Liberal Islam vs 'Quran-alone' Islam
-
Actually, that helped me out too as I was forgetting my subsets not that there was an overwhelming need to remember them. Thanks guys.
-
What? That I hate maths?
Actually, that helped me out too as I was forgetting my subsets not that there was an overwhelming need to remember them. Thanks guys.
-
Little homework there is a slight mistake in your last quote savage_carrot
Actually sister Nadia only copied from Wikipedia.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset
A set A is considered to be a subset of a set B, if A is "contained" inside B. Every set is a subset of itself. In this example, B would then be considered a superset of A.
More formally, If A and B are sets and every element of A is also an element of B, then
A is a subset of (or is included in) B, denoted by A B,or equivalently
B is a superset of (or includes) A, denoted by B A.If A is a subset of B, but A is not equal to B, then A is also a proper (or strict) subset of B. This is written as A B. In the same way, B A means that B is a proper superset of A. If A is a proper subset of B, then there exists at least one element x of B which is not an element of A.
I guess I have done the little homework ;D ...How can we report to Wikipedia? Or simply edit the entry by ourselves (I have never edited Wikipedia though)?
-
Peace Sis
I am cheeky, but not that far or that way
The mistake is in here (you know maths is rigorous)In the same way, B A means that B is a proper superset of A. If A is a proper subset of B, then there exists at least one element x of B which is not an element of A.
But thats unfair because I almost gave you the answer...
Its a bit boring, not challenging enough, but then my brain is currently fried?
Smile dude -
Wow nice going guys, I didn't even pay attention to what was written, just thought since people were having problems, I'd post the definitions. I am not in the least bit interested in math and seeing that stuff again makes my head spin ;D
-
Before I add my input to this may I say how good the replies were from Adley, Jankern and Layth, kudos guys - it feels good that there are others who think in such a way.
My views are the same as the people who have posted previously. And on my views regarding you main question, although this may not be the case for all those who call themselves 'Liberals' from what I have seen Liberal Islam seems to be a movement for the sake of fitting in with Kuffar values and the general 'western world' whatever that may be.
From what I have seen of many people who are considered leaders of this liberal movement especially a certain foreign individual who operates in the United Kingdom is that their and his intentions are severely misplaced and they seem to be openly and not ashamed to say they are doing it for the sake of fitting in the Western World whatever these individuals see that as.
We all understand how a person's intentions lie at the heart of the consequences of their actions, if someone's intentions are to change Islam to please others in the dunya of this world then we obviously know what their fate will be and what their works will amount to in the end.
What I see in what is considered as the 'Qur'an Alone' movement is something totally different, I see people who have had various experiences and have been exposed to certain things that have led them to believe that the current practise of Islam is not how God deemed us to practise. Only God knows best, but what I see from a lot of people in this situation is a sincere intent to try and find the truth regardless of how futile or misplaced this may be.
They tend to have less dealings with non-Muslim organisations and don't seem to have this Muslim Apologetic approach many liberal organisations do, they; quite rightly, are more involved with themselves, their own actions and each other instead of a Christian-style missionary movement because they know the importance of finding the truth and rooting out the mistruths for their own beliefs before inviting others to them. This said, when they are clear in finding something that they see as wrong they waste no time in telling each other about it.
Concerning myself, I have the same views as my brothers who have previously posted and I think the majority of Muslims around the world have a similar attitude. I am a Muslim, I am not a 'Sunni Muslim', I am not a 'Shi'i Muslim', I am not a 'Qur'an Only Muslim', I am not a 'Liberal Muslim' I am simply a Muslim. I submit myself to the Ruler of Existence and I am a brother to those who do not associate others with the Almighty and who uphold the same moral code as I, the criterion delivered to mankind by God, which is the Qur'an.
This alone, I am a Muslim, whether 'Sunni', 'Shia' or whatever puts us all in union, in a united ummah, if upheld, this guarantees respect towards other Muslims and surely will guarantee our progression as one ummah, in our beliefs, our practises and our obligations toward each other. Alhamdullillahi Rab Al-'Alimeen, I thank God for softening my heart towards all Muslims.
With regards to Hadith, as intelligent beings, we cannot disregard them completely; scrutiny must still be in place, as it is still a source valuable information. May the individual who managed to reconstruct Sirat Rasulollah be rewarded for his services as we would not have the historical information about our prophet. The distinction is simple, our religious source is the Qur'an - this contains the important stuff - with it we have a guidance, a historical source is the assorted hadith and whatever other reports we can get our hands upon, with these, we have a context, even though it is not as important as the guidance, it is helpful for certain things.
Without it, we would not know about the actions of the prophet and his wonderful behaviour, we would not know about all the hardships he endured, and with this knowledge, it has made me love and respect him, I believe he was the most noble human being, who less would God send as the seal of the prophets?
This is the conclusion I have come to, I am a Muslim, I uphold the Qur'an, I am not going to throw away hadith but I will scrutinise it and use it to learn more about a greater context. With this, I believe, the people born into or living amongst all various sects may be united.
Ameen Ya'Rabbi!
Mohamed
-
Thanks for your views guys, really appreciate your comments. I have a clearer picture now with your many replies along with the readings I did. But whatever it is, the negative view of labels and sects is Quranically substantiated, as I knew when I started this thread. I was just curious about their particular differences, that's all.
"As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects, thou hast no part in them in the least their affair is with Allah He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did." (6159)
"Turn ye back in repentance to Him, and fear Him establish regular prayers, and be not ye among those who join gods with Allah, Those who split up their Religion, and become (mere) Sects, each party rejoicing in that which is with itself! When trouble touches men, they cry to their Lord, turning back to Him in repentance but when He gives them a taste of Mercy as from Himself, behold, some of them pay part-worship to other god's besides their Lord, (As if) to show their ingratitude for the (favours) We have bestowed on them! Then enjoy (your brief day); but soon will ye know (your folly)." (3031-34)
So there, this was all prophesized...
-
Salaam,
Personally, to me.... Muslims who describe themselves as "liberal" (or progressive) are those who want to have thier cake and eat it too. It's like they are "culturally" Muslim rathar than religious. They are interested in the cultural aspect of Muslims (whatever that may be) than actual religious ones. But even this is only a political side, not a religious one. But religiously,many of these "liberals/progressives" do accept hadiths... they as a group do not have thier own religious philosophy though.
Quran Only Muslims (like myself) reject hadiths. Quran Only is not about politics, it's about religion.
salaam