Second Shahadah vs Actual Shahadah in the Quran

supportpeacenotwar

Salaamun alayki,

I will respond to you inshaAllah tonight as I have no time now.

Salaam,
Bender

Salaam,

No problem, there's no rush.

Bender

Salaam,

Well, if another interpretation is possible - then the points others were raising about 318 would contradict it.

Salaamun alayki,

Please take al look at the next picture, I think it's a wel known example.
http//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Necker_cube.svg
If you never saw it before you would see it as 1 cube, but if you "play" with your eyes then you can see 2 interpretations of the cube.
Both interpretations of the cube are correct it depends on how one looks at it. I think the same goes also for this verse, actually I think it goes for all verses and probably the verses of The Quran have unlimited interpretations which are all correct. I think the further you advance in knowledge the more interpretations you will see, some similar and some bigger then the others. But ONLY Allah knows the entire interptetation as I believe that He is the ONLY one who can see "the cube" as it really is.

btw. I am not sure what points you are referring at.

Although, I think you disagree with that interpretation of testifying oneness of Allah, i.e. testifying your knowledge of the oneness of God. So I'm not sure discussing this point would get us any further in that regard.

first of all, the verse does NOT tell us to do the sahada
second, the way the verse is structured is very complex, the only thing we can say for sure is that that Allah testified.
third, if in the best case scenario the angels and "oloo al3ilmi" also did sahada about the oneness of Allah, then for certain "oloo al3ilmi" does not refer to human beings but to some "higher" creatures who have this knowledge. btw "oloo al3ilmi" is only used 1 time in the whole Quran.

If you think that this is a phrase missing and that is why it is important, then it don't understand why anyone would entirely dismiss the way 631 is phrased with a bear witness element - at the start and end of the verse and then in the middle Allah states He knows that Muhammad is the Messenger, not bear witness.

I think it says "knows" because of how the verse goes. I don't know how to explain it but it would sound really starnge if it was "witness".

Yes, about that... so I'm not sure I fully understand your position. Are you saying the Quran is not preserved? Are you saying the Quran is not part of the Reminder? What do you think is the Reminder? Of course, I understand this is simply your interpretation, so don't worry about me taking anyone's word for it. It's late here and I don't have time to check, but I recall verses about reminding people with the Quran. I mean, what is the Quran if not reminding us of knowledge that we already know? I do appreciate that the Reminder can be interpreted as more than just the Quran though.

inshaAllah the next verses will help

1137 And construct the ship under Our eyes and Our inspiration, and do not speak to Me regarding those who are wicked. They will be drowned."

now look at this
5413 We carried him on the owner of slabs and mortar.

similar is the link between AlQuran an AlThikr
31 Sad and AlQurani owner of AlThthikri

and now this
4144 And had We made IT a non-Arabic Quran, they would have said If only its revelations were made clear! Non-Arabic and Arabic, say For those who believe, it is a guide and healing. As for those who disbelieve, there is deafness in their ears, and they are blind to it. These will be called from a place far away.

"IT" refers back to Al-Thikri in 4141
4141 Those who have rejected bi-Al-Thikri when it came to them; and it is an lakitabun 3azeezun.

InshaAllah it will be know easier to understand.

So, if you do think the Quran is preserved, then if an atheist or any non-Muslim tells you, well if you take a look at all the way the Quran was canonized, the Quran was not preserved, what would you say?

I would ask what their evidence is.

What evidence would you use? I mean the Quran is an oral recitation - the implications are huge if you say it isn't preserved. If you think the 19 miracle is evidence, do you think this mathematical concept is easy to understand for all people?

This is my evidence
482 Do they not reflect on the Qur'an? If it was from any other than God they would have found in it many a discrepancy.
so I would ask them to show me a discrepancy.

And no I do not think 19 is a miracle but a fitna.

I would say that if you think that terminology itself and the Message of the Quran is not preserved and conspicious in that regard - such as the use of the word Hadith - then can't any non-Muslim simply say so why didn't the Quran refer to the Hadith today? I mean it uses the word, albeit in a different way in that interpretation, and it states other things to happen in the future, so why not this? After all, they can tell us, the Hadith are what the Quran should be against according to Quran only Muslims?

I understand that the word hadith can be used in different ways, but to say that somehow the term hadith in the Quran cannot refer to the hadith we have today at all - I disagree. I didn't say that the term hadith is defined as the hadiths of bukhari et al.

