SECTARIANISM is what's killing us!!!!

ayman

Peace Damon,

This is only an assertion on your part Ayman. Anybody in the world has just as much oppurtunity to say that you don't understand basic concepts such as Deen for the same reason you say so about Dr. Manzoor; namely that you don't agree with his understanding. I think you would present a more humble stance if you would say that you don't agree instead of saying a person doesn't know a certain thing. You never know when you may have to humble yourself and retract those kinds of statements. He simply has a different understanding than yours Ayman. You can't say that your right, he's wrong and you know more than him. GOD is the ONLY ONE who is flawless in knowledge and wisdom.

Dr. Manzoor wrote an article in English. He then left the most important words on the subject "deen" and "muslim" untranslated. So either he doesn't know their real meanings or he doesn't think that their meaning is important enough to transmit to the English speaking audience that he wrote the article for. Either way, he is wrong and he should communicate those concepts clearly first so that he can adequately address the issue of sectarianism.

There is no need for me to give an independent translation since I have posted two translations with which I agree (Mohamed Ahmed and Ahmed Ali). I share their understanding of 3032.

So what do you think that the word "deenahum" in 3032 means?

It is a "label" that is mutually understood between those who go by it as well as those who do not. I'm sure everyone here already knew that.

This is not reality. Everyone here doesn't know what "muslim" means. The average American thinks that "islamic" means it is somehow associated with terrorism. Sunnis think that "muslim" means following the so-called Sunnah. Shias think that it means following Ahl Al-Bayt. 19ers believe that it means accepting the Code 19 fraud. etc... So the reality is that it is meaningless and not universal. Even the majority of Arabic speakers don't know what it means. The reason they don't know what it means is that this universal concept has been turned into a meaningless label. Those labels is what divides our only acceptable obligation. Such labels is what creates those very sects that you warn about. Yet, you have no problem taking such a meaningless "label" for your own.

Then you must say that GOD is also guilty of this since HE is the one who gave me this description.

As you said, the god gave us this description NOT proper name/label. Like any description, this description should be translated. Why don't Dr. Manzoor or you translate it?

He who does not submit to Him is labeled as Kafir.

No he doesn't. At the time of Abraham there was no such thing as the Arabic language. If the god labeled rejecters of his message as Kafir, people wouldn't know what He is talking about! The concept existed at the time of Abraham. The god translated the word from Abraham's language to Arabic speakers. Since he translated it then it is a DESCRIPTION not a proper name/label.

I did not come with this name. GOD DID!! And it is onbiously not a universal concept as you prematurely claim otherwise there would be no such thing as mushrik, kafir and zaleem, etc.

No, the god gave us a description and not a name. I hope that you know the fact that there is a big difference between a description and a name.

It is a universal concept just as all those are universal concepts. Also, see passages such as 383 which clearly demonstrate that "islam"/peacemaking is a universal concept that even goes beyond humans.

WOW!! o You have to take that up with the quran and the one who revealed it. I guess both of these terms are used in the quran simply to fill up the empty spots of the pages.

As far as those who take those terms as meaningless labels/names that are not translated, indeed those words are just simply filling up spots. If you or Dr. Manzoor think they are important then you must translate them.

This is total nonsense Ayman. How can they seperate their obligation when their is not already a core foundation (be it correct or incorrect) for them to seperate from?

The god tells us that our only acceptable obligation is peacemaking. It is that simple. There is no dispute about what peacemaking is and everyone will agree on this universal concept. Those who separated their obligation started by turning it into a meaningless label so that they can attach other haphazrd meanings that separate it from this UNIVERSAL concept.

And who is upholding this core foundation? What, did they seperate from nothingness? In order to divide and seperate, their has to be something for you to divide and seperate from. That is only plain logic.

They speparated from our only acceptable obligation, peacemaking.

Ayman, I am telling you the same thing that I told Samia. Read my post before coming up with baseless accusations like that. You either did not read my entire posts in this thread or you wish to flip my words around to come to your conclusion that I am implying that you should be happy with the practices and views of the current group. I addressed the practices and views of the current group more than once in this thread and not one time did I say that we should be happy with them. I asked how many people here frequent other forums that are not quran alone forums or who here totally shun the traditional way of Salat. Do not try to use that and say That I am implying that you be happy with the practices of the current group because the current group has thousands of views and practices that I am not happy with and will not uphold.

Here is what you said

"Sects are always started when there are enough people that are dissatisfied with the practices and views of the current group and wish to seperate themselves from that group and become their own ideal group."

Here is what the god says

3031-32. "And do not be from those who setup partners. Those separated their obligation and were sects, each group happy with what they have".

Where does the god say that "sects always started when people are dissatisfied with the practices and views of the current group and wish to seperate themselves from that group"?

There is nothing in 3031-32 about being dissatisfied with the practices and views of the current group.
There is nothing in 3031-32 about separating from the other group.

In 3031-32, we hear about separating our OBLIGATION NOT separating from the CURRENT GROUP.

In 3031-32, we hear about people HAPPY with what they have NOT people DISSATISFIED with current practices and views.

We can also empirically verify that being SATISFIED with the practices and views and STAYING with the CURRENT GROUP doesn't eliminate sectarianism (this is what most Sunnis and Shias, etc. do by default).

So what you are saying is a hypothesis that has nothing to do with 3031-32 and reality.

No, the great reading agrees with me completely. I say that people here have established themselves as a group apart from the rest and are happy and rejoice in it. Now read 3032 and you will notice that it says that Kulluu Hizb/EACH party rejoices in what is with it. EACH GROUP Ayman. That includes the group who call themselves quraniyyoon.

Who says that I am happy with what I have? If I were then, like most sectarians, I would have the same understanding now as 10 years ago. The fact that most people understanding on this forum keep evolving is empirically verifiable proof that they ARE NOT HAPPY WITH WHAT THEY HAVE.

