throat slitting and halal slaughtering methods

[progod]

Ragingaijin,

You totally miss the point. The Quran clearly states that saying that animals are exempt from God's name being mentioned over them upon slaughter, no matter what the reason is erroneous, which shows that mentioning God's name at slaughter is apart of mentioning God's name over what we consume. The fact that you focused on one word 'implied' instead of understanding the meat of the matter (no pun intended) is disheartening, and shows stubbornness on your part. And then there is the defintion of slaughter dhakkaa or dhabh. 53 states a number of injuries that animals can sustain that would make them forbidden to eat (if they died this way) unless there is tadhkiyah, which is to under take dhakaah. From Lisanul-Arab under the root dhakaa
Al-dhakaa'u and al-dhakaatu Dhabh (slaughter by way of the naseel, a point between the neck and under the jawbone). This is from Tha'lab. And the Arabs say "Dhakaah of the fetus is dhakaah of the mother", meaning if you perform dhabh on the mother this is perfroming dhabh on the fetus as well. Concerning this saying about the dhakaah of the fetus being dhakaah of the mother, Ibn Al-Atheer says Takdhiyah is both Dhabh and Nahr (Nahr is stabbing the neck (what is above the chest). It is said dhakayta al-shaata tadhkiyyatan (You performed tadhkiyyah on the sheep excellently/in a complete or superb manner). And the name of this is Al-dhakaah. the one who is slaughtered (madhbooh having dhabh performed) (using the term dhakaah) is dhakeey.

.
.
.

So, either by way of cutting the animal at the point below the jaw that meets the necko r by stabbing him at some point above its chest is how we are to slaughter animals according to the Quran, as it forbids us from eating an animal killed in other ways, that would consist of strangulation, a blow, falling or mangling by predatory animals. The verse can also imply that only what we perform tadhkiyah on is lawful. I will go into that in a following commentary.

Btw, a Quranist is a Muslim, but then again so are Sunnis, Shiites and Sufis. Or would you dare to claim that they are not even Muslims? I would not go so far and prefer to say that they are misguided Muslims. Would you say that Trinitarians are not Christians, or rather misguided ones? All in all, the word Islam does not mean 'submission to God,' and has to be used in context with God for it to even imply (there goes that word again) that. For example, "God created the heavens and the earth, and the only religion he accepts is submission." Here through the use of CONTEXT the submission can be understood as to God. Otherwise the word submission, i.e. Islam has not connection to God. Otherwise it just means 'being at peace/safe, making peace, sumbitting, paying early, handing over to.' That's about it. So Islam has no special definition in Arabic that associates it with God innately. Not like Christian, a name which automatically creates an association to Christ. However, there is a modern, POST-QURANIC, NON-QURANIC meaning of the word, and it encompasses all those who claim to follow Muhammad (sas) and the revelation give to him. Whether they do that mistakenly or not will always be a mattter of debate unfortunately. But what you are doing is similar to what Evangelicals do when they say that Catholics aren't really Christians.

Godbless,
Anwar

[raginggaijin]

Ragingaijin,

You totally miss the point. The Quran clearly states that saying that animals are exempt from God's name being mentioned over them upon slaughter, no matter what the reason is erroneous, which shows that mentioning God's name at slaughter is apart of mentioning God's name over what we consume.

And if I slaughter an animal, I will mention Allah's name over it - as the command to do so comes during Hajj. Read Surah 22 and see the description belongs to the rites of Allah performed during Hajj.

"that they may witness things profitable to them and mention God's Name on days well-known over such beasts of the flocks as He has provided them "So eat thereof, and feed the wretched poor."" Surah 2228

"We have appointed for every nation a holy rite, that they may mention God's Name over such beasts of the flocks as He has provided them. Your God is One God, so to Him surrender. And give thou good tidings unto the humble" Surah 2234

"And the beasts of sacrifice -- We have appointed them for you as among God's waymarks; therein is good for you. So mention God's Name over them, standing in ranks then, when their flanks collapse, eat of them and feed the beggar and the suppliant. So We have subjected them to you; haply you will be thankful." Surah 2236

No where does it state I am to not eat meat that Allah's name was not mentioned over it when it was slaughtered. Bring proof if you believe otherwise. No implication or assumption, a clear description as the Quran contains a description and explanation of all things.

I am to mention Allah's name over the food I eat. I do so, as all praise belongs to Allah, and I am grateful for the provision He provides me and my family.
No where in the Quran does it forbid me eating meat that Allah's name was not mentioned at the time of slaughter. Bring proof from the Quran where it is forbidden to eat meat that Allah's name was not mentioned over it at the time of slaughter, if you speak truthfully.

The fact that you focused on one word 'implied' instead of understanding the meat of the matter (no pun intended) is disheartening, and shows stubbornness on your part.

Don't kill yourself out of grief. Surah 186

Stubbornness to uphold only what Allah revealed, and not following the teachings of man, absolutely. I will not follow the teachings of man you call me to.
I follow the clear guidance that is the Quran, not the implied meanings or assumptions taught by man.
If proof is brought from the Quran of a command from Allah - for the Quran is clear - then I will uphold it. But when another man's teachings are mentioned beside Allah, I turn my back on it. I will not associate partners with Allah by following teachings He did not reveal.
If you believe I am in error, then to you are your deeds and to me are mine. You won't be asked what I did, and I won't be asked what you did. )

And then there is the defintion of slaughter dhakkaa or dhabh. 53 states a number of injuries that animals can sustain that would make them forbidden to eat (if they died this way) unless there is tadhkiyah, which is to under take dhakaah. From Lisanul-Arab under the root dhakaa
Al-dhakaa'u and al-dhakaatu Dhabh (slaughter by way of the naseel, a point between the neck and under the jawbone).

Where does it say in the Quran 'a point between the neck and under the jawbone'? Show me where the Quran says this and I will uphold it. Until then, I will uphold only what the Quran revealed.
When you cannot, I will thank you for your time and bid you 'Peace'. I will not be called to follow teachings beside the Quran.
Allah is Guide, Allah explains the Quran.

a point between the neck and under the jawbone This is from Tha'lab. And the Arabs say "Dhakaah of the fetus is dhakaah of the mother", meaning if you perform dhabh on the mother this is perfroming dhabh on the fetus as well. Concerning this saying about the dhakaah of the fetus being dhakaah of the mother, Ibn Al-Atheer says Takdhiyah is both Dhabh and Nahr (Nahr is stabbing the neck (what is above the chest). It is said dhakayta al-shaata tadhkiyyatan (You performed tadhkiyyah on the sheep excellently/in a complete or superb manner). And the name of this is Al-dhakaah. the one who is slaughtered (madhbooh having dhabh performed) (using the term dhakaah) is dhakeey.

Where in the Quran does it say any of what you wrote?
Oh wait, it doesn't. It is Ibn Al-Atheer who says this. So I am to uphold what man says now? I seek refuge in Allah from the whispers of accursed satans.
No. I follow only what Allah revealed and I do not follow guardians beside Him.

"Follow what has been sent down to you from your Lord, and follow no friends other than He; little do you remember." Surah 73

So, either by way of cutting the animal at the point below the jaw that meets the necko r by stabbing him at some point above its chest is how we are to slaughter animals according to the Quran, as it forbids us from eating an animal killed in other ways, that would consist of strangulation, a blow, falling or mangling by predatory animals. The verse can also imply that only what we perform tadhkiyah on is lawful. I will go into that in a following commentary.

You just added a series of explanations based on sayings and teachings of man, then turn around and say the Quran commands it.
I am clear of what you do.
You are welcome to post your commentary, but I will ignore it as it does not come from the Quran but from the teachings of man. I will not uphold the teachings of man you follow.

Btw, a Quranist is a Muslim, but then again so are Sunnis, Shiites and Sufis. Or would you dare to claim that they are not even Muslims?

Absolutely, I make that claim.
Muslims submit their will to Allah. If they follow teachings beside what Allah revealed, then they are not submitting their will to Allah.
I am not speaking out of my own desires. These are teachings from the Quran.

"Those who disbelieve and bar from God's way, God will send their works astray.
But those who believe and do righteous deeds and believe in what is sent down to Muhammad -- and it is the truth from their Lord -- He will acquit them of their evil deeds, and dispose their minds aright.
That is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood, and those who believe follow the truth from their Lord. Even so God strikes their similitudes for men." Surah 471-3

If you associate partners with Allah by following teachings He did not reveal, you are not submitting your will to Him. The Quran is clear in description. You even beckon me to follow the teachings of man, barring me from upholding the pure, protected deen of Al-Islam found in the Quran. You call me to the Fire by following associates, when Allah guides me on the righteous path in service only to Him.
Why would I follow you or the teachings you uphold when they do not come from Allah? I seek refuge in Allah!

