What Constitutes a Muslim?

savage_carrot

Peace brother Kyle D

Very interesting and thought provoking discussions for me and i hope for everyone...

I just recognize that when the human "sighs" it is the release of tension.

Yes indeed, we all take deep breaths to release the tension...and thats what i did while starting my post, i hope you approve? lol

Give an example that we can work with so I can check myself and see if that is the case.

City of iram...the reading says to look at the ruins among us to glean the past...we have archeological evidence which is much worthy imo than to just overlook...as i have mentioned, differences in peoples experiences/inclinations will lead them to search for truth in different places...These parts are of the WHOLE...ALL these different truths lead to a better picture of the whole.

Whose spin SHOULD I be using? I have to follow what is inspired to me. And what kind of message is given where the recipient cannot understand? I disagree with that philosophy.

You ONLY understand what you can. Different people will understand differently...there are different ways to reach the truth...what matters is that we reach it.

I don't think the goal is to understand the Universe in entirety, but we can understand the guidance given to us so we can move through our lives efficiently. So for example, I don't forsee myself throwing any sticks and changing them into snakes, but I do forsee myself engaging in debates.

I do not forsee myself having to build any Arks, but I do forsee myself having to build a stable system around myself so that the instability of society does not effect me.

I think our different perceptions lead us to different facets of truth no matter what time period we are from. Your understanding makes sense to you and others that think that way. My understanding makes sense to me and others that think that way. We can also combine understandings at one point if we realise it doesn't matter how we reach the truth, rather that we get there. Doesn't make any truth more superior to the other or better than.

You see, I cannot logically deny that Jesus dies on the cross and was ressurected literally if I am going to blindly believe that sticks turn to snakes and seas spilt at the touch of a stick.

I respect your right to believe as you do as you have your reasons for believing them as do i.

The evidence I have is when one looks deep within and sees that all things are really ENERGY. As we are taught in grade school, energy cannot be destroyed. This energy is the substance of the ONE to whom we will return in the end. So as the God says, do not say of those who are killed in the God's path "They are dead". Energy is never destroyed and we can witness that scientifically.

These were questions put to atheists...not a believer. I agree with this reasoning, but it is not proof except to those that believe unless they witness resurrection personally.

They are constant as long as YOU are constant. Thats why we are told not to die EXCEPT in a state of peaceful submissiveness(islam).

It doesn't answer the query of an atheist as they can question that constancy is in a state of perpetual flux in this life, how will it be constant in the next? All it takes is dying in submission? Obviously the answers are deeper but the point was that there is no direct evidence even then...it is logic/reasoning whatever, a theory until the event occurs...NO absolute confirmation.

Where is the inconsistency?

The inconsistency is demanding absolute confirmation of sticks turning into snakes and not doing that for the examples of heaven and hell and life after death...you do NOT have absolute confirmation until the said event comes to pass...thus the verses

3652 Crying Woe upon us! Who hath raised us from our place of sleep? This is that which the Beneficent did promise, and the messengers spoke truth.

3974 And they shall say (All) praise is due to Allah, Who has made good to us His promise, and He has made us inherit the land; we may abide in the garden where we please; so goodly is the reward of the workers.

When the said event occurs, we have absolute confirmation. Before that it is just theory which we may choose to believe in, each according to our own reasons.

I am lost as to what you are stating here. Are you saying that under the LAWS that God has placed us in, that sticks transmutate to snakes? Please elaborate.

Do you have complete knowledge of God's laws? How do you know that there is no such law that requires the right circumstances to come forth and transmutate matter at the right time? Oh, the next q shall be, what would God want with such an example of a stick that we can't personally witness like the sun rising everyday...well I don't know God's mind brother, no one is qualified to know that...but i do know the laws of thermodynamics state that seemingly impossible things are NOT impossible. They are possible and encompassed within the system.

Let me ask you a question here put in a way you like to use...What would God want with such examples? God shows us His signs everywhere and in the universe (if we study it) of what His system is capable of. Is it chaos God wants us to see? Or is it the observation that everything is possible in God's universe according to the inbuilt system of laws which God is in full control of? As has been oft repeated here, God has no need to break ANY of His laws, He knows best how to acheive any set of outcomes without breaking any laws, incidentally, that He created in the first place.

Do you know if the transmutation of matter like a stick to snake is possible within His system? According to the evidence of the laws we know about, it is possible NOT impossible. Thus it is possible for a stick to turn into a snake according to the laws of the system. This might be unlikely but it IS possible.

Now the next question you will ask is, what does God mean by such an example? What do we learn from such an example? My answer to this question is, we learn what we are inspired from this example. Not to contest whether it actually happened because it can, incidentally, it also did happen in the reading. For some it might be debate, for some it spur the desire to work in plasma energy to reach truths hitherto undiscovered.
It's all varied and part of the whole.

Different? The God says consistently that there is NO CHANGE in His way(sunna). The God does not change real sticks into real snakes for one group of people and not the rest, because if He did, that would be a change in His Way (sunna). Do you think the God LITERALLY turned some humans into Apes and Pigs?

This is a completely illogical argument. There is no change in the message of monotheism...there is no change in His laws...then whats the problem? Everything can be encompassed within the system without breaking His laws and without chaos as God is in full control...what makes you think you are the same as the people with moses? You are different BUT you learn from their example...does not mean the actual example did not take place. God gives one set of people different things than the rest, is that a change in His sunna? Please answer the last question.

I hear you saying we should allow for minor variations, but wether it is major or minor, isnt that a change in the God's Way? The God has created according to a PATTERN(fitra), He does not change this to convine humans, it is the HUMAN UNDERSTANDING that must change, not the God's creation.

No it isn't. God has made us with differences and every set of people, every individual has different lives within each time period. Each is tested differently, is that not God's way? These differences are big and small, they encompass ALL possibilities God's system has. There is no confusion or conflict. Are you the best judge of the differences God has given people or God in His eternal wisdom? We need to change our preconceived notions of God and accept that He in is wisdom is capable and in control of ALL things and is the best judge of WHY and HOW things must happen they way the have, and do and will. Then are you going to complain, why you are not given what moses was given?

It can be "termed" by anyone, but can they prove it? Thats what I seek, proof.

Brother, even you can't have absolute confirmation until the event passes. No one can until the event passes. It is illogical to say i know what tomorrow brings...you can reason what it might bring but can't have absolute confirmation until tomorrow passes.

Yes, you noticed yet another sign of the ressurection, sleep YOu see how they continue to come? We don't have to just believe the statements of Humans, otherwise we should believe in Santa Claus, Boogey man, Hercules, Superman, etc. The God instead promises that WE will...

Indeed, God promises that we WILL.

Yes, even stones and iron are nothing but ENERGY. This is PROVEN in Science. As well another sign, we are already here, we are WITNESSING/SEEING our very own creation (because we are not our bodies, they are mere vessels). But many still question after so much evidence, "What! when we are reduced to bones and dust, should we really be raised up (to be) a new creation"?

Logical deductions, theories based on knowledge and reasoning. No absolute confirmation. That is why the disbelievers reject, because they are too lazy/arrogant to connect the dots...they only believe what they see imo...and have their justifications for perverting what they do see into something else.

You know, thats a good question to ask the people of Isa's (Jesus) time. It is claimed that he raised the dead to life, so if it LITERALLY HAPPENNED, as you said "why on earth would ANYONE deny it?"

Surely not the believers, even the unbelievers twist the truth around after they know, how they justify it is another issue, maybe they explain it away as evident magic? You must own that we are talking generally, the exceptions when it comes to specific trials, signs, tests...there are a multitude of reasons why people do the things they do. If it was common knowledge that such and such occurs in every time period like the sun rising then it wouldn't be something that can be concealed. The times it can be concealed is when people who KNOW conceal it BUT God insists on perfecting His light.

242 And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is).

2146 The people of the Book know this as they know their own sons; but some of them conceal the truth which they themselves know.

