SECTARIANISM is what's killing us!!!!
-
Peace,
Damon, we talk alot and about 100 percent of the time we can come to an understanding. I"m sure if I talked to you we would not have this problem. So I'm thinking that maybe it is the way you are phrasing what you are saying.
When you responded to my question about the meaning of the word Islam in the Quran you said
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.
I think where we are not seeing eye to eye is on what we see as the "understanding" of a word and what place context has in relation to this. How I see it, the Quran says submissive ones, but doesn't say it alone. It doesn't say just "be submissive", it says 'God is lord of the heavans and the earth, so be submissive.' or like Jacob says (I'm paraphrasing but you can recheck to see it exactly) 'Who will you serve after i die.' His sons say the god of Abraham and then Jacob says 'And don't dare die unless you are submissive.' In these contexts, as you know, the submissiveness is to God. However when we take it out of context and start dealing with how we are to describe ourselves saying 'Submissive or Submitters' not only is this not descriptive enough but is not what the Quran was getting at. The Quran used submissive in the context of God, but when we describe ourselves as submissive or submitters (without mentioning God first or afterwards like the Quran does when it uses this word) then this has nothing to do with God and is not related to how the Quran uses this word in any way. You see where I am getting at? So what is the merit of just calling ourselves submissive or submitters? Yeah the Quran uses these words but it specifically mentions God before and after using these words. If we say 'We are submissive/submitters' , we have to mention God, or it means nothing. The context from the Quran does not carry over unless we give it context just like the Quran gave it context.
As it concerns 'Quranist' well I know it borders on a title but that is only because it starts to represent a belief system or something that one does or is actively and habitually. Like the difference between a bicycle rider and a cyclist, an Islamic person and an Islamist. Quranic and Quranist. One is more passive and one more active. Every 'ist' can become a title when it starts to be identified and associated with a group or way of life, some more passive 'ics' can morph this way as well. But isn't the idea of a quranist what we are getting at here. We follow just the Quran. The word Islam does not imply that in its wordly sense or in its Old Arabic sense (which is its Quranic sense).
I'm sorry if this turned into a discussion about the Arabic langauge, but it was bound to, as the foundation of your issue is a linguistic issue and about how you understand the word Muslim and Islam. And whether the Quran can somehow change the meaning of the word because it uses it with God, in its contexts.
You understand that we should take the term Islam and Muslim and stick with them as the basic pillar of our belief system, i.e. We are all Muslims. But we have to be real about this. We have to be real about what Islam really means, and how the Quran never used the term submissive generally as a descriptive for those who believe in it, nor does the concept of submission to God stick with the word submission when we use it outside of the Quran and where we don't specifically mention God (like the Quran does). Especially as it concerns how we should describe ourselves.
If we are going to talk about sectarianism then do you want to address the negative affects of sectarianism in Islam as a whole, or sectarianism among Quranist Muslims? Or do you feel that all these names and titles are what are causing us problems in the first place?
If that last is true, let me say that I don't think the names and descriptives are what caused the problem in Islam. The main problem within the body of Islam is that 1. Muslim do not just want to follow the Quran 2. They do not want to embrace logic to understand the Quran 3. They do not want to understand the Quran from a strict pre-Islamic linguistic point of view, they like the inventions and ideas after the Quran that have been connected to many Arabic words and want to read these words into the Quran, or they want to try to reshape the meaning of a word base on their understanding of a Quranic context where this word plays a major role in the understanding of that context.
It is the difference first in understandings that creates differences. And these understandings turn into sects because of as the Quran says baghyan bainahum. (malice, jealousy and ill-feelings).
And all in all I think Islam is even a sect. It has no descriptive, it means nothing by itself. Not even Submission can hold up to what we mean when we mean Islam, because we don't mean Submission (to anything) when we say it. Submission to God is what God wants of us and how he wants us to live. Not what the word Submissiveness or Islam brings to the mind when we use these two words.
When I say I am a Quranist I say it because there is not term out there other than this word (excluding of course Quran alone, etc, which are also under scrutiny here and in the same hot water as Quranist) that describe the idea of just following the Quran.
