Here is my Ultimate Answer to the Top Question of Sunnis and Shiites
-
salam mazhar,
say you are right bravo, but what is your understanding of the verses? brickwall
peace
mohammed nohp.p. i have just discovered the availability of the ignore option button.
Personal comprehensions are not described in the manner you put in as translation of the verses. You are at liberty to perceive/comprehend from the verses or any verse whatever you like, but when you state as translation in sequence on a public forum one has to point out blatent omission in the translation.
I have pointed out that there is a verb and its subject, therefore, there has to be an object of the verb which is Abdan; and that an indefinite accusative noun never means "He is a servant". These are the most elementary information about the language being translated. And hence needs no debate.
-
Peace Edip
Like many of those who have rejected polytheism and decided to dedicate the system to God alone by following Quran alone as sole authority for our eternal salvation, I am tired of hearing ignorant enemies of islam (peacemaking), the question of sunni and shiite mushriks "If you follow the Quran alone, then tell me how can you observe the Sala prayer?
Curious, why do you call them enemies? I think it?s fair from their perspective to question other people?s approaches. Establishment of Salat is mentioned in many verses, to traditionalist the differentiation between a muslim and non is their salat so if someone claims they know the better path, let him explain it.
I have learned that it is futile to inform them that the Sala prayer did not start with Muhammad, or that his Hadith-Sunna sources did not have video clips of Muhammad, that it is impossible to observe Sala according to Hadith books since they contain many contradictory reports, or that the required details of Sala is already given by the Quran, or that the details they are looking for are trivial and their mentality is no different than those Jews who asked the color and age of the heifer? or any other answer that require acknowledgement of the Quran, critical thinking, and cognitive skills... They just do not get it. They are under hypnosis of devils who continuously tell them that "God is not enough" that "God's word is useless without the Hadith," stories fabricated and reported by the enemies of the messenger (6112-116, and many other verses where the word Hadith is used for other than the Quran) ...
It can be futile arguing with someone who has already made a decision.
Although hadith has contradictory reports, I think Abu Dawud?s hadiths on sala are quite clear in the methodology traditionalist uphold today.Now your rhetorical questions about if in order to pray etc.. if I was a traditionalists I?d tell you some are irrelevant. As each aspect of ibadah is different. Interesting, I have some questions and some thoughts to share.
Not all sunnis believe in taqlid, so you will not have to be a blind follower to pray
Disregarding saying muhammad?s name next to the shahada or as you say kalima-yi tawhid in salah, do you think it?s wrong to say you believe that mohammed is the messenger of god? mohammad rasool allah or even as in la ilaha illa lah mohammad rasool allah?
even traditionalists contest the age of aisha.
If in order to pray with all the trivial details I need to follow role-model who tortured and gouged people's eyes with hot nails, I would prefer not to pray at all.
If in order to pray with all the trivial details I need to prohibit God's blessings, I would prefer not to pray at all.
What are those about?
If in order to pray with all the trivial details I need to force my wife, sister or daughter to walk in a black sack, I would prefer not to pray at all.
Although it?s sad that some families force members to cover, forcing isn?t part of sunnism.
If in order to pray I have to believe that the Quran alone misguides people while at the same time I should respect hadith books reporting that all prominent companions of the Prophet Muhammad agreed with Omar's statement, "Hasbuna Kitabullah" (God's Book is Sufficient for us), yes, if I need to swim in the quagmire of contradictions, then I would prefer not to pray at all.
What do you mean by this?
If in order to pray with all the trivial details I need to express my devotion to God alone by telling him "iyyaka nabudu wa iyyaka nastain" but while sitting I need to betray those words by addressing his prophet in second person, "assalamu alayKA AYYUHA an-Nabiyyu", thereby considering a dead person another Omnipresent god, I would prefer not to pray at all.
That?s a big extreme, don?t you think? According to 3356 they?re required to do salam, if their methodology is wrong you think that automatically makes them consider a dead person another omnipresent god?
