Can You Post this as an Article?
-
I think there should be fair and balance articles in on PM.org/FreeMinds.org. You can post it as an editorial if you like
Progressive Muslims Secular View of Islam
The Progressive Muslim didn?t have a consensus on the majority of the issues including the key tenets of Islam (Salat, Zakat, Hajj etc). This surprised me to a degree. I thought that even with their eccentric view of Submission (Islam), consensus and agreement can still be reached with their own organization. Even the idolization of Jesus was agreement upon through the Nicene Council. But consensus within Progressive Muslim is not the case. Why? The Progressive Muslim Movement is simply a secular movement of Islam (similar to The Secret DVD is a secular view on Faith) created to appease mainstream. And although I understand the intention to re-create a ?neo safe? Islam as a need to defend against the ever growing stereotypes, attacks, misogyny, terrorism, and other ills that seem to be over the Islamic community, the Progressive Muslim Movement ideology foundation is flaw and provide no real answers.
Even though Progressive Muslim claims to use the Koran alone, the organization and members remain greatly divided. There is no consensus on salat, zakat, or hajj. And each member varies greatly on the implementation of these tenets. How can there be great division yet only one source, The Koran? In most cases dominations are created when multiple sources are introduced. For example, Christianity denominations are due to multiple source and variations of the Bible including the removal and inclusion of specific books within it. Islam major denominations (s***e, Sunni, etc) are base on external source introduce to the Koran and variations of those outside sources (Hadiths). However, Progressive Muslim strongly advocates using the Koran alone but still has great division? Why are they so divided?
Progressive Muslims At Its Roots
The answer is simply, Progressive Muslim promote autonomy of the individual in interpreting the Koran through the elimination of its context and solid proof. This essential flaw of Progressive Muslim created confusion and divisions within the organization and Submission (Islam). It is like a human body possessing multiple heads each navigating the body in different directions. In order to accomplish this, Progressive Muslim must create doubt on the context of the Koran, and then give everyone authority to recreate and interpreted base on his or her desires.
Doubt is created by eliminating trust on outside sources. For example, previous scriptures, history, scientific facts, mathematical evidence, tradition, context, authority, and other source of information must be proven untrustworthy or deem non-koranic. And although using these as reference and relevant information sources is not forbidden in the Koran (), it must be eliminated in order for a person to redefine salat, zakat, and other tenets. For example, for an artist to recreate an image, he must start on a blank canvas, not one that have been painted and perfected (53). In order for Progressive Muslim to redefine Salat, the canvas must be blank. In other words, history, context, science, mathematical evidence, or any other solid proof must be erased; the canvas must be blank so the individual can recreate their version of Salat.
Now that the canvas is blank (no solid proof or foundation), the individual have authority to created, recreate, or redefine what he or she pleases. Then that person can preach it to the masses as an ?Internet Imam? wheeling their interpretation as correct and authorized (7452).
Progressive Muslims The Quran Alone + Opinions
With a blank canvas (solid proof), narratives of prophets and messengers can just become moral stories reinforcing the ethical message of Islam and not based on factual history. The term ?Quran Alone? can now be used subjectively with a blank canvas. Word within the Koran be become literal with context, everything become view symbolically, and anyone can be a Nabi (prophet) of God. Without solid proof and a blank canvas Progressive Muslim can create their world, there own painting. But like painting, it just optical illusions with no solid proof of the reality.
When one examine the Movement, we quickly learn that term ?Quran Alone? is abused by Progressive Muslims to persuade others on their agenda. Secular opinions and view play heavily with Progressive Muslim Movement. Scholars and reformist opinions play major roles in the movement. Opinion plus the slogan of ?Quran alone? is use to create and redefine. This explain no consensus. They are painting abstract images base on opinions. But like painting, it just optical illusions with no solid proof of the reality.
