SECTARIANISM is what's killing us!!!!

Allen

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?

unknownuser

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.

mz

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.

unknownuser

Salaams,

giveup

Peace to you all.

unknownuser

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.

progod

hmm ???

I don't get it Damon. I don't get it at all.

So we keep saying the same things you say but in different words, or what?

Godbless,
Anwar

progod

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

progod

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

Navid

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 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

progod

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

unknownuser

wow sexual fetish!!!...one must submit to and become a peacemaker. yes

Jafar

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

unknownuser

Hmm, I missed that piece about submission vs peacemaking, sorry Damon.

I see your point now that it's been put in steps.

progod

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

progod

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

ayman

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

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 / Peace

I agree.

Peace,

Ayman

progod

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

Zulf

Peace all!

Just as I thought! Thank god Anwar had that talk with Damon over the phone... to clarify the whole matter.

Actually, I see so often on this forum and every where else, that most arguments are based on misunderstandings. Add to this also some knit-picking, which easily happens when you deal with written texts, words, letters, punctuation etc. Sometimes, some people are deliberately misunderstanding others, not seeking to understand, but to win, be defensive and find faults with the other. I'm not saying this was the case here, but it often is in this world.
To argue/debate through text-based forums has its pros and cons. A lot of information is lost, which can be conveyed through a live irl discussion. However, as always, we can only proceed and progress if all sides of a debate sincerely wants to understand the other side. Without this aim, nothing constructive will come out of it. It's all in our intent! It really does wonders to try to see things from the other's point of view, to walk in his shoes. It can really open doors of progress!

Regarding Damon's four points that Anwar distilled and relayed to us, I must say I agree fully! Again it's all about our intent, our focus. If all of us wished to bring betterment to the planet and humanity, we would definitely, despite our differences, find ways to achieve this together. It's all starts in our minds! If we aim for something that will benefit all concerned, God will help us and open doors for this to happen. If we, however, just want to play the "my club vs your club"-game, then things won't improve. I feel, just like Damon I guess, that we humans are champions in compartmentalizing everything. We love to divide ourselves into, created groups, labels, secret societies, VIP-clubs, teams, parties, us-vs-them propaganda. I don't know why... maybe its out of some inner fear. If we didn't fear except God, then we would be open to all, the only division being that between self-evident, practical right and self-evident, practical wrong. God is one. Goodness is one direction. Life is one force. Then why can't we work in one direction? rotfl

Personally I hate any label that results in a unnecessary value-judgment. I don't mind labels such as "philanthropist" or "welfare worker", but I do have a problem with labels such as "eastern orthodox", "sunni", "muslim". The reason is that is usually doesn't bring any good at all. Especially religious labels/titles, are, in practice, used in society to determine whether "they are with you or against you"... just reinforcing the existing division among humans. Add to this also that when you are classified as to belong to a certain camp, then your are automatically ascribed a general set of values that are current in society, but which doesn't apply in reality. Your own personality is totally ignored, forgotten and lost, and you become just a tick on the attendance roster. I especially hate when fill-out forms have a field where you are supposed to declared your creed. The worst case is when there are only a few options available and you have to choose between them only. Ridiculous! So narrow minded and ignorant.

I feel, like Damon, that labels are generally no good. My dad has an expression that he uses to describe the "my club"-phenomenon. In Swedish it is "en klubb f?r inb?rdes beundran", and it can be translated into "a club for internal admiration". It simply means that you've got a bunch of people who feel they belong to a certain grouping, whether named or not, and their main hobby is to show each other how good they are by adhering to the principles, values and practices of the club, and feel good about it. I quickly come to think about the mullah-type people here in pakistan. I'm not saying that they are good or bad, since they are all sorts of different people really, but it seems that it is really a club for internal admiration. they all have their shalwars/baggy "pants" a few inches above the ankles, a long beard, and often a typical head gear. They look like look-a-likes... fashion clones. This look-a-like habit of course applies to most groups. Maybe it is not always their clothes that are similar, but perhaps their gadgets, their food/bevs or something else. Obviously, this is what makes it a group, distinguishable from others, so it's not very odd I guess.

I seems to be all about identity and having a sense of belonging and security... and I guess we can't be blamed for it, it's kinda natural. The problem arises though, we we lets our differences get in the way of what good things we otherwise could achieve. We will always have differences, God created us that way, but we should not let our differences be the foundation of our identities. We all are, after all, human beings, and we should all strive together for the betterment of everyone's situation, everyone's. In reality, we have more things in common than we have that separate us. Our things in common come from what we are, human beings on planet, but our disabling differences are made up by us along the way, they are artificial, creatures of the straying mind.

I like the s.c. Four-Way Test from Rotary International by which you can judge the things we think, say or do

Is it the TRUTH?
Is it FAIR to all concerned?
Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?"

I don't know anything about the Rotary club, but I do know that these four "rules" are tremendously good to follow in what you say, think and do. Principles like these bring betterment and divine help from God in your pursuit. Thinking, speaking and acting out of a excluding and restrictive label-perspective won't bring any good. Ditch the labels, ditch the divisions, open your mind and make the world a better place for all.

peace! sun

Zulf

Ooops

This post was actually meant as a reply in Damon's thread on that it is sectarianism that is killing us.
Something got messed up with the subject and a new thread was accidentally created.