Can you please give me the chapter and verse where he does so? It certainly isn't 2092-94 which are the verses that I am speaking of. Which verses are you speaking of where Moses chastised Aaron?
If Aaron was wrong and his excuse lame then GOD could have chastised him for it.....but he didn't!!!

Is Moses pulling Aaron from his beard and hair not being chastising enough??!!! I think that CavemanD already addressed this issue better than I can and your reply to him was unconvincing.

Again with the unwarranted and premature assumptions. I can tell that you not only assume that I have not studied those root words, but I get the feeling that you think that you are lingusitically superior to me when it comes to the quran and it's language. is this your attitude towards me Ayman?

We are having this conversation in English. Is English not your native language? You seem to have very good command of English. On the other hand, you are the one who keeps bringing up untranslated Arabic words as if saying them in Arabic somehow makes your point more valid and your argument more superior. All I ask is for you to tell us the meanings of those words in simple plain English and their implications to your understanding of 3031-32. How is this being linguistically superior? I would say quite the opposite.

I end my post with another piece of advice for everyone here. My understanding of 5679 is that it is the purifed heart that GOD teaches. Arrogance is not becoming of a true muslim. It is usually the arrogant ones who I have learned don't even know half of what they think they know.

What do you call talking about a "true muslim" to an English audience and taking it as a label as opposed to a true description and therefore not translating it?

What do you call objecting to other sects labeling themselves and then doing the same exact thing by turning the word "muslim" from a true description to an untranslateable label? They all think that the god authorized their labels. Why is it OK in this case? I hope it is not because it is YOUR label, while the others is THEIR label because that is somewhat "arrogance" and I know that you are not the arrogant type.

Peace,

Ayman

progod

Peace,

Damon, you and I talked about this before I think. I understand where you are coming from but I think you are coming at it from the wrong angle.

I no longer call myself Quran Only Muslim, Quran Alone Muslim or Quranist or Quraniyy. I am simply a Muslim.

Well, the first question is this Why do you believe that Muslim or Islam is a Quranic title we should use to refer to ourselves?

This has to do with Ayman's comments below

"As you said, the god gave us this description NOT proper name/label. Like any description, this description should be translated. Why don't Dr. Manzoor or you translate it?"

"No, the god gave us a description and not a name. I hope that you know the fact that there is a big difference between a description and a name.

It is a universal concept just as all those are universal concepts. Also, see passages such as 383 which clearly demonstrate that "islam"/peacemaking is a universal concept that even goes beyond humans."

Although peacemaking is only ONE meaning of Islam it is still only one. The other, most important in my opinion is 'submission' which in most places in the Quran referred to God who is mentioned in the context. That submission can validly be understood as making peace with God, however.

So, again my question is why do you believe that Islam is a divinely appointed title that we should adhere to?

The second question we will go for after that is

Where is the line drawn between a description and a sectarian title?

Godbless,

p.s. Bro, I think you overeacted on Samia because of her use of naif (spelled naive). If it was to insult you or not, I don't know. However, I did not find her post insulting or condescending when she first responded to you.

unknownuser

Peace Ayman,

Dr. Manzoor wrote an article in English. He then left the most important words on the subject "deen" and "muslim" untranslated. So either he doesn't know their real meanings or he doesn't think that their meaning is important enough to transmit to the English speaking audience that he wrote the article for. Either way, he is wrong and he should communicate those concepts clearly first so that he can adequately address the issue of sectarianism.

Well first of all, I didn't bring up his article in order to defend him and act as his spokesman. I am not going to sit here at my computer and debate you about Manzoor ul Haque's article in this manner. However, I will address this one thing for you and be done with it. I'd much rather stick to my original topic which is sectarianism and how people who call themselves quran only muslims are as guilty of it as anybody else.

As far as his article being written in English and him leaving "Deen" and "Muslim" in Arabic, you make the mistake of assuming that he doesn't know their Arabic meanings or he doesn't deem it important enough to translate them. Has the thought ever occured to you that this article is written specifically for those identify themselves as muslims and because of that he thought that this audience knows the meanings of these two terms? At least that's what came to my mind when I read it. I could be wrong, but that issue is not pressing enough for me to harp on it and bicker with someone else about it.

So what do you think that the word "deenahum" in 3032 means?

I'll bet that you think that I believe "deenahum" means Their Religion. That's why you keep asking me in different ways to translate 3032. Instead of playing the translation and word games, I'd much rather stick to my topic and talk about those issues...sectarianism and the sectarian mindset. Anyone here who knows the word "deen" as well as the root that it comes from and the suffix "hum" all know what that word is. But that's a distraction which I have learned once it gets started it doesn't end and there will be a new debate going in this very thread over Arabic language, what sources and dictionaries people are using, accusations of not understanding the word or context, etc. Waste of time.

The average American thinks that "islamic" means it is somehow associated with terrorism.

Okay, so I guess you've gotten an official consesus on this. You were able to speak to enough Americans in the U.S. to come to that conclusion. The average American thinks that "islamic" means it is somehow associated with terrorism. Including the ignorant ones who do not watch the news, do not read the newspaper and haven't got a clue as to what is going on over seas right now. Okay Ayman.

Those labels is what divides our only acceptable obligation. Such labels is what creates those very sects that you warn about. Yet, you have no problem taking such a meaningless "label" for your own.

As I said to you in my last reply, if it's meaningless, then GOD must be in the habit of using meaningless words in His Book, because is HE who called us MUSLIMS. Don't hate the messenger bro, take it up with GOD.

As you said, the god gave us this description NOT proper name/label. Like any description, this description should be translated. Why don't Dr. Manzoor or you translate it?