I did not say that you said that the term hadith is defined as the hadiths of bukhari nope
It was just an example

Sure in some verses it also refers to hadith Bukarie and Co.
Let's take a look at 316
316 And from the people, there are those who will purchase a baseless hadith with which to mislead from the path of God without knowledge, and to make it a mockery. These will have a humiliating retribution.

Here it does refer to every baseless hadith that does not only includes Bukharie but every hadith that tries to mislead from the path of Allah.

Just wanted to say, that in order to understand The Quran we have to take the meanings of the words of The Quran as how they are used in The Quran otherwise we will see a lot of discrepancies in The Quran.

I don't know what you mean by this sentence But that is not the case if we take Allah as our only source to explain to us the meanings of the words, this is imo part of the preservation.
Could you clarify? You already stated that the Quran should not be assumed to be The Reminder, so why do you think the Quran is preserved?

see above maybe you will understand what I meant.

You know, your last sentence is what my atheist contact said to me. I already mentioned this in my opening post as well as my response.

I agree partly with mmkhan, I'm still pondering the issue about saying a shahadah at all. I think it isn't a formal statement, it is an internal testifying that based upon our knowledge and understanding. We focus on one God in this type of testifying, because that is the foundation of faith and the opposite of shirk. The oneness of God is the pivotal point of faith.

There is not a single human being who have witnessed the oneness of Allah or is witnessing it right now. If one says he witnessed it then the one can come forward and show me how he witnessed it.
I believe with every atom in my body in the oneness of Allah and as far as my knowledge reaches I can conclude that there is no other god besides Allah, but this does not make me a witnesser about the oneness of Allah nope
The only thing I can witness for myself, is that The Book I have between my hands is the truth and in this Book Allah testified about His Oneness.

Salaam,
Bender

Bender

Salamun alaika,

Here the verb is NOT repeated, and it begins with Qul.

Same command is given directly by Allah the Exalted by addressing the claimants of belief in 3132

The same command with the use of independent verb each for Allah and the Messenger

(direct address without Qul)

We find in Qur'aan that most of the injunctions are reiterated by asking the Messenger to verbally convey it to people signified by the imperative verb Qul.

Translation "obey" for is erroneous because it denotes to follow instructions or behave in accordance with a law, rule, or order. On the contrary it means to heartily accept the Word. One has first to heartily accept the verbal command, idea, proposition whereafter he follows-obeys it in practice.

That is the reason that we find the verdict that whoever accepted the Word of the Messenger he has actually accepted the Word of Allah. Why? Because what he verbally stated from the Book is but the Word of Allah.

The first noun of possessive phrase is in accusative case--one who is called-- suggesting that particle Ya is elided. This sentence is the circumstantial clause of preceding sentence---when they both were rendering masonary service for raising the building. This is their prayer. The object of verb is also elided since evidently perceivable by the work they were doing----acceptance of the service. In one to one address mentioning something known both to speaker and addressee, and understood without it, is what is termed redundant.

Salaamun alayka,

thx for your detailed response handshake
I will respond later inshaAllah.

Salaam,
Bender

Bender

Salaam,

No problem, there's no rush.

Salaamun alayki,

I already did )

supportpeacenotwar

Salaamun alayki,

Please take al look at the next picture, I think it's a wel known example.
http//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Necker_cube.svg
If you never saw it before you would see it as 1 cube, but if you "play" with your eyes then you can see 2 interpretations of the cube.
Both interpretations of the cube are correct it depends on how one looks at it. I think the same goes also for this verse, actually I think it goes for all verses and probably the verses of The Quran have unlimited interpretations which are all correct. I think the further you advance in knowledge the more interpretations you will see, some similar and some bigger then the others. But ONLY Allah knows the entire interptetation as I believe that He is the ONLY one who can see "the cube" as it really is.

I would agree that there are different intereptations, but as it also mentions in the Quran, some verses have a very straightforward interpretations. This may not be one of them.

btw. I am not sure what points you are referring at.
first of all, the verse does NOT tell us to do the sahada
second, the way the verse is structured is very complex, the only thing we can say for sure is that that Allah testified.
third, if in the best case scenario the angels and "oloo al3ilmi" also did sahada about the oneness of Allah, then for certain "oloo al3ilmi" does not refer to human beings but to some "higher" creatures who have this knowledge. btw "oloo al3ilmi" is only used 1 time in the whole Quran.

Since I made this thread, my position has changed slightly. I never saw 'shahadah' as some formality or doctrine. I saw it as a way to clarify one of the central tenets of the Quran.

