Free-Minds.org is another Sect...like Suni and Shia Sects.
-
Well, tell us all how Sunnism works, since you're so knowledgeable... By the way, I can see that YOU don't know how Sunnism works because you keep catagorizing Sunnis as some sort of huge orthodox sect. As I already mentioned several times, Sunni Islaam has several branches within it, and the members of the separate groups don't all believe and practice the same things, nor do they always have the same interpretations of certain Qur'aanic verses and hadiyths... I guess you're not such a good reader, eh?
That?s why I asked you to consult the COMPENDIUM of sunni laws. In there ,you can see the laws compared side by side. But no, you?re so intelligent, you quote AHMEDI websites and try to pass it off as SUNNI opinion. You obviously don?t know the process of ijtihad.
What does this have to do with the language of the salaat?
If you actually read the book, you?ll know that its CONSENSUS among the 4 madhabib that salat ?prayers? can only done in Arabic. I don?t think you?ve studied much though. I think you?re here to misinform the forum about sunnism. Good luck to you.
The prayers of Muhammad (according to the sunna) did NOT always include "tahiya", which is why most Sunnis refer to it as optional. In fact, the commonly practiced prayer among Sunnis, "Tahiyaatul Maasjid", is always considered optional, NOT OBLIGATORY... Maybe, instead of studying books and reading websites, you need to get off your computer, walk into a Sunni mosque, and ask them how they conduct themselves and what they believe. From posting what you read on these websites and in these books, you sound like you have no idea what you're talking about, and any Sunni reading this site would call you an idiot for posting most of the things you're posting about them... nope
LOL, now you?re mentioning tahiyatul masjid. Oh boy, I can see this ain?t gonna be easy. I wasn?t talking about a supererogatory prayer, pal. I was talking about a du?a read IN the obligatory salat prayers. Tahiya which goes ?at-tahiyatul mubarakatu as-salawatu tayyiabatu lillah?? You don?t know about this du?a? I?m not surprised.
-
peace,
Before debating with you, are you speaking on behalf of Free.minds.org? Or you are debating your own understanding.
No single person represents free-minds.org, no person represents "islam", no person represents "al quran" etc. I am simply asking some questions.
Please answer them in your next reply, as they are relatively simple
Why did Joseph opt for not cutting off the hand(s) for theft?
What happens when one steals a small item, such as a pen?Please carefully read the article I referenced.
And also ponder upon http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598206.0 -
peace,
No single person represents free-minds.org, no person represents "islam", no person represents "al quran" etc. I am simply asking some questions.
Peace all,
Wakas, why do not admit that when free.minds.org stated, in Writings, its understanding of Quran in the WELCOME page and not in the Article page, the Forum became sectarian.
Why did Joseph opt for not cutting off the hand(s) for theft?
There was no thief...that is why no one was punished.
What happens when one steals a small item, such as a pen?
well, up to 19 century, such a person was hanged to death in most of the world (except in Moslem Societies because the Max punishment is Cutting Off Hands).
Again, the punishment is Well-Established in QuranAs for the thief, both male and female, you shall cut off their hands their resources as a penalty for what they have earned to be made an example of from God. God is Noble, Wise.
538Please carefully read the article I referenced.
And also ponder upon http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598206.0I read it, and clearly it shows the author doesn't like the idea of cutting hand, and therefore, he followed non-well-established verses to cancel out the well-established meaning in 5-38 (Cut off Hands)...And my opinion about the author is the same as in 3-7.
peace
-
As for the thief, both male and female, you shall cut off their hands their resources as a penalty for what they have earned to be made an example of from God. God is Noble, Wise.
538I read it, and clearly it shows the author doesn't like the idea of cutting hand, and therefore, he followed non-well-established verses to cancel out the well-established meaning in 5-38 (Cut off Hands)...And my opinion about the author is the same as in 3-7.
peace
Well-established meaning???? WHO established this ?well-established? meaning? Whoever did failed to take into account a key phrase ?bimaa kasabaa nakalan?. What does this phrase mean?
It means ?based on what they (two) GAINED as an example?
Can I ask you, BelH, do all thieves earn the same thing? The pickpocket and the white-collar criminal? Obviously not. So can their punishment be the same if we accept the ?based on what they gained? part? Obviously not. That?s why ?aydihuma? cannot possibly mean ?their hands?.