Let me guess, if I don't translate it as peaceful one or peacemaker as you do, you will tell me that I translated it wrongly. I am not about to have a back and forth with you about translation issues. Let's stick to what this thread is about which is the human tendency to break off from one another to do their own respective sectarian thing. By the way, I NEVER said that it is a proper name and I definately don't call it a label that I take on.

No he doesn't. At the time of Abraham there was no such thing as the Arabic language. If the god labeled rejecters of his message as Kafir, people wouldn't know what He is talking about!

Alright now, c'mon with the nonsense Ayman. You know Full Well what is meant by this. The people of Abraham's time were Rejectors, period. Whatever language they spoke does not matter. The Arabic Quran calls them and those like them kafir. I know you are aware of the real point here Ayman. Please, let's not get into this.

No, the god gave us a description and not a name. I hope that you know the fact that there is a big difference between a description and a name.

And I hope you realize the fact that there is a big difference between the people who He gave this description to and those he gave another description to which is used as a barometer of rightly guided and those who are straying. He used this description of MUSLIMS for a reason you know. Not to merely take up space on paper.

It is a universal concept just as all those are universal concepts

How can it be a universal concept when He uses terms for others who do not wish to walk this path? Are you sayinh that some one can be a mumin and a kafir at the same time? Or can one be a muslim and a mushrik at the same time? I guess so since the description "muslim" is a universal concept.

Here is what you said

"Sects are always started when there are enough people that are dissatisfied with the practices and views of the current group and wish to seperate themselves from that group and become their own ideal group."

Here is what the god says

3031-32. "And do not be from those who setup partners. Those separated their obligation and were sects, each group happy with what they have".

And here's what else GOD says

So be not like those who BECAME disunited and differed AMONG THEMSELVES after clear proofs had come to them. For them is great suffering.
He has laid down for you the way of life and belief which He had commended to Noah, and which We have enjoined on you, and which We had bequeathed to Abraham, Moses and Jesus, so that they should maintain the order and not be divided AMONG THEMSELVES. Heavy is to idolaters what you invite them to. God chooses whom He please for Himself, and guides to Himself whoever turns to Him.
Yet they did not differ about it until knowledge came to them, through rivalries AMONG THEMSELVES. If the Word of your Lord, (staying) it for a time ordained, had not preceded it, the matter would have been settled among them. But those who came to inherit the Book after them are also in doubt and disturbed about it.
Verily this your order is one order, and I am your Lord, so fear Me.
But then THEY divided up THEIR order into different creeds, each section rejoicing in what it had come to have.

Where does the god say that "sects always started when people are dissatisfied with the practices and views of the current group and wish to seperate themselves from that group"?

I am convinced that the verses mentioned above allude to that. It is the details that need filling in and I do that by studying and observing the formation of sectarian factions that have sprung up in the name of islam. Those are the verifiable details and I am convinced on what I have learned of this.

Is Moses pulling Aaron from his beard and hair not being chastising enough??!!! I think that CavemanD already addressed this issue better than I can and your reply to him was unconvincing.

And you NOT REPLYING to it at all is even less convincing. When and Where does it say that Moses seized Aaron by his hair and beard. I expected better from you Ayman. Since you believe that Moses actually physically seized Aaron's beard and head (even though quran DOES NOT SAY he did so), then you can also believe that the stars, trees, mountains and planets physically prostrate to GOD in the same manner some people do when they make their salat. You can believe that there was a man named Soloman who literally understood the language of ants. You can believe when Bani Israel had entered the new town in sujud, they literally crawled their way in while laying on their chins and faces, scraping them on the ground. Like I said, I expect better from you Ayman.

What do you call objecting to other sects labeling themselves and then doing the same exact thing by turning the word "muslim" from a true description to an untranslateable label?

I can very easily translate the words "muslim", "deen", "Islam" and any other word in the quran from Arabic to English. But the points that I wanted to bring up in this post have nothing to do with how one wishes to translate words of the quran. It is a distraction that will quickly turn this thread from the issue of sectarianism to no, no, no..you're translating it wrong.....no, you're the one translating it wrong, something is wrong with your understanding.....no, you're the wrong understanding it wrong, look at the context of the verse, etc. If you want to talk about translation issues you should start a seperate thread for that.

Why is it OK in this case? I hope it is not because it is YOUR label, while the others is THEIR label because that is somewhat "arrogance" and I know that you are not the arrogant type.

Well, I try not to be arrogant because if I am proven wrong, then I will be the one with egg all over my face. It is not a label in my estimation, it is the description that GOD has given me and one which I humbly accept. Whatever other people wish to do concerning how to describe their position in life and their relationship with the Creator is totally out of my control. To you your way and to me my way. I have no problem with agreeing to disagree if that's what it will eventually boil down to.

Peace,
Damon.

CavemanDoctor

First things first, It is not 92-95, it is 92-94. But I'm glad that you brought this verse up (verse 95) because I will use it to prove my point.

Secondly, you have to get rid of those extra words in the parentheses because they are not in the original Arabic text.

Thirdly, where are you getting the assumption that Aaron's words in verse 94 meant that Moses physically seized him by his head and beard? Are you not aware of figure of speech in the Arabic language?

Fourthly, you claim a pretty clear chastisement in these verses. It is obviously not clear if others do not see what you claim to see. 242 and 244 are examples of what a pretty clear chastisement is. 538 is an example of what a pretty clear chastisement is. There is no mentioning of GOD nor Moses doing Anything to Aaron for allowing Bani Israel to make their idol and he gave his reason as to why he did not stand in their way. He did not wish to be the source of division and discord among the people.