I think it says "knows" because of how the verse goes. I don't know how to explain it but it would sound really starnge if it was "witness".
inshaAllah the next verses will help

1137 And construct the ship under Our eyes and Our inspiration, and do not speak to Me regarding those who are wicked. They will be drowned."

now look at this
5413 We carried him on the owner of slabs and mortar.

similar is the link between AlQuran an AlThikr
31 Sad and AlQurani owner of AlThthikri

and now this
4144 And had We made IT a non-Arabic Quran, they would have said If only its revelations were made clear! Non-Arabic and Arabic, say For those who believe, it is a guide and healing. As for those who disbelieve, there is deafness in their ears, and they are blind to it. These will be called from a place far away.

"IT" refers back to Al-Thikri in 4141
4141 Those who have rejected bi-Al-Thikri when it came to them; and it is an lakitabun 3azeezun.

InshaAllah it will be know easier to understand.
I would ask what their evidence is.

Thanks, I understand what you mean. Although I may view some of these verses slightly differently from you. However, I see no point in going over this further as its a matter of difference.

The atheist I spoke to has a lot of 'historical' evidence believe me. He's really into history and most of it goes over my head. Although I followed it up with questions about the nature of the recitation today etc, but can't quite recall the response actually.

This is my evidence
482 Do they not reflect on the Qur'an? If it was from any other than God they would have found in it many a discrepancy.
so I would ask them to show me a discrepancy.

Ah, I see your approach. You know, I'd love to see the outcome of such a dialogue would be with Klingschor - the atheist I spoke to, a fairly well known 'youtube atheist'. I should put someone on here on call with him and sit back and listen. ;D

And no I do not think 19 is a miracle but a fitna.

I don't know much about it so I am not in a position to call it a fitna.

I did not say that you said that the term hadith is defined as the hadiths of bukhari nope
It was just an example

I wanted to clarify my position with regards to what you said. I think this is fairly standard in a discussion.

Sure in some verses it also refers to hadith Bukarie and Co.
Let's take a look at 316
316 And from the people, there are those who will purchase a baseless hadith with which to mislead from the path of God without knowledge, and to make it a mockery. These will have a humiliating retribution.

Here it does refer to every baseless hadith that does not only includes Bukharie but every hadith that tries to mislead from the path of Allah.

Just wanted to say, that in order to understand The Quran we have to take the meanings of the words of The Quran as how they are used in The Quran otherwise we will see a lot of discrepancies in The Quran.

Yes, I would agree with that. I thought I didn't suggest otherwise - and if you thought I wasn't suggesting otherwise, then I don't really know why we are saying this to each other rather than in the first instance simply agreeing.

see above maybe you will understand what I meant.

There is not a single human being who have witnessed the oneness of Allah or is witnessing it right now. If one says he witnessed it then the one can come forward and show me how he witnessed it.
I believe with every atom in my body in the oneness of Allah and as far as my knowledge reaches I can conclude that there is no other god besides Allah, but this does not make me a witnesser about the oneness of Allah nope
The only thing I can witness for myself, is that The Book I have between my hands is the truth and in this Book Allah testified about His Oneness.

Salaam,
Bender

Except I never said that one will witness the oneness of Allah, but they will believe in that oneness based upon knowledge and evidence and their understanding. That is what they are a witness to. I mentioned this to another user in another thread that we all come across evidence etc and as it states in the Quran, some choose to follow and others simply ignore. This explicit reference to testifying, if it is that, can relate to this point and the fact we explicitly want to say we don't ignore this evidence when it comes to us.

Salaamun alayki,

I already did

Salaam,

And you've got a response!

Bender

Salamun alaika,

Here the verb is NOT repeated, and it begins with Qul.

Same command is given directly by Allah the Exalted by addressing the claimants of belief in 3132

The same command with the use of independent verb each for Allah and the Messenger

(direct address without Qul)

We find in Qur'aan that most of the injunctions are reiterated by asking the Messenger to verbally convey it to people signified by the imperative verb Qul.

Translation "obey" for is erroneous because it denotes to follow instructions or behave in accordance with a law, rule, or order. On the contrary it means to heartily accept the Word. One has first to heartily accept the verbal command, idea, proposition whereafter he follows-obeys it in practice.

That is the reason that we find the verdict that whoever accepted the Word of the Messenger he has actually accepted the Word of Allah. Why? Because what he verbally stated from the Book is but the Word of Allah.

