Hello Folks, Fawzia here! I was a Quranist for 10 months.
-
Exactly. I'm an Iranian Muslim myself (though I was born and raised here in the States).
Welcome Fawzia. To the others, please do not get angry or sarcastic when discussing issues with Fawzia or anyone else. Responding peacefully is the best way.
Dear Caveman,
Believe me, there's no anger involved here. I don't know if Fawzia is real or not even, let alone am I bothered about. She can believe whatever she wants, its between her and God. What really is interesting to me is the analysis of their language and thought. Fawzia claims to be a quranist yet now she considers junking hadith to be 'desperate act to salvage their faith'. She's also very against the study of Arabic, preferring to speak to Arabs to judge the Quran. Would you call such a person 'objective' (if 'objective' didn't mean 'blatantly biased', that is) ? -
Fawzia, I'm sorry about the attitude from some people on this forum. When I found this forum I thought discussions would be civil. Sadly this often isn't the case. Some of us here would like to hear your point of view with resorting to snottiness (no, it's not funny, nor the way to have any kind of useful discussion). Please just ignore them. They aren't worth wasting your time with a response.
-
She's also very against the study of Arabic, preferring to speak to Arabs to judge the Quran. Would you call such a person 'objective' (if 'objective' didn't mean 'blatantly biased', that is) ?
Would you please apply the same principle to all those who cannot read even a single word of the Quran in arabic and entirely depend upon translations.They are not ready to learn arabic to study the Quran. Or this principle is only for "Fauzia" ?
Regards -
She's also very against the study of Arabic, preferring to speak to Arabs to judge the Quran. Would you call such a person 'objective' (if 'objective' didn't mean 'blatantly biased', that is) ?
A lot of us here, including myself, do not know Arabic. I do intend to learn Arabic in future, but it may be a long time from now, since I don't have the time for it with classes and all. I don't see how not knowing Arabic equates to being 'not objective'
You might accuse her of being unnecessarily harsh and racist towards South Asians in the UK, but I don't think you can say she's biased on the basis of not having studied Arabic.
-
Dear Fawzia,
On behalf of all the Quranists, I'd like to nominate you for 'Quranist of the Year' award for your outstanding scholarship and awareness of Quranist issues and methodology on reading the Quran. Wow, I must say, I've never encountered your kind of brilliance and objectivity before. Tell me, are you married? If not, I'd like to propose marriage to you. I'm sure all our kids will be 'Super-Quranists' thanks to your genes.
Let me quote to you some what you said so we can understand your brilliance.
Fawzia.
YES ! That's brilliant. Because the Quran has NEVER been misappopriated or mistranslated. All the 'sciences' of understanding the Quran like 'ABROGATION' must be true. Wow.
and
No no, of course we don?t. We can and should trust ALL translators. In fact, the more they are ?against? Islam, the more we should believe them because they are incapable of lies.and
Yes yes yes! How dare these people try to change what has been written in stone! After all ,the people who understood the Quran before us were the most brilliant human beings on earth. They actually thought Muhammad was bewitched and didn?t know what he saying.
Yes yes. And we must blame the Quran for this too, since it?s in surah 116, ayah 320. Good point there, Fawzia.Wow Fawzia, you?re so intelligent. May I inquire , are you a professor of logic at Harvard or Oxford? If so, I?d love to visit you some time. I?m pretty sure you?ll win this ?Quranist of the Year? award. There is only one another nominee Geert Wilders (but I wouldn?t like to propose to him).
AbdalQuran,
I am sure that you know a lot more about the Quran than many of us here since you have given time to its study. But that does not mean that those of us who haven't have not brought up good questions. If instead of being accusatory, and somewhat offensive (what was all that about proposing and giving the Quranist award), you are more civil, it might make us more open and willing to listen to your arguments (and I am sure you have good ones) rather than being put off by your attitude. I would have PM'ed this to you, but this actually applies to others on this forum who have a similar attitude, and is also directed at them, and not to you alone.
A condescending attitude in your posts can draw attention away from the good points you make.
Peace,
Sarah
-
When I found this forum I thought discussions would be civil. Sadly this often isn't the case. Some of us here would like to hear your point of view with resorting to snottiness (no, it's not funny, nor the way to have any kind of useful discussion).
agreed. There is no point to being condescending in one's attitude towards those who don't know how to read Arabic. The Quran tells the believers/submitters to be patient and understanding. Putting off people with one's attitude does not lead to any productive discussion or learning.
-
I'm not simply speaking of translations-I have spoken to enough Saudi Arabs. Cousin marriages, btw, aren't even due to Fatima & Ali precedent only,unfortunately, there's nowhere in the Quran where cousin marriage is banned, even repeated cousin marriages.
I uderstand the desperation of many Muslims to salvage their faith by insisting that all hadiths are fabricated, even by insisting that the Quran is quite incapable of proper translation, & even Saudi & Yemeni Arabs et al can't read it properly, only the most morally acceptable translations are correct, otherwise its mis translation! ;D
I was one of these folks too! Fortunately, I was able to see that this sort of massive denial leads to nothing.