NOW, we can get back to verses 95 and 96. You will notice in verse 87 that it was Samiri who aroused Bani Israel to make the idol. Notice that in verses 92 and 93 Moses questioned Aaron. Notice in verse 94 Aaron replied to Moses and told him Why he did not try to stop them. And notice in verse 95 how Moses questioned Samiri. In the following verse, 96, Samiri also gave his reply to Moses as to why he did what he did. And then we see in verse 97 the chastisement/punishment/consequence Moses lays on Samiri. He expels him from the jama'a and destroys his idol.

But what was done TO Aaron? Or What was done WITH Aaron? What chastisement/punishment/consequence did Moses hand to Aaron? Moses asked Aaron about what he did and Aaron replied to him and gave his excuse. Nothing was done. Moses asked Samiri the same thing as Aaron and, like Aaron, he gave his excuse for which he was excommunicated and his idol destroyed.

Also notice in 254 the verbal lashing Moses gives to Bani Israel for doing this. He told them to repent to GOD and to kill their egos/desires.

He didn't do anything to Aaron and neither did GOD.

You are right about one thing, Aaron's concerns do reflect my own. However, it is because you have not thoroughly studied the entire passage that you came to the conclusion that Aaron's concerns were misdirected and misinformed. Also, you should never rely on an English translation and base your understanding on the translators assumptions placed in brackets and parentheses. Nowhere in the original text does it say that Moses grabbed Aaron by his head or his beard.

If I tell you or anywhere else here not to jump down my throat, how are you going to interpret that? There's only two ways to interpret it. Literally or figuratively.

You decide...

First thing, calm down a bit. You're getting on others here about "assuming" and yet you did the exact same thing with me. I did not assume one single bit. You go on and on about how I don't understand what "figure of speech" is and how I use parentheses.

The truth is......

ready for it.......?

I pasted it exactly from the Ahmed Ali translation. I did not add those parentheses. I did not say anything about Moses "physically" grabbing Aaron. I merely pasted a translation. And why did I do it? In one of your posts, you said you agree with Ahmed Ali's translation. So I pasted the very translation you agree with. All these problems you have, take them up with Mr. Ali, not me.

Stop assuming.

Now onto the non-attacking substance of your post

But what was done TO Aaron? Or What was done WITH Aaron? What chastisement/punishment/consequence did Moses hand to Aaron?

You go on and on about "figure of speech" yet you've failed to understand it yourself. A "chastisement" does not have to be anything physical, nor does some "consequence" have to befall Aaron for it to be a chastisement. It can simply mean to "criticize severely" and that's how most of us, I would think, are using it. Moses did not have to execute his brother to chastise him. He did criticize him, obviously. If not, then why would Aaron even have to make an excuse in the first place?

Also notice in 254 the verbal lashing Moses gives to Bani Israel for doing this. He told them to repent to GOD and to kill their egos/desires.

He didn't do anything to Aaron and neither did GOD.

This is simply not true. I'll paste again from Ahmed Ali's translation (which you like). Note I did not add anything. This is purely from Ahmed Ali's translation. This is from surah 7

"150. When Moses returned to his people, indignant and grieved, he said "How wickedly you behaved in my absence. Why must you hasten the decree of your Lord?" And he cast aside the tablets, and pulled his brother by the hair. "O son of my mother," said (Aaron), "these people took advantage of my weakness and almost killed me. Do not let my enemies rejoice at my plight, and do not put me down among transgressors."
151. (Moses) said "O Lord, forgive me and my brother, and admit us to Your grace, for You are the most compassionate of all."

Did Moses not repent here? Did he not ask for forgiveness from God for he and his brother?

CavemanDoctor

Peace Damon,

I apologize for the emotions in my last post. I got ahead of myself and reacted, in a way I shouldn't have.

unknownuser

Peace Anwar,

Damon, you and I talked about this before I think. I understand where you are coming from but I think you are coming at it from the wrong angle

Yes, I remember our conversation. But why do you think that I'm coming at it from the wrong angle?

Well, the first question is this Why do you believe that Muslim or Islam is a Quranic title we should use to refer to ourselves?

Quranic Title? No. Quranic Description? Yes. Descriptions are used to Describe how and where an individual or group of people differ from another individual or group of people. It just so happens that GOD has given the description of muslim to those who Submit and follow the laws laid out in His Book.

Although peacemaking is only ONE meaning of Islam it is still only one. The other, most important in my opinion is 'submission' which in most places in the Quran referred to God who is mentioned in the context. That submission can validly be understood as making peace with God, however.

Like anybody else here who studies or have studied Arabic I am well aware of the many different meanings of 'islam' and the root that it comes from 's-l-m'. But remember when we last talked that I told you how it irks me that people can start going into "well, what does this word mean?....how do you translate that word? etc" and next thing you know we have been taken way off the original topic. Remember You, Tanveer, Samia and myself when back and forth in that one ramadan thread about translation and context issues, but that's what that thread was about to begin with. So I don't mind it if that is the pretext that a thread is started in. But I do mind it when a thread is not about translation, but about a concept or idea or understanding that is derived from many verses of the quran in general and not from one or two words that people want to translate and to make as the new topic.

So, again my question is why do you believe that Islam is a divinely appointed title that we should adhere to?

Islam? Title? I didn't say that bro. I said that I am content with calling myself a muslim without the adjectives of quran alone or quran only added to it. And I wouldn't tell people that it's divinely appointed because that is not my understanding.

The second question we will go for after that is

Where is the line drawn between a description and a sectarian title?

This is only my understanding and I can only speak for myself. But for me the line is drawn when one starts adding adjectives to the description. Hence Islam and Quran only Islam. Muslim and Quran only Muslim. Sunni Islam. Sunni Muslim. Ibadi Muslim. Ismaeliyy Muslim. Maliki. Shafee'e, Kharijite, Free-minder, 19'er, etc. This is where I personally draw the line as of late. Rembember that I used to take on those labels myself, but I no longer do so.

p.s. Bro, I think you overeacted on Samia because of her use of naif (spelled naive). If it was to insult you or not, I don't know. However, I did not find her post insulting or condescending when she first responded to you.