371 Ye People of the Book! Why do ye clothe Truth with falsehood, and conceal the Truth, while ye have knowledge?

No, I disagree. The God said He would SHOW US His signs, not tell us to just believe. The God says that He PROVES the truth with his WORDS. Words are only sounds, sound is only the movement of particles from THE ENERGY(RUH)

The way we are shown the signs differ and will vary person to person. Some may see the same, some may see others depending on how God wills. It is illogical to assume that every time period will see the same signs when our knowledge during time is in a state of constant flux. There may be signs we are shown which were shown to people living way before us, or we are shown others...it all depends, is relative. Obviously, i agree we ALL must have reasons for believing that only God will judge the worth of such reasons eventually.

4153 We will soon show them Our signs in the Universe and in their own souls, until it will become quite clear to them that it is the truth. Is it not sufficient as regards your Lord that He is a witness over all things?

Imo, it is not logical that everyone will be shown the same signs. This will vary from person to person depending on their state of mind, experiences, inclinations and ultimately God's wisdom of who will benefit from what.

YOu are getting caught up on "if it did happen", my point is that it does not matter, if it did or not, but we cannot bear FALSE WITNESS and say it did for sure. WHat benefit does it hold for you to even have FAITH that it did happen literally? The guidance, the purpose for the story, comes out either way, with EVIDENCE THAT IS VERIFYABLE.

God tells us what happened. God is the witness and after the knowledge from the reading has reached you, you are responsibile for studying this knowledge to your best extent, using whatever means at your disposal to verify using reasoning to learn from it whatever you can. If you take a symbolic lesson from it, good for you, If one discovers an archeological discovery and learns from it, good for him. If one discovers a scientific process, good for him.

You can't eliminate the possibility that it didn't happen. You have no proof or evidence to eliminate it when the reading contains this knowledge that encompasses ALL levels of truth. You were NOT a witness to it, just like we are NOT a witness to life after death, it is news of the unseen. You only have a theory or opinion based on your mindset and your knowledge.

The reading says NO SUCH THING, infact it tells us the polar opposite as i've mentioned on the other thread before http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2838&highlight= Then how can you judge what people will take from these verses and how it will benefit them? If you can't judge then how can you ask for it to be eliminated from the physical level by the question, what can God mean by such an example? Do you possess God's complete wisdom and/or knowledge to make such a claim that it has no truth on the literal level? Only God knows in His infinite wisdom, that is why these verses are present. Different people will take different truths from it on ALL levels.

SO tell me, with this understanding, why is it so important to you that it did happen literally, why do you fight to protect that literal understanding?

I try to point out that the reading from God is the complete truth on ALL levels, not just generalisations or embodiments. I will point out that there is another side to the story, another level if you deny one. It is important because it renders parts of the quran false in the premise that it never actually happened the way it is told.

366 Behold! you are they who disputed about that of which you had knowledge; why then do you dispute about that of which you have no knowledge? And Allah knows while you do not know.

Look, put it this way...if you say you have no knowledge of it, then don't argue it didn't happen. Simple and precise. If someone say's it did happen according to the reading...and you say you have no knowledge of it...do not argue about it...you don't know. If you tell the other person to not uphold what he has no knowledge of, he can easily turn back and tell you that he has knowledge of it from the reading and has his reasons as to why he believes that it can happen. As this is news from the unseen, he doesnt need to witness with his eyes, having reasons/deductions are enough. And since you claim you have no knowledge, you have no basis of arguing with such a person. Refrain from it. Allah knows while you do not know.

NO, the knowledge hsa NOT reached us. KNOWLEDGE is KNOWING. YOu must VERIFY something in order to KNOW it, otherwise it is just "belief". It is only by SEEING the signs that the God is SHOWING(sight) US, that knowledge reaches us.

Your own personal definition brother? Ayats are not signs? The reading is NOT a sign? We do NOT have knowledge from the reading? We do NOT know by reading the quran? We use the knowledge from the quran to verify logically, deductively, intuitively the truth. Doesn't mean that unless your stick turns into a snake in front of your eyes, you then truly know. As we have seen, news from the unseen is not physically verifiable but reaches us nonetheless. We must use our abilities next to connect the dots depending on our mindset what is plausible and not plausible. Other factors such as the sciences, experience and intuition play their parts...if you read the quran and connect the dots as to why an event in the reading could be possible or conceivable, thats knowledge. As we know, imo, thats what we are required to do.

Does knowledge reach everybody the same way?

Thats because the mojority of the people, those who SAY these things, are blind believers, they do not require proofs, that is why certain people blindly believed that the earth was flat, meanwhile the culture of the Egyptains maintained that it was not flat, long before such blind beliefs were held of the earths flatness. Its all a matter of verification, most people do not do it.

People hold strange beliefs, the quran erases falsehood and confirms the truth. This statement is very revealing in the many ways it is used.

God states we are responsible for our senses, so we must use them to verify statements, not disregard them and think that sticks turn into snakes, what guidance is there in waiting for such a literal event to take place?

Don't have to see it to believe it as i've explained. Do you encompass ALL of the God's guidance and wisdom to make this statement? Do YOU have perfect knowledge/wisdom of what God means with this example? God guides with it who He chooses and misguides who He wills.

So how have you reasoned that sticks literally turn into snakes? We don't need to have faith in that, only have faith in the lesson which can be applied to so many circumstances in our everyday lives.

Brother Kyle, your definition of faith and what we need to have faith in cannot possibly encompass and cater to the millions and billions of different people on this earth.

The God's path is not facing a million different directions. That is why there is the concept of "hajja" debating, so that we can cultivate one focus(qibla) based on the God's observable laws(restrictions) that we should all hear and obey. It is the rejectoprs and hypocrites who have all these other directions/focuses(qibla), they do not even follow each others qibla! You see, we respect the ideas of others, but the seekers of knowledge participate in hajja/debate so they can KNOW, not just believe.

God's path is a straight path, that in it's wisdom guides many people differently to it. What matters is that we reach it, no matter what our understandings might be...there are many different understandings and they are NOT mutually exclusive of the truth.

Also we are responsible for our hearing? How? Do you recall when a slander was made against a chaste woman and that which was HEARD but not SEEN was promoted, did the god approve of that? Please answer.

God explains to us His signs...unless we have four witnesses we cannot believe they were unchaste. The reading clarifies what we are to do regarding accusations in such a situation...and what we are NOT to do in such a situation. We should read the entire passage in context.

2404 And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after for such men are wicked transgressors;-

2405 to

2411 Those who brought forward the lie are a body among yourselves think it not to be an evil to you; On the contrary it is good for you to every man among them (will come the punishment) of the sin that he earned, and to him who took on himself the lead among them, will be a penalty grievous.

2412 Why did not the believers - men and women - when ye heard of the affair,- put the best construction on it in their own minds and say, "This (charge) is an obvious lie"?

2413 Why did they not bring four witnesses to prove it? When they have not brought the witnesses, such men, in the sight of Allah, (stand forth) themselves as liars!

So now that we have the clear truth from the reading...we see that God did not approve of the fact that there weren't 4 witnesses and yet this person was being accused. Reading the chapter puts this across very clearly.

Only those things we have no buisness pursuing cannot be witnessed

Then we shouldn't pursue the fact in the reading that we have life after death? Once again, we do NOT need to witness the news of the unseen with our eyes. We work it out, like we work everything else out. Whatever is mentioned in the reading is worth pursuing.

Nadia

savage_carrot

Peace bro Kyle,

Oh, perhaps I was incorrect. But let me ask MQ myself.

MQ, do you promote the idea that it is certain that a man once literally split the sea and turned a stick into a snake?

Imho, that is a very different question than what should be asked in the context and what mquran has written in his post. Are you guilty of leading the witness Kyle?

According to any available evidence? Yes, it is inconcievable. But we don't even need to worry about that.

According to your knowledge? But the knowledge you are given is little.

YOU are misinterpreting the link, If I said it was raining cats and dogs, that is a metaphor to help you understand something, does it follow that at some point there must be a day when dogs and cats literally fall out of the sky? This is where your logic is leading you. I'm trying to show you the alternative through the authorized concept of debate(hajja).

Brother, you have misunderstood what i am saying. I was talking about your statement and the way it was phrased as being semantically incorrect. If you have changed the statement and/or explained your understanding, that is enough for me. I will study your understanding further.

I thank the God within you and all of us for the kind words, may the God continue to increase us all in knowledge.

Indeed, and the God within me tells me to write you are welcome.

