throat slitting and halal slaughtering methods
-
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.
-
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 -
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.
-
raginggaijin,
God will judge us in the end indeed. You did not bring anything from the Quran that goes against my approach, so i don't need to refute those verses. Why would I refute verses from the Quran anyway, if I follow it in its entirety? It is through following the Quran in its entirety and heeding its call to follow al3aql, all-3ilm, al-albaabu and an-nuhaa and what it has said about being written in an Arabic that was clear to whom it was first revealed that i have adopted my approach. There is no need to refute the Quran, if I am fully complying with it. Whereas you are using translations based on linguistic works when you are comfortable with what they say and rejecting those works and relying on your conjecture where you are uncomfortable with what they say, instead of seeking to understand the matter in its entirety. I do not uphold the religious teachings of hadeeth and I do not uphold the teachings of all scholars (it is idiotic to generalize all scholars throughout time, when they don't even agree with each other in MANY, MANY matters. And what about the Quran-alone scholars of the past???? Is it not okay to been in agreement with them either without being accused of following them). I uphold the correct understanding of the Arabic language in order to fully understand the Quran, without which we are only left to conjecture and guessing, and you should know well enough what the quran has to say about those who adopt conjecture as a basis of their belief. I, like you, follow the Quran-alone and reject the hadeeth as having any religious guidance. So your view, and seeming ultimatum to me, as if this were a choose or loose situation, as if we were talking about the fabrications about what we are to believe and where we are to find our guidance that are found in hadeeth, is quite myopic and based on a complete and seemingly willful ignorance of the matter. Your hatred of hadeeth has led you to be unjust. Reject the hadeeth as a source of religious guidance, YES. But understand that just becuase it is a hadeeth does not automatically make it untrue, especially when we have non-hadeeth linguistic sources that can confirm a meaning of a word. The hadeeth are not necesary, but that doesn't mean that each and everyone one of them is a lie. So there are two issues here. One is whether to consider them in our practice of the religion. And the other is if each and everyone of them is a lie. We need not even consider them in the pratice of our religion. But that does not mean we have to consider each and every one of them to be a lie. Reject hadeeth, YES. But do not paint such a broad brush that you may be involved in an unnecessary lie. that would be considered prejudice and unjustified hatred.
You have made your choice as well.
Godbless,
Anwar