-
I think there should be fair and balance articles in on PM.org/FreeMinds.org. You can post it as an editorial if you like
Progressive Muslims Secular View of Islam
The Progressive Muslim didn?t have a consensus on the majority of the issues including the key tenets of Islam (Salat, Zakat, Hajj etc). This surprised me to a degree. I thought that even with their eccentric view of Submission (Islam), consensus and agreement can still be reached with their own organization. Even the idolization of Jesus was agreement upon through the Nicene Council. But consensus within Progressive Muslim is not the case. Why? The Progressive Muslim Movement is simply a secular movement of Islam (similar to The Secret DVD is a secular view on Faith) created to appease mainstream. And although I understand the intention to re-create a ?neo safe? Islam as a need to defend against the ever growing stereotypes, attacks, misogyny, terrorism, and other ills that seem to be over the Islamic community, the Progressive Muslim Movement ideology foundation is flaw and provide no real answers.
Even though Progressive Muslim claims to use the Koran alone, the organization and members remain greatly divided. There is no consensus on salat, zakat, or hajj. And each member varies greatly on the implementation of these tenets. How can there be great division yet only one source, The Koran? In most cases dominations are created when multiple sources are introduced. For example, Christianity denominations are due to multiple source and variations of the Bible including the removal and inclusion of specific books within it. Islam major denominations (s***e, Sunni, etc) are base on external source introduce to the Koran and variations of those outside sources (Hadiths). However, Progressive Muslim strongly advocates using the Koran alone but still has great division? Why are they so divided?
Progressive Muslims At Its Roots
The answer is simply, Progressive Muslim promote autonomy of the individual in interpreting the Koran through the elimination of its context and solid proof. This essential flaw of Progressive Muslim created confusion and divisions within the organization and Submission (Islam). It is like a human body possessing multiple heads each navigating the body in different directions. In order to accomplish this, Progressive Muslim must create doubt on the context of the Koran, and then give everyone authority to recreate and interpreted base on his or her desires.
Doubt is created by eliminating trust on outside sources. For example, previous scriptures, history, scientific facts, mathematical evidence, tradition, context, authority, and other source of information must be proven untrustworthy or deem non-koranic. And although using these as reference and relevant information sources is not forbidden in the Koran (), it must be eliminated in order for a person to redefine salat, zakat, and other tenets. For example, for an artist to recreate an image, he must start on a blank canvas, not one that have been painted and perfected (53). In order for Progressive Muslim to redefine Salat, the canvas must be blank. In other words, history, context, science, mathematical evidence, or any other solid proof must be erased; the canvas must be blank so the individual can recreate their version of Salat.
Now that the canvas is blank (no solid proof or foundation), the individual have authority to created, recreate, or redefine what he or she pleases. Then that person can preach it to the masses as an ?Internet Imam? wheeling their interpretation as correct and authorized (7452).
Progressive Muslims The Quran Alone + Opinions
With a blank canvas (solid proof), narratives of prophets and messengers can just become moral stories reinforcing the ethical message of Islam and not based on factual history. The term ?Quran Alone? can now be used subjectively with a blank canvas. Word within the Koran be become literal with context, everything become view symbolically, and anyone can be a Nabi (prophet) of God. Without solid proof and a blank canvas Progressive Muslim can create their world, there own painting. But like painting, it just optical illusions with no solid proof of the reality.
When one examine the Movement, we quickly learn that term ?Quran Alone? is abused by Progressive Muslims to persuade others on their agenda. Secular opinions and view play heavily with Progressive Muslim Movement. Scholars and reformist opinions play major roles in the movement. Opinion plus the slogan of ?Quran alone? is use to create and redefine. This explain no consensus. They are painting abstract images base on opinions. But like painting, it just optical illusions with no solid proof of the reality.
I noticed you provided no references/evidence for all of your comments. For this reason, it is highly unlikely your "article" will be included.
Once again, please bear in mind (2) and (3) of the forum rules
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8177.0 -
As-Salaamu Alaikum SHM,
Like Ironsky, I agree with much of what you said in your article. I wouldn't expect to get it on here as an article though. I am a firm Quran alone believer, but believe that many take it to another level as you have described in some of what you wrote.