If in order to pray with all the trivial details I need to be an ignorant polytheist who follow a religion concocted by a corporation consisting of Allah + Muhammad + Sahaba + Tabiin + Emams + Clergymen, I would prefer not to pray at all.
so if they throw at you the verse 459, what would you respond
-
salaam sis,
the questions you've posed here can be easily answered by any quranist/ true submitter. in fact these are the very reasons many of us run away from sunni/shia belief systems. So let's see the points of discussion
Like many of those who have rejected polytheism and decided to dedicate the system to God alone by following Quran alone as sole authority for our eternal salvation, I am tired of hearing ignorant enemies of islam (peacemaking), the question of sunni and shiite mushriks "If you follow the Quran alone, then tell me how can you observe the Sala prayer?
Curious, why do you call them enemies? I think it?s fair from their perspective to question other people?s approaches. Establishment of Salat is mentioned in many verses, to traditionalist the differentiation between a muslim and non is their salat so if someone claims they know the better path, let him explain it.
They are certainly enemies of islam coz it is the disbelief of the sunni n shiite mushrisks in the Holy Quran (619, 38, 114, 115; 5045) tat has hijacked tis religion into one of violence, hatred and ignorance over the generations. Why does the world look at 'Islam' with fear today? it is only due to the practices tat've emanated from the hadiths. Can you give any other reason for the constant hatred n bombings, killings, unstable governments and poverty in resource-rich lands of the muslim nations?
I have learned that it is futile to inform them that the Sala prayer did not start with Muhammad, or that his Hadith-Sunna sources did not have video clips of Muhammad, that it is impossible to observe Sala according to Hadith books since they contain many contradictory reports, or that the required details of Sala is already given by the Quran, or that the details they are looking for are trivial and their mentality is no different than those Jews who asked the color and age of the heifer? or any other answer that require acknowledgement of the Quran, critical thinking, and cognitive skills... They just do not get it. They are under hypnosis of devils who continuously tell them that "God is not enough" that "God's word is useless without the Hadith," stories fabricated and reported by the enemies of the messenger (6112-116, and many other verses where the word Hadith is used for other than the Quran) ...
It can be futile arguing with someone who has already made a decision.
Although hadith has contradictory reports, I think Abu Dawud?s hadiths on sala are quite clear in the methodology traditionalist uphold today.Now your rhetorical questions about if in order to pray etc.. if I was a traditionalists I?d tell you some are irrelevant. As each aspect of ibadah is different. Interesting, I have some questions and some thoughts to share.
Not all sunnis believe in taqlid, so you will not have to be a blind follower to pray
Disregarding saying muhammad?s name next to the shahada or as you say kalima-yi tawhid in salah, do you think it?s wrong to say you believe that mohammed is the messenger of god? mohammad rasool allah or even as in la ilaha illa lah mohammad rasool allah?
even traditionalists contest the age of aisha.
ofcourse it is wrong to say the name of any person or being next to that of Allah almighty for it shows that you no longer believe that GOD alone is enough. It shows that you have created a division in mankind where you are special and you follow only Muhammed alone. On the other hand a true believer clearly recognizes the fact that Allah?s message for the whole of mankind is ONE and it is our duty to not distinguish between any of His messengers. Why would you mention ONLY Muhammed?s name when GOD has made it clear in verses 2136 & 2285 that you shall not make any distinction among his messengers?
How many times do muslims say la ilaha illalah, ibrahim rasool Allah or isa rasool Allah? none.. and tats the reason they create hatred and division towards other believers (christians n jews).
The traditionalists may continue ?contesting? the age of aisha bt even after 1400 years of Muhammed?s death if they have not arrived at any conclusion and we see cases like the court in Saudi Arabia upholding the marriage of an 8yr girl to a 40+ man as acceptable, something is wrong with the whole belief-system. Thank GOD for Western laws, logic and reasoning.
If in order to pray with all the trivial details I need to follow role-model who tortured and gouged people's eyes with hot nails, I would prefer not to pray at all.
If in order to pray with all the trivial details I need to prohibit God's blessings, I would prefer not to pray at all.
What are those about?