(** On a very serious side note, I have heard that statement before, but I don't truly understand how it developed. Does anyone witnessing this discussion know what it comes from? I am studying something else right now which came to mind when I heard that phrase***)

I think it might mean the feuds people had, especially during bloody feuds , their contention would span generations by which time the original feud had already become history/bones as the bodies of those killed originally...or it could mean two doggies fighting over a bone? lol

Respected, and I apologize for the incorrect assesment of your intentions. YOU are indeed doing what a righteous seeker of truth must do, debate thier position to see if it stands. I was unable to see that and apologize for it.

I apologize for not coming across more clearly...commonly a problem on a forum such as this.

Yes, you are absolutely correct, I hope I have given a very convincing argument in this post and the last, I look foward to your reply.

Always look forward to discussion with you.

Nadia

unknownuser

Peace be upon you Sister Nadia,

Peace brother Kyle

Very interesting and thought provoking discussions for me and i hope for everyone...

Thank you.

Quote
I just recognize that when the human "sighs" it is the release of tension.

Yes indeed, we all take deep breaths to release the tension...and thats what i did while starting my post, i hope you approve?

D

Quote
Give an example that we can work with so I can check myself and see if that is the case.

City of iram...the reading says to look at the ruins among us to glean the past...we have archeological evidence which is much worthy imo than to just overlook...as i have mentioned, differences in peoples experiences/inclinations will lead them to search for truth in different places...These parts are of the WHOLE...ALL these different truths lead to a better picture of the whole.

I will try to concentrate on this topic for the next few days. I have never had the chance to reflect on this story so I have no answer at this time. Please be patient with me while I take a long look at this.

Quote
Whose spin SHOULD I be using? I have to follow what is inspired to me. And what kind of message is given where the recipient cannot understand? I disagree with that philosophy.

You ONLY understand what you can. Different people will understand differently...there are different ways to reach the truth...what matters is that we reach it.

I agree that people reach the truth in different ways, and debating helps us to bring those differnt paths together. Until we do, we are following different focuses(qiblas), and we should all be united on out focus(qibla).

Quote
I don't think the goal is to understand the Universe in entirety, but we can understand the guidance given to us so we can move through our lives efficiently. So for example, I don't forsee myself throwing any sticks and changing them into snakes, but I do forsee myself engaging in debates.

I do not forsee myself having to build any Arks, but I do forsee myself having to build a stable system around myself so that the instability of society does not effect me.

I think our different perceptions lead us to different facets of truth no matter what time period we are from. Your understanding makes sense to you and others that think that way. My understanding makes sense to me and others that think that way. We can also combine understandings at one point if we realise it doesn't matter how we reach the truth, rather that we get there. Doesn't make any truth more superior to the other or better than.

So what is your understanding of the above subject of "building an ark"? Is it different? And if so, how do we arrive at the same conclusion if your understanding is different?

Quote
You see, I cannot logically deny that Jesus dies on the cross and was ressurected literally if I am going to blindly believe that sticks turn to snakes and seas spilt at the touch of a stick.

I respect your right to believe as you do as you have your reasons for believing them as do i.

I always respect your right, but this concept must be debated for the simple fact that when one is confronted with the leader of a wicked society or just small group, I don't want them to start throwing sticks at him/her, I would rather see that person deliver a strong argument that swallows up falsehood. Which would you rather see?

Quote
The evidence I have is when one looks deep within and sees that all things are really ENERGY. As we are taught in grade school, energy cannot be destroyed. This energy is the substance of the ONE to whom we will return in the end. So as the God says, do not say of those who are killed in the God's path "They are dead". Energy is never destroyed and we can witness that scientifically.

These were questions put to atheists...not a believer. I agree with this reasoning, but it is not proof except to those that believe unless they witness resurrection personally.

Proof is proof, how can it be proof to one set of people and not to the other? My point is, this is VERIFYABLE proof, but I do also understand that even if I showed them ALL the signs, they will not believe. But that does not mean the proof is not there.

Quote
They are constant as long as YOU are constant. Thats why we are told not to die EXCEPT in a state of peaceful submissiveness(islam).

It doesn't answer the query of an atheist as they can question that constancy is in a state of perpetual flux in this life, how will it be constant in the next? All it takes is dying in submission? Obviously the answers are deeper but the point was that there is no direct evidence even then...it is logic/reasoning whatever, a theory until the event occurs...NO absolute confirmation.

We are LIVING The direct evidence! We came from NOTHING and now we are living, why would one think this cannot be duplicated? Energy is neither created nor destroyed says the scientists that the athiests look up to. What more direct evidence do we need? Maybe I am not understanding the question.

Quote
Where is the inconsistency?

The inconsistency is demanding absolute confirmation of sticks turning into snakes and not doing that for the examples of heaven and hell and life after death...you do NOT have absolute confirmation until the said event comes to pass...thus the verses

3652 Crying Woe upon us! Who hath raised us from our place of sleep? This is that which the Beneficent did promise, and the messengers spoke truth.

This happens all the time. Most people are in a waking sleep, and they are awakened one day to reality.

3974 And they shall say (All) praise is due to Allah, Who has made good to us His promise, and He has made us inherit the land; we may abide in the garden where we please; so goodly is the reward of the workers.

Again, the "garden" is a state of mind, we can have the garden RIGHT NOW. Why is it assumed that these verses are about after one's physical vessel is in the grave?

When the said event occurs, we have absolute confirmation. Before that it is just theory which we may choose to believe in, each according to our own reasons.

Yes, and these events are occuring everyday.

Quote
I am lost as to what you are stating here. Are you saying that under the LAWS that God has placed us in, that sticks transmutate to snakes? Please elaborate.

Do you have complete knowledge of God's laws? How do you know that there is no such law that requires the right circumstances to come forth and transmutate matter at the right time? Oh, the next q shall be, what would God want with such an example of a stick that we can't personally witness like the sun rising everyday...well I don't know God's mind brother, no one is qualified to know that...but i do know the laws of thermodynamics state that seemingly impossible things are NOT impossible. They are possible and encompassed within the system.

No I don't have complete knowledge of the God's laws, but again, the God tells us to reflect, and when I do so, I cannot see myself debating a magician by throwing sticks, that story taken literally does nothing for me. WHen I understand that itis speaking of debating and showing people how what we think is rigid/solid, is really ENERGY, so that the human can see ALL is ONE, then I can apply it to my life. This is what I am seeking , REAL APPLICABLE RESULTS (A beautiful mind's fans will appreciate that)
D

Let me ask you a question here put in a way you like to use...What would God want with such examples? God shows us His signs everywhere and in the universe (if we study it) of what His system is capable of. Is it chaos God wants us to see? Or is it the observation that everything is possible in God's universe according to the inbuilt system of laws which God is in full control of? As has been oft repeated here, God has no need to break ANY of His laws, He knows best how to acheive any set of outcomes without breaking any laws, incidentally, that He created in the first place.

Do you know if the transmutation of matter like a stick to snake is possible within His system? According to the evidence of the laws we know about, it is possible NOT impossible. Thus it is possible for a stick to turn into a snake according to the laws of the system. This might be unlikely but it IS possible.

Yes, the Governing Intelligence is CAPABLE of ANYTHING, but He created the world on a certain PATTERN so that we can recieve guidance by this pattern. The Big Bang spewed out the elements in the periodic table in STRICT mathematical sequences, there is no change in the God's way. How many times do we throw a stick and it doesn't turn into a snake before we disregard this concept as literal? Is the guidance that we should hope that when we are in need, the God will CHANGE the law of sticks?

But again, the point is that we were not there, so we CANNOT promote the LITERAL understanding of this. We have no KNOWLEDGE of that and we are NOT TO pursue that which we have no knowledge of.

Now the next question you will ask is, what does God mean by such an example? What do we learn from such an example? My answer to this question is, we learn what we are inspired from this example. Not to contest whether it actually happened because it can, incidentally, it also did happen in the reading. For some it might be debate, for some it spur the desire to work in plasma energy to reach truths hitherto undiscovered.
It's all varied and part of the whole.

Inresponse to the humans desire to research plasma energy, we certainly don't need a story about a stick turning into a snake, the Universe is filled with signs to inspire one to seek further. But tell me, does one have to have interest in plasma energy to be able to get guidance from this story? What about the average ordinary person who is weighing evidence? What about the athiest who did not know that all things were ENERGY, therefore things that look stable like sticks and mountains are really waves of energy (like the movement of a snake).