You well-established meaning was a well-established myth.
-
Well-established meaning???? WHO established this ?well-established? meaning? Whoever did failed to take into account a key phrase ?bimaa kasabaa nakalan?. What does this phrase mean?
It means ?based on what they (two) GAINED as an example?
Can I ask you, BelH, do all thieves earn the same thing? The pickpocket and the white-collar criminal? Obviously not. So can their punishment be the same if we accept the ?based on what they gained? part? Obviously not. That?s why ?aydihuma? cannot possibly mean ?their hands?.
You well-established meaning was a well-established myth.
Based on your argument, Stoning to Death should be the appropriate punishment for married adulterer, in which I disagree...It is not up to us to adjust the well-established-punishment unless God permits us.
Our Choice is to say We Hear, and We Obey. -
That?s why I asked you to consult the COMPENDIUM of sunni laws. In there ,you can see the laws compared side by side. But no, you?re so intelligent, you quote AHMEDI websites and try to pass it off as SUNNI opinion. You obviously don?t know the process of ijtihad.
I didn't say anything about "Sunni opinion". I showed what Sunni doctrines state according to the hadiyths and sunna. The opinions of their scholars and imaams are accepted by some and rejected by others; but the hadiyths and sunna, combined with the Qur'aan, are considered INFALLIBLE according to Sunnis... You're telling me you didn't know something as simple as this, even though you're claiming to be the expert on all things related to Sunni Islaam?!
If you actually read the book, youll know that its CONSENSUS among the 4 madhabib that salat prayers can only done in Arabic. I dont think youve studied much though. I think youre here to misinform the forum about sunnism. Good luck to you.
Again, more foolishness from you... ) I already said that the "salaat" must be done in Arabic, since it is based on a recitation of the Qur'aan. The "du'aa", however, can be said in any language that one understands... But let me guess you didn't get the consensus on this, did you? Look it up, buddy... I think you're one of those people who can't admit when you're wrong, because in this case, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. And in preaching your falsehoods about Sunnis, you're misleading others. You're probably doing it on purpose, in an attempt to lead others to your "Quranist" point of view...
LOL, now youre mentioning tahiyatul masjid. Oh boy, I can see this aint gonna be easy. I wasnt talking about a supererogatory prayer, pal. I was talking about a dua read IN the obligatory salat prayers. Tahiya which goes at-tahiyatul mubarakatu as-salawatu tayyiabatu lillah You dont know about this dua? Im not surprised.
Dude, be serious. Now you're talking about a "du'aa" INSIDE the "salaat"?! Any part of the "salaat" is considered "salaat"; anything in your "du'aa" is considered "du'aa". The two are not the same thing... As I said, any "du'aa" inside the obligatory "salaat" is NOT obligatory. Instead of reading books, go out and ask a Sunni about this, and he'll probably say the same thing I'm saying. What you're saying is all nonsense. It sounds like you're confusing "Tahiya" with "Tashahud", which is NOT correct...
-
peace,
Wakas, why do not admit that when free.minds.org stated, in Writings, its understanding of Quran in the WELCOME page and not in the Article page, the Forum became sectarian.
I do not admit to nonsense. The forum has people of many different views, some of whom still uphold ahadith, to different degrees, some who are agnostic etc. So IF your definition of "sect" can include this, then fair enough. IF it doesn't, then you're wrong, simple. Let us all know your definition of "sect".
There was no thief...that is why no one was punished.
Some simple questions
Was Joseph's brother detained yes or no?
Is detention a form of punishment yes or no?
Did Joseph cite the rule of God in detaining the one responsible yes or no?Answering these questions will be revealing.
well, up to 19 century, such a person was hanged to death in most of the world (except in Moslem Societies because the Max punishment is Cutting Off Hands).
I do not want to get into your unevidenced claim about being hanged for stealing a pen in most of the world, but I want to comment on your admission (underlined). So, now you admit cutting off the hands is the maximum punishment! Therefore, directly implying it would only be done sometimes, and not all the time. Is this correct? If so, this is the minimum I could agree too, theoretically.
I read it, and clearly it shows the author doesn't like the idea of cutting hand, and therefore, he followed non-well-established verses to cancel out the well-established meaning in 5-38 (Cut off Hands).
Do you think repeating the statement "well-established" makes it so? Is this the strength of your argument?