Salaamun alayka,

It does not solve why sometimes is used ones and sometimes twice. I want to understand the logic behind it.

btw. In a post before you said Waw conjuncts back to for which reason as object of verb is in accusative state like and is its possessive noun.
I can not see the same case endings for "alrrasoola" and "olee alamri", so did not exactly understood why in 459 is in accusative state.
Can you explain further please, but please with as less as possible grammar terms.

The first noun of possessive phrase is in accusative case--one who is called-- suggesting that particle Ya is elided. This sentence is the circumstantial clause of preceding sentence---when they both were rendering masonary service for raising the building. This is their prayer. The object of verb is also elided since evidently perceivable by the work they were doing----acceptance of the service. In one to one address mentioning something known both to speaker and addressee, and understood without it, is what is termed redundant.

RED Do not agree with this yet (I have at the moment a different theory but I'll wait till your response)
To who is according you "qaiman bialqisti" referring in 318?

Salaam and thanks!!!
Bender

Bender

I would agree that there are different intereptations, but as it also mentions in the Quran, some verses have a very straightforward interpretations. This may not be one of them.

Salaamun alayka,

Straightforward interpretations to who?

Since I made this thread, my position has changed slightly. I never saw 'shahadah' as some formality or doctrine. I saw it as a way to clarify one of the central tenets of the Quran.

RED Yes I understand the reasoning behind the "traditional" sahada.

Ah, I see your approach. You know, I'd love to see the outcome of such a dialogue would be with Klingschor - the atheist I spoke to, a fairly well known 'youtube atheist'. I should put someone on here on call with him and sit back and listen. ;D

Not sure if such a diaglogue would be interesing.
I have had a couple of such conversations, but I learned that most people when they want to discuss The Quran with me, they are actually discussing with me hadiths or history or science etc and never The Quran.

I don't know much about it so I am not in a position to call it a fitna.

The Quran calls it a fitna.

I wanted to clarify my position with regards to what you said. I think this is fairly standard in a discussion.

Yes, I would agree with that. I thought I didn't suggest otherwise - and if you thought I wasn't suggesting otherwise, then I don't really know why we are saying this to each other rather than in the first instance simply agreeing.

I think the misunderstanding came in when you mentioned somewhere the word "hadith", then I probably misunderstood you, then you probably misunderstood me, then I probably misunderstood you again, then we came to conclusion that we agree that we were probably misunderstanding in each other and in the end we agreed ;D

Except I never said that one will witness the oneness of Allah, but they will believe in that oneness based upon knowledge and evidence and their understanding. That is what they are a witness to. I mentioned this to another user in another thread that we all come across evidence etc and as it states in the Quran, some choose to follow and others simply ignore. This explicit reference to testifying, if it is that, can relate to this point and the fact we explicitly want to say we don't ignore this evidence when it comes to us.

Salaam,

And you've got a response!

handshake (if I understood you correctly ;D )

Salaam,
Bender

supportpeacenotwar

Salaamun alayka,

Straightforward interpretations to who?

To people who read the Quran and sincerely seek its message. Although I'm not saying it happens straight away, it can take time to fully appreciate the whole message but we understand the central points.

RED Yes I understand the reasoning behind the "traditional" sahada.

I was clarifying my position, we are discussing this, are we not? My definition is at odds with the traditional way. It's not a requirement, its a statement that one chooses based on the evidence and signs they have come to appreciate.

Not sure if such a diaglogue would be interesing.
I have had a couple of such conversations, but I learned that most people when they want to discuss The Quran with me, they are actually discussing with me hadiths or history or science etc and never The Quran.

I'm actually not discussing with him right now. that's pretty much what did happen, and what I expected although I thought seeing as he is so interested in Islam it might be a little different. But he did end up just talking about history, and more history. and then a little more history after that. Maybe that's the only reason he wants to talk to Muslims, so he can talk about history.

The Quran calls it a fitna.

Code 19? Could you please provide some verses about this?

I think the misunderstanding came in when you mentioned somewhere the word "hadith", then I probably misunderstood you, then you probably misunderstood me, then I probably misunderstood you again, then we came to conclusion that we agree that we were probably misunderstanding in each other and in the end we agreed ;D

Well, at least at the conclusion of this discussion, we can agree.

handshake (if I understood you correctly ;D )

handshake

Salaam,
Bender

Salaam

Jafar

Salaam Jafar,

I don't understand why you couldn't just say no you don't believe the Quran is preserved? I can only assume that is what you mean.

Then I also don't understand why you couldn't just say no you don't believe the Tao The Ching is preserved?

And I'm more confused why you think such question matter???