?Those? are about the ?holy? hadiths that sunnis practice today from Bukhari. The quoted one was -Volume 4 Number 261
'Eight men of the tribe of 'Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Provide us with some milk.' Allah's Apostle said, 'I recommend that you should join the herd of camels.' So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died.'The Holy Quran teaches us that the Prophet was gentle and kind. Does this sound so? Thus the hadiths are clear teachings from satan himself leading muslims into evil.
If in order to pray with all the trivial details I need to force my wife, sister or daughter to walk in a black sack, I would prefer not to pray at all.
Although it?s sad that some families force members to cover, forcing isn?t part of sunnism.
lol.. are you feigning ignorance? Say that forcing isnt part of sunnism to the Taliban who virtually blanketed their whole country under the veil. In Saudi Arabia no woman is ever allowed to walk outside without a veil (whether they're a believer or not) even today. If that?s not forcing in sunnism, then what is? Again, you may never have witnessed such societies thanks to the liberal lifestyle in the west.
If in order to pray I have to believe that the Quran alone misguides people while at the same time I should respect hadith books reporting that all prominent companions of the Prophet Muhammad agreed with Omar's statement, "Hasbuna Kitabullah" (God's Book is Sufficient for us), yes, if I need to swim in the quagmire of contradictions, then I would prefer not to pray at all.
What do you mean by this?
Its exactly wat it means? confusing ryt? There are numerous strong hadiths that contradict each other?s claims regarding the Prophet. One hadith says that the Prophet took some document and wrote something(when other hadiths say he was illiterate), another says the prophet told that nobody was ever to write anything he says except the Quran . But we still do have a zillion hadiths purportedly taught and following the prophet. So the question is wat would u believe?
If in order to pray with all the trivial details I need to express my devotion to God alone by telling him "iyyaka nabudu wa iyyaka nastain" but while sitting I need to betray those words by addressing his prophet in second person, "assalamu alayKA AYYUHA an-Nabiyyu", thereby considering a dead person another Omnipresent god, I would prefer not to pray at all.
That?s a big extreme, don?t you think? According to 3356 they?re required to do salam, if their methodology is wrong you think that automatically makes them consider a dead person another omnipresent god?
This again goes back to the first point of discussion. Enjoining any name with that of GOD is a sin for reasons that are very clear. And if you?re talking about 3356, well I certainly don?t know how we people living in the 21st century can ?help? the prophet who is long gone. The verse is clearly something told to people who were present at that time with the prophet as done by many other verses. A true believer is one who only submits to GOD almighty. And there are no two ways about it.
If in order to pray with all the trivial details I need to be an ignorant polytheist who follow a religion concocted by a corporation consisting of Allah + Muhammad + Sahaba + Tabiin + Emams + Clergymen, I would prefer not to pray at all.
so if they throw at you the verse 459, what would you respond
If they ?throw? verse 459 at us, we shall ?smash? verses 599+2110+18110 on their faces. These 3 verses clearly shows that the prophet's only mission was to deliver the message, which was the Quran and that he was a simple human being like any other.
If that?s not enough, then we?ll shoot every other verse they need to understand the truth (6112, 2531, 6938-48, 631, 1857). If they still don?t get it, well? atleast we tried.
"And when you preach your Lord, using the Quran ALONE, they run away in aversion."hope that was useful!
peace
harris O0 -
Personal comprehensions are not described in the manner you put in as translation of the verses. You are at liberty to perceive/comprehend from the verses or any verse whatever you like, but when you state as translation in sequence on a public forum one has to point out blatent omission in the translation.
I have pointed out that there is a verb and its subject, therefore, there has to be an object of the verb which is Abdan; and that an indefinite accusative noun never means "He is a servant". These are the most elementary information about the language being translated. And hence needs no debate.
salam mazhar,
simply because you refused to present your understanding of the verses while saying that i got them wrong is no way to discuss or exchange understandings or comprehensions, therefore i exercise the right to click the ignore button (read v19) as mentioned earlier.
btw, this is not a solitary case. here is another example of your similar habit;
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9600896.msg254151#msg254151may God guide us the correct way, insha-Allah.