If I am a Muslim it is default. Because the Quran does not use just this word as a descriptive and it is people who have defined this word as basically a Muhammadan. Yes, Muslims are Muhammadans. We only hate ths word because it sounds like Christian and we don't worship Muhammad, like Trinitarians worship Christ. However not all Christians worship Christ and some are just his followers (like the Unitarians) and in that aspect we are Muhammadans just as much as these Unitarians are Christians. If I am submissive, I must specify that and say that I am submissive to God, and if I am a Quranist it is becuase I follow the Quran. In my opinion it is not the names of ways of thought that cause the problems of sectarianism, it is the power of politics and as long as groups of people have ever existed, and tried to forge a community there have always been those get caught up in the power games. Even on this forum I can assure that many of the long arguments we have are power issues at their core, people must assert their power their superiority in some way even when they are dead wrong. To me that is the basis of individual and group sectarianism not descriptives.
I was looking in the dictionary at the word al-shiah and I'm sure it is derived from shii&atu '&ali.(The group/faction/followers/disciples of Ali). I can see how that can easily be shortened into alshiah as a nickname. Something Arabs are famous for doing, shortening and giving nicknames. And Sunnis well we all know where this comes from. But these were political factions in the begginning and as religion and politics became one so they became religious factions. IF we look at every sect in Islam it is not their name that is the problem it is what they believe. We can call a Sunni Muslim just a Muslim (and I'm sure he would like that) but that would not change his gripe with you for only following the Quran. In the end what is the difference between saying that you are a Muslim that just follows the Quran and a Quran-alone/Quranist Muslim?
I hope that wasn't too much but I hope you can answer it all for me.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
Damon, you said
They are not going to carry a debate how each of them understand "Deen" and "Islam" and whether Islam means submissiveness (Anwar's understanding) or if Islam means peacefulness (Ayman's understanding). Go back to page three of this thread and witness this for yourself. THIS is EXACTLY what I was talking about and lo and behold it came true.
Ayman and Anwar are at odds on just those words alone. A total waste of time in a thread that is not about translations of Arabic terms.
Damon I am not at odds with Ayman about this meaning I agree with him actually. This word can carry the meaning of to make peace as well. As a matter of fact that is the root meaning of it being used as submission, i.e. to make peace with someone.
So I just wanted to clarify. This word has a few different meanings, but Ayman IS CORRECT in his meaning. I never said he was wrong and I am not at odds with him as to his usage of this word.Godbless,
Anwarp.s. When you deal with any text however this (argument over interpretation and connotation of words or grammar of sentences) is bound to happen. It happens in every language amongst scholars who study any important text (although I am not vouching for the impeccable intentions of any textual analyst). However this argument is an inevitable matter of fact. Also what you see in the mosque is also an issue of interpretation. Those Sunnis interpret Islam as Sunnism and when you say you are not a Sunni well, they don't see you as a Muslim. So you cant even identify with them on the basis of being just a Muslim, because to them you aren't even Muslim. But who is right? And where can we find the definitive interpretation on what a Muslim is? You won't find it in the Quran. It is in the Hadeeth however and I can say that those Sunnis are not following their own texts. The only truthful perspective is the pre-Islamic linguistic perspective, which actually relegates this word to a non-religous vocubulary word with non-religious meanings that have to be used in certain contexts to take form as a complete idea. This perspective however is in hot water with you right now, because of people's issue with how to translate. Issues that are based on things me and you have talked about before and which are blinding the ability to understand the langauge correctly as it concerns some of those who do undertake translating and understanding it in Arabic. That is why two things are important in knowing a language and how to approach a text, 1. a concept of the language and how it can work as well as 2. knowledge of vocabulary forms and grammar.
-
I no longer call myself Quran Only Muslim, Quran Alone Muslim or Quranist or Quraniyy. I am simply a Muslim.
i agree with you Damon. People need to remember that believers in the Quran are ANYONE who believe in GOD (from jews to hindus to whoever).
this is why i use 'submitter' instead of muslim, because even using 'muslim' can isolate/divide yourself. 'Musilim' is nationally understood as a name and not a description. What many for get is that language is use as a tool to divide as well and we should be aware of this and avoid it. To me, by saying submitter (instead of Muslim) or terms of one native language, this bring unity and commonality to the community to help human unite. So i use GOD instead of Allah etc etc.what do you think about language role is sectarianism?