Quote
Different? The God says consistently that there is NO CHANGE in His way(sunna). The God does not change real sticks into real snakes for one group of people and not the rest, because if He did, that would be a change in His Way (sunna). Do you think the God LITERALLY turned some humans into Apes and Pigs?

This is a completely illogical argument. There is no change in the message of monotheism...there is no change in His laws...then whats the problem? Everything can be encompassed within the system without breaking His laws and without chaos as God is in full control...what makes you think you are the same as the people with moses? You are different BUT you learn from their example...does not mean the actual example did not take place. God gives one set of people different things than the rest, is that a change in His sunna? Please answer the last question.

I am not clear as to your response of humans being turned into literal apes and swine, is it your opinion that this really happened? Yes, the God gives signs to everyone, but according to the PATTERN He created of which there is no change. Yes, the God uses those before us as an EXAMPLE, how will you follow the EXAMPLE of throwing a stick and changing it into a snake? Please take me step by step through how you will follow this example.

****I am stopping here, This thread is getting too long and seems to be going no where. I have no knowledge of the literal events, so I will not pursue them, I will however get back to you regarding city of Iram.

unknownuser

Peace be upon you Sister Nadia,

Quote
Respected, and I apologize for the incorrect assesment of your intentions. YOU are indeed doing what a righteous seeker of truth must do, debate thier position to see if it stands. I was unable to see that and apologize for it.

I apologize for not coming across more clearly...commonly a problem on a forum such as this.

Quote
Yes, you are absolutely correct, I hope I have given a very convincing argument in this post and the last, I look foward to your reply.

Always look forward to discussion with you.

Yes, I do intend to continue, but I don't want to participate in the very long posts, although I realize that I help create them, but they often times become hard to follow and questions to do get properly addressed. Perhaps we can start another thread to discuss why we should believe literally many of these statements.

savage_carrot

Peace brother Kyle,

Yes, I do intend to continue, but I don't want to participate in the very long posts, although I realize that I help create them, but they often times become hard to follow and questions to do get properly addressed. Perhaps we can start another thread to discuss why we should believe literally many of these statements

Sure, I think both our opinions are laid out...i am satisfied with the discussion and points of view, so my purpose in participating is complete.
Thank you!

Nadia

TAJ

Salaams Layth,

Peace to you all,

In light of all the energy being displayed in the forum discussions, I would like to attempt to 'harness' such energy towards a fundamental question

What Constitutes a Muslim?

The reason I am asking is to have a clear vision to share (according to brother Damon's suggestion) that will be the foundation of the new "Islamicreform.org" site and the base of all unity.

Here is a list for discussion on what you may think constitutes a Muslim

Believing in and upholding the commands of 6151-153.
Believing in and upholding all the social and legal laws of the Quran as per 37.
Believing that the traditional interpretations and rituals must be followed.
Believing in the Quran's text (word for word, verse for verse).
Believing that messengers will come after Mohammed.
Believing in the number 19 as a sign of the Quran.
Believing that 2 verses (128&129) must be removed from the Quran.

This post is addressed to everyone...Those for the unity, and those against it, and those who could not care one way or another.

Let your voices be heard...

Can I remind you of something and I hope you agree with me, that a ?Muslim? is not the same as a ?Muslim li?Llah?

I think that the word "Islam" means the journey towards perfection. It is a work in progress. Perfection to me is free from anything bad or negative, so a ?Muslim? is someone who is taking steps, taking the journey towards perfection, freeing himself all the way from stains of negativity. If he were taking those steps focused on Allah, then he would be a ?Muslim li?Llah?. But to be a Muslim (striving for perfection & purification) is still good even if Allah is not in mind.

Thanks and Salaams
Taj

progod

God bless all,

Taj, you said

I
think that the word "Islam" means the journey towards perfection.

Where did you get this definition of the word. Did you make it up yourself or are you using Classical Arabic, or any Arabic for that matter.

Most people here still have an investment in Islam and still like to call themselves Muslims and their religion Islam. Why? I do not know everyone's reasons but once we realize the true defintion of Islam we should not be trying to twist or conjure up meaning of Islam so that we can still call ourselves Muslims and our religion Islam. THe object of this forum is not Islamic reform, it is searching for the truth, whether that truth embraces the name Islam or not. Unfortunately the Koran's truth does not exactly embrace Islam as a title that we should don.

We need to get real about what Islam means, in its modern sense and in its Classical Arabic sense.

Islam in its modern sense has belief in the messengership and prophethood of Muhammad at its core. We also accept this but we believe that if someone is sincerely convinced that Muhammad is not God's messenger but that person still sincerely believes in God and wants to please God then that person is still in line with the Koranic premise that it is is submission to God that allows for God to grant us submission.

Likewise if someone does not know about Muhammad or is a Christian or a Jew or a Gnostic who believes in God, not making equals with him, having no real knowledge of Muhammad that that person can attain salvation as well.

It is only rejection of Muhammad's message after realizing that it is God's message or considering that it may be God' message in truth that constitutes subordination against God.

1.Modern Islam has Muhammad at its focus whereas the message of the Koran does not.

The word Islam alone only applies to us in that it can mean salvation. Those of u that are submissive to God (muslimoona lillaahi) will attain salvation (al-islaam) and are muslims (saved) in that sense.

But preferring this Arabic word over phrases in our native languages that mean the same thing speaks definitley speaks to a bias, as if Islam were a superior word and Arabic a superior language.

Godbless,
Anwar

TAJ

God Bless you too, Anwar.

Taj, you said

think that the word "Islam" means the journey towards perfection.

Where did you get this definition of the word. Did you make it up yourself or are you using Classical Arabic, or any Arabic for that matter.

The meaning I provided is but one of the meanings of the word ?Islam?. I did not make it up. Personally, now I have come to believe that it is the most appropriate meaning because the word ?Islam? is a general word, just like the word ?discipline? for example. It is the base for every good thing.
So when Allah say "Inna Al Deena 3inda Allahe Al Islam." To me it translates as ? The system that Allah approves is working towards perfection by ridding the self from all negativities?

Most people here still have an investment in Islam and still like to call themselves Muslims and their religion Islam. Why? I do not know everyone's reasons but once we realize the true defintion of Islam we should not be trying to twist or conjure up meaning of Islam so that we can still call ourselves Muslims and our religion Islam.
THe object of this forum is not Islamic reform, it is searching for the truth, whether that truth embraces the name Islam or not. Unfortunately the Koran's truth does not exactly embrace Islam as a title that we should don.

I don?t believe that knowing the truth makes one a Muslim. Iblees did know the truth. He wasn?t unaware of it. However, he failed to rid himself from pride, prejudice, arrogance, etc?So knowledge of the truth does not make one a Muslim.

We need to get real about what Islam means, in its modern sense and in its Classical Arabic sense.

?Islam? is not the same as ?Islam Li?Llah?

Islam in its modern sense has belief in the messengership and prophethood of Muhammad at its core. We also accept this but we believe that if someone is sincerely convinced that Muhammad is not God's messenger but that person still sincerely believes in God and wants to please God then that person is still in line with the Koranic premise that it is is submission to God that allows for God to grant us submission.

If one is Muslim Li?Llah then one has to believe in all His Angels, Books, Messengers and the Last Day provided that he knows about them, so there is no room in his heart to deny them or argue about them.

Likewise if someone does not know about Muhammad or is a Christian or a Jew or a Gnostic who believes in God, not making equals with him, having no real knowledge of Muhammad that that person can attain salvation as well.

I agree.

It is only rejection of Muhammad's message after realizing that it is God's message or considering that it may be God' message in truth that constitutes subordination against God.

Right.

1.Modern Islam has Muhammad at its focus whereas the message of the Koran does not.

The Quran speaks to Muhammad (personally) in many places. Why would one choose to deny that!?
I do not Oslim my face to Muhammad because Muhammad is not my focus although I consider him my leader still.

The word Islam alone only applies to us in that it can mean salvation. Those of u that are submissive to God (muslimoona lillaahi) will attain salvation (al-islaam) and are muslims (saved) in that sense.

