Salaams,

here is some info;

036.046
YUSUFALI Not a Sign comes to them from among the Signs of their Lord, but they turn away therefrom.

they don't want to do anything worthwhile for humanity.

036.047
YUSUFALI And when they are told, "Spend ye of (the bounties) with which Allah has provided you," the Unbelievers say to those who believe "Shall we then feed those whom, if Allah had so willed, He would have fed, (Himself)?- Ye are in nothing but manifest error."

I think unbelievers believe in kismet- that everything is pre-ordained.

And also disbelievers don't give - i think.

Gods Bless all.

Salaam mz,

I agree with you. I wrote a little about who I think the "unbelievers" are in this thread http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=14656.0
Given the historical context and the context of the verses, it appears that God was directly addressing the ruling Meccan elite who refused to follow Mohammad and submit to God for fear of losing their wealth and power...so it makes most sense in the context of many of the verses addressing the kafir that it most directly speaks of these oppressive people, and those similar to them throughout time. Now, I'm sure there are different grades of disbelief, but this seems to be most deserving of the punishment for it, according to the Quran.

Best,

Salaam donya,

As I quoted the verses from Quran earlier that the biggest sin in the Quran is idol worship, no matter how good one is.

Look at it this way, idolworshippers are the ones who reveare things or humans, while God is the one who created him/her, God is the one who provides for him/her, why would you then reveare some one else and thank some one else for what God has given you. Hence the idolatry is big BIG sin.

However, God knows who is believer and who is not, and He does guide the righteous..

In your example that person will end up in Hell, no matter how good he was, because he idol worshipped..

Regards

Ijaz

Caring about humanity and philanthropy is idol worship? hmm, interesting. So this makes it seem that our only purpose is to worship, and doing good to others is just an afterthought.

I was under the impression that "idols" are things which are man-made. Doing good to others and the will to do good, as evinced in the Quran, is supposed to be intrinsic to our nature, a God-given instinct, so I don't think that in itself would classify as idolatry.

God send messengers to remind us of who our God is if the humans do not heed them, it is their responsibility. A human need to investigate the religions and come to the right decision, that is their responsibility..

How are people supposed to know that it is their RESPONSIBILITY to investigate religions and come to the "right decision"? Is this an instinct? If you look at the people in the world, for most people religion is an INHERITED thing...they were graciously blessed with the opportunity to learn about religion by being introduced by their families. Otherwise, today especially, religion can seem like somewhat of a silly thing. Religion is not necessary for the lay person of the modern world, unlike back then. Something to think about.

Best,

Peace Donya,

Alright, free, chaste, honorable etc ok no problem but what are you trying to prove?

If that verse 244 talk about to not accuse these women who are chaste or free, it not prove that it's ok to have sex outside marriage.

Why else then God advice us to get married!?

Maria

huh? I have said nothing about that verse implying fornication is ok - actually I did just the opposite with citing that verse (if accusing free women of having sex is so wrong, that clearly implies what they are being accused of is a huge sin, something punishable). My point had to do with the original question. If you see, the original question in this thread was whether the PUNISHMENT of 100 lashes applies to fornication as well as adultery. People have translated the law as applying to adulterers only, but my point was to show that I think it applies to fornicators as well, as verse 24.4 addresses accusing, what I believe to be "free women" i.e. unmarried - thus most likely applying the punishment to fornicators as well.

Peace,

But chaste women and free women are not the same I supposed. Where have you taken the translations of chaste to mean free?

Maria

"Free women" is from Shakir's Quran translation (my favorite thus far). Similarly, the progressive Muslim translation gives it as "independent women", again not chaste. However, I have seen it translated as "chaste" or "honorable" in other sources. But the fact is, a "chaste" woman would still imply that she is unmarried, and thus "free" (as I guess being married is equated with being enslaved? lol).

Well, in that respect that person is not a believer, obviously.
but the thing is, that person may also believe that killing an innocent person is wrong, that lying and cheating and stealing is wrong. Those are not false or bad beliefs.
I would say more, but it's just so hard to put into words. Maybe it's not clear in my own mind yet.

But I don't believe that belief in God and doing good works are independent. They're both connected.