-
Satanhatesme,
That is truth. I'm not sure if it is innate for anyone who believes in God to automatically believe in the Quran without knowing of it. However I do agree that anyone who is faithful to God is already following the core message of the Quran, and if they study the Quran they will agree with it. Some of what the Quran calls for after confriming faith in God are some intellectual pursuits that are difficult but the heart that is submissive to God will still be guided and will still gain salvation, no matter where on that path. I personally understand that Jews are still supposed uphold all of Moses teachings (God bless him) along with the Quran, Christians Jesus' (God bless him), and Hindus, well every tradition that does not go against faith in God and taking him as our only god, and is good and beneficial (al-husnaa) is perfectly acceptable.
I don't use the word submitter, however I understand your point completely. If I refer to submitting in someway I always say submissive to God, submitter to God. I use the term Quranist Muslim only because I do follow Mohammad (God bless him) and I do only follow the Quran (which I see as his only message although other Muslims/Mohammadans don't see it this way). However, you are right. There was a time when I only said submissive to God but I gave up when i realized that following the Quran made me Muslim/Mohammadan in the world's eyes (Mohamadan and Non-Mohamadan) and that that wasn't necessarily a bad thing as long as I just stuck to the Quran. But the message of the Quran is submission to God, Faithfulness to God and putting nothing else on the same level as God at any level in our lives.
Language definitely has been used to create sectarianism. And I think the interpretation of words, aside from how they are realistically used (linguistically used) is at the crux of that. The Arabic words Islam, Salat, Zakat and many more have been interpreted to mean what they never originally meant and sifting out these interpretations by using Classical sources and acquiring a correct concept of the language seems to be a stumbling block for many who profess to just follow the Quran. I am seeing that even those who claim to just follow the Quran like to interpret words in the Quran (based on their understanding of the contexts in which these words are in) just as much as traditionalist. I actually think many of them wish to create NEW interpretations. But there should be NO interpretations. The context stays with teh text (context = with text) and does not carry when we use a word from a context in the Quran outside of the context of the Quran.
Godbless,
Anwar -
DAmon
I no longer call myself Quran Only Muslim, Quran Alone Muslim or Quranist or Quraniyy. I am simply a Muslim. Nothing more, nothing less. I also accept the terms Mumin (Believer) and Haneef (Monotheist/Pro-GOD) since they are also utilised in the quran favourably. Though I must say while stating this I only take GOD's Book as my source of guidance and knowledge in matters of Deen.
May Allah Guide all of the remaining to the same Conclusion.
-
Wakas
peace brother Damon,
Quote
Dr. Manzoor 'ul Haque pointed out in his very informative article how Aaron (brother of Moses) deliberately allowed Bani Israel to make the golden idol in Moses' absence because he did not wish to arouse a situation that will create division among the people and yet neither GOD nor Moses chastised Aaron for doing this. This is a very strong indication of the seriousness of factionalism and divisionism in GOD's view.Interesting, although I have not studied the story thoroughly.
When I read your post, I first thought of chapter 9, specifically 911.
I am sorry I cannot agree with HAque here, because he is inspired by the stories of BIBle writers but Quran tells us different story
During his absence, Moses' people made from their jewelry the statue of a calf, complete with the sound of a calf. Did they not see that it could not speak to them, or guide them in any path? They worshipped it, and thus turned wicked
When Moses returned to his people, angry and disappointed, he said, "What a terrible thing you have done in my absence! Could you not wait for the commandments of your Lord?" He threw down the tablets, and took hold of his brother's head, pulling him towards himself. (Aaron) said, "Son of my mother, the people took advantage of my weakness, and almost killed me. Let not my enemies rejoice, and do not count me with the transgressing people
Allah Ho Akbar! Quran not only clears the allegations put on Lot, David and other Prophets by Bani Israel in their books, but also on Aaron.
They took advantage of his weakness and tried to kill him, therefore Haque telling us that Aaron did allowed them deliberatly is not true story.
Moses) said, "My Lord, forgive me and my brother, and admit us into Your mercy. Of all the merciful ones, You are the Most Merciful."
Surely, those who idolized the calf have incurred wrath from their Lord, and humiliation in this life. We thus requite the innovators
So dera Wakas when you read the story, keep this side of coin in your mind too.