That's possible. Maybe she didn't mean it as an insult. She never corrected me and told me that I misunderstood her post either.

To me it was condescending and out of place because she went into things I did not go into myself.

Peace,
Damon.

unknownuser

Dear CavemanD

First thing, calm down a bit. You're getting on others here about "assuming" and yet you did the exact same thing with me. I did not assume one single bit. You go on and on about how I don't understand what "figure of speech" is and how I use parentheses.

Why are you telling me to calm down? I'm not even rowdy or anything with you. Perhaps you read my post to you and thought that I was yelling at you on screen or something? ???

Well, I wasn't if that's what you somehow thought. hypno

The truth is......

ready for it.......?

I pasted it exactly from the Ahmed Ali translation. I did not add those parentheses. I did not say anything about Moses "physically" grabbing Aaron. I merely pasted a translation. And why did I do it? In one of your posts, you said you agree with Ahmed Ali's translation. So I pasted the very translation you agree with. All these problems you have, take them up with Mr. Ali, not me.

Stop assuming.

I know you did not add the parentheses yourself. I literally said that the translator added them, so I already knew Ahmed Ali added the parentheses. There was really no need for you to post this when I already made it clear in my reply to you who added the extra text in parentheses.

Also, I told Ayman that I agreed with Ahmed Ali's andMohamed Ahmed's renditions of 3031-32. I didn't say that I agreed with them fully 100%. There is not a single translation that I agree with 100%.

You go on and on about "figure of speech" yet you've failed to understand it yourself. A "chastisement" does not have to be anything physical, nor does some "consequence" have to befall Aaron for it to be a chastisement. It can simply mean to "criticize severely" and that's how most of us, I would think, are using it. Moses did not have to execute his brother to chastise him. He did criticize him, obviously. If not, then why would Aaron even have to make an excuse in the first place?

To my understanding, Aaron made and excuse and explained himself because Moses Questioned him. I personally don't how Moses questioning his brother equates to any sort of criticism or chastisement. But this is just my understanding. I could be wrong. May GOD guide me to that which is better and more correct.

I wrote

Also notice in 254 the verbal lashing Moses gives to Bani Israel for doing this. He told them to repent to GOD and to kill their egos/desires.

He didn't do anything to Aaron and neither did GOD.

And in response, You wrote

This is simply not true. I'll paste again from Ahmed Ali's translation (which you like). Note I did not add anything. This is purely from Ahmed Ali's translation. This is from surah 7

"150. When Moses returned to his people, indignant and grieved, he said "How wickedly you behaved in my absence. Why must you hasten the decree of your Lord?" And he cast aside the tablets, and pulled his brother by the hair. "O son of my mother," said (Aaron), "these people took advantage of my weakness and almost killed me. Do not let my enemies rejoice at my plight, and do not put me down among transgressors."
151. (Moses) said "O Lord, forgive me and my brother, and admit us to Your grace, for You are the most compassionate of all."

Did Moses not repent here? Did he not ask for forgiveness from God for he and his brother?

Caveman, I said in 254 Moses gave them a verbal lashing. You tell me it's NOT TRUE?? And then you posted an altogether different verse than what I was talking about instead of commenting on what I had posted and telling me why what I said about it is not true. I don't get this.

I can tell from this post that you're somewhat fired up and I can feel the sting of your lashing. Maybe you mistook the mood of my post towards you. I know that I am not the most articulate person around here and my writing and debating style isn't as smooth as say Zenje's, or Wakas' or Maries. I guess I need to look at changing my approach and learn how to interact with people better. In any case, you don't have to worry about me bothering you anymore.

unknownuser

Peace Damon,

I apologize for the emotions in my last post. I got ahead of myself and reacted, in a way I shouldn't have.

No need to apologize. If you reacted that way to my post then maybe it's something I said. I just wish I knew what. Or perhaps its the way I presented my response??

CavemanDoctor

No need to apologize. If you reacted that way to my post then maybe it's something I said. I just wish I knew what. Or perhaps its the way I presented my response??

I initially reacted to your post that way because it was full of suppositions and assumptions about me and what I allegedly "said." I don't react kindly to those who assume things about me; it's a flaw of mine. Hence, my apology.

For example, you said this

Thirdly, where are you getting the assumption that Aaron's words in verse 94 meant that Moses physically seized him by his head and beard? Are you not aware of figure of speech in the Arabic language?

Please show me where I claimed that Moses physically did anything to Aaron. I didn't. If you're referring to the translation I posted (which I only did cause a) I had to obviously post some translation and b) I posted Ahmed Ali's cause you had said you had agreed with him on some other verse), then that's something the translator put in. I never said Moses physically did anything to Aaron. That was your assumption. I merely said he chastised Aaron.

Caveman, I said in 254 Moses gave them a verbal lashing. You tell me it's NOT TRUE?? And then you posted an altogether different verse than what I was talking about instead of commenting on what I had posted and telling me why what I said about it is not true. I don't get this.

My "its not true" comment wasn't in reference to Moses giving a verbal lashing. Sorry, I should have been more clear. What was not true was the fact that Moses did not ask for similar repentance that he commanded the bani israel to do. He did. He asked God for forgiveness on his and his brother's behalf. Coincidentally, this also shows that Moses knew that Aaron had erred, and is coincidentally why Moses "chastised" (or condemned, or criticized, not merely questioned) Aaron. Further, the rest of the context in surah 7 makes it clear that Aaron himself knew he had made a mistake.

Samia

p.s. Bro, I think you overeacted on Samia because of her use of naif (spelled naive). If it was to insult you or not, I don't know. However, I did not find her post insulting or condescending when she first responded to you.