I also think that what you have said is no different than what many have written here as just opinion without full ayat support for every statement made; which is norm on the forum as a whole. You did provide Quranic reference for some of your points. Whether people agree with your interpretation or not shouldn't be the issue since that is the purpose of the forum. So I don't think it is right that you are sort of threatened with the forum rules as if you are in violation of them and many other posts aren't. Rules are sometimes modified or changed because of the acceptance of ongoing conditions that prove that a certain rule isn't being applied or enforced on all. For example, this post is just an opinion of mine, no relevant ayaat are submitted as proof. Should it now be deleted for not following forum rules?
As-Salaamu Alaikum, peace
-
I think your article is way off base. For one, use of "The Progessive Muslim Movement", "its members", and "organization" is misleading. We are not an organized "movement". We are individuals who reject the traditional sectarian interpretation of Islam. For the most part we agree that the hadith literature, which is central to traditional sectarian Islam, is the primary culprit in the misinterpretation of Islam. When Islam is stripped of hadith, you are left solely with the Qur'an. For centuries in many Muslim nations, following the traditional sectarian interpretation of Islam has been made the law and voicing disagreement has been made a punishable crime. Meaning the traditional sectarian interpretation of Islam has been forced on Muslims. Many Muslims made their lives easier by just complying instead of challenging. Now that Islam has spread beyond the borders of Muslim nations, there are increasing numbers of Muslims who have the freedom to critically analyze the traditional sectarian interpretation of Islam.
What we are doing is more like renovating an old poorly constructed house, than painting a picture on a used canvas. The foundation of the house (Qur'an) is sound, but everything else must be replaced. In this house the flooring was unstable, the walls were collapsing, the wiring was faulty, and the roof was leaking. None of them appeared to be built according to the specs of the foundation. So first we must study the foundation of this very old house so it can be rebuilt to be a better and more functional house for its inhabitants. We also need to see where the previous builder went wrong. We need to rebuild the flooring to the specs of the foundation, so the inhabitants footing is secure. We need to make the walls durable, so they don't fall down. We need to make sure it is propered wired, so its inhabitants have consistent and reliable power. We need to make a new roof, so outside forces will not destroy the interior. We are only rebuilding that which was preventing the house from being functional, which is all but the foundation (Qur'an).
There is more than one way that this house can be rebuilt and still be compatible to the specs of the foundation. We are still in the planning stages, sharing our individual ideas about how this house should be rebuilt. Some of our ideas will prove to be incompatible with the foundation and they will be discarded. Once we have reached a consensus on how to properly rebuild this house we will start the actual work. For the best result, we will have to work as a team (movement). We are not yet at that stage. So I agree with IronSky, any of these problems you point out can be overcome eventually with patience, persistence, and prayer.
Apparently, you are satisfied with your old house. Despite its problems, its familiar and gives you comfort. You'd rather remain it "as is", than be exposed and feel insecure while your old house is being gutted and rebuilt. For me, I'd rather live in a tent on the reconstruction site until the house is rebuilt, knowing I will eventually have a much better house. I only ask that you hold your criticism until the renovation is complete.
Humbly,
Brian
-
I noticed you provided no references/evidence for all of your comments. For this reason, it is highly unlikely your "article" will be included.
Once again, please bear in mind (2) and (3) of the forum rules
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8177.0But some how i have a deep feeling that even if I provide something to appease your desire from "more evidence", you will not post it anyway. But it just a feeling...