peace
mohammed noh -
salam mazhar,
simply because you refused to present your understanding of the verses while saying that i got them wrong is no way to discuss or exchange understandings or comprehensions, therefore i exercise the right to click the ignore button (read v19) as mentioned earlier.
btw, this is not a solitary case. here is another example of your similar habit;
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9600896.msg254151#msg254151may God guide us the correct way, insha-Allah.
peace
mohammed nohPeace,
You wish to remain at a frequency many degrees away what I am trying to say. I am still in Wernicke's area of Temporal Lobe while you are in the Frontal Lobe of the brain. Here I simply talked about the translation giving simple and straight forward reason. And there too I said this,
I studt by placing all verses about a word and concept at one place, and then try to perceive it and translate. The context is what has been communicated, follow the tradition of Ibrahim alahissalam, and the verb is passive and indicated immediately the people for whom that was prescribed, Bani Israeel, differences are "ikhtalafoo feehi". It is not that they "argue about Allah". Violating a prohibitive command of Allah is not synonymous to "argue about Allah", that was the point I wanted to clarify.
Developing understanding about a text is the last stage. I am suggesting you to the first step, i.e to determine the relationship of the words of the text with each other which will give the meanings and connotations attached to them. I do not infer and draw conclusions from the text of Qur'aan. I simply transcribe the meanings of the words with reference to their inter relationship in the text. I don't act and behave like a scholar while not knowing the meanings and syntax and morphology of the text. My apologies.
-
Salam Harris,
They are certainly enemies of islam coz it is the disbelief of the sunni n shiite mushrisks in the Holy Quran (619, 38, 114, 115; 5045) tat has hijacked tis religion into one of violence, hatred and ignorance over the generations. Why does the world look at 'Islam' with fear today? it is only due to the practices tat've emanated from the hadiths. Can you give any other reason for the constant hatred n bombings, killings, unstable governments and poverty in resource-rich lands of the muslim nations?
They don?t see Mohammed as a deity. Fear has come about from many things, ignorance being one of those things. I have family members who are sunni and in no way do they represent killers, or governments. Why do you think many muslims turn away from their homelands?
If you look at someone as your enemy do you give them space to prove themselves?
(6159)
? 6159 (Asad) VERILY, as for those who have broken the unity of their faith and have become sects - thou hast nothing to do with them. Behold, their case rests with God and in time He will make them understand what they were doing.
I don?t need to call them enemies, I can disagree with their deeds/thoughts/beliefs and to God they will return. Because you know what, even I am not perfect.
ofcourse it is wrong to say the name of any person or being next to that of Allah almighty for it shows that you no longer believe that GOD alone is enough. It shows that you have created a division in mankind where you are special and you follow only Muhammed alone. On the other hand a true believer clearly recognizes the fact that Allah?s message for the whole of mankind is ONE and it is our duty to not distinguish between any of His messengers. Why would you mention ONLY Muhammed?s name when GOD has made it clear in verses 2136 & 2285 that you shall not make any distinction among his messengers?
How many times do muslims say la ilaha illalah, ibrahim rasool Allah or isa rasool Allah? none.. and tats the reason they create hatred and division towards other believers (christians n jews).
But its not exactly ?next to? its two different statements. And there is muslims who mention other prophets there is a shia ziyara/dua it mentions the blessings of other prophets and messengers.
The issue isn?t about saying Mohammed and no other prophet, it?s the actual statement Mohammed is the messenger of God why is it a big deal to mention this? Especially considering other scriptures reject this. I don?t have a problem with saying it.
The traditionalists may continue ?contesting? the age of aisha bt even after 1400 years of Muhammed?s death if they have not arrived at any conclusion and we see cases like the court in Saudi Arabia upholding the marriage of an 8yr girl to a 40+ man as acceptable, something is wrong with the whole belief-system. Thank GOD for Western laws, logic and reasoning.
Saudi is pathetic. and many muslims make mockery of them... look up the history of ?saudi? even the name is dodgy.
is Saudi and Taliban a true representative of islam? I don?t think so. if they are unjust doesn?t mean sunni doctrine supports it. that?s my point.