-
Peace all,
Raj-ah and Satan Hates Me. Thank You both for your feedback and responses. Thanx for pointing out that other passage from the quran Raj-ah.
Anwar, you say that translation and linguistics is the foundation of my issue. This is wrong. A peoples mindset and their thinking that the group they give their allegience to is the only rightly guided group is the foundation of my issue. It has nothing at all to do with linguistics. Why are you not a 19'er? Edip Yuksel knows Arabic. He claims to be a Quran alone believer. You know Arabic and you claim to be a Quran alone believer. We is he a 19'er and you're not? NOT because of linguistics, but because 19 is a way of thinking that Edip subscribes to and you do not subscribe to. It's as simple as that. But because many people can't stick to the simplicity of this issue, some will choose to complicate the matter by going into the lingustics direction when it not only has nothing to do with the topic, but always takes the topic off course. Always!!
Don't mind me guys, continue with your linguistic discussion with one another. I have said what I needed to say and will continue to walk my own path. And based upon how this thread went, I am definately convinced of the factionist/sectarian mindset that exists here. You guys can be in denial about this all you want.
Peace be with you,
Damon. -
You made the whole thing on-topic when you decided to write "I reject these labels and accept this, 'Muslim'; " (paraphrased).
Wrong again!! I am using the logic of "Muslim is left untranslated because 1). I know that people will always choose how to word their translation and understanding of the word and when they come across others who word it differently or understand how to apply its translation differently than them, then we have the disagreement that we are seeing from Anwar and AYman in this very thread. You can see this for yourself. They are not going to carry a debate how each of them understand "Deen" and "Islam" and whether Islam means submissiveness (Anwar's understanding) or if Islam means peacefulness (Ayman's understanding). Go back to page three of this thread and witness this for yourself. THIS is EXACTLY what I was talking about and lo and behold it came true.
I would avoid commenting on whether two people agree or disagree when the full picture isn't around, as seen by Progod's response. This is an "either/or" fallacy, and again, it just doesn't hold. As for your clarified reason, that is absolutely not good. Did you admit to using the term to expose or create an impression of dissent/disagreement? That is how this paragraph is worded, from "I know" to "very thread". You would be guilty of the original post/article.
My second reason I leave it untranslated is because unlike you, it is not a big deal at all to me. It's not important. The understanding and application of the concept behind the word itself is more important to me. So in all actuality I have no problem with the terms "submitter", "submissive one", "peaceful one" or "one who surrenders", but depending on which of those terms I use, someone will come crawling out of the woodwork and argue me down about the usage of these particular terms for the Arabic word 'muslim'. Look at those words. Ayman and Anwar are at odds on just those words alone. A total waste of time in a thread that is not about translations of Arabic terms.
Error carried forward about their percieved disagreement. Nonetheless, for the reasons I stated (that you didn't address) in my first post, it's a very important term. When speaking in English, it is useless to write "I am blah blah". It would have been fine if you were writing in Arabic to an Arabic audience, but this isn't the case - you should have used the common noun equivalents, because leaving it untranslated turns it into a proper noun, in the way some words in the Quran are such (Israel and a few others, I believe?). If you acknowledge that "muslim" is a common noun, then you should avoid using it as a proper noun, regardless of language. Simple as that. Their message had nothing to do with translations either, but of using the language barrier and common/proper noun usage as a device to make sectarian division.
Like I said, pick your English rendition of this word and there will ALWAYS be someone who will disagree with your word choice and will want to debate you about it and ask you which sources and Arabic dictionaries you are using, etc, etc. I have no time for that crap. To me it is somewhat childish because it can go on endlessly and nothing is accomplished by it.
So what? Proclaim, or let out, that you follow the Quran and not many hadeeth, and there will ALWAYS be someone who will disagree and ask you which sources and hearsays you are using, etc, etc. Nobody has time for that childish crap either, by this logic.
I am a Believer in the quran and I try my best to be one of the people Abraham speaks to GOD about in 2128
You missed out on the point of the rhetorical question. Using the term "muslim" in the same way you do, EVEN TO AVOID DISPUTE leads to simple sectarian division. There is no way out of this for you. A non-Arabic person or anyone unfamiliar with islam in general will have their own preconceptions attached to that gibberish "Muslim" and will instantly attach it to you. If you called yourself a person who submits to God, or a peacemaker, would they bring any such preconceptions? You could openly claim the latter anywhere on Earth, but do the first and it isn't the same. The reaction is entirely different, because of preconceptions.