Thanks Anwar for this comment. My post was very general. Had I said "it is naive (thanks for the corection) of you", then I would be insulting.

To Damon
All other posts have the same understanding I expressed in my two posts. So either everyone is wrong or at least I am not standing alone. Having said that, I am contented with just watching as I have nothing new to add. I also get blocked when my interlocutor takes the discussion to a personal level.

Wakas

peace Damon,

I will take some time to ponder on this issue in light of 911, GOD Willing and I would love a civil and honest conversation with you about it.

As of now though, it appears to me that 911 is concerned with the mushrikeen disrupting the unity of the people trying to establish the deen in the land. I could be wrong though.

The reason I thought of 911 was that even though they were mushrikeen/polytheists, God commands us to see/treat them as akhw/allies/brothers in the deen/obligation/system if they fulfill certain criteria .
So if one extends this to Traditional Muslims, their beliefs can be thought of as irrelevant as long as they fulfill the criteria to be regarded as akhw/brothers/allies.

arnoldyasin

Salaam Aleikum,

The sects are formed because of their approach to the Quran, and this counts also for people at Freeminds and "19ers". The religious approach is what creates these rifts as everybody is busy with the game called "Who can acknowledge God in the best way".

This is not the goal of the Quran and not of the Deen, it is about who can benefit Mankind the most. As God does not give thumbs up or down which we can see, this game will go on forever without a clear answer. But benefitting Mankind can be directly seen in this Life as people can give thumbs up or down.

Those that create sects are the ones who are busy with "pleasing God" instead of pleasing Humanity.

1317 He sends down water from the height causing the riverbeds to
flow according to their measure and the flood bears on its surface
swelling foam. And, when they use fire to refine metals for their jewelry
or equipment, foam is produced like it. In this way, God is citing for you
the example of the truth and Falsehood. For, as far as the foam is
concerned, it passes away as scum upon the riverbanks - While what is
of benefit to mankind, abides on earth. This is how God uses analogies
for you to understand.

1026 Those who benefit humanity get rewarded manifold. No dust of
sadness and no trace of humiliation will overshadow their faces. Such
are the rightful dwellers of the Garden; they will abide therein.

3110 (Since you have been empowered by the Quran), you are indeed the best suited Community that has been raised up for the good of mankind. You shall enjoin the Right, by example and close the doors to Wrong, by example, since you have conviction in Allah (and accept His Final Word as the Criterion of Right and Wrong 34. The Quran educates you on the Permanent Moral Value System and distinguishes clearly what the otherwise vague terms of right and wrong, and good and evil would mean). Now if the People of the Scripture had attained this kind of belief, it would have been for their own good. Some of them do embrace belief, while most of them continue to drift away.

I also approached this issue partially in my article "The difference between Deen and Religious approach"

http//19.org/index.php?id=91,554,0,0,1,0&PHPSESSID=08c48f1b2ab3116a1d6bf2284e31bb58

unknownuser

Peace Wakas,

The reason I thought of 911 was that even though they were mushrikeen/polytheists, God commands us to see/treat them as akhw/allies/brothers in the deen/obligation/system if they fulfill certain criteria .
So if one extends this to Traditional Muslims, their beliefs can be thought of as irrelevant as long as they fulfill the criteria to be regarded as akhw/brothers/allies.

This is what I was getting at in my response to your first post. I believe that most people misinterpret 911 as meaning that we have to unite with the mushrikeen (traditional so-called muslims) on ALL things including matters of faith in GOD and I don't necessarily see it as so. I believe that we CAN extend this to traditional muslims as well as Christians because 911 says they can fullfill the criteria to be our akhw/brothers/allies in the Deen and being allies in the Deen does not mean (at least to my understanding) having the same faith or spiritual views of GOD. Being allies in the "Deen" is not the same as being allies in "Eemaan". Hence the correction the messenger made to the 'Arabs in 4914. Deen and Eemaan are not the same. Also Muslim and Mumin are not the same either.

If it stay this course then I could see this thread becoming quite productive and maybe we (or I) will find the answers to the questions I asked in my opening post. Believe it or not, extending this to the traditional muslims sounds a whole lot easier than it would be in practice. Especially when your mind is made up that you will not engage in idolatrous activities and practices of the traditional muslims.

I Hope that my vision and my idea is a lot more clearer now.

Peace,
Damon.

unknownuser

Salaam 'Alaiykum AY

Salaam Aleikum,

The sects are formed because of their approach to the Quran, and this counts also for people at Freeminds and "19ers". The religious approach is what creates these rifts as everybody is busy with the game called "Who can acknowledge God in the best way".

This is not the goal of the Quran and not of the Deen, it is about who can benefit Mankind the most. As God does not give thumbs up or down which we can see, this game will go on forever without a clear answer. But benefitting Mankind can be directly seen in this Life as people can give thumbs up or down.

Those that create sects are the ones who are busy with "pleasing God" instead of pleasing Humanity.

1317 He sends down water from the height causing the riverbeds to
flow according to their measure and the flood bears on its surface
swelling foam. And, when they use fire to refine metals for their jewelry
or equipment, foam is produced like it. In this way, God is citing for you
the example of the truth and Falsehood. For, as far as the foam is
concerned, it passes away as scum upon the riverbanks - While what is
of benefit to mankind, abides on earth. This is how God uses analogies
for you to understand.

1026 Those who benefit humanity get rewarded manifold. No dust of
sadness and no trace of humiliation will overshadow their faces. Such
are the rightful dwellers of the Garden; they will abide therein.