The word ?Muslim? in Arabic does not mean saved.

But preferring this Arabic word over phrases in our native languages that mean the same thing speaks definitley speaks to a bias, as if Islam were a superior word and Arabic a superior language.

I don?t understand your point. Are there any missing words in your paragraph here?

Thanks and Salaams,

Taj

mquran

Salaamun alaikum Anwar,

Firstly, let me apologise for not having called you yet. My schedule has been changed and so I've not been able to get time. I'll email you again when I get a better schedule, insha Allah.

Most people here still have an investment in Islam and still like to call themselves Muslims and their religion Islam. Why? I do not know everyone's reasons but once we realize the true defintion of Islam we should not be trying to twist or conjure up meaning of Islam so that we can still call ourselves Muslims and our religion Islam. THe object of this forum is not Islamic reform, it is searching for the truth, whether that truth embraces the name Islam or not. Unfortunately the Koran's truth does not exactly embrace Islam as a title that we should don.

I must say, my current consciousness about 'islam in the world' and 'al-islaam' was first stimulated by your own writings. While I understand your desire to find the correct definition of 'islaam', I believe that by abandoning the Quran as your source of DICTION, you would have made yourself vulnerable to the biases of lexicographers.

If I may, I'd like to demonstrate what I mean

O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you and know that God is with AL-MUTTAQEEN (9/123)

To me, al-muttaqeen's definition would have been enriched with 9/123's context. Al-muttaqeen are those who battle al-kafireen and firmness is found in them. So you see, al-qur'aan to me isn't simply a recipient of meanings from a dictionary, it also helps colour the meanings itself.

I know this subject emotes you a little, but I assure you Im simply stating my opinion. As I said, your writing on 'islam' has benefitted immensely.

thanks and peace.

progod

Thank you mquran and Taj and God bless you,

Taj, you said

Personally, now I have come to believe that it is the most appropriate meaning because the word ?Islam? is a general word, just like the word ?discipline? for example. It is the base for every good thing.

So this is personal. That in essence does mean that you made it up, but I know you believe that this definition is justified. So le tme say that discpline means something. Discipline means either 'actions taken against another to cause correction of misbehavior' OR 'being diligent in adhering to something (an idea, rules, etc). most times adhering to means to an end.'

These are the meanings that people communicate when they use this word 'discipline' and can be found in the dictionaries. Everyword has specific meaning and communicates specific ideas. Discipline is far from the base of every good thing. It can be used in an evil sense as well. Certain plans, whether evil or good require discipline to execute. So discipline definitely will lead to success, but the success can be a small, and evil success, like putting planes through the twin towers and killing thousands of innocent individuals. Discipline is definitely the key to success at anything because when applied to plans or goals it means adhering to the practice of everything that facilitates one's goal. But discipline is not the basis to everything that is good.

Mquran, you said

While I understand your desire to find the correct definition of 'islaam', I believe that by abandoning the Quran as your source of DICTION, you would have made yourself vulnerable to the biases of lexicographers.

If I may, I'd like to demonstrate what I mean

O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you and know that God is with AL-MUTTAQEEN (9/123)

To me, al-muttaqeen's definition would have been enriched with 9/123's context. Al-muttaqeen are those who battle al-kafireen and firmness is found in them. So you see, al-qur'aan to me isn't simply a recipient of meanings from a dictionary, it also helps colour the meanings itself.

First, thank you for understanding that this issue emotes me. I won't reallly go into why here and now because it is of no relevance to getting this issue cleared up. Maybe one day we will be able to look back and I can say to you why, but right now it would only confuse the issue.

I believe that by abandoning the Quran as your source of DICTION, you would have made yourself vulnerable to the biases of lexicographers.

I understand you concern but do not agree with it. I don't because the Koran's diction is based on the diction of the Arabs, regular human beings, of Muhammad's day. Those people were the source of the language that the Koran uses. So when the Koran was revealed, Muhammad and his people were the authorities on the Arabic of the Koran. They had the right to say if it was written in crappy language, with incorrect grammar or in an excellent language. From what we know it was praised for its style and didn't come under fire from any source of that time about its language.

The lexicographers' job was to write down and classify the language of Muhammad, which was still being used and spoken 300 years after the advent of the Koran, by people who were isolated from cities as well as by people who were inspired to keep speaking the way their fathers did because the Koran gave thier language religious legitimacy, the pre-Islamic poetries ecouraged ethnocentricity and I'm sure there were other ethnocentric reasons involved. That is why the language of Muhammad's day that the Koran, the hadeeth and the pre-Islamic poetries use was preserved long enough to be studied and catalogued.

I don't see any reasons for the lexicographers to be biased. In their minds they were cataloguing how word were used in Classical Arabic. They included every possible usage that they knew of and their works through later scholars eventually were organized into dictionaries and lexicons. But all that these lexicographers were doing was cataloguing the words of Classical Arabic and their meanings. It has nothing to do with religion, it only had to do with cataloguing the language so that it could be learned, studied and taught forever. The Koran, Early Arab ethnocentricity and the poetries helped it gain enough prestige so that people would even endeavor to do such things. Their work is acceptable and their biases have to be logically proven with real evidence not conjecture.

The only bias that can be found in these works is that they include the meanings of religious scholars and meanings that have post-koranic origins.

However, the God-send is that the lexicographers were very exhaustive in quoting the sources of their cataloguing. When we go into these lexicons the only basis that we have upon which we can say "Hey, the Koran couldn't have used 'such and such' a word in 'such and such' a way is when the concept that the meaning implies definitely has post-koranic origins (meanings like 'car' for 'siyaarat' or 'imposed religious tax by Muslims on other people with scriptures' for 'jizyat' or 'religious scholar of Islamic jurisprudence' for 'faqeeh' or 'mosque(place of worship for Muslims) for 'masjid.')

The above are all concepts that without a doubt have post-koranic origins because the things that they connnect to could not have existed in pre-Koranic times amongs the Jahileeyah Arabs (whether Christian, Muslim or Pagan) when Muhammad was alive and walking, very much an Arab, but in no way yet a prophet, or a messenger.

When we look into the lexicons we have only to elimate those time bound meanings that are specific to the post-koranic era. Meanings that could very well have existed in pre-koranic times are acceptable as pre-koranic meanings and therefore acceptable in our understanding of the Koran, because their is no evidence that suggests that such a meaning was invented in post-koranic times. All of the evidence suggests that the Arabs of 300 years after the Koran who were bedouins, qurras, rawis or just plain old linguistic purists still spoke the language that Muhammad and his contemporaries spoke.

You also said Mquran

O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you and know that God is with AL-MUTTAQEEN (9/123)

To me, al-muttaqeen's definition would have been enriched with 9/123's context. Al-muttaqeen are those who battle al-kafireen and firmness is found in them. So you see, al-qur'aan to me isn't simply a recipient of meanings from a dictionary, it also helps colour the meanings itself.

The problem here is in your idea that a word can have a particular defintion 'to you' and only you. But that is not the way language works. Words have common defintions 'to everybody.' That is the only way that a language can successfully be used to communicate between people. If 'car' meant 'an apple' to one person and 'a tree' to another there would be no understanding between them. Some people do have mistaken concepts about the words that they use, and these people are the people who have communication and learning problems.

Whether al-muttaqeen's definition is enriched or not by the context is not the issue. Muttaqeeen already has a Classical Arabic meaning. 'Al-mutaqeena.' It means 'self-protecting.' The Koran does as any author or speaker will do when trying to get a certain message accross. Plain and siimple a 'muttaqin' in Classical Arabic is a person who protects himself. What the Koran does is go into the ways that a person who is protecting himself can go about doing jsu that.

What the Koran does specifically, as any author with a message about self-protection would do, is it presenta dangers. Danger is the antithesis/opposite of self-protection. In the case you mention, 'hostility from God's disloyalists (kaafiree-llahi)' and weakness in dealing with these people presents a danger to God's loyalists. Since self-protection (attaqwaa) is the fending off of any danger, logically if they are self-protecting (al-muttaqoona) they will fend off the danger by fighting their hostile enemies witih firmness.