But what if that Christian person is a model human being in every other sense and did more good for humanity than most people ever alive? I.e. someone like Mother Theresa? What category is this person in - do you believe in either believer or kafir, or in different grades, i.e. believer, submitter/peaceful, criminal, kafir, hypocrite? And finally, is it a person's fault for believing that Jesus is the son of God if they've been lied to by some corrupt ruler who changed the face of Christianity in this respect ages and ages ago?
And most Christians today, fyi, believe that Jesus IS God...that Jesus was a representation of God. So it's somewhat confusing, and I don't know if I would definitely classify that as an "idol"

Hi Katara

But before we ponder on that question, how sure are you that we MUST know the past to comprehend the sentences in alquran? Is that the ONLY way to understand the verses...or is there more or other ways?

As with any literary work, there are always many ways to interpret what is written. However, an author usually has a SPECIFIC DIRECTION in mind when he writes (unless it's something quirky, which the Quran is not supposed to be), regardless of what interpretations others derive from it. For many of the verses which God himself stated were CLEAR, there obviously was a direct objective in mind. Even for those supposedly "straightforward" verses, we today derive vastly different interpretations! Now I'm sure God would have anticipated this happening, and I hope for all our sakes he will be merciful about it, but since this is something that involves our lives, our faiths and quite possibly our futures, wouldn't you want to know at least what God was really commanding us to do?

Moreover, do we have to seek "the color, the size, and the age of the cow" when "a cow" is all that is what specified to us?

Well, here is the difference Let's say, hypothetically, God in the Quran commands us to sacrifice a cow. Due to these language constraints, I might think he's really asking me to sacrifice a horse, or to raise a cow, feed a cow, etc etc. Now, this confusion comes before asking for the excessive details. So fundamentally, this is not an issue of demanding too many details, but rather an issue of not even KNOWING what God is asking me to do! Do you see the difference? And as an aside, I think the purpose of that verse was not to criticize the Israelites for demanding the details, but is chiding them for being sluggish and reluctant to do what God has specifically requested.

The quran is detailed. when it is simply written "unbeliever", then it applies to unbelievers of all type and of all time unless it specified the "what, when, where" of "unbeliever".

This is where I do not at all agree. Again, you have to first distinguish between what 1) God has intended by his words (we can never know for sure) and 2) What WE think he intends by his words/how we translate and interpret them. And there are undoubtedly many flaws with man's interpretations of the words...or else this site probably wouldn't exist . WE have translated/interpreted the word as "unbeliever," simply one who does not believe in God, in all contexts, so we understand it in the context of how our language defines "unbeliever" and therefore categorize accordingly. As I explained above, 1) Looking at the CONTEXT of the verses in which the term "unbeliever" is addressed (sura 107 is one example) and 2) KNOWING the history of Mohammad's time and the resistance with which he was met by the rich, powerful tribes who oppressed the common folk through economic means, (notice also how "unbeliever" is often paired in a verse with FINANCIAL inequity - "buying this life for the next" "their WEALTH will not avail them" etc etc - when, btw, there are many people today who are poor as dirt who don't believe in God) - all leads me to believe that the word "unbeliever" for "Kafir" is not entirely accurate. I think a better translation would be a word which denotes "a person who actively rejects the faith of God after very clear arguments come onto him". Now, whether the fate of others today who do not believe in God because they are not SURE, or because they have not had substantial evidence/arguments to establish faith in theirs hearts will be different than those who belligerently rejected faith in the prophets time, I have absolutely no idea and there is no evidence to suggest either way. But I think it's important to make the distinction.

Now, as I mentioned before, sura 107 is a great example. The purpose of this Sura appears to be to elucidate who these "Kafirs" really are, and in the conext of this verse fits in very perfectly with the Rich Meccan Elite of 7th century, and would perfectly encompass the 'oppressors' of today, as well as with Muslim Hypocrites

Have you considered him who calls the judgment a lie?
That is the one who treats the orphan with harshness,
And does not urge (others) to feed the poor.
So woe to those who make the connection,
Who are unmindful of their salat,
Who do (good) to be seen,
And withhold the necessaries of life.

