules).
So to sum up all this chatter
'nazarenes' = people of the book
'christians' = deviant/blasphemous rejecting sectI understand your point, and do not argue with it until the last point. The people known as Nazarenes became known as Christians. The name Christian was used as an insult to the Nazarenes to begin with and just stuck, so the Nazarenes were named Christians by others.
There are many Christians that still belong to the traditional Christian churches but believe the way I do. It is hard for some people to leave what they know to join the unknown.
So I guess Rev john is a nazlim then?
laugh Maybe so
-
Peace Bro Layth
Indeed you are entitled to your personal "fatwa", but to be honest, if you follow the implications, you would not be able to function much...
For starter, you would not eat any meat, unless you slaughtered it yourself.
You would not entrust any of your money to a bank, in fact no, you would not even deal in money, just in barter probably.
The jews' produce will be impure too because their rabbis partake in illicit acts, and are going from worse to worst, and in fact as for the "muslims", their people rely on them for guidance, so they idolise them, which is idol worship, the same goes for the "muslims" and their scholars.
And even if you accept that there is some monotheism foundation left in the current muslims, how about those idolising relics and saints like zaouias and mawalis, and how would you know that what you are eating is as pure as you think.
Lastly, don't you think that Allah wanted it to be this way until the day of judgment so that there is a kind of cleavage between all the sects, and the Truth set forth gets to shine as He promised. This is a final Prophecy which has not yet come to pass...
The Quran was not revealed only to that particular 7th century, but for the whole timeline until the day of judgment, how can you decide for Allah how to read for Him who is People of the Book and who is not after He read who they were in the Quran.
I forcefully disagree with you on pushing the envelope and reading Allah's mind regarding what He is about to do and how we humans will be involved in His end game.
The best we can hope for is to be on the side of His Mercy... -
I understand your point, and do not argue with it until the last point. The people known as Nazarenes became known as Christians. The name Christian was used as an insult to the Nazarenes to begin with and just stuck, so the Nazarenes were named Christians by others.
Excerpt from Edip-Layth - End Note 22 (262) (QRT)
The Quran refers to the followers of the New Testament with the word Nasara (Nazarenes), rather than Masihiyyun (Christians). The root of the word has several implications. First, it might have originated from the Semitic word NaSaRa (to support), and originated from the answer given by the disciples of Jesus when he asked for their support for his cause (6114). Or, it could have originated from the birth place of Jesus, Nazareth. Perhaps, it has a linguistic and historical link to both origins. Also, see 582. Knowing the motive of the Gospel authors to establish a stronger messianic link between Jesus and King David, by binding him through genealogy and birthplace, some scholars of theology justifiably question whether Bethlehem was the actual birthplace of Jesus, as is commonly accepted. Though Matthew acknowledges the fact that Jesus was called Nazarene (Matthew 223), both Matthew and Luke mention Bethlehem as his birthplace. However, Mark, which was written earlier, mentions Nazareth as the birthplace of Jesus instead of Bethlehem "And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan" (Mark 19). For the Biblical verses referring to Nazareth, see (Matthew 223; 413; 2111; 2671; Mark 19,24; 1047; 1467; 166; Luke 126; 24,39,51; 416,34; 1837; 2419; John 145-46; 185,7; 1919; Acts 222; 36; 410; 614; 1038; 228; 269).
According to Christian scholars, such as Easton, "The name Christian was given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch (Acts 1126). The names by which the disciples were known among themselves were 'brethren,' 'the faithful,' 'elect,' 'saints,' 'believers.' But as distinguishing them from the multitude without, the name 'Christian' came into use, and was universally accepted. This name occurs but three times in the New Testament (Acts 1126; 2628; 1Peter 416)." It seems that some followers of Jesus adopted the name attributed to them by their enemies, and some continued using one of their earlier names, Nazarenes.
The jews' produce will be impure too because their rabbis partake in illicit acts, and are going from worse to worst, and in fact as for the "muslims", their people rely on them for guidance, so they idolise them, which is idol worship, the same goes for the "muslims" and their scholars.
And even if you accept that there is some monotheism foundation left in the current muslims, how about those idolising relics and saints like zaouias and mawalis, and how would you know that what you are eating is as pure as you think.
Lastly, don't you think that Allah wanted it to be this way until the day of judgment so that there is a kind of cleavage between all the sects, and the Truth set forth gets to shine as He promised. This is a final Prophecy which has not yet come to pass...As long as we dedicate our food to God (alone) by mentioning his name thereupon, we are fine. Note we must dedicate ALL of our food to God, not just meat like some 'muslims' think. Also, if we must rely on letting others mention God's name on our food, it would be guesswork, which, as we know, is not allowed.
Also, good point about 'muslim' and jewish idolaters.
-
Excerpt from Edip-Layth - End Note 22 (262) (QRT)
The Quran refers to the followers of the New Testament with the word Nasara (Nazarenes), rather than Masihiyyun (Christians). The root of the word has several implications. First, it might have originated from the Semitic word NaSaRa (to support), and originated from the answer given by the disciples of Jesus when he asked for their support for his cause (6114). Or, it could have originated from the birth place of Jesus, Nazareth. Perhaps, it has a linguistic and historical link to both origins. Also, see 582. Knowing the motive of the Gospel authors to establish a stronger messianic link between Jesus and King David, by binding him through genealogy and birthplace, some scholars of theology justifiably question whether Bethlehem was the actual birthplace of Jesus, as is commonly accepted. Though Matthew acknowledges the fact that Jesus was called Nazarene (Matthew 223), both Matthew and Luke mention Bethlehem as his birthplace. However, Mark, which was written earlier, mentions Nazareth as the birthplace of Jesus instead of Bethlehem "And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan" (Mark 19). For the Biblical verses referring to Nazareth, see (Matthew 223; 413; 2111; 2671; Mark 19,24; 1047; 1467; 166; Luke 126; 24,39,51; 416,34; 1837; 2419; John 145-46; 185,7; 1919; Acts 222; 36; 410; 614; 1038; 228; 269).