"The hypocrites, men and women, are all alike. They enjoin evil and forbid good and withhold their hands. They have forsaken Allah, so He has forsaken them. Surely the hypocrites are the transgressors." Surah 967

"And some men there are who say, 'We believe in God and the Last Day'; but they are not believers." Surah 28

"And when it is said to them, 'Come now to what God has sent down, and the Messenger,' then thou seest the hypocrites barring the way to thee." Surah 461

I would not go so far and prefer to say that they are misguided Muslims. Would you say that Trinitarians are not Christians, or rather misguided ones? All in all, the word Islam does not mean 'submission to God,' and has to be used in context with God for it to even imply (there goes that word again) that. For example, "God created the heavens and the earth, and the only religion he accepts is submission." Here through the use of CONTEXT the submission can be understood as to God. Otherwise the word submission, i.e. Islam has not connection to God. Otherwise it just means 'being at peace/safe, making peace, sumbitting, paying early, handing over to.' That's about it. So Islam has no special definition in Arabic that associates it with God innately. Not like Christian, a name which automatically creates an association to Christ. However, there is a modern, POST-QURANIC, NON-QURANIC meaning of the word, and it encompasses all those who claim to follow Muhammad (sas) and the revelation give to him. Whether they do that mistakenly or not will always be a mattter of debate unfortunately. But what you are doing is similar to what Evangelicals do when they say that Catholics aren't really Christians.

Idolators are idolators, no matter what the name they take. Be they Quranist, Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Christian, Jew, Zoroastrian, etc.

Disbelievers divide into sects Surah 665, 6159, 284, 3032

"Say He has the power to send on you a chastisement from above you or from beneath your feet, or to confuse you in sects and to make you taste the violence of one another. See how we repeat the messages that they may understand!" Surah 665

Allah will deal with those who divided into sects. Surah 6159, 3105, 2193, 7211

You call yourself a Quranist? Yet you uphold teachings, sayings, explanation Allah did not reveal. A sign of disbelief is the name man gives their sect, when Allah makes clear what the name believers are called.

"Those who have made divisions in their religion and become sects, thou art not of them in anything; their affair is unto God, then He will tell them what they have been doing." Surah 6159

"even of those who have divided up their religion, and become sects, each several party rejoicing in what is theirs." Surah 3032

I am a Muslim. Surah 2278

There are Christians who do not associate partners to Allah, just as there are Yahudians who do not associate partners with Allah. But they are few. The Quran tells us this, and I believe it.
The majority of people on this earth are disbelievers - no matter what religion they ascribe to (or do not). Allah tells us there are few believers, and it is proven on a daily basis.

There are few believers. Surah 1140, 5136, 3824, 3420, 73, 612-3, 6116, 331-2

I'm not here to judge others as Allah knows where they will end up. But Allah makes clear the description of the disbelievers in the Quran, and we are warned about taking them as intimates/guardians/friends. So I make investigation and discriminate between who I call friend, and who is an associate I treat with kindness and equity. Surah 608-9

Do not become friends/intimates with disbelievers Surah 4139, 4144, 551, 557, 671, 6129, 73, 727, 730, 923, 1850, 5814, 601, 6013
?Those who take unbelievers for their friends instead of believers -- do they seek glory in them? But glory altogether belongs to God.? 4139
?O believers, take not the unbelievers as friends instead of the believers; or do you desire to give God over you a clear authority?? Surah 4144
?O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them. God guides not the people of the evildoers.? Surah 551
?O believers, take not as your friends those of them, who were given the Book before you, and the unbelievers, who take your religion in mockery and as a sport -- and fear God, if you are believers ?? Surah 557
?Thou seest many of them making unbelievers their friends. Evil is that they have forwarded to their account, that God is angered against them, and in the chastisement they shall dwell forever.
Yet had they believed in God and the Prophet and what has been sent down to him, they would not have taken them as friends; but many of them are ungodly.? Surah 580-81
?Say 'Shall we call, apart from God, on that which neither profits nor hurts us, and shall we be turned back on our heels after that God has guided us? -- Like one lured to bewilderment in the earth by Satans, though he has friends who call him to guidance, "Come to us!" Say 'God's guidance is the true guidance, and we are commanded to surrender to the Lord of all Being,? Surah 671
?So We make the evildoers friends of each other for what they have earned.? Surah 6129
?Children of Adam! Let not Satan tempt you as he brought your parents out of the Garden, stripping them of their garments to show them their shameful parts. Surely he sees you, he and his tribe, from where you see them not. We have made the Satans the friends of those who do not believe.? Surah 727
?a part He guided, and a part justly disposed to error -- they have taken Satans for friends instead of God, and think them guided.'? Surah 730
?O believers, take not your fathers and brothers to be your friends, if they prefer unbelief to belief; whosoever of you takes them for friends, those -- they are the evildoers.? Surah 923

By asking what a person believes and seeing whose teachings they uphold, I make investigation. I am commanded to do this before I call any person a friend and bring them into my trust.

"O believers, when you are journeying in the path of God, be discriminating, and do not say to him who offers you a greeting, 'Thou art not a believer,'seeking the chance goods of the present life. With God are spoils abundant. So you were aforetime; but God has been gracious to you. So be discriminating; surely God is aware of the things you do." Surah 494

This isn't a dig on you. I am making clear what I believe using proof from the Quran.
Again, if you believe I am misguided, then leave me to Allah to be dealt with. He is the One all will be called to account to on that great and terrible Day.
But understand, if it isn't taught in the Quran, I will not uphold it. I do not need a man to explain the Quran to me. Allah is All Mighty, All Knowing, and He states He will explain the Quran. I believe it and see it in my life daily.

?Allah desires to explain to you, and to guide you into the ways of those before you, and to turn to you, and Allah is Knowing, Wise.? Surah 426
"Move not thy tongue therewith to make haste with it. Surely on Us rests the collecting of it and the reciting of it. So when We recite it, follow its recitation. Again on Us rests the explaining of it." Surah 7516-19

Allah is sufficient for the believers Surah 3173, 445, 470, 479, 481, 4132, 4166, 4171, 862, 864, 959, 9129, 1029, 1343, 1796, 2952, 333, 3339, 3936, 3938, 4828, 653

?O Prophet! Allah is sufficient for you and such of the believers as follow you." Surah 864

I am a believer, a Muslim with faith in his heart.

I leave you to live your life, and bid you 'Peace.

Peace. )

[progod]

okay here is the following commentary and how the verse can be understood as saying that we are only allowed to eat 'Maa dhakaytum' what you slaughter by dhabh or nahr.

I want to correct something in my previous post. Nahr is either injuring the area right above the chest, lower neck area called the minhar. Or it is stabbing a camel where the throat comes out from the upper extreme of the chest. Al-nahr bil-labbah or Nahr in the upper part of the chest is also equal to dhabh in the neck. Dhabh as explained earlier is the cut at the point known as the naseel. The word also means 'shaqq' or ripping, cutting or tearing apart. So here nahr is applied to cutting at any point of the front of the neck i.e., throat. So slaughter can be done at the upper portion under the jawbone all the way down to the lower portion right above to the chest. Now to the meat (pun intended here) of the mattter. Here is 53 below.

Hurrimat AAalaykumu almaytatu waalddamu walahmu alkhinzeeri wama ohilla lighayri Allahi bihi waalmunkhaniqatu waalmawqoothatu waalmutaraddiyatu waalnnateehatu wama akala alssabuAAu illa ma thakkaytum wama thubiha AAala alnnusubi waan tastaqsimoo bialazlami thalikum fisqun alyawma yaisa allatheena kafaroo min deenikum fala takhshawhum waikhshawni alyawma akmaltu lakum deenakum waatmamtu AAalaykum niAAmatee waradeetu lakumu alislama deenan famani idturra fee makhmasatin ghayra mutajanifin liithmin fainna Allaha ghafoorun raheemun

Try reading it as this

Sahih International
Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah , and killed by strangling or by a violent blow or by a head-long fall or by the goring of horns, and those from which a wild animal has eaten. Just what you slaughter (tadhkiyah)! And those which are sacrificed on stone altars, and what you seek decision through divining arrows, that is grave disobedience. This day those who disbelieve have despaired of your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion. But whoever is forced by severe hunger with no inclination to sin - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Illa can take a reading of 'just', as in 'huwa illa rajlun' He is but a man, or he is just a man, or he is only a man. The above statement in the verse can be read in a more archaic way and more true the Arabic by saying 'But what you are able to slaughter!' Although 'illa' can mean 'just' it has a meaning of exception which gives way to a use of exclusivity. As in 'He is only/just/but a man.'

Godbless,
Anwar

[raginggaijin]

okay here is the following commentary and how the verse can be understood as saying that we are only allowed to eat 'Maa dhakaytum' what you slaughter by dhabh or nahr.

I want to correct something in my previous post. Nahr is either injuring the area right above the chest, lower neck area called the minhar. Or it is stabbing a camel where the throat comes out from the upper extreme of the chest. Al-nahr bil-labbah or Nahr in the upper part of the chest is also equal to dhabh in the neck. Dhabh as explained earlier is the cut at the point known as the naseel. The word also means 'shaqq' or ripping, cutting or tearing apart. So here nahr is applied to cutting at any point of the front of the neck i.e., throat. So slaughter can be done at the upper portion under the jawbone all the way down to the lower portion right above to the chest. Now to the meat (pun intended here) of the mattter. Here is 53 below.