Something is "well-established" when the evidence for it is overwhelming. Tell us, BelH, why does AQ use the less intensive verb form? Why does it rarely mean to literally cut-off, even when used with hands? Why does God say do not let pity/compassion from carrying out lashes as a punishment but remains silent on cutting off a hand, when most regard this as worse?Let's weigh and consider.
-
peace,
I do not admit to nonsense. The forum has people of many different views, some of whom still uphold ahadith, to different degrees, some who are agnostic etc. So IF your definition of "sect" can include this, then fair enough. IF it doesn't, then you're wrong, simple. Let us all know your definition of "sect".
If Free.minds.org adheres to a distinctive doctrine (stated in the WELCOME PAGE in "WHAT IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ISLAM AND TODAY'S PRACTICES?" then they represent a sect.
Of course, everyone are welcome to post in the forum, however, not everyone considered to be among the true Moslem unless they adhere to the distinctive Free.minds.org's doctrine.Some simple questions
Was Joseph's brother detained yes or no?
Is detention a form of punishment yes or no?
Did Joseph cite the rule of God in detaining the one responsible yes or no?there is no mentioning of the type of punishment, however, it is irrelevant; Egypt's constitution (the society laws) at that time was not God's.
I do not want to get into your unevidenced claim about being hanged for stealing a pen in most of the world, but I want to comment on your admission (underlined). So, now you admit cutting off the hands is the maximum punishment! Therefore, directly implying it would only be done sometimes, and not all the time. Is this correct? If so, this is the minimum I could agree too, theoretically.
You know what I was implying too, so please let us be brief in our argument so we do not get lost.
Now, we have to be clear in the punishment of stealing, as we are clear in the punishment of adultery and killing.
The smart and safest way to better argue about these saver punishment is to define the word "Thief".
In other words, which act that when someone do he or she becomes Thief according to Quran. This would be debatable, but the punishment is NOT.Peace
-
with the recent crisis, we have seen bernard madoff steal 50 billion, if he was muslim what would his punishment be?
You mean if He was living in a society that is governed By the Quran Laws? If yes, then the Judge would recover the stolen Money and then Cut-Off his Hand and let him go free.
-
peace BelH,
If Free.minds.org adheres to a distinctive doctrine (stated in the WELCOME PAGE in "WHAT IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ISLAM AND TODAY'S PRACTICES?" then they represent a sect.
Including the doctrine of to "ponder everything", and the word "everything" includes the contents of its homepage.
Of course, everyone are welcome to post in the forum, however, not everyone considered to be among the true Moslem unless they adhere to the distinctive Free.minds.org's doctrine.
Unevidenced statement, i.e. worthless.
there is no mentioning of the type of punishment
So, detaining someone is not a punishment? Is this your position?
however, it is irrelevant; Egypt's constitution (the society laws) at that time was not God's.
Perhaps not in its entirety, but please explain why Joseph states it is God's law detaining the one responsible. Is Joseph delusional, mixing up laws? Is this your position?
You know what I was implying too, so please let us be brief in our argument so we do not get lost.
You failed to answer my relatively simple questions. I will leave it to the forum readers to determine if your argument holds any weight.
Each to their own. Peace out.
ps - Yosemite, ask BelH, what happens if he steals another 50 billion and when his remaining hand is cut off and he has no more hands left, ask him what he will do if he steals another 50 billion. Then watch the reply. Enjoy.
-
peace BelH,
Including the doctrine of to "ponder everything", and the word "everything" includes the contents of its homepage.
The contents of the doctrine are irrelevant in determining the definition of Sect.
Thus, Free.minds.org is a Sect.Unevidenced statement, i.e. worthless.
The large sized words are my evidence
WHAT IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ISLAM AND TODAY'S PRACTICES?
So, detaining someone is not a punishment? Is this your position?
It is not the Quranic punishment for Thief.
Perhaps not in its entirety, but please explain why Joseph states it is God's law detaining the one responsible. Is Joseph delusional, mixing up laws? Is this your position?
can you show me where are the verses that you are referring to (pick from below) when mentioning the above red words?
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279You failed to answer my relatively simple questions. I will leave it to the forum readers to determine if your argument holds any weight.
I did not fail, rather, the punishment is well-established in meaning and there is no room to argue; however, I can argue about the definition of Thief, as I proposed before but you failed to comments.
ps - Yosemite, ask BelH, what happens if he steals another 50 billion and when his remaining hand is cut off and he has no more hands left, ask him what he will do if he steals another 50 billion. Then watch the reply. Enjoy.