-
I think your article is way off base. For one, use of "The Progessive Muslim Movement", "its members", and "organization" is misleading. We are not an organized "movement". We are individuals who reject the traditional sectarian interpretation of Islam. For the most part we agree that the hadith literature, which is central to traditional sectarian Islam, is the primary culprit in the misinterpretation of Islam. When Islam is stripped of hadith, you are left solely with the Qur'an. For centuries in many Muslim nations, following the traditional sectarian interpretation of Islam has been made the law and voicing disagreement has been made a punishable crime. Meaning the traditional sectarian interpretation of Islam has been forced on Muslims. Many Muslims made their lives easier by just complying instead of challenging. Now that Islam has spread beyond the borders of Muslim nations, there are increasing numbers of Muslims who have the freedom to critically analyze the traditional sectarian interpretation of Islam.
Brain, I completely understand the intention of Progressive Muslim. They believe something is broken, and needs to be fixed. However, it is my believe (which is support by no unity and consensus within the organization) that Progressive Muslims are not fixing anything just demolishing.
The rough article I wrote is pointing out why. I planned to elaborate on it and cite more examples. I think it is important people are aware that many bad deeds can start with good intentions.What we are doing is more like renovating an old poorly constructed house, than painting a picture on a used canvas. The foundation of the house (Qur'an) is sound, but everything else must be replaced. In this house the flooring was unstable, the walls were collapsing, the wiring was faulty, and the roof was leaking. None of them appeared to be built according to the specs of the foundation. So first we must study the foundation of this very old house so it can be rebuilt to be a better and more functional house for its inhabitants. We also need to see where the previous builder went wrong. We need to rebuild the flooring to the specs of the foundation, so the inhabitants footing is secure. We need to make the walls durable, so they don't fall down. We need to make sure it is propered wired, so its inhabitants have consistent and reliable power. We need to make a new roof, so outside forces will not destroy the interior. We are only rebuilding that which was preventing the house from being functional, which is all but the foundation (Qur'an).
I love your analogy. But there is a different between renovating, and demolishing. The majority of Progressive Muslim wishes to demolish Submission (Islam). This is not a claim but fact. They refuse to listen to any outside reason base on their concept of ?Quran Alone.? So anything that was already built and still works is demolished. That is the real problem. For example, is the implementation of Zakat as mandatory charity need to be demolish or renovated if it is functional and proven successful in society? To a Progressive Muslim it must be simply because it has traditional value. To a Progressive Muslim it must be demolish because it is a ?traditional sectarian? interpretation. This is completely illogical. You are no longer viewing the issue objectively but subjectively base on bias and personal emotions simply to eliminate anything traditional. This is not renovating but simply demolishing carelessly.
There is more than one way that this house can be rebuilt and still be compatible to the specs of the foundation. We are still in the planning stages, sharing our individual ideas about how this house should be rebuilt. Some of our ideas will prove to be incompatible with the foundation and they will be discarded. Once we have reached a consensus on how to properly rebuild this house we will start the actual work. For the best result, we will have to work as a team (movement). We are not yet at that stage. So I agree with IronSky, any of these problems you point out can be overcome eventually with patience, persistence, and prayer.
Of course. But will you ever reach that stage of consensus. Base on the foundation of Progressive Muslims, it is clear you will not. It is sometimes difficult to come to agreement on facts, but impossible to come to agreement on opinions.
Apparently, you are satisfied with your old house. Despite its problems, its familiar and gives you comfort. You'd rather remain it "as is", than be exposed and feel insecure while your old house is being gutted and rebuilt. For me, I'd rather live in a tent on the reconstruction site until the house is rebuilt, knowing I will eventually have a much better house. I only ask that you hold your criticism until the renovation is complete.
You are right I am satisfied with a fully functional house, old or new. This plays into my statement within the article that Progressive Muslims is a movement to appease mainstream. A ?neo Islam? must be created to show mainstream that we are not terrorist, not misogamist, etc. A ?new Islam? with a more secular flavor needs to please the majority of secular people. But still playing along your analogy, there is no need to destroy or demolish a perfected house. Just evict its inhabitants. And such individuals who support those views (terrorist, misogamist etc.) have already evicted themselves.
-
Brain, I completely understand the intention of Progressive Muslim. They believe something is broken, and needs to be fixed. However, it is my believe (which is support by no unity and consensus within the organization) that Progressive Muslims are not fixing anything just demolishing.
