SECTARIANISM is what's killing us!!!!
-
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 -
wow sexual fetish!!!...one must submit to and become a peacemaker. yes
-
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.
Incorrect.. Brother Ayman,
Check this out
Job 2221
Submit to God and be at peace with him; in this way prosperity will come to you.James 47
Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.James 3
Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such "wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.
But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.Quran does confirms the previous scripture...
But its human readers sometimes (or always?) misses out what is the main theme / the important message on the scriptures.Salam / Shalom / Peace
-
Hmm, I missed that piece about submission vs peacemaking, sorry Damon.
I see your point now that it's been put in steps.
-
Although the main point was intelligible I found some orthographic mistakes which affect meaning. So I'm choosing to post this again with the corrections
I just had a talk with Damon over the phone. He said that his 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 already are sectarians.
I know this is not how most of you read Damon's posts and this is not how I saw them either. I understood his point better by talking with him on the phone. He was going off an assumption that we all consider and assume that Islam means Submission to God (and in essence this would include Non-Unitarian Christians and Jews). However, naturallly the debate soon ensued about the correct definition of the word Islam; which was bound to happen. Nonetheless all Damon was meaning to say were the above 4 points, as he confirmed to me after we went back and forth on the phone about what he was really getting at.
Godbless,
Anwar -
-
Peace,
"Should we call out to other than God, that which can neither help nor harm us? And are we to go back on our heals after God has guided us like those whom the wicked have charmed/sought after. For such people in this earth there will be utter confusion. They have companions who do call him to God. . . We have been commanded to submit to and to make peace with the lord of the nations and the worlds (liNUSLIMA LIRABBIL-"&AALAMEENA) .''
From our beloved last prophet 671 the compilation of Al-Quran
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace Anwar,
Did this actually come out of your mouth Ayman? Since when is submission a new concept.
As far as the people of the book are concerned, the concept of submission was not a key 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.
This is false. There are many instances where it is mentioned without "to the god" and many instances where the god is not mentioned first. For example, 37103, 544, 492, 152, 2731, 2738, 7214, etc. Again, while submission by itself is incomplete, peacemaking with the god is complete and peacemaking by itself is also complete. So it works everywhere.
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?
The Bible tells us what concepts the people of the book were already well familiar with and considered to be important and while peace/peacemaking is certainly one of them, "submission" is not.
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!!?
Unfortunately, this is well known so do a web search. In fact, if you mistakenly type submission.net instead of submission.org, you would be taken to a pornographic site. So yes "submission" can indeed be a VERY bad thing.
Again since when is the idea of submission not in ANY langauge?
You are the one who just said "submission is not in any language" now. I didn't make that strawman.
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.
The great reading speaks of makingpeace with the god. This implies "submission to the god" but it is not the direct meaning.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace brother Jafar,
Incorrect.. Brother Ayman,
Check this out
Job 2221
Submit to God and be at peace with him; in this way prosperity will come to you.James 47
Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.James 3
Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such "wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.
But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.Exactly, the noun "submission" is never found in the Bible.
All other forms of "submit" are mentioned a total of only 9 times in the Bible and in many of those instances as you can see above, they are mentioned in conjunction with peacemaking.
Quran does confirms the previous scripture...
But its human readers sometimes (or always?) misses out what is the main theme / the important message on the scriptures.
Salam / Shalom / PeaceI agree.
Peace,
Ayman
-
I said
Again since when is the idea of submission not in ANY langauge?
You said
You are the one who just said "submission is not in any language" now. I didn't make that strawman.
I should have said every instead of any. It made sense when I was writing it. Oh, Oh. I remember now . . . I was referring to the fact that I think it is ridiculous that you think that the people of the book weren't familiar with the concept submission. When every language has a word for this concept. But if you are going to nit-pick on something so irrelevant when you know what I meant, calling it a strawman, then let me say that you are grabbing a straws.
And the fact that you do an ENGLISH search on the internet with the word submission and you get a sexual fetish as one of them, this being a modern Anglophone connection to a modern sexual trend that has nothing to do with the general concept of submission, and the fact that you try to imply that the word and the concept submission can be negative because of this is quite ridiculous on your part. The fact that you are defending this reasoning of yours in my mind just undermines my confidence in your ability to be sensible.
You are the one who just said "submission is not in any language" now. I didn't make that strawman.
As for 37103, 544, 492, 152, 2731, 2738, 7214.
Remember I said that MOST occurences of this word will have to do with God and the Quran, and God will be mentioned before or after the word. I turned to your first example and it is obvious that the best understanding is 'to be resigned.' Obviously the context is specified in the previoius verse where Abraham (God bless him) and son thought they had to undertake a sacrifice of the son. So when they resigned, they resigned to what they thought they should do. Isn't that obvious?
544 Do you not see a li there? This can be 'they submitted to' or it can be 'they brought salvation or peace' for the sake of.
Again this word does not mean one thing always. please stop trying to pidgeon hole this word which can convey a number of different ideas.492 Sorry, now there is no Aslama here or any derivation of it ie. muslim/muslam or Islam. The word used here is from sallama and it is musallamat ilaa. Do I need to give you the meaning for this and explain the form of musallamatun and the differences and similarities between form II and for IV and how passive and active are not the same? I'm sure however that this was just a harmless mistake on your part. So I'll move on.
152 Well we have two choices here, like we have for the object of kafara. We can go back to bismillah and understand that those who deny/reject/are disloyal, are all of that to God and so ''muslimeena' here would be also submissive to God/at peace with God. Or we can go back to tilka ayaatul-kitaabi wa qur'aanin mubeenin. In which case the disloyalty, denial and submission would be to the passages of the Quran. Either way the context is there. To ignore it is to ignore the logic of language and to wish to distort.
2731 This is obvious. " Be not arrogant against me but come to me submissively" This so clear I can't believe you listed it.
2738 Another obvious one Solomon asks who can bring him the throne before they come to him muslimeena. That is either in submission or making peace, to Solomon, obviously.
7214 And last but not least (drum roll). Go to 7213 "... whoever is faithful to his lord does not fear being shorted or any injustice." So when the next line goes. "Some of us are submissive and obedient" Hmm . . . maybe to the same lord mentioned a few words before? "and whoever submits himself/makes peace" again the object of this is the same lord mention just a handful of words earlier.
I think OPF, from another post of his in another forum, would call this spoonfeeding, and you have just been fed. I hope you had a good meal. Although I felt like you could have done this on your own. I don't mind feeding people from whatever good I have. As long as it does some good.
Godbless,
Anwar