Hurrimat AAalaykumu almaytatu waalddamu walahmu alkhinzeeri wama ohilla lighayri Allahi bihi waalmunkhaniqatu waalmawqoothatu waalmutaraddiyatu waalnnateehatu wama akala alssabuAAu illa ma thakkaytum wama thubiha AAala alnnusubi waan tastaqsimoo bialazlami thalikum fisqun alyawma yaisa allatheena kafaroo min deenikum fala takhshawhum waikhshawni alyawma akmaltu lakum deenakum waatmamtu AAalaykum niAAmatee waradeetu lakumu alislama deenan famani idturra fee makhmasatin ghayra mutajanifin liithmin fainna Allaha ghafoorun raheemun

Now you run into an issue in hunting.

"O believers, God will surely try you with something of the game that your hands and lances attain, that God may know who fears Him in the Unseen. Whoso thereafter commits transgression, there awaits him a painful chastisement." Surah 594

If you don't kill an animal by slitting its throat/jugular, it is - according to your resources - forbidden. Teachings the Quran does not uphold; Allah does not run out of words.
When we hunt, we do not aim for the throat but for the heart/lung near the shoulder blade.

"Forbidden to you are carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, what has been hallowed to other than God, the beast strangled; the beast beaten down, the beast fallen to death, the beast gored, and that devoured by beasts of prey - excepting that you have slaughtered -- as also things sacrificed to idols, and partition by the divining arrows; that is ungodliness. Today the unbelievers have despaired of your religion; therefore fear them not, but fear you Me. Today I have perfected your religion for you, and I have completed My blessing upon you, and I have approved Islam for your religion. But whosoever is constrained in emptiness and not inclining purposely to sin -- God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate." Surah 53

The Quran is clear. I turn to Allah alone for guidance and explanation.
May Allah increase the believers in knowledge.

Peace.

[progod]

raginggaijin,

Okay, I think I get it. You are of those who refuse to use a dictionary to define the Arabic words (used by the ancient Arabs I might add) used in the Quran somehow believing that these books are somehow plotting to surreptitiously corrupt the Quran. These books are there so that the language of the old Arabs could be preserved and so that others later on could learn the language and understand the works written in that language, including the Quran. These books are also pretty particular about how these words/phrases are used, how and why. Ibn Atheer is another very famous Arabic linguist whom Ibn Manzur the author of Lisanul-Arab used as a supporting source. He also used other well known and respected linguists from his time and before. Why? In order to write down how the Arabs of old used their language. Why? So that you can know the meaning of even simple words like 'wa', 'kaifa', 'limaa', 'limaadha' 'mataa' 'kam', 'min' 'fee' 'mundhu', '3alaa', 'ilaa' and 'li'. Many words that you will take for granted in the quran, but if you needed to confirm their meaning you'd have to resort to 'a work of man.' The Quran does not explain what all of these words mean and it won't, because it is not a dictionary. And were you to guess at what those words mean, it would be just that, a guess and a conjecture on your part. Please do not go down this path of trying to equate linguistic works which only aim to expose the uses and meanings of Arabic words, with the whens and hows of their use, with hadeeth which claim to pass on the non-Quranic teachings of the last prophet (sas) which the Quran IMPLIES doesn't exist, along with events and stories related to the prophet of dubious origin and untrustworthy means of preservation many of which contradict the Quran and what it says about the actions of the last prophet. You read a translation and somehow think that the translator did not rely on the same works to translate simple words like prepositions or the meanings of 'samaa'' or 'ard.' Well, they did. Everyone who learns Arabic has to learn it from a man, or a work of man, and those who want to learn more accurately the language of Arabic and how the Arabs of old used it then they must refer to the works of men closer to that time who dedicated their works to make clear and available the use of the Arabic of the Arabs of yesteryear. Please don't confuse these things.

• I said implied here because it is implied that the Quran was the only revelation given to the last prophet. It is an implication that in my mind is very firm and pretty much irrefutable but the Quran does not specifically say that it is the ONLY revelation given to the last prophet. It just doesn't mention any additional ones. Hence, it IMPLIES that it is the only revelation given to him.

Godbless,
Anwar

[progod]

What you said about hunting is untrue. Nahr includes injuring the neck or chest. The Quran allows what our hunting animals catch as well. And we can fatally injur an animal and then slit its throat additionally. An arrow which hits the heart will enter the chest. Otherwise you can injure, by piercing, chop, blow or a non-fatal fall and then slit it's throat while still alive. That is is how much old hunting went and some people still hunt like this. I saw a video recently of a hunter with dogs. He had about 7 dogs trapping a huge deer and then went to slit its throat while it was being held by the dogs. A sharp piercing bullet would work as well so as not to allow the animal to die by a blow, which a regular bullet creates. But if you perice it in the chest or neck you're good to go. Or if you injure it and then cut it at the neck (stab, cut or pierce) then you are good to go.

Please don't go say I am contradicting myself about nahr. Nahr primarily means 'to injur in the chest/or lower neck', Nahr al-labbah, means to cut/pierce the neck and equals dhabh, and nahr al-ba3eer is to stab the a camel where the chest meets the neck. There may be more in the Quran about 'hunting' I have not reviewed in this aspect. So, in the end. God knows best.

Godbless,
Anwr

[raginggaijin]

raginggaijin,

Okay, I think I get it. You are of those who refuse to use a dictionary to define the Arabic words (used by the ancient Arabs I might add) used in the Quran somehow believing that these books are somehow plotting to surreptitiously corrupt the Quran.

I didn't say that. I said Allah explains the Quran. Are you saying He does not or cannot?

You are welcome to believe as you choose to believe, and seek guidance from whom you choose. But until you bring proof from the Quran to refute that which is shown, I see no reason to bend my ear towards you or your associates. No disrespect intended; I only want you to be crystal clear as to my stance on this matter.

These books are there so that the language of the old Arabs could be preserved

What is preserved The Quran or Arab dictionaries?
Meanings of words can be changed over time. Examples are found not only in the teachings of the People of the Book, but of the religion of man called 'Islam' today.

and so that others later on could learn the language and understand the works written in that language, including the Quran. These books are also pretty particular about how these words/phrases are used, how and why. Ibn Atheer is another very famous Arabic linguist whom Ibn Manzur the author of Lisanul-Arab used as a supporting source.

"The Bedouins (Al-aAArabu ) are more stubborn in unbelief and hypocrisy, and apter not to know the bounds of what God has sent down on His Messenger; and God is All-knowing, All-wise." Surah 997

Allah is sufficient for me.

• I said implied here because it is implied that the Quran was the only revelation given to the last prophet. It is an implication that in my mind is very firm and pretty much irrefutable but the Quran does not specifically say that it is the ONLY revelation given to the last prophet.

The description is clear Muhammad (pbuh) stated numerous times he followed ONLY what Allah revealed The Quran. Surah 650, 7203-204, 1015, 469

When asked to add to the Quran or alter it, he refused and stated he followed ONLY what Allah revealed.

"And when thou bringest them not a sign, they say, 'Why hast thou not chosen one?' Say 'I follow only what is revealed to me from my Lord; this is clear testimony from your Lord, guidance, and mercy for a people of believers.'" Surah 7203

"And when Our signs are recited to them, clear signs, those who look not to encounter Us say, 'Bring a Koran other than this, or alter it.' Say 'It is not for me to alter it of my own accord. I follow nothing, except what is revealed to me. Truly I fear, if I should rebel against my Lord, the chastisement of a dreadful day.'" Surah 1015

What was revealed is what is followed, nothing more.

"So high exalted be God, the true King! And hasten not with the Quran ere its revelation is accomplished unto thee; and say, 'O my Lord, increase me in knowledge.'" Surah 20114

I do not follow implication or assumption. It is conjecture, and we are commanded to not follow that which we do not know.

"And pursue not that thou hast no knowledge of; the hearing, the sight, the heart -- all of those shall be questioned of." Surah 1736

It just doesn't mention any additional ones. Hence, it IMPLIES that it is the only revelation given to him.

You are welcome to believe there are other unspoken revelations given. I cannot. The Quran is clear.

"The idolaters will say, 'Had God willed, we would not have been idolaters, neither our fathers, nor would we have forbidden aught.' Even so the people before them cried lies until they tasted Our might. Say 'Have you any knowledge, for you to bring forth for us? You follow only surmise, merely conjecturing.'" Surah 6148

"Nay, but the evildoers follow their own caprices, without knowledge; so who shall guide those whom God has led astray? They have no helpers." Surah 3029

Peace.