You do realise that Saudi Arabs are blindsided by tafseer and hadiths and don't read the Quran with an unbiassed perspective?
I don't see why the Quran should ban cousin marriages. There are health risks, but that doesn't justify a complete ban.
Hadiths are fabricated. One doesn't have to be a Quranist or even a Muslim to see that the 'isnad' or chain of narration, even if sound, doesn't take into account the errors or the fact that Bukhary rejected nearly all (98%) of hadiths. It's pretty obvious. Remember Chinese Whispers? Imagine that over 200years.What exactly are we denying? Words have multiple meanings, if a word means 'beat' or 'leave' we should always take the one that makes the most sense in context and is logically consistent. Can you explain to me how beating one's wife would solve the problem of marital discord? It would only increase it. A separation would allow both parties to think things over more clearly.
-
agreed. There is no point to being condescending in one's attitude towards those who don't know how to read Arabic. The Quran tells the believers/submitters to be patient and understanding. Putting off people with one's attitude does not lead to any productive discussion or learning.
I don't think ANYONE here was being condescending towards Fawzia's inability to understand Arabic. No one at all. Lets reread what Fawzia's wrote
I do not need or want to study Arabic-it has little use in the world, thanks to Islam.
Who's being condescending here? I tell you it was THIS statement which prompted me to first respond to this person. If a person came in and sincerely said, 'i cant believe God sends books and if he did, it wouldnt be the Quran', that's fine. But look at THIS statement above. It's the statement of a condescending person so come on, you wanna lie down for this person? Not me.
-
Would you please apply the same principle to all those who cannot read even a single word of the Quran in arabic and entirely depend upon translations.They are not ready to learn arabic to study the Quran. Or this principle is only for "Fauzia" ?
RegardsNo, it also applies to 'Grammar Gurus' who claim 'this waw is waw of state' without evidence.
-
AbdalQuran,
I am sure that you know a lot more about the Quran than many of us here since you have given time to its study. But that does not mean that those of us who haven't have not brought up good questions. If instead of being accusatory, and somewhat offensive (what was all that about proposing and giving the Quranist award), you are more civil, it might make us more open and willing to listen to your arguments (and I am sure you have good ones) rather than being put off by your attitude. I would have PM'ed this to you, but this actually applies to others on this forum who have a similar attitude, and is also directed at them, and not to you alone.
A condescending attitude in your posts can draw attention away from the good points you make.
Peace,
SarahOh yeah, I?M the one with the condescending attitude. Gee, thanks. Btw, I?m not disparaging Fawzia?s knowledge but rather her ATTITUDE. She clearly looks down on Islam which is fine but if she comes to a Quranist forum, I?m not going to be her verbal toilet, sorry.
-
I do not need or want to study Arabic-it has little use in the world, thanks to Islam.
Who's being condescending here? I tell you it was THIS statement which prompted me to first respond to this person. If a person came in and sincerely said, 'i cant believe God sends books and if he did, it wouldnt be the Quran', that's fine. But look at THIS statement above. It's the statement of a condescending person so come on, you wanna lie down for this person? Not me.
I am not saying that you should take it lying down, I think that you should take apart her arguments, one after the other, without taking the same attitude she has. I do not approve of her attitude, it's dismissive and racist (see her other thread) but that's no reason for you to stoop to her level.
-
Oh yeah, I?M the one with the condescending attitude. Gee, thanks.
She clearly looks down on Islam which is fine but if she comes to a Quranist forum, I?m not going to be her verbal toilet, sorry.
It's true, you were being condescending, I didn't say she wasn't. Those two aren't mutually exclusive. It's possible for you to say the same thing in a non condescending manner, isn't it.
I thought what separated the Free-minds forum from others is that all points of view are welcome, as long as they are not insulting posts directed at a single individual. She didn't attack you personally, so if you wish, you may correct her by posting your points to the best of your knowledge. How did she make you, specifically, her 'verbal toilet'
-
A lot of us here, including myself, do not know Arabic. I do intend to learn Arabic in future, but it may be a long time from now, since I don't have the time for it with classes and all. I don't see how not knowing Arabic equates to being 'not objective'
You might accuse her of being unnecessarily harsh and racist towards South Asians in the UK, but I don't think you can say she's biased on the basis of not having studied Arabic.
Sigh....she says that we're being apolegetic by picking 'separate' over 'beat'. Great but can she verify this? No she can't. Does she want to call us 'desperate to salvage our religion'? Yes she does. So how is she calling us 'desperate'? With not only zero study on the issue but by siding with the people who claim it's 'beat'. What do you call a person like this? A master of objective analysis?????? That would make Hitler the Karen Armstrong of Jewish Studies!
-
With not only zero study on the issue but by siding with the people who claim it's 'beat'. What do you call a person like this? A master of objective analysis?????? That would make Hitler the Karen Armstrong of Jewish Studies!
thank you
you finally got my point, that is what she's guilty of, not taking the time to study, and also by deliberately choosing to think it's beat, and not because she hasn't studied Arabic (the language)
Please be more specific, and not write things like 'That would make Hitler the Karen Armstrong of Jewish Studies! '
I am not the only person on this forum who would be put off against someone with an attitude like that. On an online forum, that comes off as shouting, and it tends to weaken the force of your arguments (which are usually good) which I believe, is something you don't want.