So the treating one another as we should treat ourselves, that's a concept that God imbues in us. I agree it is a fundamental concept in Islam - but I'm just thinking out loud here so to speak. that was one of the points of asking those questions, as I mention in this post.

The capability is called 'empathy', and you'll find the evidence in all around you now and in the past, that many 'monotheists' are lacking of such capability. That's why it's worthwhile to put "Treat others as you would like to be treated' as a 'reminder' to ALL human beings whatever theists they are.

I wouldn't say the devil really believes in God - as truly believing would mean you would submit, because you believe in God's power and might. Maybe I simply have a different definition to you, so that's where we've crossed wires.

I think the word you used were "Monotheist" and not 'believes'.

I definitely believe in having faith and doing good works - in my opinion this all stems from TRULY believing in a Creator who always commands goodness.

I find your last comment quite ridiculous really. It sounds like you are telling me that I am not tolerant, and that I have an us vs them framework. All I did here, Jafar, was ask you some questions that I have asked of others, that I would ask myself and most of all I would ask Allah swt.

Allah is my Judge and knows my behaviour. It is the atheist I spoke to that swore at me when I had done no such thing to him, when he used a tone that he actually insisted was "facetious" and told me too overlook it etc, so he recognised that it could come across the wrong way. But I accepted, and I was tolerant. All I meant was that he rejected a particular argument, I thought initially it could be because he approaches it differently possibly as an Atheist. Our accepted beliefs mean that we interact with ideas in differing ways. However, considering that people here who classify themselves Muslim might not agree that changes things slightly.

My point about us being spaced out across the globe is that we are a small group with a lot of disagreements, we can come together to discuss and learn but do we form a self identified community or are we much more individualistic by nature as Quran alone Muslims? That's what I was getting at.

On contrary I never felt that I am among 'a small group' that you've mentioned above. All around me I see many good people, although they might came from different cultural background and groups, and yes I found many good people among those who you labeled as "Atheist" and also the "Buddhist" who doesn't even bother to discuss whatever 'there's a God or not" (technically Atheist).

And of course all around me I see many bad / evil people and they also came from different cultural background and groups, including those who are "Monotheists".

That's why "Treat others as you would like to be treated" a.k.a "Good Deeds" is more beneficial and important than "Mono or Poly Theists".

Salam / Peace

Mazhar

btw. In a post before you said Waw conjuncts back to for which reason as object of verb is in accusative state like and is its possessive noun.
I can not see the same case endings for "alrrasoola" and "olee alamri", so did not exactly understood why in 459 is in accusative state.
Can you explain further please, but please with as less as possible grammar terms.

This word is always in construct--possessive phrase. "Ya" at the end is indicator of its accusative state; in nominative state it is written with Waw.

Mazhar

To who is according you "qaiman bialqisti" referring in 318?

The role of a noun in a sentence is reflected by its case ending. "qaimam" is in accusative case. It is therefore circumstantial clause. This is Active Participle. Allah the Exalted is AlQayum. The manner how He the Exalted maintains everything is by the principle "bilqisti". "He the Exalted is the firm upholder of created realm with justice and equity".

supportpeacenotwar

Then I also don't understand why you couldn't just say no you don't believe the Tao The Ching is preserved?

And I'm more confused why you think such question matter???

Jafar, I asked a question first and I find your approach much less than open. When I read your question about Tao Ching, I thought it was a rhetorical question/device. I would say I do not know the Tao The Ching, but I have no reason to believe in its preservation as a text.

The point of this thread refers to an element of preservation. If the Quran is not preserved or part of the reminder and so on, then as I have mentioned, many times on this forum, and on this very thread I believe, the Quran is an oral recitation - that has HUGE implications about the ability to maintain an original message. Oral recitations are very often considered unreliable. How do we assume we know what the reminder God gives to us is and what isn't just a nice ideal that humans have created for ourselves??

The other point was that, as I mentioned to you previously but you haven't understood, is that I was trying to understand, if you do not think the Quran is preserved as such, how do you approach the Quran, what do you believe are the preserved elements in its message, how do you discern which aspects remain truthful and which don't. Although, it doesn't matter now, as I clarify later.

Do unto others have you would have done unto you - that's a good principle although it depends how one applies it and the rationale one uses as I mention below, but there is nothing to say that this has not simply come from human beings common sense. I think we just view this whole topic differently. I could ask you more questions about how you view God, Quran, and your approach to it but this discussion has not flowed along and is much more closed than others I have had on here. I'm also wondering if there is any need in us discussing this further.