[progod]

raginggaijin,

No disrepect, but you have said nothing. If the Quran was preserved but not the language with which to read it then what is the point of that? We find many texts from ancient civilizations preserved under the soil or sands of many a place but their languages were not preserved. Which means that they can not be read or understood. Languages do change over time which is why those linguists analyzed works preserved from the 6th and 7th centuries, and spoke with people who to their ears and from their research still accurately spoke the language of those works. In all actuality there was a whole class of poets and reciters who diligently memorized poems from even pre-islamic times and composed poetry that was true to its form and language. The Arabic language was changing especially in the cities and areas with many non-Arabs and that continued as time went on changin both the language and the appearence of the Arabs. But the bedouins of that time were quite isolated (THEN, not now) and spoke a language most true to the language of the ancient poems and the Quran (THEN, not now). So counting these works and the speech of the bedouin there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the language had changed besides those clearly post-Quranic meanings that can be traced to a school or line of Islamic thought.

With all that said, how you can even begin to say that the Quran was preserved for all to read and study if the language it was written in was not preserved as well? Does that really make sense? That would leave us guessing and conjecturing about every word in the book and then some how "claiming" that it is the original meaning as it is from the Quran, when it fact it is not from the Quran but from our own minds.

Godbless,
Anwar

[raginggaijin]

raginggaijin,

No disrepect, but you have said nothing. If the Quran was preserved but not the language with which to read it then what is the point of that?

No disrespect is taken. We may not agree on topics, but we are not responsible for each other. I'm not here to guide anyone, I am only bringing proof from the Quran to show why I believe what I believe.
However, much was said and shown but you choose to disregard it. You have been unable to respond to the clear proofs given from the Quran that refute your teachings of 'halal slaughtering', and we are now at the point where you seek to Invalidate that which you cannot refute.

It is in the preservation of the Quran that classical Arabic can be still understood to this day, unlike ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek which are dead languages. The Quran has been in the hands of the people, while previous Books were hidden by those who inherited them. For over 100 years it was a crime punishable by death to possess a Bible.

We find many texts from ancient civilizations preserved under the soil or sands of many a place but their languages were not preserved. Which means that they can not be read or understood.

While the Quran, which was in the hands of the people since the time of revelation and not hidden like the previous Books, can still be read and understood today. Yet how many people who profess to be Muslims can actually read Arabic, much less have access to these 'scholars' and 'poets' you speak about?

Who has knowledge that encompasses everything? Allah.

Languages do change over time which is why those linguists analyzed works preserved from the 6th and 7th centuries, and spoke with people who to their ears and from their research still accurately spoke the language of those works.

Thank you for your admission.
Languages change, but the Quran does not. Within it is a description for everything we need to know, so in reading the Quran we are able to learn what these scholars seek to hide. The same scholars who break the compact taken with Allah. It happened in the past and it occurs even now to this day.

"And when God took compact with those who had been given the Book 'You shall make it clear unto the people, and not conceal it.' But they rejected it behind their backs and sold it for a small price -- how evil was that their selling!" Surah 3187

Compare Surah 379 and the word (rabbaniyyeena) with various translations to see proof of this covering up today. How many seek to cover up the authority Allah gives everyone who reads the Quran to become scholars?

In all actuality there was a whole class of poets and reciters who diligently memorized poems from even pre-islamic times and composed poetry that was true to its form and language. The Arabic language was changing especially in the cities and areas with many non-Arabs and that continued as time went on changin both the language and the appearence of the Arabs. But the bedouins of that time were quite isolated (THEN, not now) and spoke a language most true to the language of the ancient poems and the Quran (THEN, not now). So counting these works and the speech of the bedouin there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the language had changed besides those clearly post-Quranic meanings that can be traced to a school or line of Islamic thought.

Examine the word (nasi) and (jinn) and see how the definitions used by scholars does not match the description given in the Quran. Nasi are the men from the line of Adam (pbuh) and the Prophets (pbut) who descended from them. Jinn are the men who were created before the Nasi, not evil spirits as scholars and poets would lead you to believe.

?He is the Knower of the Unseen and the Visible, the All-mighty, the All-compassionate, Who has created all things well. And He originated the creation of humankind (al-insani) of clay (min teenin), then He fashioned his descendant (naslahu) of an extraction (sulalatin) of low (maheenin) water (ma-in), then He shaped (sawwahu) him, and breathed His spirit (roohihi) in him. And He appointed for you hearing, and sight, and hearts; little thanks you show.? Surah 326-9

There is only one Nasi spoken of in the Quran who was shaped and had Allah's ruh breathed into him - Adam (pbuh) Surah 1529, 329, 3872

Adam (pbuh) was the progeny of intercourse. But scholars and poets would have you believe Adam was the 'first man' created through supernatural means, while Jinn are evil spirits. Teachings based on conjecture. Teachings the Quran does not uphold.

With all that said, how you can even begin to say that the Quran was preserved for all to read and study if the language it was written in was not preserved as well? Does that really make sense?

I want to be clear You are saying the teachings of man preserve the Quran, correct? I disagree completely.
It is in the descriptions given in the Quran that we can see the mistranslations today. The Quran preserves the meanings, not the other way around. Absolutely, it makes sense.
You are more than welcome to disagree. But don't expect me to believe you unless you bring proof from the Quran.

That would leave us guessing and conjecturing about every word in the book and then some how "claiming" that it is the original meaning as it is from the Quran, when it fact it is not from the Quran but from our own minds.

The only ones who guess and conjecture are those who uphold associate teachings beside what Allah revealed. Allah is Guide, Seer. All knowledge comes from Him.

"God there is no god but He, the Living, the Everlasting. Slumber seizes Him not, neither sleep; to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth. Who is there that shall intercede with Him save by His leave? He knows what lies before them and what is after them, and they comprehend not anything of His knowledge save such as He wills. His Throne comprises the heavens and earth; the preserving of them oppresses Him not; He is the All-high, the All-glorious." Surah 2255

"Ha, you are the ones who dispute on what you know; why then dispute you touching a matter of which you know not anything? God knows, and you know not." Surah 366

"His people disputed with him. He said, 'Do you dispute with me concerning God, and He has guided me? I fear not what you associate with Him, except my Lord will aught. My Lord embraces all things in His knowledge; will you not remember?" Surah 680

"We should have forged against God a lie if we returned into your creed; after God delivered us from it. It is not for us to return into it, unless God our Lord so will. Our Lord embraces all things in His knowledge. In God we have put our trust. Our Lord, give true deliverance between us and our people; Thou art the best of deliverers.'" Surah 789

"So high exalted be God, the true King! And hasten not with the Quran ere its revelation is accomplished unto thee; and say, 'O my Lord, increase me in knowledge.'" Surah 20114

"and that they who have been given knowledge may know that it is the truth from thy Lord and believe in it, and so their hearts be humble unto Him; and assuredly God ever guides those who believe to a straight path." Surah 2254

"But those to whom knowledge had been given said, 'Woe upon you! The reward of God is better for him who believes, and works righteousness; and none shall receive it except the steadfast.'" Surah 2880

I am not the one stating He cannot explain the Quran. You are.

"Some men there are who buy diverting talk to lead astray from the way of God without knowledge, and to take it in mockery; those -- there awaits them a humbling chastisement." Surah 316

"He said, 'Knowledge is only with God, and I deliver to you the Message with which I was sent; but I see you are an ignorant people.'" Surah 4623

?"Say 'To Allah belongs the argument conclusive; for had He willed, He would have guided you all.'" Surah 6149

The proof from the Quran refuted the Quranist teachings concerning 'halal slaughtering' being mandatory. Now you rationalize and misdirect from the points made in an attempt to invalidate what was said.
Proof is given from the Quran to show why I believe what I believe, and you are unable to respond, unable to answer, unable to refute. All praise is due to Allah, Lord of all beings.

"Then if they do not answer thee, know that they are only following their caprices; and who is further astray than he who follows his caprice without guidance from God? Surely God guides not the people of the evildoers." Surah 2850

"Then, if they do not answer you, know that it has been sent down with God's knowledge, and that there is no god but He. So have you surrendered?" Surah 1114

Bring your proof Surah 2111, 657, 842, 1410, 2124, 2764, 2875, 5238
Allah is sufficient for me. I turn to Him for guidance and explanation. And as proven in this thread, it is in serving Allah alone that the final argument is made clear, and He cannot be refuted.
You are more than welcome to believe whatever you desire. I won't be asked what you did, nor am I your guardian. I am only responsible for myself.

Have you ever asked Allah to increase you in knowledge?

Peace.

[raginggaijin]

I want to correct something in my previous post. Nahr is either injuring the area right above the chest, lower neck area called the minhar. Or it is stabbing a camel where the throat comes out from the upper extreme of the chest. Al-nahr bil-labbah or Nahr in the upper part of the chest is also equal to dhabh in the neck. Dhabh as explained earlier is the cut at the point known as the naseel. The word also means 'shaqq' or ripping, cutting or tearing apart. So here nahr is applied to cutting at any point of the front of the neck i.e., throat. So slaughter can be done at the upper portion under the jawbone all the way down to the lower portion right above to the chest.