The rough article I wrote is pointing out why. I planned to elaborate on it and cite more examples. I think it is important people are aware that many bad deeds can start with good intentions.Its Brian not Brain, but I'll take that as a compliment .
While you may understand the intention of Progressive Muslims, you are missing the point that we are not an organization. We are basically in the stage of bouncing our thoughts and ideas off of one another. The traditional interpretation of Islam prohibits thinking or having ideas where Deen is concerned. That is one of the many views we take issue with. Our motiviation is not to change the Qur'an, and thus Islam. Instead our motivation is to identify false interpretations and replace them with true Quranic ideals and principles.
I love your analogy. But there is a different between renovating, and demolishing. The majority of Progressive Muslim wishes to demolish Submission (Islam). This is not a claim but fact. They refuse to listen to any outside reason base on their concept of ?Quran Alone.? So anything that was already built and still works is demolished. That is the real problem. For example, is the implementation of Zakat as mandatory charity need to be demolish or renovated if it is functional and proven successful in society? To a Progressive Muslim it must be simply because it has traditional value. To a Progressive Muslim it must be demolish because it is a ?traditional sectarian? interpretation. This is completely illogical. You are no longer viewing the issue objectively but subjectively base on bias and personal emotions simply to eliminate anything traditional. This is not renovating but simply demolishing carelessly.
All that we want to demolish is any and all practices that are peddled as Islam, but do not originate from the Qur'an. Yes, Zakat is a Quranic principle, but the traditional Islamic interpretation of Zakat is not based on the Qur'an. Zakat equaling 2.5% is a man made idea. The Qur'an says spend that which is beyond your needs (2219). Under the man made implementation of Zakat, seventeen countries with majority Muslim populations (50% or more) are among the fifty poorest nations on the planet (They are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen). Obviously 2.5% is not right for all situations, and Muslims are suffering as a result of this misinterpretation.
You are right I am satisfied with a fully functional house, old or new. This plays into my statement within the article that Progressive Muslims is a movement to appease mainstream. A ?neo Islam? must be created to show mainstream that we are not terrorist, not misogamist, etc. A ?new Islam? with a more secular flavor needs to please the majority of secular people. But still playing along your analogy, there is no need to destroy or demolish a perfected house. Just evict its inhabitants. And such individuals who support those views (terrorist, misogamist etc.) have already evicted themselves.
Personally, pleasing the majority of secular people plays no part in my use of the Qur'an alone, and I have not heard anyone else express that sentiment. That is an intentionally false allegation of traditionalists made against "Quranists" to rally the traditionalist's blind followers to the defense of Islam from secularization. I and many other "Quranists" think the Qur'an should be the source of law and constitution of Muslim states. I don't, however, think any un-Quranic idea, thought, or philosophy should carry the same weight. If that's considered secular and/or pleases secular people, so be it. I'm anti-sectarian not pro-secular. BTW, sects are un-Quranic (6159)
Humbly,
Brian
-
even if I provide something to appease your desire from "more evidence", you will not post it anyway.
"more evidence"? The word "more" implies you presented some evidence in the first place.
I planned to elaborate on it and cite more examples.
You mean examples as in evidence? If so, look forward to it.
The majority of Progressive Muslim wishes to demolish Submission (Islam). This is not a claim but fact.
"fact"? May I ask what dictionary you use?