The capability is called 'empathy', and you'll find the evidence in all around you now and in the past, that many 'monotheists' are lacking of such capability. That's why it's worthwhile to put "Treat others as you would like to be treated' as a 'reminder' to ALL human beings whatever theists they are.

A good principle. But why would you think this is a preserved reminder? You believe that the part of the Quran that says that reminder is preserved is the accurate part of the Quran and that the Quran is referring to this? Or do you view it differently - that this is simply what humans have 'preserved' because we evolved this way?

I have to ask questions like this - I do not know what you believe, and I am not trying to ask these questions to antagonise.
But I asked in order to genuinely understand. Having said that, the way the answers have gone, I feel more I've asked these questions for anyone reading this to consider themselves, if they so wish.

From an atheist perspective, this isn't a reminder from God or any Creator, this is just human beings not even behaving empathetically - but rationally. They can argue it only helps to make people receive behaviours they would rather receive.

There are some people who may never refer to a reminder of any sort, but they are more welcoming and open with people than what I have found in this instance.

I think the word you used were "Monotheist" and not 'believes'.

I searched posts for this word, and I couldn't find it at all. Saying "he said" "she said" doesn't seem to make any sense.

It would have been far simpler to say where we find common ground and whether we diverge considering this is a discussion that involves our viewpoints.

EDIT I checked the original post that you are referring to and I used the word belief in one God anyway - wow, I really see no point in this.

On contrary I never felt that I am among 'a small group' that you've mentioned above. All around me I see many good people, although they might came from different cultural background and groups, and yes I found many good people among those who you labeled as "Atheist" and also the "Buddhist" who doesn't even bother to discuss whatever 'there's a God or not" (technically Atheist).

I have never said that there are not good people who call themselves Atheists. I have not labelled them that, they call themselves that. - I see no reason why you have to use this kind of terminology that paints me as though I am going around labelling people, assuming that they cannot be good people. There are people who are non-Muslim who, I have stated on this forum, are very compassionate. Then there are some who are call themselves Muslim who are not. In fact, I could make a point from the Quran here but this isn't an open discussion, I find. So I will leave it there.

And of course all around me I see many bad / evil people and they also came from different cultural background and groups, including those who are "Monotheists".

Where have I ever said otherwise? Seeing as I am referring to the Quran, it is the Quran who says that some people who call themselves such and say they believe in Allah, but they do not believe in goodness and cause corruption in the land and that Allah does not love those who cause corruption/evil/hatred/sow seeds to discord.

That's why "Treat others as you would like to be treated" a.k.a "Good Deeds" is more beneficial and important than "Mono or Poly Theists".

Oh, I meant to also add earlier Atheists or anyone who looks at this outside of this being a preserved reminder could state that if it is purely rationally based then anyone could say I don't mind being treated in this particular way, even if its not a pleasant way so they can say I will treat others that way and I won't mind at all being treated the same way. They may have a slight point there considering they don't think it comes from a Creator.

I don't even use terms to label others unless they use that term themselves. I feel the discussion has reached its natural conclusion.

Salam / Peace

May there be peace upon those who truly seek to do good regardless of creed, 'race', gender, nationality and social background.

EDIT The thing about the small group point of Quran only - that was a general point because most people here are Quran only. You've never actually said how you would define or explain your own beliefs for others - however loose that definition may be. Because at the end of the day, people need some sort of general idea otherwise they won't know to start. like you said, treat others as you want to treat yourself is everywhere. I would say it just seems more human than anything else, which doesn't really explain how each individual views other things.

I can agree to disagree - on whatever it is that we disagree on, although even though I know we do disagree on several things I am not sure what all those points are because of the responses to the questions - as I am no longer interested in asking questions to better understand the perspectives you take. And like I said your responses don't feed into discussion but it takes a whole different tack from other discussions here which means asking questions, inevitably becomes futile.

supportpeacenotwar

double post.

Jafar

When I read your question about Tao Ching, I thought it was a rhetorical question/device. I would say I do not know the Tao The Ching, but I have no reason to believe in its preservation as a text.

Your answer is actually my point...
The preservation of Tao The Ching (or other books such as Quran) doesn't really matter at all..

The point of this thread refers to an element of preservation. If the Quran is not preserved or part of the reminder and so on, then as I have mentioned, many times on this forum, and on this very thread I believe, the Quran is an oral recitation - that has HUGE implications about the ability to maintain an original message. Oral recitations are very often considered unreliable. How do we assume we know what the reminder God gives to us is and what isn't just a nice ideal that humans have created for ourselves??