Please don't go say I am contradicting myself about nahr. Nahr primarily means 'to injur in the chest/or lower neck',

I need not say anything. Your words are proof against you.

Peace.

[progod]

Peace,

Whatever about me incriminating myself. I just gave you some additional definitions and didn't want you claiming I had contradicted myself. As expected you went for the low blow anyway.

My main points are these

1. The Quran is written in the Classical Arabic language.
2. God said he would preserve the Quran, and he did this through the pens, minds and mouths of PEOPLE.
3. In order for God to preserve the Quran so that we all can understand it he also has to preserve the language it was written in.
4. The language the Quran was written in was preserved through the pens, minds and mouths of PEOPLE.
5. Preservation of the language goes hand and hand with preservation of the Quran.

It is written in a language isn't it?

All I am doing is expounding for you the meaning of the words used in the Quran. You mention scholars who break pacts. which scholars? You can't generalize them all. The defintions of the words I present to you were researched by scholars of old, who did not want to influence anyone's reading of the Quran one way or another. They just set out to provide a resource for people to be able to understand the meanings of Arabic words wherever they are found. The Quran does not define its words. You must know what the words it uses mean before you read the book. Do you pretend to read a book in English without knowing English? Do works in English DEFINE their words through context? No. They use their already KNOWN definitions in context. You ask me to bring proof from the Quran of what I say. Would you ask me to bring proof from the Quran that the sky is blue? Well then don't ask me to bring proof from the Quran that you need to know the language of a book you study before you study it. Don't ask me to bring proof that literary works do not define their own words, but rather use the already known definitions of words in context within their works. As one last thing just tell me this. You don't even have to respond to any of the above (or the following) in my post, just answer me this. How does the Quran (don't use a translation, because the translator used a dictionary, i.e. a work of man/a scholar), how does the Quran define the word 'ism'?

When you figure that one out, then you'll know that dictionaries which are works of men are necessary for understanding ANY literary work, including the Quran and you can't just exclude them and dismiss them as 'works of men.' The Quran does't define 'jinn' or any other word, bro. Literary works don't define their words. They can give you more information about a vague concept or even describe a being, but it doesn't define any of the words it uses. If a book uses the word 'ghosts' and give a description of them, it's not defining the word 'ghosts.' You have to already know the meaning of that word when you read it.

As for the Quran being available to non-Arabic speakers. Translators translated for them and through providence allowed the basic message to get through. Also, as you know, be the person a non-Arabic (or not well educated on Classical Arabic) speaker reading a translation or Abu Lahab, the last prophet's uncle who listened to the Quran himself and spoke and understood the Arabic of the Arabs of the prophet's day that the Quran was composed in, to the unopen heart even the most basics of the message are incomprehensible, more because of a deepseated disinterest than anything else. But the person reading the translation or not educated in Classical Arabic is at a serious disadvantage should they be interested in delving into the nuances and specifics of the Quran. Scholars who just focus on the sciences of hadeeth or shari'ah or only HOW to recite the Quran instead of the sciences of Al-lughah will also be severely deficient. Remember what the Quran has to say about respecting those who have knowledge and using good judgement/wisdom and intelligence. Believe me that had it not been for these linguistic works you would never have been able to open up even a translation of the Quran, because it would not have existed, nor would even any Arab today (or even of 500 or more years ago) have been able to understand it because of how much the spoken language has changed after the fact. The language WAS PRESERVED by works of men. And if God didn't include the preservation of the language that the Quran uses in the same package as the preservation of the Quran, then I don't know what sort of logic you ascribe to, if it's any logic at all.

Godbless,
Anwar

[MesMorial]

Slaughter animals as mercifully as possible. The name of Allah is the name of the Compassionate and Merciful.

[raginggaijin]

Peace,

Whatever about me incriminating myself. I just gave you some additional definitions and didn't want you claiming I had contradicted myself. As expected you went for the low blow anyway.

I quoted your own words to show the contradiction you uphold based on teachings of scholars. I didn't make you write them. To say pointing out your contradiction is a low blow is disingenuous.

My main points are these

1. The Quran is written in the Classical Arabic language.

2. God said he would preserve the Quran, and he did this through the pens, minds and mouths of PEOPLE.

3. In order for God to preserve the Quran so that we all can understand it he also has to preserve the language it was written in.

4. The language the Quran was written in was preserved through the pens, minds and mouths of PEOPLE.

5. Preservation of the language goes hand and hand with preservation of the Quran.

Allah also sent satans to cover up the Truth and deter from the righteous path. Allah even warns those people in the Quran as to their reward for their misconduct

"Those who conceal what of the Book God has sent down on them, and sell it for a little price - they shall eat naught but the Fire in their bellies; God shall not speak to them on the Day of Resurrection neither purify them; there awaits them a painful chastisement." Surah 2174

And when the people seek to cover up the Truth by giving false definitions to words, how do you determine when someone is teaching falsehood? You turn to Allah and ask Him to explain the Quran. In the descriptions you will find the words that are given false definitions explained clearly.

However, this is a misdirect from the original point No where in the Quran does it forbid to eat food that Allah's name was not mentioned at the time of slaughter. Your teachings were refuted by the Quran, not some religious text.

It is written in a language isn't it?

All I am doing is expounding for you the meaning of the words used in the Quran. You mention scholars who break pacts. which scholars? You can't generalize them all.

But I can and I will. Allah is Seer, All Knowing. Why do I need to rely on any scholar when I rely on the One whose vision encompasses all things, and whose has knowledge of everything?
Can you answer that question? Why do I need to rely on man when I can rely on Allah - and I am commanded to do so in the Quran?
You beckon me to the Fire by asking me to associate partners with Allah. I will not. Allah is sufficient for me.
There is a reason why I own 22 Qurans, including the Arabic revelation. Man will bring their biases to the translations, but it is in relying on Allah for explanation and guidance that I will be sure of the Truth.

The defintions of the words I present to you were researched by scholars of old, who did not want to influence anyone's reading of the Quran one way or another.

Where is proof of this claim? Am I to take your word for it? How can you tell me you know the intent of these men? Do you now profess to know the unseen? Have you researched into all their works to see what teachings they uphold?
Based on the teachings I see brought from Lexicons, I see no reason to take any scholar at face value. I do not trust man, I rely solely on Allah.
If you don't like it, that is your issue to deal with.
Based on your replies here and in various other threads, you rely on the teachings of scholars for your interpretation and teachings from hadith (see below). So be it. To you are your deeds, and to me are mine. In the End we will know who is rightly guided, and who is not. )

They just set out to provide a resource for people to be able to understand the meanings of Arabic words wherever they are found. The Quran does not define its words.

No one made you write these words. You did so of your own accord. I am clear of what you set up with Allah.

?And certainly We have explained in this Quran every kind of example, and man is most of all given to contention.? Surah 1854

?And certainly We have made clear for men in this Quran every kind of description, but most men consent naught save denying.? Surah 1789

?In their stories is surely a lesson to men possessed of minds; it is not a tale forged, but a confirmation of what is before it, and a distinguishing of every thing, and a guidance, and a mercy to a people who believe.? Surah 12111

"And this Quran is not such as could be forged by those besides Allah, but it is a verification of that which is before it and a clear explanation of the Book, there is no doubt in it, from the Lord of the worlds." Surah 1037

"And We indeed have revealed to thee clear messages, and none disbelieve in them except the transgressors." Surah 299

So you understand why I disagree with you. )

You must know what the words it uses mean before you read the book. Do you pretend to read a book in English without knowing English? Do works in English DEFINE their words through context? No. They use their already KNOWN definitions in context.

Or, since you bring up English, they create new words or change the meanings to suit their needs. You only need to look up the word 'Gay' to see how it has changed over the years. 'Worship' is another word the English language has changed to suit the needs of those who seek to cover the Truth.

You ask me to bring proof from the Quran of what I say. Would you ask me to bring proof from the Quran that the sky is blue?

I need only look to the sky and see that it is the color blue. Allah tells us to use your heads, our eyes, and our hearts to become men of understanding.

Men of understanding Surah 2121, 37, 3918, 2179, 2197, 2269, 313, 3190, 5100, 12111, 1319, 1452, 1676, 2054, 20128, 2935, 3022, 3528, 3829, 3843, 399, 4054, 5120, 5913, 6510, 895
"Those to whom We have given the Book study it as it should be studied they are the ones that believe therein those who reject faith therein, the loss is their own." Surah 2121
"Those who listen to the word, then follow the best of it; those are they whom Allah has guided, and those it is who are the men of understanding." Surah 3918
?They have taken their rabbis and their priests for lords besides Allah, and the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one God only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up.? Surah 931

Yet how do you tell a blind man the sky is blue when they do not know the color?

How do you tell a man to rely solely on Allah for explanation when he refuses to listen and turns to men instead? Are the blind and seeing alike? Surah 1124

Well then don't ask me to bring proof from the Quran that you need to know the language of a book you study before you study it.