Now does a peaceful agnostic person who works for humanity, devotes their lives to charity, and takes in poor orphans really fit into this description? I don't think so. What their status is with God, I have no idea, but if we continue to believe Kafir to = any and all who do not believe in God, i.e. "unbeliever," as the word denotes, then they are in the exact same category as the rejectors of faith. But in the context of the Quran itself, I really don't think they fit into most descriptions of "Kafir".

Hi Stefan Rosty,

You say that the punishment is for cheating or prostitution, but then in the verse you site, it mentions fornication as well....so which one is it?

"The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment."

I would like to think that the punishment would be for adulterers, as I do not see fornication between two single individuals as nearly on the same level as adultery, but "Zina" is most often translated as any sex outside of marriage, right (not that it makes it automatically right of course)??

Also, another thing that makes me skeptical of this punishment not being intended for fornicators is that in sura 24, in the context of this punishment, God makes mention of accusing '"free women" - doesn't "free women" signify that they are single and unmarried?

24.4] "And those who accuse free women then do not bring four witnesses, flog them, (giving) eighty stripes, and do not admit any evidence from them ever; and these it is that are the transgressors"

Like I said, I hope I am wrong with regards to this being intended for all sex outside of marriage alike, but I cannot ignore this

If salat is not working for you, I would suggest you experiment with other forms of disciplines until you find one which will break the monotony of dealing with everyday life to return back to remembrance of the goal of life, which is to surrender your will to the Will of God and to be one with God.

Thank you for the welcome ) This question wasn't for me, I do keep salat three times a day and don't plan on abandoning it any time soon, but rather just for the observation that many Muslims who upon moving to the US, abandon it simply because it is too difficult to keep it up in this non-Muslim society, where it is difficult to accommodate Salat at the workplace, where we are often compelled to stay up late to sustain our livelihoods which makes it difficult to wake up at dawn, etc etc.

I do agree with you about timed Salat being a matter of discipline, and it makes sense to say that there are other ways to keep this discipline.

I believe the salat as done by mainstream muslims is just a form of discipline. The goal of any discipline is to keep your aim on God and keep the connection open and strong so that the soul may develop. When we realize that all things in this world are temporary except God, it becomes apparent that we must detach from the illusion that things, people, situations, jobs etc create of a false sense of fulfillment or happiness. The happiness or fulfillment that is achieved thru all things temporary are short-lived and lead one further into ignorance of his/her separation from God. Therefore the only thing that is stable enough and worthy enough of attachment to would be the Everlasting Source. However, it is extremely easy to become attached to the temporary, hence the need for a discipline. It is a constant struggle that needs to be conquered daily, even minute by minute and only a discipline can achieve that. Salat is only one form of discipline. The practice of tantra is another form of discipline. As long as you have some way to keep your aim on God instead of the temporary, you will achieve the same benefit as is found in salat.

While I do agree with you on the essence of your argument, it begs the question - why is it so wrong to find happiness in earthly things, in addition to happiness from a relationship with God? I'm not addressing this to you or anyone else, but rather intend for this to be general commentary. Why can't we have both a relationship with God and a relationship with the earth and this life? We were put here on this earth with a dependence on the things in it, and we cannot survive without other people, situations, jobs, etc., so I think it's unrealistic and even unfair to expect human beings to have no attachment to these things whatsoever. God tells us in the Quran to enjoy the good things he has provided for us and that there is no blame on us for seeking success in the land after we have payed our remembrances to him, so why would our occupation with them, without idolizing or becoming obsessed, be so wrong? And I have to disagree with the statement that happiness or fulfillment that is achieved through all things temporary are short-lived and lead one further into ignorance of his/her separation from God - on the contrary - it is, for example, my relationships with other people, my parents, siblings, friends, that have taught me about love, compassion, mercy, thoughtfulness, and empathy; it has been my experiences in school and the workplace which have lent me experiences in justice, dealing fairly with others, and forgiveness; finally, it is my love of the academics and knowledge which has strengthened my intuition to be inquisitive, to seek answers about the earth, why the good and bad exist in human nature and how we should work to rectify our problems, and it was my 'attachment' to science which brought me closer to religion. From all these things I derive happiness, which I do not regard as superficial, however short-lived they may be. All of these emotions I have learned and qualities I gained from my "attachment" and dependence on "earthly" things bring me CLOSER to God, not the opposite. Without them I would be lost, and would have little insight into the nature of the divine. It is for this reason that I feel it is unrealistic and even unwise to expect human beings to be completely detached from this life and this world. But anyway, I digress ) But I do agree that we need avenues, i.e. salat, to help us remember God in everything we do on this earth and to remind us to keep his covenant, which is the key to living a "perfect" life in this world.