According to Christian scholars, such as Easton, "The name Christian was given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch (Acts 1126). The names by which the disciples were known among themselves were 'brethren,' 'the faithful,' 'elect,' 'saints,' 'believers.' But as distinguishing them from the multitude without, the name 'Christian' came into use, and was universally accepted. This name occurs but three times in the New Testament (Acts 1126; 2628; 1Peter 416)." It seems that some followers of Jesus adopted the name attributed to them by their enemies, and some continued using one of their earlier names, Nazarenes.
As long as we dedicate our food to God (alone) by mentioning his name thereupon, we are fine. Note we must dedicate ALL of our food to God, not just meat like some 'muslims' think. Also, if we must rely on letting others mention God's name on our food, it would be guesswork, which, as we know, is not allowed.
Also, good point about 'muslim' and jewish idolaters.
Thank you, you have just proved my point about the name handshake
-
Peace progressive,
something similar can be said of Palestine and the Palestinians whose names originate from the Philistines who were the "Biblical" Sea People living in today's Gaza, and the name was then hijacked by the Romans in the first century when they raided Jerusalem and the Canaan region, renaming it Phalestine as an insult to the Jews who used to be attacked by the Philistines until the victory of David over Goliath.
And so the Palestinians too kept the name... but it was a derisive Roman name originally... -
Salam,
For starter, you would not eat any meat, unless you slaughtered it yourself.
Not true at all. Living in the Middle East, I personally eat a lot of meat, and I am able do so as long as I can determine with some certainty that the name of God has been mentioned over the animal during slaughter. Now, as bad as the sunnis and shia are as you state with their shirk, they do not mention any name other than God when they slaughter (no Mohammed, no Ali - just God) -so, by defintion of 6118, such meat is permissible.
Now, if I were living in Europe/US where most food prepared is at the hands of atheists or christians who mention nothing when they slaughter/prepare their meat, by definition of 6121 such meat is 'vile/wicked' and not to be consumed. I would stick with fish and meat prepared by myself or sold by butchers than can be determined with some certainty to mention the name of God - very simple stuff.
You would not entrust any of your money to a bank, in fact no, you would not even deal in money, just in barter probably.
You are mixing apples with oranges. Lets stay on the topic of meat.
The jews' produce will be impure too because their rabbis partake in illicit acts, and are going from worse to worst, and in fact as for the "muslims", their people rely on them for guidance, so they idolise them, which is idol worship, the same goes for the "muslims" and their scholars. And even if you accept that there is some monotheism foundation left in the current muslims, how about those idolising relics and saints like zaouias and mawalis, and how would you know that what you are eating is as pure as you think.
Strange. I support my arguments with clear verses and you say it is a 'personal fatwa', yet, your entire paragraph above has no basis and goes against the simple and clear commands of 6118 and 6121 that simply require a word/name to be mentioned - which one of us is making a 'personal fatwa' I wonder.
how can you decide for Allah how to read for Him who is People of the Book and who is not after He read who they were in the Quran.
I forcefully disagree with you on pushing the envelope and reading Allah's mind regarding what He is about to do and how we humans will be involved in His end game.Why the complication? Either you have studied a topic and can show the evidence of what God says, or, you are not sure and are letting your feelings/emotions get the better of you (when they shouldn't). We are simply to 'hear and obey' when it comes to God's laws. God called the peope who advocate trinity and son of God and Jesus being God as "rejecters/kuffar", yet, it seems you would have us call them otherwise?
We have been given clear instructions on how to deal with the kuffar/rejecters
973 O prophet, strive against the rejecters and the hypocrites and be firm against them. Their dwelling is Hell, what a miserable
destiny!669 O prophet, strive against the rejecters and the hypocrites and be stern with them. Their abode is Hell, and a miserable destiny.
As for the 'people of the book', we have seperate commands/laws on how to deal with them - therefore, your conclusion, as passionate as it may be, is completely incorrect and in-fact woul create a conflict/contradiction as you would be trying to reconcile two seperate groups into being one group.
My posts here may seem long on this subject, but I find the matter to be most serious that it warrants much attention, especially that in not adhering to such, a person risks being a polytheist/mushrik
6121 And do not eat from that which the name of God has not been mentioned, for it is wickedness. And the devils they inspire their supporters to argue with you; and if you obey them, then you are polytheists.
-
Salam,
Not true at all. Living in the Middle East, I personally eat a lot of meat, and I am able do so as long as I can determine with some certainty that the name of God has been mentioned over the animal during slaughter. Now, as bad as the sunnis and shia are as you state with their shirk, they do not mention any name other than God when they slaughter (no Mohammed, no Ali - just God) -so, by defintion of 6118, such meat is permissible.
Peace
Do you eat fish after SLAUGHTER WITH THE NAME OF ALLAH"???
Regards