So the Koran's words are recipients have always been and will always be the recipients of the meanings of dictionaries. In pre-islamic times the Arab people, collectively, were the dictionary and the meanings of words were in their heads. Just as all of us are dictionaries for the words that we have learned in respect to the langauge we speak.

Think of it, who among you when reading a book in your native language, having run across a word that you do not know will just make up a meaning and then assert that your conjured up meaning is the right word. You MAY be able to get a gist of what the word MIGHT mean from the context, but context clues do not always give accurate meanings. The meanings of words in some contexts can never be figured out by context clues. Only demonstration can 100% of the time give accurate meanings. That is why we refer to other people who have a clear picture of the word to describe to us what the word means. Once we know what the word means the context becomes clear.

What I'm saying can get tricky when we see that the lexicographers of all languages use context clues to deduce and then describe the meanings of words. But the difference here is that they are using a wide variety of context clues from different sources, and consulting the speakers of that langauge about how a word can be used and how a word can't be used. That is how we've gotten the dictionaries of every language, but the biases of the lexicographers only come into play when people's religious ideas (which are the real biases) are at stake.

You see, Mquran, your idea that the Koran can somehow define a word, through 'colouring' it in a specific context has to do with two misconceptions that you have. The first misconception you have is that the particular context of a word within one, particular usage colours the word absolutely.

Would the enemies of the prophet Muhammad (God bless him) have talked about being 'muttaqoona' and fighting Muhammad and his followers to defend against an anti-jahiliyya influence, that in no way would have made the word 'muttaqoona' mean 'fighting off Muhammad and his followers.' We might say, In this context self-protection/taqwaa means fighting off Muhammad and his followers' but that is just a short way of saying 'The type of 'self-protection' implied here is protection against anti-jahiliyya influence; the anti-jahiliyyah influence being embodied by Muhammad and his followers and the jahiliyyah culture being seen by these jahiliyyah men as an extension of their very lives.'

The second misconception you have (and correct me if I'm wrong about this) is that the Koran is an authority on the language of Muhammad and his people, or on any language for that matter. As I stated before the Koran used the words of the Arab people of Muhammad's day to communicate its message to those people. Any point at which the Koran didn't concur with the way these people used their language is where the Koran would have been wrong about the langauge it uses, not those people.

The lexicographers can be wrong about the meaning of the a word but that cannot be shown using the Koran. That has to be shown by bringing to light inconsistencies within their work. All they did was write down how people used the word, and the people they consulted spoke the language that Muhammad and his contemporaries spoke for all intents and purposes, and so they are authorities on how the language of the Koran is to be understood, not how the message of the Koran is to be understood.

People can understand the phrase 'Kill two birds with one stone' in a number of different ways, but no-one will dare to say that 'bird' means 'goal' whenever an english speaker uses this word, or that 'to kill' means 'to accomplish' whenever the word 'kill' is used. The words mean what they mean, but the message can be seen in different ways. We go to the lexicons (in the form of knowledgeable people or extensive books) to get what the words mean, we use our heads to decipher the message that the sequence of words can imply.

So Islam has a particular Classical Arabic meaning which we get from the lexicon. To be read into the Koran it has to be able to apply to pre-Islamic times. But all words have particular meanings and contexts do not change these meanings.

I hope I have been understood,
Godbless,
Anwar

TAJ

Salaam Anwar,

Personally, now I have come to believe that it is the most appropriate meaning because the word ?Islam? is a general word, just like the word ?discipline? for example. It is the base for every good thing.

So this is personal. That in essence does mean that you made it up, but I know you believe that this definition is justified. So le tme say that discpline means something. Discipline means either 'actions taken against another to cause correction of misbehavior' OR 'being diligent in adhering to something (an idea, rules, etc). most times adhering to means to an end.'

These are the meanings that people communicate when they use this word 'discipline' and can be found in the dictionaries. Every word has specific meaning and communicates specific ideas. Discipline is far from the base of every good thing. It can be used in an evil sense as well. Certain plans, whether evil or good require discipline to execute. So discipline definitely will lead to success, but the success can be a small, and evil success, like putting planes through the twin towers and killing thousands of innocent individuals. Discipline is definitely the key to success at anything because when applied to plans or goals it means adhering to the practice of everything that facilitates one's goal. But discipline is not the basis to everything that is good.

The word "personally" does not mean that I made the meaning up! Islam has many meanings. Everyone who knows Arabic knows that very well. If I lean towards one of them that does not mean that I made up that meaning. How do you come up with such analysis!?
And when I said that the word "Islam" is a general word, just like the word ?discipline? for example, (check the quote), clearly my sentence does not say that they are the same in meaning.

Taj

progod

God bless you Taj,

The word "personally" does not mean that I made the meaning up!

So then what does 'personally' mean when you say

Personally, now I have come to believe . . .

It doesn't mean that you've become convinced of something despite if the evidence is there or not.

Islam has many meanings. Everyone who knows Arabic knows that very well.

Do they?

If I lean towards one of them that does not mean that I made up that meaning. How do you come up with such analysis!?

Because you didn't lean towards one of the meanings of Islam. You made one up. Islam has never meant
the base for every good thing.
as you say it means. Christians think that Christianity is "the base for every good thing", but that does not mean that Christianity means "the base for every good thing." Because a Muslim implies that his religion is the base of every good thing does not mean that that is what Islam means.

So how is it that you think you are leaning towards one of the meanings of Islam, when Islam doesn't mean this? Muslims, Christians, Jews, Orientalists and others have had their opinions about what Islam implies. Some choose to define it by the people (bad or good) who practice the religion, by the morals that its respected or everyday practictioners profess or by the creeds to be found in the religion's holy scriptures. But these implications are not definitions.

Some Christians would imply that Islam is evil but that is not the definition of Islam whether Islam is really evil or not.

When it comes down to what the word really means you've got to look at it objectively. In Classical Arabic it means certain things (Submission, surrender, quitting, abandoning, salvation, being saved, saluting, greeting).

In the post-koranic era everyone who has considered their religion Islam and themeselves Muslim has had belief in Muhammad as God's prophet and messenger and the Koran as God's message as a common point of unity.) So we can only objectively look at Islam in two ways.

It's Classical Arabic meanings
It's post-koranic meaning as a belief system.

What constitutes a Muslim? In the Classical Arabic sense, a Muslim is any person who submits, surrenders, quits, abandons, saves, is saved, salutes or greets. (These things don't have to have anything to do with God or any religion or religious ideas.)

In the post-koranic sense as a belief system, a Muslim is someone who pratices any form of the religion that claims Muhammad as its common prophet and messenger and the Koran as the revelation God gave to him. Scholars have deffered to Imaam Shafi'ee's statement that Islam means 'submission to God' but that was Shafi'ee trying to inventively come up with a reason as to why Muslims began to call themselves that, using ONE of the words real Classical Arabic defintions. His definition is not valid because it seeks to find out WHY Muslims called themselves that, and their religion Islam, not what Islam and Muslim really mean. His statement can be found in Lane's lexicon.

In reality, a Muslim is someone who pratices any form of the religion that claims Muhammad as its common prophet and messenger and the Koran as the revelation God gave to him. This is how the world looks at it, even Muslims. All you have to say is that you believe that Muhammad is God's messenger and they will consider you a Muslim. They will only recant because they have been disillusioned into thinking that you share every belief about Muhammad and the Koran that he does.

Sunnis have considered Koranist Muslims non-Muslim because they believe that Koranist Muslims are denying parts of God's revelation. They think that where the Koran says 'Whatever the messenger gives to you take it' and 'We have sent a messenger that makes clear to you God's signs' and " In God's messenger is an example . . .' and 'Follow God's messenger' it means to follow everything that Muhammad said and did as divine guidance and that all of his actions and sayings explain the Koran, as they believe from the hadeeths that he served as an excellent example by living and breathing the Koran. They also believe by their own reasoning that he fully understood everything in the Koran. Because the hadeeths have been introduced to them as valid they find that those who deny the hadeeths in essence reject the Koran the above sayings in the Koran. So they will deny the Islam of Koranists.