This is nonsense to me. You create division and sectarianism when you decide to attach yourself to a particular camp or school of thought. A simple experiment. Go to a Sunni Mosque and tell them that you are a muslim. You will probably get an Al Hamdullillah response. Then tell them that you don't believe in hadeeth and their scholars and that you go by the Quran Alone and Then see what kind of reaction get. They proudly call themselves Ahlul Sunnah. Tell them that you are from the Ahlul Quran and see what happens. The reaction you will get will be a manifestation of sectarianism...the group vs. group mentality. You can use the word 'muslim' with them all day with no problems. But start going into how you differe from them and then you'll see. Don't kid yourself.
Really? Let's extend your analogy. Go to a Jewish circle or a Unitarian church. Tell them you are muslim. What will be their impression of you? Tell another such set of people you are a peacemaker who submits to God, they will acknowledge you as of their own. God, peace, and submission are the uniting factors. "Muslim", "Jew", "Christian" are dividing words. Words of wisdom from a certain person - "Labels belong on boxes, not on humans". Group versus group mentality exists, even with the terminology you are using. Of course, this doesn't apply if you only use "muslim" amongst "muslims". Regardless, concepts make people think, labels make people react. When I used to think all "kafir" were dehumanised, and heard concepts of peace and other things, that got me questioning, why are these people doomed to hell? I'm sure many people can relate.
And what article would you be speaking of?
The original post.
4914 shows a differention between "Muslim" and something else in comparison. The quran also says that the vast majority of humanity not only follow conjecture, but that the majority of them will not believe and come to this way. Humanity is not one as you are trying to claim. Otherwise there would be no clear lines drawn between believers vs disbeleviers and submitters vs rejectors, etc.
No it does not. It makes an example of people who claim to be X and don't follow through by actions. It instructs the people to submit. Not call themselves "Submitters" but TO SUBMIT. There is a difference between a label and a command/acknowledgement of one. For instance, 367. You are correct, because in 2278 we are called muslims by God, and there is a distinction. However, in my original post, I didn't state that everyone on Earth is a muslim and there is no need for differentiation. Don't spin the wording. Simply saying the vast majority of humanity do not follow conjecture and that they will not believe and come to this way is not the same thing as saying the vast majority of humans are not people who have submitted themselves to God. This is, quite a touchy subject, because profound religious experiences happen a lot towards Jesus, not just God alone.
None of this concerns me as my usage and understanding of the word I strictly get from the quran. Not from sunni books or sunni history or from free-minds or 19.org understanding either.
Free-minds is not your blog or diary - when you made the original post, were you addressing yourself? So it may not concern you towards yourself but it does concern everyone towards each other, the point of your original post/article. Those are highly relevant because it shows that they, the early generations, did not refer to themselves as "muslim" in regards to people outside who could never understand the meaning of that concept.
Why are their opinions/deeds relevant?
056.011
YUSUFALI These will be those Nearest to Allah
PICKTHAL Those are they who will be brought nigh
SHAKIR These are they who are drawn nigh (to Allah),056.012
YUSUFALI In Gardens of Bliss
PICKTHAL In gardens of delight;
SHAKIR In the gardens of bliss.056.013
YUSUFALI A number of people from those of old,
PICKTHAL A multitude of those of old
SHAKIR A numerous company from among the first,056.014
YUSUFALI And a few from those of later times.
PICKTHAL And a few of those of later time.
SHAKIR And a few from among the latter.Simple as that. The early muslims, clearly knew what 2278 meant, but did they ascribe to themselves "blah blah blah" when talking to others who didn't understand?
No, it is People who cause disunity between mankind. Post your quranic references proving what you say and I'll post mine.
I already posted my reality references that will easily show that the LABEL "Muslim" creates division amongst the followers of Abraham (see 227. That verse, 2278, ties us to other claimed followers of Abraham whether you like it or not. Guns don't kill people, people kill people - Guess what? It's very hard to kill someone with a stick, very easy to do with a gun.