3110 (Since you have been empowered by the Qur?an), you are indeed the best suited Community that has been raised up for the good of mankind. You shall enjoin the Right, by example and close the doors to Wrong, by example, since you have conviction in Allah (and accept His Final Word as the Criterion of Right and Wrong 34. The Qur?an educates you on the Permanent Moral Value System and distinguishes clearly what the otherwise vague terms of ?right? and ?wrong?, and ?good? and ?evil? would mean). Now if the People of the Scripture had attained this kind of belief, it would have been for their own good. Some of them do embrace belief, while most of them continue to drift away.

I also approached this issue partially in my article "The difference between Deen and Religious approach"

http//19.org/index.php?id=91,554,0,0,1,0&PHPSESSID=08c48f1b2ab3116a1d6bf2284e31bb58

Brilliant post Arnold. Simply brilliant.

To Samia,

All other posts have the same understanding I expressed in my two posts. So either everyone is wrong or at least I am not standing alone.

There are two posts here that doesn't seem to have your understanding. Either they are wrong or at least I am not standing alone either. Whoever Submits themselves to the Deen can be considered as allies in the Deen and may also be called a muslim (according to how I understand 4914). The laws of Deen Can be implemented by a group of people regardless of their spiritual or so-called 'religious' views. You don't have to be a mumin to be one who surrenders to the laws of the deen. He who does believe in GOD and the Hereafter is the one who is called mumin (a believer) and a mumin can work side by side with a muslim and a mushrik in order to establish deen in the land and work for a better society.

However, this is the part where I go totally blank because the traditional muslims are an extremely difficult group of people to approach.

mz

Salaams Damon,

A very good understanding of the subject matter, if i may say so.

a mumin can work side by side with a muslim and a mushrik in order to establish deen in the land and work for a better society.

but you got to agree that for a mushrik to become your brother - he cannot be a mushrik any longer, so you cannot call such a person mushrik can you?

911
But (even so), if they (mushriks) repent, establish regular prayers (i would say establish counsel), and practise regular charity(....and be forthcoming),- they are your brethren in Faith..........

Salaam.

progod

Peace,

Okay Damon, maybe I asked the wrong question. Why must we use the Arabic word Muslim, and what do you think this word means?
I guess the issue of translation ad understanding the Arabic is actually key here. It is not a game of seeing who knows more Arabic either or trying to undermine those who know less, but how we should be understanding these Arabic words.

So to me Muslim is an Arabic word that does not convey what I know it means in Old Arabic when we use it in English (or in Modern Arabic for that matter). For that reason I do not find it as an accurate descriptive in anyway. The Quran uses the word submissive (Muslim) in context with God. So, in essence what you are saying is that we should just all call oursevles submissives/submitters without qualifying Quran alone etc. Why Muslim when we know that in Old Arabic this word has nothing to do with God on its own and we must add 'to God' to make it have some significance to the Quran's message (as the Quran also gives it reference to God)?

When you start saying that God calls us Muslims in the Quran you make it a title, not a descriptive. Muslim really has no innate meaning in English. It doesn't mean kind, godly, pious or submissive to God and cannot be used interchangeably with these ideas in any language (not even Old Arabic). So when you say we should call ourselves just Muslims you are in essence saying that this is our title, because whereas Quranist innately describes what a person follows, Muslim does not (in English or in Arabic). And if you think that the Quran calls us Muslims this worries me that you are reading the word Muslim and thinking of it as a title instead of understanding it (translating it) for the idea that is behind it, i.e. submissiveness. It seems like you are seeing Muslim/Islam and not being able to get past the widespread modern meaning of it as a religious system, or our religion. Remember that when the Quran was revealed no such thing existed and this word only meant what we translate into in English (submissive, peacemaker etc). When you try to separate it from these true, original meanings you turn it into a title and not a description. Remember again a description has to have meaning. What does Muslim on its own mean? When you describe someone as kind, nice, godly, pious, submissive to God these all have innate meaning, they communicate ideas. What idea does the word Muslim and the word Islam communicate?
If it does not have innate meaning and has to be given one then it is a title and not a description.

Godbless,
Anwar

unknownuser

Salaams Damon,

A very good understanding of the subject matter, if i may say so.

but you got to agree that for a mushrik to become your brother - he cannot be a mushrik any longer, so you cannot call such a person mushrik can you?

911
But (even so), if they (mushriks) repent, establish regular prayers (i would say establish counsel), and practise regular charity(....and be forthcoming),- they are your brethren in Faith..........

Salaam.

Salaams MZ,

Perhaps you are right, but I do not agree with your rendition of 911. The original text doesn't say that they are our brothers in Faith (Eemaan), it says that they are our brothers in the System/Order/Judgement (Deen). I also do not agree with the understanding of prayer (from salat) in this context.

But, I also have to say that GOD calls them idolaters in the verses before verse 11, but verse 11 doesn't give me any indication that they have given up taken partners with GOD just because they submitted to matters of the System/Order/Judgement (Deen).

Peace,
Damon.

progod

Peace,

The reason I thought of 911 was that even though they were mushrikeen/polytheists, God commands us to see/treat them as akhw/allies/brothers in the deen/obligation/system if they fulfill certain criteria .
So if one extends this to Traditional Muslims, their beliefs can be thought of as irrelevant as long as they fulfill the criteria to be regarded as akhw/brothers/allies.

This is what I was getting at in my response to your first post. I believe that most people misinterpret 911 as meaning that we have to unite with the mushrikeen (traditional so-called muslims) on ALL things including matters of faith in GOD and I don't necessarily see it as so. I believe that we CAN extend this to traditional muslims as well as Christians because 911 says they can fullfill the criteria to be our akhw/brothers/allies in the Deen and being allies in the Deen does not mean (at least to my understanding) having the same faith or spiritual views of GOD. Being allies in the "Deen" is not the same as being allies in "Eemaan". Hence the correction the messenger made to the 'Arabs in 4914. Deen and Eemaan are not the same. Also Muslim and Mumin are not the same either.