Thank you for your responses! There is much in here to ponder over.

I also have a question about sura 107, in regards to prayer/salat

Have you considered him who calls the judgment a lie (i.e. rejectors/disbelievers)?
That is the one who treats the orphan with harshness,
And does not urge (others) to feed the poor.
So woe to those who keep salat
Who are unmindful/heedless/neglectful of their salat,
Who do (good) to be seen,
And withhold the necessaries of life.

I have often seen people interpret lines 107.4-5 as meaning people who delay the times for salat or perform it "heedlessly" (which they interpret as meaning sluggishly or incorrectly, or delaying a 'prayer' until the time for the next has already begun) are committing a manifest sin and are therefore "unbelievers". Have they even read the entire paragraph?!? To me, this is an example of people taking a verse out of context.

When I read this chapter for the first time, what I got out of it, based on my own reading comprehension skills, was that it's saying that people who pray/perform salat but subsequently do not uphold the spirit of salat, i.e. don't feel a moral responsibility for taking care of those in need, etc., are essentially hypocrites and therefore 'rejectors' of faith.
Does anyone have any opinions on this? I have seen this verse used by some Sunni leaders quite often to scare people into performing contact prayers according to their method, which I feel is contradictory to the spirit of the sura.

Thanks

Establishing salaat is not only for mumineen but is obligatory upon ALL muslims. For proof of that from al-qur'aan, please read the following discussion

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=12990.0

Then when you have finished the prayer, remember Allah standing and sitting and reclining; but when you are secure (from danger) keep up prayer; surely prayer is a timed ordinance for the believers.

O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say, nor when you are under an obligation to perform a bath-- unless (you are) travelling on the road-- until you have washed yourselves; and if you are sick, or on a journey, or one of you come from the privy or you have touched the women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth, then wipe your faces and your hands; surely Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving.

Only Allah is your Vali and His Apostle and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow.

Abandoning salaat would be turning away from the remembrance of The God, especially since it is obligatory upon ALL MUSLIMS/SUBMITTERS/PEACEFUL, and not just the mumineen/believers.

I admit that 7217 does not use the words "whosoever turns away from salaat", but still it sheds light on importance of remembrance of The God in addition to just "belief in existence of The God", and one of the ways for remembrance of The God is establishing salaat. Remembrance of The God is an implication of belief in Him and the Last Day. Hence, in addition to belief in existence of The God and belief in the Last Day and doing good deeds, we are supposed to remember The God also, whether through salaat and/or while standing, sitting, or on our sides at other times

3191 Those who remember God while standing, and sitting, and on their sides, and they ponder in the creation of the heavens and the Earth "Our Lord you did not create this without purpose, be You glorified, spare us the retribution of the Fire!"

My original question was regarding those who do not establish regular ritual contact prayers. I agree that turning from remembrance of God means one loses faith, but as you stated yourself, ritual prayer is only one method for remembering God. Therefore, my question was more about people who while they do not establish regular contact prayers, still have some sort of relationship with God - still make duaa, still give to the poor out of reverence for and remembrance of God, call on God in times of distress, as well as regularly thank him for their bounty and successes etc. etc. But if you are of the opinion that attaining salvation from hell-fire is entirely contingent upon one's performance and punctuality in the regular contact prayers, regardless of the person or their background, then I guess none of these would matter.

Best,

Thank you! I hope this is the case P

It was teachings like this one that made me lose faith in and turn away from Islam temporarily. It saddens me because most progressive-minded Muslims I know personally, most of whom are among the best people in character I know, have turned away from Islam in practice because they have trouble reconciling traditional Sunni/Shia teachings with their own faculties of reason. Therefore, I feel lucky that I have discovered a whole new world of Islam from the Quran alone I hope others can come upon this on their own as well.