I agree with you on this note but I have to add that free-minds forum is not innocent of this. It's a difficult pill to swallow but pretty much undeniable. I'm not saying all members here are guilty of the sectarian US vs THEM mentality, but the responses I have gotten from certain people in this thread solidified my original belief of this mindset existing here.
Not unexpected from a forum. Forums are places for people who have no consensus, simple as that.
-
Peace,
Damon. I love you man, but it really seems like you are being touchy and ambiguous here. Your topic consists of these linguistic issues and we can't discuss it fully without discussing them. Below are some quotes from OPF which I agree with completely and I think he has nailed it on the head.
-
You made the whole thing on-topic when you decided to write "I reject these labels and accept this, 'Muslim'; " (paraphrased).
-
Using the term "muslim" in the same way you do, EVEN TO AVOID DISPUTE leads to simple sectarian division. There is no way out of this for you. A non-Arabic person or anyone unfamiliar with islam in general will have their own preconceptions attached to that gibberish "Muslim" and will instantly attach it to you. If you called yourself a person who submits to God, or a peacemaker, would they bring any such preconceptions? You could openly claim the latter anywhere on Earth, but do the first and it isn't the same. The reaction is entirely different, because of preconceptions.
-
Let's extend your analogy. Go to a Jewish circle or a Unitarian church. Tell them you are muslim. What will be their impression of you? Tell another such set of people you are a peacemaker who submits to God, they will acknowledge you as of their own. God, peace, and submission are the uniting factors. "Muslim", "Jew", "Christian" are dividing words. Words of wisdom from a certain person - "Labels belong on boxes, not on humans". Group versus group mentality exists, even with the terminology you are using. Of course, this doesn't apply if you only use "muslim" amongst "muslims". Regardless, concepts make people think, labels make people react.
-
It instructs the people to submit. Not call themselves "Submitters" but TO SUBMIT. There is a difference between a label and a command/acknowledgement of one.
As it concerns Yuksel knowing Arabic and me knowing Arabic. I dicussed with you before that you can know a language but you also cannot have the correct concept of that language to approach a non-current text. I haven't been able to sit down with Yuksel to evaluate his knowledge of Arabic. However, remember that as you know some people have certain investments and that will affect how they interpret things. This question can also go for all of the Arabic scholars out there who hold other beliefs that if you and I study the Quran we can see are obviously against the Quran. It is how they interpret the words. And how they interpret the word will be based on their understandings of these words. I wonder how Yuksel understands the words Zakat and Salat. Last time I saw I think he says it is connnected to the word Silah. This is dead wrong. Maybe he still believes that Zakat means charity? So does he really know Arabic? I tried to help you understand how there are different Arabics. You cannot just say that you know Arabic, and that makes you qualified to read the Quran. You have to focus on Pre-Islamic meanings of Classical Arabic and understand the way Classical Arabic forms work. I can explain to you in a zip how Salat from silla (connection) is grammatically dead wrong (but peole who know Arabic like Yuksel and Layth still hold onto them). And I know many Arabs who know Arabic but who do not know Classical grammatic forms well at all. If we get down to the crux of 19 it is the role of nineteen which is the issue. When i read into that verse and I hear their claims I think they are reading too much into it (why doesn't this verse mention anything about a miracle? The idea of being a a point of discord for the disbelievers is bent backwards to imply that those who believe in it (the way they do) will not be subject to such discord, and somehow by imaginative wording it becomes a miracle and then some pattern is searched for in the Quran). But you have got to understand, the mindset (like you said) is what causes a person TO IGNORE SOUND LINGUISTICS and invent their own when they read a text. This can manifest by them being too rigid and traditional or way to loose and imaginative.
And to reply to this
A peoples mindset and their thinking that the group they give their allegience to is the only rightly guided group
So what are you looking for? I don't think Quranists are the ONLY united group and as OPF puts it I think the concept of submission to God, being children of Abraham and being peacemakers are what the righteous really are. We can come accross many other people who may ascribe to the same way of life we do without the Quran. But are you looking to unite all Muslims despite the untruths that they ascribe to. Even if you succeed at banishing the terms Sunni and Shiite so that people don't openly ascribe to these titles, they can still use them as descriptions if they hold to the Sunnis school of throught or the Shiite school of thought. Shiites believe that their political leader should be a relative of our last prophet, Sunnis will never agree with that. The point of difference if it goes beyond this (claiming righteousness etc) does not form apart of why they really disagree. So sectarianism is not about the names but in how they treat and regard one another. In the end if you know that following the Quran and the precepts laid within it only is what is really true then what real unity can you accomplish by shunning the terms that describe the way different Muslims think when they will still think like that anyway?