Its exactly wat it means? confusing ryt? There are numerous strong hadiths that contradict each other?s claims regarding the Prophet. One hadith says that the Prophet took some document and wrote something(when other hadiths say he was illiterate), another says the prophet told that nobody was ever to write anything he says except the Quran . But we still do have a zillion hadiths purportedly taught and following the prophet. So the question is wat would u believe?
Well, Omar?s statement was ?God?s book is sufficient for us?, what?s so bad about that? I don?t recall reading about other prominent companions agreeing with him. There is hadith literature that is contradictory yeh I know. But using that hadith to support the notion of quran only is a weak point especially if you don?t believe in it.
They don?t even enjoin any name with God. it?s separate ?allahuma Sali 3ala mohammed? Oh god bless mohammed. ?Sallallah 3alihi wa salem? God did sala on him and salam.
The verse 3356 says Allah and the Malaika
(3356)? 3356 (Asad) Verily, God and His angels bless (Saloona) the Prophet O you who have attained to faith, bless (salou) him and give yourselves up in utter self-surrender (salmou tasliman)!
I think there is no point in them saying ?allahuma Sali 3ala mohammed? because the verse indicates that God and the angels do this already.
saying sallah 3alhi wa salam is just saying a statement, God sallah on him and salem.Is it the proper way of implementing salah and tasleem to the prophet? No but theyre just saying words restating what to do, not literally blessing.
I don?t see it as takfir, otherwise if it is, or you see otherwise please explain.
There is many verses saying peace onto the prophets, is it wrong to give them peace? I don?t think so.
Peace on the prophets
3779 (Asad) ?Peace be upon Noah throughout all the worlds!?
37109 (Asad) ?Peace be upon Abraham!?
37120 (Asad) ?Peace be upon Moses and Aaron!?
37130 (Asad) ?Peace be upon Elijah and his followers!?
37181 (Asad) And peace be upon all His message-bearers!
2759 (Asad) SAY ?All praise is due to God, and peace be upon those servants of His whom He chose !? Is not God far better than anything to which men ascribe a share in His divinity.If they ?throw? verse 459 at us, we shall ?smash? verses 599+2110+18110 on their faces. These 3 verses clearly shows that the prophet's only mission was to deliver the message, which was the Quran and that he was a simple human being like any other.
My point of that verse 459 was not about the messenger explaining but rather the view of following
Those from amongst youhow do you explain that in today's life?
Thanks for your reply and thoughts )
Peace
-
Peace on the prophets
3779 (Asad) ?Peace be upon Noah throughout all the worlds!?
37109 (Asad) ?Peace be upon Abraham!?
37120 (Asad) ?Peace be upon Moses and Aaron!?
37130 (Asad) ?Peace be upon Elijah and his followers!?
37181 (Asad) And peace be upon all His message-bearers!Just a little clarification, I think the "be" is not there in the Arabic text, and its insertion in translation perhaps converts a declarative statement to sort of prayer or future occurrennce.
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/037.%20As%20Safaat/37.181.gif
And Salutation is upon the Messengers ;It is a sentence comprising of a subject and predicate . And when we mention the Name of a Messenger of Allah we add "alahissalam" which is reiterating the news given in this and other verses.
-
Disregarding saying muhammad?s name next to the shahada or as you say kalima-yi tawhid in salah, do you think it?s wrong to say you believe that mohammed is the messenger of god? mohammad rasool allah or even as in la ilaha illa lah mohammad rasool allah?
peace
I don't think its wrong to say it, but to add it as a declaration of faith it is not something I personally feel I should do. I mean we are supposed to believe in all messengers and prophets right, and not to elevate mohammed above any of them, why do we need to add him exclusively in the shahada?
There is many verses saying peace onto the prophets, is it wrong to give them peace? I don?t think so.
Peace on the prophets
3779 (Asad) ?Peace be upon Noah throughout all the worlds!?
37109 (Asad) ?Peace be upon Abraham!?
37120 (Asad) ?Peace be upon Moses and Aaron!?
37130 (Asad) ?Peace be upon Elijah and his followers!?
37181 (Asad) And peace be upon all His message-bearers!