As it concerns this I think we should remember the use of the word deen in the context of the king of Egypt in Joseph's time within the Quran, God bless him. Deen has also to do with legal obligation i.e. rule. Rules among people equal civilization/society. This is where madeenah comes from. It is a place of rule (written or unwritten). it is not the wild west where anybody can do whatever they want. That is not a madeenah. Also let's consider Salat. I am of the strict Classical Arabic school when it comes to this word. I see it as Prayer, Petition or Blessing, and that is it (it is not a verbal noun of form II). As it concerns Zakaat I see this as goodness, justness, wholesome growth, & purity, and that it is also not a verbal noun of form II). So to me those who take others as equals to God, polythiests being the most obvious of these, who take asylum with Quranists, who give us their blessing (Aqaamoo (from IV) Alsaalata) and who conform to goodness and justness (Aatoo (form IV & III) azakaata) are to be our brothers in our civilization, our way of life, our rule. That means that although they betray God in their hearts whoever give us their blessings and is just and good we are to treat as brothers as it concerns our rule, our way of life, our civilization. No they are not brothers in our faith. And because the Arabic word Muslim means submissive and peacemaker (Damon we have to translate to understand what this word is really saying. Muslim on its own has no meaning), we must understand that the Arab tribes (Al-A'raabu is plural to refer to Arabs in plural i.e. their different tribes) made peace/were submissive to Muhamamd (God bless him) but they did not have faith in him and his message.

Godbless,
Anwar

unknownuser

Peace Anwar,

Okay Damon, maybe I asked the wrong question. Why must we use the Arabic word Muslim, and what do you think this word means?
I guess the issue of translation ad understanding the Arabic is actually key here. It is not a game of seeing who knows more Arabic either or trying to undermine those who know less, but how we should be understanding these Arabic words.

Oh bro, I really am not trying to go in that direction. Trust me, It Will eventually detract from the original subject sooner or later. It's a given. But let me give you this answer. I NEVER said that we Must use the Arabic word muslim. I simply said that I am content with being a muslim without any adjectives in front of it, such as quran only or sunni muslim. I can't see how that is equal to saying that we must use the Arabic word muslim. If it will make you all feel better, for the sake of this discussion, we don't have to say muslim. I have no problem saying 'submissive one' or 'one who surrenders'.

So to me Muslim is an Arabic word that does not convey what I know it means in Old Arabic when we use it in English (or in Modern Arabic for that matter). For that reason I do not find it as an accurate descriptive in anyway. The Quran uses the word submissive (Muslim) in context with God. So, in essence what you are saying is that we should just all call oursevles submissives/submitters without qualifying Quran alone etc.

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying.

Why Muslim when we know that in Old Arabic this word has nothing to do with God on its own and we must add 'to God' to make it have some significance to the Quran's message (as the Quran also gives it reference to God)?

We have had this disussion before. You already know that everyone is familiar with the context this word is used in when it comes to the quran and the understanding that is obtained from that usage.

When you start saying that God calls us Muslims in the Quran you make it a title, not a descriptive.

I disagree that I am making it a title. It is not my intention to make it a title nor is it the mindset that I am operating under. GOD uses that description for a reason. When I use it, I stick to that reason.

Muslim really has no innate meaning in English. It doesn't mean kind, godly, pious or submissive to God and cannot be used interchangeably with these ideas in any language (not even Old Arabic).
So when you say we should call ourselves just Muslims you are in essence saying that this is our title, because whereas Quranist innately describes what a person follows, Muslim does not (in English or in Arabic).

Bro, how can you say that me using the word 'muslim' is making a title when it is used in the quran, but you want to erect a title of your own that is not in the quran? (the word quranist).

And if you think that the Quran calls us Muslims this worries me that you are reading the word Muslim and thinking of it as a title instead of understanding it (translating it) for the idea that is behind it, i.e. submissiveness.

You totally misunderstand me if you do think this. You have to read my posts to Ayman to see where I'm coming from and where you are misunderstanding me.

It seems like you are seeing Muslim/Islam and not being able to get past the widespread modern meaning of it as a religious system, or our religion.

Okay, here you are Dead Wrong!! This is a bad assumption on your part bro.

Remember that when the Quran was revealed no such thing existed and this word only meant what we translate into in English (submissive, peacemaker etc). When you try to separate it from these true, original meanings you turn it into a title and not a description. Remember again a description has to have meaning. What does Muslim on its own mean? When you describe someone as kind, nice, godly, pious, submissive to God these all have innate meaning, they communicate ideas. What idea does the word Muslim and the word Islam communicate?
If it has not innate meaning and has to be given one then it is a title and not a description.

These things I am already aware of.

Peace,
Damon.

mz

Salaams MZ,

Perhaps you are right, but I do not agree with your rendition of 911. The original text doesn't say that they are our brothers in Faith (Eemaan), it says that they are our brothers in the System/Order/Judgement (Deen). I also do not agree with the understanding of prayer (from salat) in this context.

But, I also have to say that GOD calls them idolaters in the verses before verse 11, but verse 11 doesn't give me any indication that they have given up taken partners with GOD just because they submitted to matters of the System/Order/Judgement (Deen).

Peace,
Damon.

Hearts of brothers are joined ? not physically.

3103
And hold fast, all together, by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah's favour on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus doth Allah make His Signs clear to you That ye may be guided.

The brothers of unbelievers are unbelievers.

3156
O ye who believe! Be not like the Unbelievers, who say of their brethren??.

From above;

The brothers of you, believers can only be believers.

So how can your brother be a mushrik ? in 911?

but verse 11 doesn't give me any indication that they have given up taken partners with GOD

Was it ever anything to do with setting up partners with any God?!

God Bless All.