The Koranists Muslims have argued that Muhammad did set an excellent example to be followed but do not hold that everything he did and said was divine. They say that the Sunnis are not looking at the complete picture and are imagining things into the picture. They hold that nowhere in the Koran does it say that Muhammad completely understood the Koran so that he was in a position to explain it, or that he lived and breathed the Koran for that matter. The Koran actually shows that this is not true in chpt. 'abasa. The Koran says that it is not the duty of the messenger to guide or direct anyone, that the duty of the messenger is only to deliver the message. Despite that the Koran is clear on the fact that he had no place to explain the Koran. Koranists also doubt the credibility of Hadeeth (based their origins as popular rumor and how some are claimed to be authentic based on the reputation of their narrators). Koranists will deny the Islam of Sunnis and Shias because they believe that Sunnis and Shias care more for the Hadeeth (which they know is not fully credible) and the opinions of scholars about the Koran and the hadeeth than they do about the Koran (which they know is fully credible.); thereby rejecting the Koran by rejecting what it says about Muhammad and his true role.

With all of that said, I have often denied my being Muslim on this site. Despite that many of you still consider me Muslim because I believe that Muhammad is God's messenger and that the Koran is God's message. And with the above definition of Islam you would be correct. However, I choose to resort to the Koran for how I should define myself. And understanding that it uses the term Islam and Muslim in its Classical Arabic senses, I see that it says that those who follow it, those who are really koranists, follow the religion of Abraham which is being submissive to God, which I like to call being 'pro-God' just to give the message a modern ring.

And when I said that the word "Islam" is a general word, just like the word ?discipline? for example, (check the quote), clearly my sentence does not say that they are the same in meaning.

Now, Now! Easy cowboy! Looks like you're the one who misundertood me. I never said that you implied that they were the same in meaning either. I was saying that discipline has a specific meaning adn always had. When you say discipline has a general meaning that is not true. I explained to you the context in which displine is used and that it is used to imply ' the basis of success' be it success at something evil or good, because of one of its specific meanings. It is not used to imply 'the basis all good things.' Therefore your analogy between the two is not valid. I never said that you implied that they were the same.

Godbless,
ProGod

Hope that wasn't too long. It took me 2 hours to write it. Gotta be real careful wichya words,.Ya know?

mquran

Salaamun alaikum Anwar,

First, thank you for understanding that this issue emotes me. I won't reallly go into why here and now because it is of no relevance to getting this issue cleared up. Maybe one day we will be able to look back and I can say to you why, but right now it would only confuse the issue.

No problem at all. I learnt a lot from your methodology and more importantly, hope to stand beside you in upholding God's laws.

For the sake of brevity (as my time is lacking), allow me to paraphrase your arguments after which I will respond.

You assert that lexicographers were excellent in thier preservation of the language except in the bias of post-koranic religious terminology.

I would answer by saying that my knowledge of 'post-koranic' literature comes from standing also in a post-koranic time zone. In other words, I don't know what is pre or post koranic. Al-qur'aan tells me that it is lisanun arabiyun mubeen. I thus go to a linguistic system called arabic and try to make sense of the book using that system. pre and post koranic arabic isnt part of the quran's world-view.

2.You assert that dictionaries provide the 'objective' meanings of words and that the colouring of meaning according to contexts would 'subjectivise' the meanings.

I would answer by saying that no two people share a language anyway. Even 'self-preservation' has different connotations to different people. However, I find that once you implement Quranic internal principles of interpretation, you can get a fairly conformed shared understanding.

I guess we simply function with different epistemologies, at the end of the day.

thanks and peace.

progod

. You assert that lexicographers were excellent in thier preservation of the language except in the bias of post-koranic religious terminology.

I would answer by saying that my knowledge of 'post-koranic' literature comes from standing also in a post-koranic time zone. In other words, I don't know what is pre or post koranic. Al-qur'aan tells me that it is lisanun arabiyun mubeen. I thus go to a linguistic system called arabic and try to make sense of the book using that system. pre and post koranic arabic isnt part of the quran's world-view.

But it is. It is in the sense that the Koran can only speak from a pre-koranic world view. It was revealed to a people who knew nothing about concepts that were to come after the Koran was revealed. Because the Koran was revealed to them it was revealed in their language.

When an author writes a book and publishes it on May 1 1996 his book has to be revealed in the language of the people who exist in May 1, 1996.
It's language is limited to the language of the people of that date, even if it's message is timeless. Let's call that book 'the Coorany.'

Because the revelation of that book is dated, the language it uses is also dated to the initial audience. Any new definitions of words that this book has in common that come about after this book is written and published cannot be read into "the Coorany." Despite the timeless message of "the Coorany"

If you in 2005 come upon this book and want to read it, to correctly understand it you have to be aware of recent innovations (post-publication of "the Coorany" in your language that can't be read into "the Coorany."

This is the same thing with the Koran. We have to be aware of the linguistic innovations that came about after the revelation of the Koran and be sure not to read them into the Koran. Where our lack of awareness about the language in question causes us to misread certain words in both the Koran and "the Coorany" we cannot help that.

But where the dictionaries and lexicons on the language in question let us know that a meaning of a word came about after the revelation of the Koran, or the publication of "the Coorany" we have to take that in mind in our understanding of the book.

2.You assert that dictionaries provide the 'objective' meanings of words and that the colouring of meaning according to contexts would 'subjectivise' the meanings.

I would answer by saying that no two people share a language anyway. Even 'self-preservation' has different connotations to different people. However, I find that once you implement Quranic internal principles of interpretation, you can get a fairly conformed shared understanding.

I agree that there is alot of misunderstanding among people. And people's experience with a word creates a visual picture or feeling that is associated with that word. Where our points of view on a word overlap is where we get a general understanding. But there are alot of words whose meanings we do share, otherwise we would not be able to communicate. Some people have myopic or limited understandings of words, other people have more extensive understandings of words. It is the level of understanding of our language that determines how we can understand each other when we communicate. Some people hear the word 'communicate' and think that it only means 'to speak', other people understand that it is not that specific and just means to present information so that someone else can understand it. So I understand what you mean, but the fact that you can generally understand what I say, and I you, says that we do share a language.

Godbless,
Anwar

mquran

Salaamun alaikum Anwar,

But it is. It is in the sense that the Koran can only speak from a pre-koranic world view. It was revealed to a people who knew nothing about concepts that were to come after the Koran was revealed. Because the Koran was revealed to them it was revealed in their language.Because the revelation of that book is dated, the language it uses is also dated to the initial audience. Any new definitions of words that this book has in common that come about after this book is written and published cannot be read into "the Coorany." Despite the timeless message of "the Coorany"

If you in 2005 come upon this book and want to read it, to correctly understand it you have to be aware of recent innovations (post-publication of "the Coorany" in your language that can't be read into "the Coorany."

This is the same thing with the Koran. We have to be aware of the linguistic innovations that came about after the revelation of the Koran and be sure not to read them into the Koran. Where our lack of awareness about the language in question causes us to misread certain words in both the Koran and "the Coorany" we cannot help that.

But where the dictionaries and lexicons on the language in question let us know that a meaning of a word came about after the revelation of the Koran, or the publication of "the Coorany" we have to take that in mind in our understanding of the book.

Firstly, let me say that the below is my worldview which is the reason why I've reached my conclusions. I don't wish to force my views and your friendship is more important than proving a point.

Ok, well lets call this point in time 'x'. X can never be known to me because I do not believe in history.I agree with you, al-qur'aan was revealed to ppl at X first and so lisanun arabiyun mubeen should refer to thier language. I'll never know what constitutes their language though, because I stand in a post-quranic time zone and I'll never know what came when.

However, all is not lost. To me, all other books than al-qur'aan are laden with conjectural, zanni interpretation. I believe that al-qur'aan contains tools to purify ones understanding so we will get to the message, but only through al-qur'aan itself.

I agree that there is alot of misunderstanding among people. And people's experience with a word creates a visual picture or feeling that is associated with that word. Where our points of view on a word overlap is where we get a general understanding. But there are alot of words whose meanings we do share, otherwise we would not be able to communicate. Some people have myopic or limited understandings of words, other people have more extensive understandings of words. It is the level of understanding of our language that determines how we can understand each other when we communicate. Some people hear the word 'communicate' and think that it only means 'to speak', other people understand that it is not that specific and just means to present information so that someone else can understand it. So I understand what you mean, but the fact that you can generally understand what I say, and I you, says that we do share a language.