2759 (Asad) SAY ?All praise is due to God, and peace be upon those servants of His whom He chose !? Is not God far better than anything to which men ascribe a share in His divinity.I don't think there is anything wrong with saying it either. What is your opinion though on those who may take issue with those who do not say peace be upon him when they mention these prophet's names? Are we required to say verbally peace be upon them, we already agree that we believe this as we are muslims who do not dispute the Qu'ran.
When it says "say" isn't that The God telling Muhammad "say this" to his audience? So Muhammad is telling his audience, "All praise is due to The God, and peace be upon those servants of His whom He chose !? Is not God far better than anything to which men ascribe a share in His divinity." We are required to believe this, but are we required to say peace be upon them? Once again I don't believe there is anything wrong with saying it, I'm just not sure if it is obligatory to say it.
-
salam sarah,
good to see ur comments on my reply. I dont have anything more resourceful to add to wat i've already mentioned earlier... In the end, only GOD almighty knows the truth and we can only try our best to move towards the straight path. As long as we live righteously and don't worship any other idols, everything is fine right?.. angel
jst one clarification tho-- regarding the "enemies" part.. i certainly didnt mean that sunnis/ shias are our enemies... no way! wat u mst understand is this- a person who has an incorrect idea about GOD is essentially misguided. Any action he does or message he spreads- there's more probability of him going the wrong way and leading other people astray. wat happens then? the end result is more disbelievers and hypocrites convinced abt their choice coz of his influence. Thus u may know many sunnis who are good or even better than u or me, bt tat doesn't change the fact that they can be a negative influence on someone else who has the potential to cause immense damage to Islam.
Take a simple example- A good sunni might try to guide his son by teaching him tat to reach jannah, he must always add the name of the Prophet in every prayer. The son grows up to believe that anybody who does not pray the same way is a sinner destined for hell. He starts hating shias n other sects and treats them with contempt or even worse.. see wat happens?
Thus the rightful use of the term 'enemies of ISLAM' by Edip. They're not OUR enemies... similar to jews, christians n pagans- they're jst enemies of the TRUE message.
ak85, seems to have some good answers 2 ur other queries. i agree with his views.
peace sista
harris O0
-
Peace AK85
If someone asked you, in your beliefs do you believe the prophet Mohammed is a messenger? You think it?s wrong to declare it just because you?re not mentioning others? I don?t think so. I don?t think you ?need? to add him exclusively. But saying it will differentiate you i.e. identify you as a muslim.
I don't think there is anything wrong with saying it either. What is your opinion though on those who may take issue with those who do not say peace be upon him when they mention these prophet's names? Are we required to say verbally peace be upon them, we already agree that we believe this as we are muslims who do not dispute the Qu'ran.
I think if you can explain your views that might help others understand. People?s ignorance isn?t your problem. I don?t see it as a ?must do? no biggie either way afaik.
In regards to 2759 I?m not sure.
Salam harris
Sure all we can do is the best we can
jst one clarification tho-- regarding the "enemies" part.. i certainly didnt mean that sunnis/ shias are our enemies... no way! wat u mst understand is this- a person who has an incorrect idea about GOD is essentially misguided. Any action he does or message he spreads- there's more probability of him going the wrong way and leading other people astray. wat happens then? the end result is more disbelievers and hypocrites convinced abt their choice coz of his influence. Thus u may know many sunnis who are good or even better than u or me, bt tat doesn't change the fact that they can be a negative influence on someone else who has the potential to cause immense damage to Islam.
Brother that influence can be implemented by anyone. a person claiming to follow Quran alone can do a change; a negative influence and pass it on to someone else who could cause immense damage to islam. And all over an innocent intention/interpretation? do they then become the enemy of islam? What happens then/
It works both ways brother, people seem to forget that.