-
It's true, you were being condescending, I didn't say she wasn't. Those two aren't mutually exclusive. It's possible for you to say the same thing in a non condescending manner, isn't it.
I thought what separated the Free-minds forum from others is that all points of view are welcome, as long as they are not insulting posts directed at a single individual. She didn't attack you personally, so if you wish, you may correct her by posting your points to the best of your knowledge. How did she make you, specifically, her 'verbal toilet'
I really don?t get you. How am I being condescending? It?s not like I went ?hey, you read translations, therefore you?re automatically wrong?. THAT would be condescending. I?m calling out this person for the ATTITUDE she displays. She wants to choose a side, fine. But don?t go calling us apologists when she doesn?t know her behind from her elbow and doesn?t even think its worth the bother to learn what is necessary. And if she does, don?t expect us to give a gandhi-smile and say ?would you like the other cheek too?? Sorry but that?s not how it works. If you come across nice, you?ll get nice words back. I honestly don?t mind criticism. What I mind is when people want to get something off their chest by belittling the faith of others. That?s really wrong. You want to be critical, fine (great even) but be SUBSTANTIALLY critical. Fawzia-critical = rantings, at best.
I dunno if you notice, but there are some atheists, haters, anti-religious people who come in here with their emotional-offload agenda. They don?t enough venting time at home so they come here and have a good time at our expense. This makes us their verbal toilets. As far as I can see, Fawzia is a fake. She was never a Quranist. She looks down on Quranists for ?desperately trying to salvage our faith by junking hadith?. Well if a person thinks of Quranists this way, don?t be expecting some kind of hare krishna like song and dance from the Quranists. She thinks we?re idiots and she has no time to tell us why. Wow, you gotta love the benevolence there, doncha. Mother Theresa herself would be aspiring to such compassion.
-
I really don?t get you. How am I being condescending? It?s not like I went ?hey, you read translations, therefore you?re automatically wrong?. THAT would be condescending. I?m calling out this person for the ATTITUDE she displays. She wants to choose a side, fine. But don?t go calling us apologists when she doesn?t know her behind from her elbow and doesn?t even think its worth the bother to learn what is necessary. And if she does, don?t expect us to give a gandhi-smile and say ?would you like the other cheek too?? Sorry but that?s not how it works. If you come across nice, you?ll get nice words back. I honestly don?t mind criticism. What I mind is when people want to get something off their chest by belittling the faith of others. That?s really wrong. You want to be critical, fine (great even) but be SUBSTANTIALLY critical. Fawzia-critical = rantings, at best.
I dunno if you notice, but there are some atheists, haters, anti-religious people who come in here with their emotional-offload agenda. They don?t enough venting time at home so they come here and have a good time at our expense. This makes us their verbal toilets. As far as I can see, Fawzia is a fake. She was never a Quranist. She looks down on Quranists for ?desperately trying to salvage our faith by junking hadith?. Well if a person thinks of Quranists this way, don?t be expecting some kind of hare krishna like song and dance from the Quranists. She thinks we?re idiots and she has no time to tell us why. Wow, you gotta love the benevolence there, doncha. Mother Theresa herself would be aspiring to such compassion.
Wanted to echo Sarah's thoughts. You are not responding peacefully abdalquran. Me saying that does not equate to me agreeing with Fawzia's beliefs, or even condoning Fawzia's approach/condescension. You do not have to meet her condescension with condescension of your own. You don't have to be sarcastic. Like Sarah said, the tone of your posts can be off-putting and tends to weaken your arguments.
The worshipers of the Most Gracious are those who tread the earth gently, and when the ignorant speak to them, they only utter peace. 2563
-
If you come across nice, you?ll get nice words back. I honestly don?t mind criticism. What I mind is when people want to get something off their chest by belittling the faith of others. That?s really wrong. You want to be critical, fine (great even) but be SUBSTANTIALLY critical. Fawzia-critical = rantings, at best.
As far as I can see, Fawzia is a fake. She was never a Quranist. She looks down on Quranists for ?desperately trying to salvage our faith by junking hadith?. Well if a person thinks of Quranists this way, don?t be expecting some kind of hare krishna like song and dance from the Quranists. She thinks we?re idiots and she has no time to tell us why. Wow, you gotta love the benevolence there, doncha. Mother Theresa herself would be aspiring to such compassion.
That's not true, let me remind you of this http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599050.msg224172#msg224172
You didn't come up with a good reason as to why this version should even be in print, and you even suggested that it's only printed in some small enclave of North Africa (not true, since the one I saw at home was bought in Saudi Arabia by my dad's friend.). You were being rude to me, even though I was never rude to you. I was nice to you, but I did not get nice words back.
You don't know if she is a fake, she may be, but maybe not. I would ignore her, since she doesn't have anything useful points to make, although she has brought up one good question about the 'milk siblings' verse. In my opinion, the best way to treat people who are like this, is to break their arguments down one by one, be polite while doing so, and if they don't change their attitude, ignore them, since by then they have proved themselves to be people who are unwilling to learn.