But I do read Arabic, as years ago a follower of hadith told me the same thing 'You cannot understand the Quran without knowing Arabic.' I see you take a page from their rhetoric.
And as proven, you cannot refute what was shown so you seek to argue about matters totally off the subject. Who is the one who is astray and who is the one bringing irrefutable proofs from the Quran?
It is in learning Arabic that I am shown by Allah the attempts of your 'scholars' to cover up the Truth with their traditions and idolatry. Proof of this deception is in the teachings you bring forth to this very thread.

As well, the Message will be in the language of the people. The Quran is a Message for all nations, not just the Arabs. So to say a person cannot understand the Quran without knowing Arabic goes against the teachings of the Quran itself.

The Quran sent for all nations/beings Surah 3108, 690, 12104, 21107, 251, 3887, 6852, 8127, 3428, 7158, 3340, 4170, 4733, 480, 619, 21107, 479-80

"And We have sent no Messenger save with the tongue of his people, that he might make all clear to them; then God leads astray whomsoever He will, and He guides whomsoever He will; and He is the All-mighty, the All-wise." Surah 144

The proofs from the Quran that refute your scholar's teachings was not in Arabic, but in English. )
Allah leads astray whomsoever He wills, and He guides whomsoever He wills.

Don't ask me to bring proof that literary works do not define their own words, but rather use the already known definitions of words in context within their works. As one last thing just tell me this. You don't even have to respond to any of the above (or the following) in my post, just answer me this. How does the Quran (don't use a translation, because the translator used a dictionary, i.e. a work of man/a scholar), how does the Quran define the word 'ism'?
When you figure that one out, then you'll know that dictionaries which are works of men are necessary for understanding ANY literary work, including the Quran and you can't just exclude them and dismiss them as 'works of men.' The Quran does't define 'jinn' or any other word, bro. Literary works don't define their words. They can give you more information about a vague concept or even describe a being, but it doesn't define any of the words it uses. If a book uses the word 'ghosts' and give a description of them, it's not defining the word 'ghosts.' You have to already know the meaning of that word when you read it.

Again, I believe Allah explains the Quran. You believe scholars explain the Quran, as proven by your previous replies.
You brought the word of scholars in an attempt to prove a method of slaughter taught in hadith, and your teachings were exposed based on proof from the Quran. It was not proof from the Quran you brought, but tales from poets and scholars and hypocrites. You cannot refute it, so you attack me and my position. I'm used to this behavior by now.
But again, I will not be asked what you did, nor am I responsible for you. I am clear of what you do and who you set up as partners with Allah.
As for your games of interpretation and definition, I thank Allah for another reason to study the Quran. D
I am not surprised by your question, as I hear followers of hadith - Islamists - command people to perform similar stunts in their attempts at Invalidation. It is only manifest proof of the lack of evidence-based rhetoric available to them; a reliance on conjecture instead of proof.

As for the Quran being available to non-Arabic speakers. Translators translated for them and through providence allowed the basic message to get through. Also, as you know, be the person a non-Arabic (or not well educated on Classical Arabic) speaker reading a translation or Abu Lahab, the last prophet's uncle

I want to point out that you have no proof that this man was the uncle of Muhammad. You continue to uphold teachings found in hadith, and expect me to accept it. I will not.
Had you studied the Quran you would understand who this is speaking about.

Abu Lahab/Father Flame/abee lahabin Archetype figure that represents those condemned due to their belief in their power in this world based on the material gains they have procured; his trust in his wealth is a pass that crushed him; both he and his wife, because each is guilty of something. (Research originators of pagan syncretism Nimrod and Semiramis.)
The one does not drag down the other in their guilt Surah 3431-33, 3450
There have been many as Abu Lahab Surah 6928-29
"My wealth has not availed me, my authority is gone from me.'" Surah 6928-29
Enemies of Al-Islam Surah 471-38

All knowledge is due to Allah. Period.

who listened to the Quran himself and spoke and understood the Arabic of the Arabs of the prophet's day that the Quran was composed in, to the unopen heart even the most basics of the message are incomprehensible, more because of a deepseated disinterest than anything else. But the person reading the translation or not educated in Classical Arabic is at a serious disadvantage should they be interested in delving into the nuances and specifics of the Quran. Scholars who just focus on the sciences of hadeeth or shari'ah or only HOW to recite the Quran instead of the sciences of Al-lughah will also be severely deficient. Remember what the Quran has to say about respecting those who have knowledge and using good judgement/wisdom and intelligence.

Please, show me, if you speak truthfully, we are to respect 'those who have knowledge'. The only ones given knowledge we are to respect are the Prophets (pbut).
You continue to get caught up in the teachings of hadith when the Quran refutes your statements.
No where in the Quran does it tell us to respect those who have knowledge. The Quran tells us to become knowledgeable through study of the Book.

"It belongs not to any mortal that God should give him the Book, the Judgment, the Prophethood, then he should say to men, 'Be you servants to me apart from God.' Rather, 'Be you scholars (rabbaniyyeena) in that you know the Book, and in that you study.'" Surah 379

Allah constantly tells us to use our heads, to reason, to research and examine, and above all confirm the Truth.

The sin is in not confirming the Truth Surah 1736, 496, 7531-32
?And follow not that of which thou has no knowledge. Surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, of all of these it will be asked.? Surah 1736
?O you who believe, if an unrighteous man brings you news, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you did.? Surah 496

Seek assistance through patience and prayer Surah 245, 2153, 2186
"And when My servants ask you concerning Me, then surely I am very near; I answer the prayer of the suppliant when he calls on Me, so they should answer My call and believe in Me that they may walk in the right way." Surah 2186

I turn to Allah.
You turn to Lexicons and hadith. Proof is given from your own words.

Believe me that had it not been for these linguistic works you would never have been able to open up even a translation of the Quran, because it would not have existed, nor would even any Arab today (or even of 500 or more years ago) have been able to understand it because of how much the spoken language has changed after the fact. The language WAS PRESERVED by works of men. And if God didn't include the preservation of the language that the Quran uses in the same package as the preservation of the Quran, then I don't know what sort of logic you ascribe to, if it's any logic at all.

Your scholars had no influence on that matter in the slightest.

"Why, when thou wentest into thy garden, didst thou not say, "As God will; there is no power except in God"? If thou seest me, that I am less than thou in wealth and children," Surah 1839

And how did this all occur? By the will of Allah. All power is due to Him and Him alone. To say a man was responsible for the knowledge coming to us only proves who you associate partners to Allah.
This conversation happened for a reason. I fear Allah and do not associate partners to Him.

"Follow what has been sent down to you from your Lord, and follow no friends other than He; little do you remember." Surah 73

Allah is the best guidance, Allah explains Surah 373, 426, 487,179, 2532, 346, 3923, 4144, 456. 5417,22,32,40, 5675-81, 7516-19, 7750, 1035, 73, 2779, 333, 1689
?And thus have We made for every prophet an enemy from among the guilty, and sufficient is thy Lord as a Guide and a Helper." Surah 2531
?Allah desires to explain to you, and to guide you into the ways of those before you, and to turn to you, and Allah is Knowing, Wise.? Surah 426
"Move not thy tongue therewith to make haste with it. Surely on Us rests the collecting of it and the reciting of it. So when We recite it, follow its recitation. Again on Us rests the explaining of it." Surah 7516-19

Allah is sufficient for the believers Surah 3173, 445, 470, 479, 481, 4132, 4166, 4171, 862, 864, 959, 9129, 1029, 1343, 1796, 2952, 333, 3339, 3936, 3938, 4828, 653
?Belongs not sincere religion to Allah? And those who take protectors, apart from Him -- 'We only serve them that they may bring us nigh in nearness to Allah' -- surely Allah shall judge between them touching that whereon they are at variance. Surely Allah guides not him who is a liar, unthankful.? Surah 393

Proof is given. Where is your proof?
Explanation is not proof.

"So We have appointed to every Prophet an enemy -- Satans of men and jinn, revealing tawdry speech to each other, all as a delusion; yet, had thy Lord willed, they would never have done it. So leave them to their forging," Surah 6112

You had three opportunities to bring proof from the Quran to support your claims. You didn't, but you attempted to divert from the Truth and beckoned me to associate partners with our Lord, Allah, Seer.
Proof is given why I won't believe as you believe. This conversation is over.

"Say I am forbidden to serve those whom you call upon besides Allah when clear arguments have come to me from my Lord, and I am commanded that I should submit to the Lord of all beings." Surah 4066

I bid you 'Peace'.

[Jack]

Jack..

So people who kill animals to eat are worried the animal is going to feel pain from a halal/kosher slaughter?

Yes. Bloody hippies.

is stunning supposed to be pain-free? what benefits other than less pain is there in stunning..

It makes it so that the animal doesn't feel pain when slaughtered, etc.

no known visible sign of blood retention? i think the time from stunning and slaughter matters, e.g. if you stun it and kill it a few mins or hours later what difference is there?