Erggh... have you heard something about "Natural Observation" ????

How do you think Abraham, Jesus and others who lived before the Quran being written knows about "God's reminder"?

The other point was that, as I mentioned to you previously but you haven't understood, is that I was trying to understand, if you do not think the Quran is preserved as such, how do you approach the Quran, what do you believe are the preserved elements in its message, how do you discern which aspects remain truthful and which don't. Although, it doesn't matter now, as I clarify later.

The same as any other book (including Tao The Ching, Bible etc..) If it's good I keep it, if it's bad/evil I ignore it..

Do unto others have you would have done unto you - that's a good principle although it depends how one applies it and the rationale one uses as I mention below, but there is nothing to say that this has not simply come from human beings common sense.

What is 'common sense'? And what IF it is human's common sense?
Do you think God has no power to inspire or influence Human's common sense?

I think we just view this whole topic differently. I could ask you more questions about how you view God, Quran, and your approach to it but this discussion has not flowed along and is much more closed than others I have had on here. I'm also wondering if there is any need in us discussing this further.

The most important point that I'm trying to make is
Mono-Poly-A theist doesn't really matter, I'm beleaguered on this entire over-emphasize on 'mono-theism'.

It's the same 'disease' that got into Rabbanical Jews as told by the stories in the Gospel!
If you read the Gospel well enough, it is very clear that "mono-theism" is 'nothing special' (yet it's not bad either), doing good deeds is more important.

A good principle. But why would you think this is a preserved reminder? You believe that the part of the Quran that says that reminder is preserved is the accurate part of the Quran and that the Quran is referring to this? Or do you view it differently - that this is simply what humans have 'preserved' because we evolved this way?

I advise you to go beyond (merely) the Quran, read the Gospel, understand what it teaches, read Tao The Ching understand what it teaches etc.. etc.. and you'll start to see the 'essence' of all world's wisdom teaching.

I have to ask questions like this - I do not know what you believe, and I am not trying to ask these questions to antagonise.
But I asked in order to genuinely understand. Having said that, the way the answers have gone, I feel more I've asked these questions for anyone reading this to consider themselves, if they so wish.

Why does it matter on "what I believe"???
Isn't "What I DO" is more important???

From an atheist perspective, this isn't a reminder from God or any Creator, this is just human beings not even behaving empathetically - but rationally. They can argue it only helps to make people receive behaviours they would rather receive.

There are some people who may never refer to a reminder of any sort, but they are more welcoming and open with people than what I have found in this instance.

I searched posts for this word, and I couldn't find it at all. Saying "he said" "she said" doesn't seem to make any sense.

It would have been far simpler to say where we find common ground and whether we diverge considering this is a discussion that involves our viewpoints.

Here's the 'common ground',

"Do unto others as you would like to be treated"
because
"You'll reap what you sow".

The above concept/principle actually appears in ALL wisdom books written by men from different places who lived on different times.

And you know what... *** DRUM ROLL ***
THE SAME CONCEPT ACTUALLY ALSO APPEARS IN THE QURAN!
Yet using different words and sentences..

Now can you seek out where it is?

I only 'reveal' this now because I want to 'test' your POV..

Whether you have the self-confidence and the 'ability' to put 'your own conscience' above the thing which your environment consider as 'holy'..

The ability to put 'your own conscience' above the thing which your environment consider as 'holy' is the key which makes Abraham different from his people, Jesus different from his people, Lao Tse different from his people, Siddharta different from his people etc..

Salam / Peace

supportpeacenotwar

Peace,

I really feel there is no need to continue discussing like this. It feels tiring and at odds. I don't like to be sarcastic in my responses - in that sense, treating others as I would want them to treat myself - so I wouldn't go "drum roll please", or "erggh have you heard of this". That is how lack of reciprocity in communication causes communication breakdown. I find this hard and difficult to respond to, because I like to remain cordial or polite where possible and I just don't go for these types of discussions. It's just not the way I do things.

I actually mentioned on another post the whole point about natural observation - to Faithful in fact. I haven't even been talking about monotheism per se. I never even used that word. I even told you I didn't use a particular word, and instead of saying sorry my mistake, and moving on you continue to talk about monotheism. Of course I am going to mention belief in one God to an extent, the Quran talks about it a lot because it teaches our reality extends from God and God creates our concept of goodness. Whether or not the reader agrees with that, that is one of the main topics of the Quran.