I personally feel that Quranists should unite but only to help each other out and more and thought that we could be of more use to each other than traditonal Muslims or Shiites in actually applying the message of the Quran and educating ourselves on it. As well as being able to join forces and successfully promote the Quranist idea. I'm starting to think I was wrong though.
Godbless,
Anwar -
-
Peace Damon,
Where are you getting the idea that I am missing this point??
I am getting it from statements such as these (in the very same post)
Everyone here should be well aware of this, hence my statement of how delicate and tricky it would be to work with the traditional so-called muslims in establishing the Deen in it's purity while Not becoming guilty of seperatism/divisionism ourselves.
What "establishing the Deen in its purity"? This doesn't make any sense. If you really understood what "deen" is then why make such nice sounding but meaningless statements?
Our obligation is peacemaking. You are either a peacemaker or you are not. This is defined by your actions. There is no problem with seperatism/divisionism from any group. There is a problem with seperatism/divisionism of our obligation of peacemaking.
Only in matters of Deen as GOD says in 911. That is, if they mend their ways and stand firm in the salaat and the purification/betterment. In that case we are not only permitted to unite with them, but as per my understanding of 911 we are indeed obliged to do so.
We are not obliged to unite with those who setup partners. If they are peacemakers, then we are only united in our obligation to make peace. We are not to unite with them in their idolatry or religion, falsehood, etc...
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Damon,
I
Our obligation is peacemaking. You are either a peacemaker or you are not. This is defined by your actions. There is no problem with seperatism/divisionism from any group. There is a problem with seperatism/divisionism of our obligation of peacemaking.Peace,
Ayman
Muslim and peace making??
2191 And slay them wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away - for oppression is even worse than killing. And fight not against them near the Inviolable House of Worship unless they fight against you there first; but if they fight against you, slay them such shall be the recompense of those who deny the truth.
Waoqtuloohum haythu thaqiftumoohum waakhrijoohum min haythu akhrajookum waalfitnatu ashaddu mina alqatli wala tuqatiloohum AAinda almasjidi alharami hatta yuqatilookum feehi fain qatalookum faoqtuloohum kathalika jazao alkafireena
(2191)
How will you explain it?
-
Hello Leo V2 (or should that be V3? Hehe.)...
Explain it by, perhaps, taking the verse in context.
2190 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
And of course
2193 And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
In any case, well off topic, but I guess those evil Quranists should be stopped at any opportunity.
-
Salaams Ayman, All,
If they are peacemakers
.
we are only united in our obligation to make peace. We are not to unite with them in their idolatry
I thought peace making is what its all about.
If they are peace makers and we are too, how can we be idolaters - we both seem to be following Gods Laws to make peace e.t.c
This is meant as a series question, i hope you consider it likewise.
God Bless.
-
Salaams,
giveup
Peace to you all.
-
Peace guys,
Please allow me this last statement. OPF, Anwar and Ayman are definately misunderstanding where I'm coming from and what I am trying to say. I don't know how else to explain it. Let me give you a perfect example of how Ayman is either missing my point or he is just not reading my statements.
I was asked if we can unite and work with mushrikeen for the betterment of society and my reply was
Only in matters of Deen as GOD says in 911. That is, if they mend their ways and stand firm in the salaat and the purification/betterment. In that case we are not only permitted to unite with them, but as per my understanding of 911 we are indeed obliged to do so.
To which Ayamn replies
We are not obliged to unite with those who setup partners. If they are peacemakers, then we are only united in our obligation to make peace. We are not to unite with them in their idolatry or religion, falsehood, etc...
See the bold statements in my quote and see the bold statements in Ayman's quote. The same thing was done in Anwar's and OPF's latest statements as well. But I don't have the stamina for a sensless back-and-forth, so I am bowing out with grace. You guys win.
-
Peace,
Don't leave yet Damon. I need to understand what you are saying.
Are you criticizing the Quranist mindset that seeks to claim righteousness over other kinds of Muslims?