Thanks for the thoughts )
peace brother
-
Peace AK85
If someone asked you, in your beliefs do you believe the prophet Mohammed is a messenger? You think it?s wrong to declare it just because you?re not mentioning others? I don?t think so. I don?t think you ?need? to add him exclusively. But saying it will differentiate you i.e. identify you as a muslim.
it would identify him as a sunni muslim... thanks
-
Peace AK85
If someone asked you, in your beliefs do you believe the prophet Mohammed is a messenger? You think it?s wrong to declare it just because you?re not mentioning others? I don?t think so. I don?t think you ?need? to add him exclusively. But saying it will differentiate you i.e. identify you as a muslim.
I think if you can explain your views that might help others understand. People?s ignorance isn?t your problem. I don?t see it as a ?must do? no biggie either way afaik.
In regards to 2759 I?m not sure.
Salam harris
Sure all we can do is the best we can
Brother that influence can be implemented by anyone. a person claiming to follow Quran alone can do a change; a negative influence and pass it on to someone else who could cause immense damage to islam. And all over an innocent intention/interpretation? do they then become the enemy of islam? What happens then/
It works both ways brother, people seem to forget that.
Thanks for the thoughts
peace brother
No, I would not stay silent I would say yes I believe Mohammad is the/one of the messengers of The God. I didn't intend to imply it is wrong to declare it when someone is asking me/you/someone that is different. That is why I said in my last sentence exclusively in the shahada, not when someone asking me.
I realize people's ignorance isn't my problem. Which is why I would explain to them using similar questions that I posed just now as to why would it be obligatory to add it.
-
If someone asked you, in your beliefs do you believe the prophet Mohammed is a messenger? You think it?s wrong to declare it just because you?re not mentioning others? I don?t think so. I don?t think you ?need? to add him exclusively. But saying it will differentiate you i.e. identify you as a muslim.
Salaam Dear Sarah,
Muslims are not supposed to mention anyone in their SHAHAADAH, daily prayers, call to prayers / ADZAN, and all other worshipping rituals, but GOD / ALLAAH (SWT), period. See 919, 2014, and 7218 among so many other Qur?aanic directives for clarifications.
Now if someone wants to single out the Prophets Moses, Jesus, Mohammad or any other out of multitudes of messengers of GOD and consider them to be special or more worthy than others, then this act is completely against the Qur?aanic directives. See verse 2285 among many other verses.
Another important point is that mentioning Muhammad is not the MUSLIM ID, as you said.
1st All messengers of god were MUSLIMS.
2nd The fundamental MUSLIM ID is the SHAHAADAH, the one that only the name of GOD / ALLAAH (SWT) is mentioned in it, 919.Peace,
Khalil -
Salam all,
Khalil
Where did I say include Mohammed's name in the Shahada? in the call of prayer, in prayer, in ritual acts etc etc. We all know Worship is to GOD Alone.
your reference to 919 has no linkage at all.
your other references are in regards to places of worship, and remembering God in prayer.
I am simply saying I have no problem saying "Mohammed is the messenger of God" that statement where is the wrong in it? Mohammed brought a message and I agree with it. I'm not saying go praise Mohammed, go and bow to him go and include him in your prayers, NO.
And yes other prophets/messengers were muslims, the fundamental muslim ID is their deeds.
Saying you believe Mohammed is a messenger in additional to the others recognises you as one who believes in the Quran. others may not say it yet believe in Quran, saying the statement will simplify it. that's my point though maybe it might confuse you with sunni's possibly.
The statement "Mohammed is the messenger of God" there's no wrong in it. if you never wanna say it, don't. no one is saying you need to. all i am saying is where is the wrong?
you all say shahada, in prayer, in acts dedicated to God. Agreed. but i'm not talking about acts of worship. I'm talking about the statement itself
Salam.
-
Salam Sarah,
Thank you for your thoughts.
I don?t think you ?need? to add him exclusively. But saying it will differentiate you i.e. identify you as a muslim.
How will it identify me as a muslim? To what end? Another words, what's the point?
Saying you believe Mohammed is a messenger in additional to the others recognises you as one who believes in the Quran. others may not say it yet believe in Quran, saying the statement will simplify it. that's my point though maybe it might confuse you with sunni's possibly.
How will it simplify it? Can you explain what you mean by this?
The statement "Mohammed is the messenger of God" there's no wrong in it. if you never wanna say it, don't. no one is saying you need to. all i am saying is where is the wrong?