Hello All,

I guess this questions falls somewhat in the philosophical realm, but I have been very curious about whether God mentions what will happen with future generations in regards to our faith, seeing as how we are 14 centuries removed from Mohammad's revelations and that there will be no more prophets? I am not, thus far, familiar with any clear references. Please continue reading to see where my inquiry is coming from...

The reason I ask this is because the Quran was delivered to a specific people in their familiar tongue, as were the other books. It is very SPECIFIC to their community, situations, etc, and in many cases those verses relate ONLY to them, and not, for example, to us - this is very clear, as exemplified by the fact that in there He DIRECTLY addresses, for example, the wives of the prophet, Abu Lahab, The Qureaish, the pre-Islamic Arab idolaters and their particular practices, etc...while we may derive some wisdom and insight from these verses, most of them do not pertain to us - for example commanding the wives of the prophet to speak from behind a "hijab" is irrelevant (from an Islamic jurisprudence point of view) to me or any other woman

The Quran was supposedly clear and easy to understand, (can't remember the verse number), and I'm sure it was ....TO 7th CENTURY BEDOUINS. So, where does that leave us? In order to CLEARLY understand the context of most of the verses to see where God was really coming from, since so many verses are highly ambiguous, and since we can't rely on hadith, we MUST at least have a good understanding of the historical context. Further, since the nature of language is such that words change in meaning, usage, connotation, etc. we would also need a good understanding of the 7th century Arabic language. Unfortunately, it is difficult to have a completely thorough understanding of the history of the region and Mohammad and the history of the language given the informational constraints of 1400 years ago. This leads us our community to wildly different interpretations of Quranic words, verses, and consequently laws and understanding of the nature of religion, even among highly educated folk. For example, if you are familiar with the history of Mohammad's life, the term UNBELIEVERS (i.e. the vile folk destined for the worst of punishments) as mentioned in the Quran MOST LIKELY referred to a SPECIFIC group of people - those who were the enemies of Islam at the time, the REJECTORS of the faith after hearing clear arguments from Mohammad himself, who actively hindered Mohammad's propagation of the religion for fear of losing their power, wealth, and influence (i.e. the ruling elite tribes, who Abu Lahab, for example, belonged to) - and this perfectly fits into the context of many Quranic verses. So now, where does that leave us today? Who are the unbelievers in MY world? The concept of 'peaceful agnostic' didn't really exist back then in that particular setting, and is a highly new concept - so would those people today who are unsure about the existence of God, due largely in part to the aforementioned holes in interpretation and translation widened over the 14 centuries, be in the same category (unbeliever) as one of Mohammad's enemies who REJECTED the religion after hearing the word of God from the own mouth of the prophet, for the reason of their own personal (financial) gain? (Perhaps this should be the topic of another thread, haha)

So anyways, sorry for my long-winded, impassioned explanation . But therefore, I am lead back to my original question - what about us? What are God's expectations of us (the future!) and our faith? Is there any insight given in the Quran about this? Are we held to the same exact standards in terms of practice of faith as someone in the prophets time who had a very clear understanding of God's commandments for faith? This is obviously a question that is troubling me, as I cannot come to a consensus on some very important issues, such as salat, even with MYSELF, due to these said language and historical barriers. Any (constructive) thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated

Hello.

My question is regarding a person not praying. If a 'Muslim' gradually gives up prayer, (as well as fasting, hajj, etc.) but still upholds God's laws for humanity, does that make him an "apostate" regardless? Or is he rather demoted from the status of a "believer" to that of a "submitter," not being condemned to punishment necessarily, but not receiving the same rewards as a devout believer?

I'm asking this because I am well aware that in the Sunni/Shia traditions, abandonment of prayer is often regarded as apostasy...some scholars even go as far as stating that a person who deliberately misses one prayer has become an apostate!

Neither of these two views sit well with me, and seem rather harsh. Can anyone shed some light on their understanding of this issue? Thanks!