Again, please see (2) & (3) of the forum rules
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8177.0 -
Its Brian not Brain, but I'll take that as a compliment .
please do )
While you may understand the intention of Progressive Muslims, you are missing the point that we are not an organization. We are basically in the stage of bouncing our thoughts and ideas off of one another. The traditional interpretation of Islam prohibits thinking or having ideas where Deen is concerned. That is one of the many views we take issue with. Our motiviation is not to change the Qur'an, and thus Islam. Instead our motivation is to identify false interpretations and replace them with true Quranic ideals and principles.All that we want to demolish is any and all practices that are peddled as Islam, but do not originate from the Qur'an. Yes, Zakat is a Quranic principle, but the traditional Islamic interpretation of Zakat is not based on the Qur'an. Zakat equaling 2.5% is a man made idea. The Qur'an says spend that which is beyond your needs (2219). Under the man made implementation of Zakat, seventeen countries with majority Muslim populations (50% or more) are among the fifty poorest nations on the planet (They are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen). Obviously 2.5% is not right for all situations, and Muslims are suffering as a result of this misinterpretation.
There is a different between arguing "how much Zakat" and arguing "what is Zakat". Progressive Muslim argue what is zakat. there is a huge different. Plus if you real believe that 2.5% Zakat is the main reason for poverty in these country, its clear you haven't research the history of these countries. And what about those countries that uses this criteria and are among the wealthiest countries in the world. Be logical.
Personally, pleasing the majority of secular people plays no part in my use of the Qur'an alone, and I have not heard anyone else express that sentiment. That is an intentionally false allegation of traditionalists made against "Quranists" to rally the traditionalist's blind followers to the defense of Islam from secularization. I and many other "Quranists" think the Qur'an should be the source of law and constitution of Muslim states. I don't, however, think any un-Quranic idea, thought, or philosophy should carry the same weight. If that's considered secular and/or pleases secular people, so be it. I'm anti-sectarian not pro-secular. BTW, sects are un-Quranic (6159)
Good for you. But be realistic, Progressive Muslim is a movement, it is a group. period. I dont hate them. I dont have any ill feeling towards them. I just simply state that their foundation is flaw and prove more damaging than beneficial.
-
"more evidence"? The word "more" implies you presented some evidence in the first place.
You mean examples as in evidence? If so, look forward to it.
"fact"? May I ask what dictionary you use?
Again, please see (2) & (3) of the forum rules
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8177.0It is not a fact that there is no consensus within Progressive Muslims? The major (especially those on this forum) simply wish to recreate Islam. Do you want to do a survey on this?
-
Peace SHM and Wakas,
The majority of Progressive Muslim wishes to demolish Submission (Islam). This is not a claim but fact.
"fact"? May I ask what dictionary you use?
It is not a fact that there is no consensus within Progressive Muslims?...
??? Having no consensus = to demolish Islam? wow
So please, do show us the facts, this I'd like to see... back it up. And yeah, I'm interested in that dictionary as well, if you don't mind. )
-
Peace SHM and Wakas,It is not a fact that there is no consensus within Progressive Muslims?...
??? Having no consensus = to demolish Islam? wow
So please, do show us the facts, this I'd like to see... back it up. And yeah, I'm interested in that dictionary as well, if you don't mind.Man. I receiving alot of backlash for a word that truly describes what PM have done. Look at the definition of 'demolish'
1.to destroy or ruin (a building or other structure), esp. on purpose; tear down; raze.
2.to put an end to; destroy; explode The results of his research demolished many theories.
3.to lay waste to; ruin utterlyThe opinions of PM demolished Islam. What is false about that statement? All the essence of Islam (shahada, salat, zakat, hajj, fasting, etc) PM seek to destory, too put to an end, to lay waste of Islam. What is wrong with that statement. Nothing.
Fact 1. Salat is known as contact prayer. PM wishes to "demolish" this definition.
Fact 2. Zakat is known as mandatory charity. PM wishes to put to an end this definition.
Fact 3. Quran Mathetical structure. PM wishes to lay to waste, ruin utterly this proof.
etc. etc.Happy now. You and Wakas try to discredit me by demanding "evidence." I think its very cute. I watch tag team wrestling. But you simply expose the flaw within your arguments.
-
Show me where the shahada is in the Quran? It's not. Abraham's shahada had no mention of bearing witness or muhammad. How did PM demolish fasting? Isn't the consensus that fasting is to be done until the night?