No difference, as far as I know. Stunning makes it so that the animal is unconscious. Unconscious but not 'dead', thus not feeling any pain when killed .

I am not for/against Halal, as a slaughtering method.

[san]

Yes. Bloody hippies.

because not all animals are emo (we can't be certain if they do enjoy being slaughtered or not)

[progod]

raginggaijin,

I did not read all of your post. You are overflowing with words and say so much, but very little of it reaches the point. I'm sure it does for you, but not for me. It is good that you read Arabic. How did you learn Arabic? I'm sure the Quran did not teach you Arabic, because you learned Arabic in order to read the Quran(although through reading it it may have shown you some grammatical, orthographic and stylistic usages that you were not familiar with). It was through the teachings of human beings, i.e. men, that you learned Arabic. Teachings that would not exist if were not for Lisanul-Arab. Claiming that lisanul-Arab is really based on teachings of the hadeeth and is among the works of satan covering up the truth is like saying the teachings that were given to you for you to learn Arabic in order to read the Quran are the works of Satan trying to cover up the truth and keep you from the truth of the Quran. What you learned in order to read the Quran is a direct result of Lisanul-Arab. If the definitions of those words happen to coincide with what is in a hadeeth that just goes to show you that even though hadeeth are not necessary they are not always wrong or lies.

I'm not attacking you at all. I'm just trying to show you that your line of thinking is hypocritical. You learn the definition of many Arabic words in an attempt to learn Arabic, definitions that are in essence based on the works of the linguistic scholars you damn and condemn. Yet you reject these scholars and trump up all sorts of false charges on them when a word in the Quran can be defined in a way that might coincide with a hadeeth or what it says about a related issue. You ARE to take these lexicons at face value unless you have some sort of evidence to the contrary. I believe in innocent until proven guilty. The hadeeth in how they try to teach us our religion outside of the Quran are in general the words of satans. Although some hadeeth may be accurate, they are still completely unnecessary in order for us to observe the Quran. But the fact that you learned Arabic through teachings of men which are derived from Lisanul-Arab and other ancient dictionaries and lexicons and then you reject these dictionaries when you come across a meaning that you don't like or that coincides with some hadeeth, is disingenuous on your part. In the end the Quran does not define Arabic words, MEN DO. And in order to get the correct definitions you must consult with the works that represent the ARAB MEN closest to the time of the last prophet. Hadeeths don't define words either. All the Quran and the hadeth can do is act as supporting sources for already understood words or explicitly refer to how the Arabs of that time used those words. And that last part is what the lexicons do. The word 'gay' is a good example of what I am saying. How would you know that a book from the 1930's doesn't mean homsexual when it uses gay? By consulting a dictionary appropriate to that time or one comprehensive enough to include the time frames and/or origins of the meanings of diffrent words. And that is my whole point. I would only accuse a dictionary of dishonesty or subterfuge with real evidence, not just pure accusations and Quranic verses that don't apply. It's one thing to say that a certain dictionary is inappropriate because of its limited scope and how much in depth it goes into the origins and meanings of a word. I've found Lane's Lexicon very deficient or innaproppriate in many cases for these reasons, and have only rarely found this to be the case with Lisanul-Arab. In the case of the hadeeth there IS some real evdience of disingeniousness, error or dishonesty (but this has to do with their messages, not their use of the language), starting from how most hadeeth were preserved to the fact that many of them contradict each other and what the Quran has to say, the Quran being the most authentic source for the teachings of the last prophet because it IS the teachings of the last prophet. But this is not the case for lexicons like lisanul-arab that don't intend to offer up teachings of the prophet besides the Quran, but rather how the Arabs of that time understood the very language they used and which the Quran borrowed to communicate its teachings and messages. And it is their linguistic works that allowed you to learn the Arabic that you learned in order to begin to read and understand what you understand of the Quran in Arabic. So how can you equate these works with the teachings of the hadeeth as a whole and the works of satan that many hadeeth are (as they purport to offer up extra-Quranic teachings, not define words) , just because they may coincide with a hadeeth here or there. Please take into consideration that just because it's a hadeeth doesn't make it automtically untrue, although it DOES make it altogether unnecessary.

I hope you get this with everything I've said here, but if you don't oh well. I've done what I can to impart wisdom to into the ranks of the Quranists (whether you like that word or not it applies)
Godbless,
Anwar

[progod]

Jack,

i don't see any problem with stunning either, as long as the animal doesn't die by stunning and God's name is mentioned over it. Then it should be cut at the neck or in the chest to let the flowing blood of the veins run out and then it is good to go. I do not know if the blood can be let out just by washing the meat once it is cut up. But God's name is to be mentioned over it at slaughter.

Godbless,
Anwar

[raginggaijin]

raginggaijin,

I did not read all of your post.

Of course not. I'll make this brief then.

You are overflowing with words and say so much, but very little of it reaches the point. I'm sure it does for you, but not for me. It is good that you read Arabic. How did you learn Arabic? I'm sure the Quran did not teach you Arabic, because you learned Arabic in order to read the Quran(although through reading it it may have shown you some grammatical, orthographic and stylistic usages that you were not familiar with). It was through the teachings of human beings, i.e. men, that you learned Arabic. Teachings that would not exist if were not for Lisanul-Arab. Claiming that lisanul-Arab is really based on teachings of the hadeeth and is among the works of satan covering up the truth is like saying the teachings that were given to you for you to learn Arabic in order to read the Quran are the works of Satan trying to cover up the truth and keep you from the truth of the Quran. What you learned in order to read the Quran is a direct result of Lisanul-Arab. If the definitions of those words happen to coincide with what is in a hadeeth that just goes to show you that even though hadeeth are not necessary they are not always wrong or lies.

Actually, you are incorrect.
I do not read Lexicons. I own the Arabic revelation and 21 Quran translations.
It was in reading the Arabic Quran along with the English translations that Allah has taught me Arabic. I have been slowly learning by the leave of Allah for years; since that first encounter with an Islamist who told me I did not understand. I turned to Allah and asked Him to teach me. And He has taught me, as proven in this thread alone. The teachings from the Quran refute the teachings of your associate guide.

Any teaching that exists is due to the power of Allah. No man is the cause. Your own words prove your idolatry. I will not follow the hadith you promote as guidance. I seek refuge in Allah from the whispers of accursed satans.

I reject all hadith except the best Hadith The Quran.

I'm not attacking you at all. I'm just trying to show you that your line of thinking is hypocritical. You learn the definition of many Arabic words in an attempt to learn Arabic, definitions that are in essence based on the works of the linguistic scholars you damn and condemn.

You make assumptions and profess to know the unseen. You don't know me or how I was taught Arabic. Yet as proven what Allah has taught me has refuted the teachings of hadith you uphold. So why should I believe you are rightly guided and know what is proper when your teachings are refuted by Allah's revelation?

Who is the hypocrite One who follows teachings proven true by the Quran, or one who continues to uphold teachings refuted by the Quran?

Yet you reject these scholars and trump up all sorts of false charges on them when a word in the Quran can be defined in a way that might coincide with a hadeeth or what it says about a related issue. You ARE to take these lexicons at face value unless you have some sort of evidence to the contrary. I believe in innocent until proven guilty.

This very thread proved your teachings wrong - the teachings of your scholars.
Your scholars are guilty.

The hadeeth in how they try to teach us our religion outside of the Quran are in general the words of satans. Although some hadeeth may be accurate, they are still completely unnecessary in order for us to observe the Quran. But the fact that you learned Arabic through teachings of men which are derived from Lisanul-Arab and other ancient dictionaries and lexicons and then you reject these dictionaries when you come across a meaning that you don't like or that coincides with some hadeeth, is disingenuous on your part.

Why would I follow your teachings when they are proven wrong?
Why would I follow your teachings when they are based on hadith?
Why would I follow your teachings when I follow the best Teacher Allah?

In the end the Quran does not define Arabic words, MEN DO.

Manifest proof of who your god is.
We will see who is rightly guided on the Day of Judgment, won't we?

And in order to get the correct definitions you must consult with the works that represent the ARAB MEN closest to the time of the last prophet. Hadeeths don't define words either. All the Quran and the hadeth can do is act as supporting sources for already understood words or explicitly refer to how the Arabs of that time used those words. And that last part is what the lexicons do. The word 'gay' is a good example of what I am saying. How would you know that a book from the 1930's doesn't mean homsexual when it uses gay? By consulting a dictionary appropriate to that time or one comprehensive enough to include the time frames and/or origins of the meanings of diffrent words. And that is my whole point. I would only accuse a dictionary of dishonesty or subterfuge with real evidence, not just pure accusations and Quranic verses that don't apply. It's one thing to say that a certain dictionary is inappropriate because of its limited scope and how much in depth it goes into the origins and meanings of a word. I've found Lane's Lexicon very deficient or innaproppriate in many cases for these reasons, and have only rarely found this to be the case with Lisanul-Arab. In the case of the hadeeth there IS some real evdience of disingeniousness, error or dishonesty (but this has to do with their messages, not their use of the language), starting from how most hadeeth were preserved to the fact that many of them contradict each other and what the Quran has to say, the Quran being the most authentic source for the teachings of the last prophet because it IS the teachings of the last prophet. But this is not the case for lexicons like lisanul-arab that don't intend to offer up teachings of the prophet besides the Quran, but rather how the Arabs of that time understood the very language they used and which the Quran borrowed to communicate its teachings and messages. And it is their linguistic works that allowed you to learn the Arabic that you learned in order to begin to read and understand what you understand of the Quran in Arabic. So how can you equate these works with the teachings of the hadeeth as a whole and the works of satan that many hadeeth are (as they purport to offer up extra-Quranic teachings, not define words) , just because they may coincide with a hadeeth here or there. Please take into consideration that just because it's a hadeeth doesn't make it automtically untrue, although it DOES make it altogether unnecessary.