Well, I believe this is where muhkamat/mutashabihat system comes in. To me 'muhkamat' refers to something decisive sign in ones horizon and one's soul. Seeing birds in flight gives us a visual of 'salat' and 'tasbeeh' and this transcends sounds and writing communication. To me, this is the start and the end of God's communication.

thanks and peace.

progod

Salaatullaahi alaikum,

Mquran you said

I'll never know what constitutes their language though, because I stand in a post-quranic time zone and I'll never know what came when.

What I have been trying to say is that that language of time x is accessible. It is accessible in the same way that knowledge of God is accessible; through deduction. We deduce that God exists. Do we see God, or hear him, or know that he is one. No. But we look at everything around us and deduce that God is real, we think about the phenomena of God and deduce that he is one. Therefore we know that God is real through deduction.

This is the same case with the language of Muhammad's day, the language of time X. We can deduce from all of the available evidence that the language of time X was still existent in the later time Y, because we have a book from time X that is consistent with a language of time Y. The pre-Islamic poetries though they were officially written down in time Y it cannot be proven that they didn't originate in time X as it is claimed.

Also the bedouins talk. It was analyzed in time Y, but all the evidence points to the fact that they talked a language that originated in time X and is consistent with the language from time X. Looking at all the evidence we can deduce that we still have available to us the language of time X through the work that was done to write it down and analyze it in time Y.

What we have to be careful to exlude are meanings of words and other words that are dated to specifically time Y (or to later times), but if there is no evidence that says that those meanings originated in time Y (and they are consistent with the language of time X), we have to fairly assess that they could have orignated in time x and view them as meanings that originated in time x.

I hope all that was clear.

Godbless,
Anwar

You also said

Firstly, let me say that the below is my worldview which is the reason why I've reached my conclusions. I don't wish to force my views and your friendship is more important than proving a point.

World views can change depending on how we change in our lives about what we find important, and in the ways that our understanding of the world around us and within us change. So your conclusions are relative to your current world view, as mine are also. But that doesn't mean that our world views are fixed in place, forever. That is called stangancy. I appreciate the fact that you care about maintaining friendships. But I am not on here so much for friendships but for setting the record straight and clearing up issues that have carried with them alot of confusion. Respecting the fact that somone can have their own opinion doesn't mean that you have to, or even should, be their friend. That is not a personal attack either, because I admire you for having the bravery to even discuss and critique this issue. That's just my current world view.

unknownuser

I shall revert back to the original posting, having joined the discussion at a latter stage.

Layth (Lion) put forward the following as suggestions for discussing what constitutes a 'Muslim'

Believing in and upholding the commands of 6151-153.
Believing in and upholding all the social and legal laws of the Quran as per 37.
Believing that the traditional interpretations and rituals must be followed.
Believing in the Quran's text (word for word, verse for verse).
Believing that messengers will come after Mohammed.
Believing in the number 19 as a sign of the Quran.
Believing that 2 verses (128&129) must be removed from the Quran.

In essence, these are all very narrow understandings of alkoran and aleslam. What one should really be asking is this

What is the reason for alkoran?

Why is this text here? For what purpose did this text come into existence? What is it?

This is really the key issue. This takes a much broader approach to the big questions, which is what we should all be thinking of when approaching this subject. Honestly, all this talk about various 'codes' and so forth is really just going way, way beyond the real simplicity and purpose that alkoran is here to serve. Its kind of like an Ocham's Razor thing, if you see what I mean.

So my answer is, the question needs to be redefined totally. Still adhering to the 'Muslim' label perpetuates the narrowness, when width is required in order for us to see the bigger picture.

progod

T.A.F.K.A.G, Salaatallahi alaika,

First let me say, I love the Aramaic text underneath your name. What does it read and mean?

Secondly let me say that I agree with you perfectly. I've been trying to get people on this list to understand this through reading alkoran from the perspective of the language that it was revealed in. I've had dificulty in convincing people (because of their skepticism of early Arabic/Persian scholars) that the language of alkoran can really be discerned from these people's works, and the meanings that are post-koranic in origin sifted out (even though they are dated by these manuscripts as post-koranic when they are post-koranic -although they were not dated with the intent to exclude them from our understanding of the Koran).

All in all, alkoran definitely came with a broader message than what the word Islam has ever meant (and unfortunatley will every mean). Reading alkoran in its original language (in the best way that we can, without resorting to inventing meanings of Arabic words) leads us to understand that the Koran wants us to follow the religion of Abraham, and that religion is not submission (al-islam) all by itself. It is submission (al-islam) to and for God (lillaahi). We should submit (submission/al-islam) to God (lillahi). Al-Islam= Submission. And just as Submission doesn't mean 'submission to God' al-islam doesn't mean that either. If someone asked us our religon and we said 'We submit.' or 'Submission.' What does that mean? Nothing. It means nothing unless we clarify and say 'to God.' When you say your religion is Islam, you are saying that your religion is 'Submisssiveness' and that means nothing. Submissiveness to what? 'To God' you say. 'To whom else would I submit.' "You could submit to a number of other people, things or ideas" i exactly how I answer and how everyone else in the world naturally thinks. As long as you say 'to God' its cool. When you leave out God, you leave 'the submission' open.

That is the same case with Islam. When you leave out the word 'Allah' you leave the question of to who your 'Islam' is for open.

Now Islam on its own can mean 'Salvation' and I believe that is the most appropriate when the Koran says that God has chosen for us 'Islam(salvation) deenan(as our deen).' The question will come up what does 'deen' mean. Well besides ONE of its meanings which is 'system/order/rule' it can also mean 'judgement/dues/just deserts.' So 'This day God will chose salvation (al-Islam) for us(God's loyalists) as our due, our just deserts.'

So the Koran promotes 'submissiveness to God' and 'Salvation'. Those are its messages. However you translate the message of al-islaamulillaahi and Al-Islaam into another language doesn't matter, as long as you translate it and make the message comprehendible to everyone. That's what we have translators for, because the messages that foreign words communicate are lost on those who don't understand the foreign languages. Trying to convince them to prefer the Arabic word over an equal wording in their languages fosters a feeling that the Arabic language is superior and doesn't take into account all of the other people who haven't been convinced of this but who would still agree with message if it were said to them in a comprehendible way.

Godbless,
Anwar

unknownuser

Peace bro Goinsy

First let me say, I love the Aramaic text underneath your name. What does it read and mean?

It reads, from right to left of course, as follows

mkyl@ mls

I am sure that you can pick out the Arabic likeness from the final mym, as well the initial ayn, lam and syn . This is the script from which classical Arabic drew upon, I am quite sure.
Although in correct Aramaic the phrase would read shlma lykn. There is no definite article at all in Aramaic hence the absence of an 'al'.

I actually believe that the 'Pro-God' label is the one that fits best at present. The purpose of alkoran was really to do away with the rife bickering and schismatism that was prevalent during that part of history when various establishments made declarations that went against the true spirit of alktab.

hlatif

Salam all,

I believe that I need to venture into explaining how I understand and explain the word Islam. I think that the word Islam can be a little confusing since the meanings of words derived from the root S-L-M include delivery, safety, peace and submission. Therefore, my way of explaining this meaning is first to see how those different meaning connect with each other and therefore explain them all.

I feel that the essence of the meaning of the Root S-L-M is To receive no harm or to receive someone or something with no harm depending on the situation. Here are words that may explain it

Salam or salem with short vowels means He received no harm or he received something with no harm. This basically means he became safe.
Salaam Means Cause of reception of No harm and that is peace.
ASLAM
means To make receive (someone or something) No harm which basically means to deliver no Harm or to deliver something with no harm
therfore Muslim is the one that delivers No Harm or that delivers (something) with no harm
As for ASLAM WAJHAHU LILLAHI then it means HE DELIVERED his Face/Front/Direction/Acceptance TO GOD, basically For everything he/she does, GOD is the focus. Submission is included in this meaning, but is only part of the meaning of the word.

Since the word ISLAM comes alone and in relation to ASLAM WAJHAHU LILLAH then the meaning of Islam as I understand it is the following

One that delivers No Harm to ALL, and One that delivers his direction to GOD, and his accpetance to GOD.

I hope that this makes sense and is understandable. Take care all and have a good day

Hussein