Zakat is quite clear
SHAKIR They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit. And they ask you as to what they should spend. Say What you can spare. Thus does Allah make clear to you the communications, that you may ponder
I still don't understand - if the Quran is a fully detailed book containing Islam in its latest form, where do you derive your traditional salat and hajj from? I don't see any verses in the Quran telling you to circle a cube 7 times?
PM has destroyed Sunnism. And all I can do is congratulate them. Time to put an end to such enslaving dogma.
Fact 3. Quran Mathetical structure. PM wishes to lay to waste, ruin utterly this proof.
etc. etc.Really?
For the love of God, please show some evidence. You bring it for everything else, why not the biggest claims you make?
-
Peace SHM,
No need to create confusion, it's a simple thing. You said - it is a FACT that PM wish to DEMOLISH Islam. When asked to clarify, you said there's no consensus. I asked you, does having no consensus mean DEMOLISHING Islam?
1.to destroy or ruin (a building or other structure), esp. on purpose; tear down; raze.
2.to put an end to; destroy; explode The results of his research demolished many theories.
3.to lay waste to; ruin utterly
Where's no consensus here?In case you're confused which rule Wakas is referring to, it's this one
2] Please note that this forum is primarily dedicated to the study and understanding of the Scripture (Quran). Thus, mocking it or not being able to back-up claims with specifics will all result in deletion of such posts and/or removal of topic and/or disciplinary action being taken against the offending member.Again, back it up.
-
This guy satanhatesme obviously just doesn't get it. He thinks he's a defender of Islam but he's really just a defender and blindfollower of one of the many man-made psuedo-Islamic sects.
3120 (This was some of the wisdom Luqman was endowed with.) Do you not realize that Allah has made of service to you all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth? And He has lavished upon you His Blessings, tangible and intangible. And yet, among people are those who argue about Allah without exploring the realm of knowledge, without taking the right approach or a Book giving Light.
3121 And when such people are told to follow what Allah has revealed, they say, "Nay, we follow that which we have found our fathers doing." What! Even though Satan had invited them to the doom of Flames?"
Humbly
Brian
-
You and Wakas try to discredit me by demanding "evidence."
I find it interesting you could find being asked for evidence as discrediting.
Imagine a judge asking the prosecution lawyer "Can you present to the court the evidence for your stated case?" to which the lawyer responds "But Judge I find being asked for evidence discrediting..."
Anyone used to watch Ally McBeal? Surely that would be a Fish-ism? Speaking of TV programmes, anyone recall the lawyer in the Simpsons... sounds like something he'd say.
rotfl
-
For the love of God, please show some evidence. You bring it for everything else, why not the biggest claims you make?
Triple tag team. so cute.
I still don't understand - if the Quran is a fully detailed book containing Islam in its latest form, where do you derive your traditional salat and hajj from? I don't see any verses in the Quran telling you to circle a cube 7 times?
This argument is very very very flaw. The Quran is detail within it context. if you wish to argument the opposite, it is very flaw. Yet you dont understand.
-
2] Please note that this forum is primarily dedicated to the study and understanding of the Scripture (Quran). Thus, mocking it or not being able to back-up claims with specifics will all result in deletion of such posts and/or removal of topic and/or disciplinary action being taken against the offending member.
Again, back it up.
Firstly, for me to find evidence in the KORAN that Progressive Muslin wishes to demolish Islam is a retard request. Also, the rule applies to THE QURAN. Read it carefully before you threaten me with it. Also, my assertions about PM has nothing to do with the Quran. The Quran doesn't even mention Progressive Muslin. Which plays into my point again, PM argument "Quran alone" but your organization's name is not quran alone base according to your own arguments. But i digress.
....I asked you, does having no consensus mean DEMOLISHING Islam?
No. Nor did I state that. Read my post carefully. Wakas asked for facts about why Progressive Muslins are 'demolishing' Islam. I presented the definition and show how the term appropriately describes what PM is doing. Zenje, please read and understand before assuming.