There's nothing wrong in the statement in itself, no. But that statement has specific connotations in the Muslim world. MUST be stated in the shahada etc. It identifies you as a Sunni, not as a muslim. I don't see the point in being 'identified' as a Muslim, as long as God identifies you as a muslim. Perhaps you can show me why It's important/relevant.
Fallacious;You can't disprove a negative. How is it RIGHT to single him out? You might not say it in your 'worship', but it is still treating him as someone special. Why not mention all the messengers, why him? Doesn't iman reside in the heart? What does saying this prove?
The wrong is that you must exclusively mention his name in your shahada to be 'Muslim' and things of that nature.
Peace
-
I am simply saying I have no problem saying "Mohammed is the messenger of God" that statement where is the wrong in it? Mohammed brought a message and I agree with it. I'm not saying go praise Mohammed, go and bow to him go and include him in your prayers, NO.
And yes other prophets/messengers were muslims, the fundamental muslim ID is their deeds.
Saying you believe Mohammed is a messenger in additional to the others recognises you as one who believes in the Quran. others may not say it yet believe in Quran, saying the statement will simplify it. that's my point though maybe it might confuse you with sunni's possibly.
The statement "Mohammed is the messenger of God" there's no wrong in it. if you never wanna say it, don't. no one is saying you need to. all i am saying is where is the wrong?
you all say shahada, in prayer, in acts dedicated to God. Agreed. but i'm not talking about acts of worship. I'm talking about the statement itself
Salam.
Peace
And that is why I emphasized shahada, and not the statement itself.
Peace
-
Salam Jack,
You?re welcome
It will identify you by words or by belief, not action. The point is it helps one understand your perspective. Some people are ?muslim? yet do not believe in (certain) prophets/messengers. That?s what I mean by simplifying it.
Just because it has a specific connotation in the Muslim world doesn?t mean I need to prescribe to that connotation. What is the connotation; that it must be said in shahada? That?s their perspective. I don?t need to agree and just because I don?t agree doesn?t mean I need to out rightly reject saying the ?statement? and call it a form of worship because others say it in their shahada.
The point is of social context, to you it has no point, to God all our actions are individual and judged accordingly. To me it helps me recognises muslims who accept Mohammed as a messenger from those who don?t. I?m not talking about importance I?m talking about the statement. The statement isn?t an issue but everyone seems to want to make a fuss about it. let me guess you?re thinking because people say it in their shahada..
Of course iman resides in the heart, and the utterance of the tongue means nothing compared to your deeds and actions and heart and intent. It?s not a fallacious argument. You can mention all the messengers not saying you can?t. if we go by your theory I might say to someone I believe `Issa is a prophet of God, does that mean I?ve singled out all the other prophets and I will need to name them all just so I don?t single out Issa from the rest?
Mentioning Mohammed doesn?t make him more or less than anyone. It?s one statement of belief not my whole belief.
I know the exclusiveness to include in shahada is wrong. But then the question of ?what is shahada?? can come about. A testification? In my beliefs I can testify numerous things the core being la ilaha illa lah.
Peace.
AK85,
great ) we shouldn't be arguing then
peace.
-
peace Sarah, all,
There is hadith literature that is contradictory yeh I know. But using that hadith to support the notion of quran only is a weak point especially if you don?t believe in it.
Depends on how you use it.
For example, AQ itself challenges those who do not believe in it, to examine it, reflect upon it, find contradiction, compose a sura/chapter like it etc.
Thus, if a person did not believe in AQ, they could use it to find error or support their view etc and thus prove their own view.
Similarly, if a person did not believe in Traditional Ahadith (as obligatory), they could use it to find error or support their view etc and thus prove their own view. -
Peace.
AK85,
great we shouldn't be arguing then
peace.
Peace
"I don't think its wrong to say it, but to add it as a declaration of faith it is not something I personally feel I should do...why do we need to add him exclusively in the shahada? "
"Once again I don't believe there is anything wrong with saying it, I'm just not sure if it is obligatory to say it."
peace