You continue to bring proof of why I will not believe as you believe. You are welcome to do as you choose, but I will not follow what you follow.
I follow the revelation of Allah, not the teachings of Lisanul-Arab.

I hope you get this with everything I've said here, but if you don't oh well. I've done what I can to impart wisdom to into the ranks of the Quranists (whether you like that word or not it applies)

Your sect does not apply to me, as I follow only what Allah revealed, the word of an honored Messenger The Quran.
You call me a Quranist, just as the Islamists call me kafir, but in the End it only matters what Allah knows. To Him I will be called to account, and I won't be asked what you did or said.

But you will be called to account for all you did and all you said. So pay heed I am not a Quranist, I am a Muslim.
Think twice before adding burden upon your soul by slandering me with the title of your sect.

Your own words and actions bear witness to your beliefs and who you serve.

Peace.

[progod]

Ragingaijin,

I stated in an earlier post.
Believe me that had it not been for these linguistic works you would never have been able to open up even a translation of the Quran, because it would not have existed, nor would even any Arab today (or even of 500 or more years ago) have been able to understand it because of how much the spoken language has changed after the fact. The language WAS PRESERVED by works of men. And if God didn't include the preservation of the language that the Quran uses in the same package as the preservation of the Quran, then I don't know what sort of logic you ascribe to, if it's any logic at all.

Where do you think those 21 translations got their understanding of the Arabic of the Quran? Give me a break. You are not using logic, and are being blind and extreme. Maybe you are a genius and were only able to learn Arabic by comparing translations with the Arabic text (even the text you had to learn from the teachings of a human being, maybe the indexes and commentaries of your Quran translations WRITTEN BY MEN), but I'm sure you are still quite deficient in Arabic even with those 21 translations.

Your sect does not apply to me, as I follow only what Allah revealed, the word of an honored Messenger The Quran.
You call me a Quranist, just as the Islamists call me kafir, but in the End it only matters what Allah knows. To Him I will be called to account, and I won't be asked what you did or said.

So now non-Quranist Muslims are Islamists and not even Muslims? HAHAHAHA. That is good. Do yo even understand what Quranist means? It means Quran-centric or Quran-alone, or a follower of the Quran. Quranist, Quranite, Quran-alone . . .it's all the same. Here is the defintion of 'ist' in English

a suffix of nouns, often corresponding to verbs ending in -ize or nouns ending in -ism, that denote a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc. apologist; dramatist; machinist; novelist; realist; socialist; Thomist.

QURAN + IST, is not the name of a sect it is A name for those who concern themselves with only following the Quran. I personally wish those who are Quran only were actually united enough as a group to be considered a sect, as that would be a good thing.

Calling you a Quranist Muslim is no slander and is no different than calling you a Quran-alone, Quran-only or Quranite Muslim.

My own words bear witness that i only serve Allah with knowledge, sound logic, honest intelligence and whatever wisdom and good jugement God gives me.

It is unfortunate that the Quranist/Quran-alone/Quran-only/Quranite community has to be divided on such issues. But unfortunately it is because of the likes of you who base their religion on pure emotion instead of knowledge and sound judgment that this divide exists.

My being a Quranist Muslim means that I only follow the Quran for my religious guidance as well, the word of an honored messenger, Gabriel, given to another honored messenger, Muhammad (sas). But instead of guessing at the meaning of Arabic words and claiming that is how the Quran defines them or accepting translations of translators who also used MEN'S work to understand the Arabic of the Quran and then rejecting those very works of men (which formed the basis of their translations) when I don't like a certain meaning or when it behooves me, then claiming that these mens' work are some how only fabrications of men just because I don't like the meanings (and again still accepting the various translations based on these same works where I am comfortable with them), instead of doing all of that, I actually study the Quran understanding that it borrowed the language of the Arabs of old and therefore must be understood using this language. And I will not hypocritically accept a translation based on the sources of the language and then reject the sources as fabrications of men when I don't like something it says. Rather I will try to distinguish between a linguistically valid meaning, a theological meaning or a later meaning inappropriate to the Quran's time context. The fact that those 21 different translations you have exist is because not only do different Musilms stick their different theological ideas into the text redefining Arabic words, but many times the sources like Lisanul-Arab also have a number of meanings that are omitted from the translation due to that translator's school thought. Going to the original souces ensures that one can distinguish better between any theological meanings and how the Arabs of old actually used the language as a whole despite sects and schools of thought.

The Quran calls for the use of wisdom, intelligence and logic in order to gain a better understand of it, not ignorance, conjecture and emotion.

Godbless,
Anwar

[raginggaijin]

Ragingaijin,

I stated in an earlier post.

Where do you think those 21 translations got their understanding of the Arabic of the Quran? Give me a break. You are not using logic, and are being blind and extreme. Maybe you are a genius and were only able to learn Arabic by comparing translations with the Arabic text (even the text you had to learn from the teachings of a human being, maybe the indexes and commentaries of your Quran translations WRITTEN BY MEN), but I'm sure you are still quite deficient in Arabic even with those 21 translations.

Allah is All Knowing, Seer. When it came to the topic of this thread, who is the one who refuted with clear proof from the Quran, and whose teachings of man were proven wrong?

So now non-Quranist Muslims are Islamists and not even Muslims? HAHAHAHA. That is good. Do yo even understand what Quranist means? It means Quran-centric or Quran-alone, or a follower of the Quran. Quranist, Quranite, Quran-alone . . .it's all the same. Here is the defintion of 'ist' in English

QURAN + IST, is not the name of a sect it is A name for those who concern themselves with only following the Quran. I personally wish those who are Quran only were actually united enough as a group to be considered a sect, as that would be a good thing.

Then why do you uphold teachings of hadith and scholars, as proven in your replies above?

Calling you a Quranist Muslim is no slander and is no different than calling you a Quran-alone, Quran-only or Quranite Muslim.

It is slander. I do not take the name of a sect, and I call myself by the name Allah gave us Muslim.

My own words bear witness that i only serve Allah with knowledge, sound logic, honest intelligence and whatever wisdom and good jugement God gives me.

As well as hadith and teachings of scholars, which are not authorized to be followed in the Quran.

"Follow what has been sent down to you from your Lord, and follow no friends other than He; little do you remember." Surah 73

It is unfortunate that the Quranist/Quran-alone/Quran-only/Quranite community has to be divided on such issues. But unfortunately it is because of the likes of you who base their religion on pure emotion instead of knowledge and sound judgment that this divide exists.

My being a Quranist Muslim means that I only follow the Quran for my religious guidance as well, the word of an honored messenger, Gabriel, given to another honored messenger, Muhammad (sas). But instead of guessing at the meaning of Arabic words and claiming that is how the Quran defines them or accepting translations of translators who also used MEN'S work to understand the Arabic of the Quran and then rejecting those very works of men (which formed the basis of their translations) when I don't like a certain meaning or when it behooves me, then claiming that these mens' work are some how only fabrications of men just because I don't like the meanings (and again still accepting the various translations based on these same works where I am comfortable with them), instead of doing all of that, I actually study the Quran understanding that it borrowed the language of the Arabs of old and therefore must be understood using this language. And I will not hypocritically accept a translation based on the sources of the language and then reject the sources as fabrications of men when I don't like something it says. Rather I will try to distinguish between a linguistically valid meaning, a theological meaning or a later meaning inappropriate to the Quran's time context. The fact that those 21 different translations you have exist is because not only do different Musilms stick their different theological ideas into the text redefining Arabic words, but many times the sources like Lisanul-Arab also have a number of meanings that are omitted from the translation due to that translator's school thought. Going to the original souces ensures that one can distinguish better between any theological meanings and how the Arabs of old actually used the language as a whole despite sects and schools of thought.

The Quran calls for the use of wisdom, intelligence and logic in order to gain a better understand of it, not ignorance, conjecture and emotion.

Then to you are your deeds and to me are mine. On the Day of Judgment it will be decided between us on who is rightly guided, and who is led astray.

Since you cannot bring anything to refute what was given from the Quran, and you insist on attacking me, I see no reason to continue discussion with you at all.

You made your choice.

Peace.