You are making assumptions about me. When I have the self confidence and when I gain an ability? Wow, what brazeness. What environment? I don't even go to a mosque. People I know are either non-religious Muslims, other faiths or lack of faith. Some members of my family may even border on agnostics. No-one ever taught the Quran to me. I barely had a religious education. But this is not a place for me to tell you about my upbringing.

I never said that God does not give us common sense for a reason. What is the reason in explaining that point again? I will be over explaining myself. And this is a wow point for me You actually seem to think I'm saying that the Quran does not include "do unto others as you would want done unto you". Well, its clear if that level of misunderstanding occurs, its best to leave it there. This is like the "you used the word monotheist" again.

I think it is part of the Quran - I asked you if it is preserved because I was asking about your reasoning behind why you would say it is preserved. Why would the Quran talk so much about justice, kindness and charity if we are not to treat others as we would want to treat ourselves? I mean, that goes without saying.

I have read other works. But this isn't a competition on who's done what. And of course the Gospel and Torah mention monotheism, of course monotheism isn't special to the Quran. I mean, that's exactly what the Quran says. Anyone, anytime anywhere can accept monotheism. And btw, the stories of Abraham and Jesus teach that they had scriptures anyway, although thats besides the point.

You could have told about what you do, or your beliefs. I meant both anyway. You seem very aggrieved that I have asked questions and nothing I say seems to be right. So we can leave this here. There is no reason to continue. Your manner is hostile.

In fact, I used to a neo-pagan. I can still even tell people about the Wiccan rede or how to cast a circle. But your assumptions would not allow you to have believed that. I've already mentioned this elsewhere that I know of these new age faiths, I know that some people practicing in them are very open minded people and that Pagan can't be used to label people as some might think. There are also some people who may reject the concept of God right now but they will come to accept it later.

The Atheist I spoke to on Skype, even though he has a 'facetious' manner or however he put it, was actually more polite than you overall, he actually seemed fairly open to questions even though I completely disagreed with him and I didn't find him preaching at others about what parts of the Quran they ought to focus on and what they shouldn't.

I'm not here to fight, I know you'll insist otherwise but the way the discussion has gone, its clear how this is going. I would actually appreciate it if you wouldn't leave an antagonistic response. If I can't discuss in the right way that you want, then lets I'll discuss with those who are happy to discuss with me.

Jafar

Peace,

I really feel there is no need to continue discussing like this. It feels tiring and at odds. I don't like to be sarcastic in my responses - in that sense, treating others as I would want them to treat myself - so I wouldn't go "drum roll please", or "erggh have you heard of this". That is how lack of reciprocity in communication causes communication breakdown. I find this hard and difficult to respond to, because I like to remain cordial or polite where possible and I just don't go for these types of discussions. It's just not the way I do things.

I'm not 'fighting' you, and it seems that you lack the 'tolerance' of how other people say stuff.

Again the main point are

Monotheism is nothing special. As there are a whole bunch of EVIL people who are monotheist. Check out the history of the level of atrocities that monotheist can do, from pillaging, robbery, massacres, slavery, rapes.. It's evidenced that monotheist human are able to do such atrocities.
Doing good deeds is more important, and if you're asking about a reminder than it's more suitable.
Quran is not the ONLY and/or LAST revelation / enlightenment from God. Infact God's revelation continues up until today at accelerating rate.

Salam / Peace

Man_of_Faith

Peace Jafar,

The actual actions of monotheists do not automatically render monotheism a wrong approach. Most people, no matter religion, are destined for Hell.

One thing you are right about, and it is that the righteous deeds and conduct of the Believers is most important for salvation, apart from believing that the Universe was created and the life does not end upon death.

Have you accepted the fact that other people may have a different opinion than you?

Many people around here believe the Quran to be the only exact wordings of God, apart from stone tablets long lost which were given to Moses.

Despite this, many of us, including me, gladly take a look at other words by righteous men such as those in the Bible, who were inspired and supported by God. Good for you that you can see the positive aspects of Buddhism, I like the meditation and some things from it myself.

I feel that you have an appalling attitude to be honest, and that you disturbed supportpeacenotwar' s peace. You try to teach people something, but do not live as you teach. How righteous is that?

To seek an inner peace within your soul and then let this peace spread around you is the main goal in Islam.

Supportpeacenotwar wants to stop talking to you because she cannot continue without becoming emotionally affected and can be a wise decision rather than it ruining the day. Rude people are certainly mood-destroyers and require lots of patience and self-control. If you are already in a bad mood, for whatever reason, it can be difficult to remain calm.

God bless you

supportpeacenotwar