Should I wait for Yosemite to ask before answering? or is it your question?
Peace
-
ps - Yosemite, ask BelH, what happens if he steals another 50 billion and when his remaining hand is cut off and he has no more hands left, ask him what he will do if he steals another 50 billion. Then watch the reply. Enjoy.
no matter if you like it or not but that is already well established !
Abu Dawud
Book 38, Number 4396Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah
A thief was brought to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). He said Kill him. The people said He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said Cut off his hand. So his (right) hand was cut off. He was brought a second time and he said Kill him. The people said He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said Cut off his foot.
So his (left) foot was cut off.
He was brought a third time and he said Kill him.
The people said He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
So he said Cut off his hand. (So his (left) hand was cut off.)
He was brought a fourth time and he said Kill him.
The people said He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
So he said Cut off his foot. So his (right) foot was cut off.
He was brought a fifth time and he said Kill him.
So we took him away and killed him. We then dragged him and cast him into a well and threw stones over him.
-
It's a well-established lie, yes. But a lie nonetheless. A blatant contradiction with Quran.
-
I didn't say anything about "Sunni opinion". I showed what Sunni doctrines state according to the hadiyths and sunna. The opinions of their scholars and imaams are accepted by some and rejected by others; but the hadiyths and sunna, combined with the Qur'aan, are considered INFALLIBLE according to Sunnis... You're telling me you didn't know something as simple as this, even though you're claiming to be the expert on all things related to Sunni Islaam?!
Good, lets stick to that. I underlined your statement above. Kindly provide evidence for this.
-
Based on your argument, Stoning to Death should be the appropriate punishment for married adulterer, in which I disagree...It is not up to us to adjust the well-established-punishment unless God permits us.
Our Choice is to say We Hear, and We Obey.What nonsense! Death is the punishment for ADULTERY?! This is equivalency to you? Wow, I can't believe what im reading these days.
I will obey Allah and the messenger sure, not a bunch of priests who claim to own islam and ply us with false grandfather tales.
-
Why does God say do not let pity/compassion from carrying out lashes as a punishment but remains silent on cutting off a hand, when most regard this as worse?
Let's weigh and consider.
Superb reasoning, Wakas. Will use it in the future (without crediting you, lol)
-
Thank you for making the case why you are repeatedly asking people to trash their brains when discussing religious issues with you. No person with brains will believe the stupid story you have quoted from Abu Dawud, since it contradicts the Quran, the book brought by the apostle, and it contradicts reality and any sense of justice and compassion. Besides, what is wrong with the apostle of the big liar Abu Dawud? Each time he says "kill him" and each time he changes his mind to prune the poor guy's limbs.
You and your source Abu Dawud are the worst enemies of the prophet Muhammad. You are described by the following verse 2542-43 and 10100!
2543 Have you seen the one who has taken his ego as his god? Will you be a caretaker over him?
2544 Or do you think that most of them hear or understand (AQL)? They are just like cattle. No, they are worse off.
10100 It is not for a person to acknowledge except by God's leave. He casts the affliction upon those who do not reason (AQL).
no matter if you like it or not but that is already well established !
Abu Dawud
Book 38, Number 4396Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah
A thief was brought to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). He said Kill him. The people said He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said Cut off his hand. So his (right) hand was cut off. He was brought a second time and he said Kill him. The people said He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said Cut off his foot.
So his (left) foot was cut off.
He was brought a third time and he said Kill him.
The people said He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
So he said Cut off his hand. (So his (left) hand was cut off.)
He was brought a fourth time and he said Kill him.
The people said He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
So he said Cut off his foot. So his (right) foot was cut off.
He was brought a fifth time and he said Kill him.
So we took him away and killed him. We then dragged him and cast him into a well and threw stones over him.
-
You and your source Abu Dawud are the worst enemies of the prophet Muhammad.
what about those who remove two verses of quran? how we are different from each other? ???
-
Please quote Rashad Khalifa's statement on this. I want to see exactly where he said the words, "The Qur'aan is a liar..." or "I reject the Qur'aan, and it is false..." Do you have any proof of this claim, or are you speaking unverifiable nonsense?
The fact that he rejects two verses is all we need to know.