And if so should we be focusing on names and descriptives when mindsets are really the problem.Godbless,
Anwar -
I just had a talk with Damon. He said is point is
-
We all know that the Quran's message is submission to God and doing good.
-
We should not get obsessed about how we do that focusing on being Sunnis, Qurani, Christian, Jewish or whatever else.
-
Obsessing with the group we are apart of instead of submitting to God and doing good is the epitome of Sectarianism and we should stay away from that.
-
We should not let the ways in which we find ourselves submitting to God keep us from doing good with others who do not follow our exact way but who also do believe in submitting to God and doing good. As this is the core of our religion and if we let anything keep us from uniting with others in this cause then we are obsessing about things other than what the core of our religion is and we are becoming or are sectarians.
I know this not how most of you read it and this is not how I saw it either from when I was talking to him. However, we was going off an assumption that we all consider Islam as Submission to God (and in essence this would include Non-Unitarian Christians and Jews). However the debate soon ensued about the definition of the word Islam , which was bound to happen and all Damon was meaning to say were the above 3 points, as he confirmed to me after we went back and forth on the phone about what he was really getting at.
In our discussion he helped me see something very interesting and my comments about it will be in the following post. But again Damon's points were the above four.
Godbless,
Anwar -
-
I just had a talk with Damon. He said is point is
-
We all know that the Quran's message is submission to God and doing good.
-
We should not get obsessed about how we do that focusing on being Sunnis, Qurani, Christian, Jewish or whatever else.
-
Obsessing with the group we are apart of instead of submitting to God and doing good is the epitome of Sectarianism and we should stay away from that.
-
We should not let the ways in which we find ourselves submitting to God keep us from doing good with others who do not follow our exact way but who also do believe in submitting to God and doing good. As this is the core of our religion and if we let anything keep us from uniting with others in this cause then we are obsessing about things other than what the core of our religion is and we are becoming or are sectarians.
I know this not how most of you read it and this is not how I saw it either from when I was talking to him. However, we was going off an assumption that we all consider Islam as Submission to God (and in essence this would include Non-Unitarian Christians and Jews). However the debate soon ensued about the definition of the word Islam , which was bound to happen and all Damon was meaning to say were the above 3 points, as he confirmed to me after we went back and forth on the phone about what he was really getting at.
In our discussion he helped me see something very interesting and my comments about it will be in the following post. But again Damon's points were the above four.
Godbless,
AnwarI and I think most here agree with that. For the most part, I don't think we excessively obsess over following quran alone as opposed to being Sunni, Christian, etc. Brother Damon himself even mentioned that most here do not even attent Sunni forums, for example. We choose not to "troll" other forums.
Peace
-
-
Quote from progod on September 16, 2007, 074007 AM
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.
Quote from Ayman
I disagree. Mohamed didn't invent a new thing that was not already very well known to the people of the book since the time of Abraham. The fact is that the noun "submission" is NEVER mentioned in the Bible while peace/peacemaking/peacemaker are mentioned no less than 450 times in the Bible. Also, "submission" is incomplete and thus can be taken to mean very bad things, including a sexual fetish, while peacemaking is complete, self explanatory and is inherently good.
o o o o
Did this actually come out of your mouth Ayman? Since when is submission a new concept. Of course by itself it is incomplete that is why in the Quran in comes in the context of God. God is mentioned first and submission is mentioned after. That submission is obviously to God. Secondly what does the Bible have to do with any of this? And when does the Bible dictate our understanding of words in the Quran? Listen, as I have said peacemaking is ONE of the meanings of Islam, but submission is also. And since when does the idea of submission have to do with bad things like sexual fetishes?!!!!!!! Are you out of your mind or what?!!! Sexual FETISHES!!!????? What kind of trash is that?!!!!! Why are you making up just anything to defend your ideas? 450 times in the bible? What does that have to do with ANYTHING!!?
Again since when is the idea of submission not in ANY langauge? And why are you denying that the Quran speaks of Islam to God, that is Submission TO GOD, not Islam i.e. submission all by itself? Furthermore STOP PIDGEON-HOLING ARABIC WORDS. You know just as well as I do that this word can mean different things. This sounds like a fatwa from an Al-Azhar scholar. This post was appalling and i can't believe that you actually had the audacity to post it.
Godbless,
Anwar