Salam mubashir55, 262 provides and assurance that having faith in Allah and the last day (i.e. acknowledging our responsibility and accountability to behave faithfully) and then acting righteously is sufficient condition for salvation. 447 comes as an encouragement to have faith in the divine reminder ? which only reconfirms the earlier commandments ? so that one can be equipped to avoid the fate of those who deviated from the right path. Do they now reconcile? May Allah guide us all to the straight route. Regards, Arman

Wonder what a common person supposed to do when with a fundamental terms like "Islam" and "Muslim" there seems to be differences of opinion among those who know the language! Sharing what I just read "......The word ?al-muslimeen? is the plural of ?muslim? with the definite article ?al? preposed. The word ?muslim? is of the form muf?il and comes from the Arabic three letter root ?slm?. In Arabic the word ?salaam?/ __ (form fa?aal) means ?peace?. The words ?muslim? and ?salaam? have a straightforward relation like the relationship between other words of the form muf?il and fa?aal. Words of the form muf?il have the meaning of ?maker of fa?aal?. For example, ?salaah? means goodness and ?muslih? is the maker of goodness, ?najaah? means success and ?munjih? means the maker of success, ?fasad? means corruption and ?mufsid? is the maker of corruption, and so on. By the same token,?salaam? means peace and ?muslim? means the maker of peace, in other words it means?peacemaker?. It follows that like ?islah? means ?making good?, ?injah? means ?makingsuccess? and ?ifsad? means ?making corruption?, ?islam? means ?peacemaking?. So in2278, the common noun ?al-muslimeen? should be translated as ?the peacemakers?. Another word that is not translated by the majority of translators in 2278 and elsewhere in the Quran is the Arabic word ?allah?. As we saw in the previous chapter, like the word ?al-muslimeen? (peacemakers), the word ?allah? is a universal common noun and not the proper name of an Arab deity. The word ?allah? is essentially the contracted form of ?alilah?,which literally means ?the god?. With this understanding, let's reexamine 2278 and provide a better translation. And strive for the god his true striving. He has chosen you and has made no hardship on you in the obligation, the creed of your father Ibrahim. He (the god) named you the peacemakers previously and in this, so that the messenger will be a witness on you and you will be witnesses on humankind. ... We are told that the reason for naming the followers of the god?s message "the peacemakers" is two fold; the messenger will be a witness on them; and they will be witnesses on humankind. The definition of a witness can be summed up as one who testifies in the case of a dispute. The messenger is by definition the deliverer of the message and therefore in this capacity the message is the vehicle for communication. So what is the issue in dispute and how does delivering the message accomplish the purpose of witnessing against its own followers? The issue in dispute is mentioned right at the beginning of the passage. By pointing to the true striving for the god, it is implicit in that statement that there is false striving for the god. The message of the passage is that its followers have been described as "the Peace makers" by the god. This message will be a witness against its own followers in the dispute of what constitutes true striving ("jihad&quot for the god as opposed to false striving ("jihad&quot for the god. Thus, by virtue of their god-given description, the followers of the messenger cannot corrupt and cause destruction and shed blood and then turn around and claim that they are doing it because they are striving for the god. By describing its followers as the peacemakers, the god?s message will be a witness against them. Many evils in the world and plenty of wars and destruction have taken place by followers of all creeds in the name of striving for the god. So in turn, the peacemakers will be witnesses on humankind that testify the truth in the issue of those like Al-Qaeda who do not strive for the god the true striving and instead corrupt in the earth and shed the blood while claiming to strive for the god. The single word, ?peacemakers?, describing the true strivers for the god stands as an overwhelming witness against those who cause death and destruction while claiming to strive for the god. There are many implications to understanding "islam" as peacemaking. This is the real legacy of Abraham according to 2132 2.132. And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; "Oh my sons! The god has chosen the obligation for you, so do not die except while you are peacemakers." As 2132 indicates, the primacy of the concept of peacemaking as a god-given obligation is not a new invention but it was already very well known to the previous people since the time of Abraham. In fact, the concepts of peace, peacemaking, and peacemakers are mentioned no less than 450 times in the Bible. For example, there are several prominent mentions of peacemakers (Arabic ?muslimeen?) in the Bible??

Establish respect. Hah! Rather make yourself respectful.

10,000 members !!! wow! Subhan'Allah.. Let the TRUTH shine brightly.. ''Nay,-whoever submits HIS WHOLE SELF TO ALLAH and is a DOER OF GOOD,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve'' {Quran 2112} Dear All, Salam You are welcome to visit this Facebook Page that is, with the Grace of Almighty, growing day by day. Feel free to engage. Thanks. https//www.facebook.com/groups/481079851918341/

735 O CHILDREN of Adam! Whenever there come unto you apostles of your own, conveying My messages unto you, then all who are conscious of Me and live righteously - no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve; There're a few issues with this translation rusul is a quasi-passive in plural, as kutub or Hurum; rusul is not a plural for resool; it stands for all those who're under risala of Allah, under His message; yes, all of er-resool are rusul, but not only them, all the people who're mediums for the message are rusul... for example, we can be rusul if we're conveying His message to others who forgot, never heard, etc. verb yequSSoone is about telling stories in short, what is most important, without details 'aleykum can mean "against you", not just "on you" there's a change in verb tense, at the start it's imperfect then perfect, and this should be translated as in original. Since rusul are plural and a subject to the verb yequSSoone then we should understand that 3 or more of them should relate Allah's aayaat against/on us. If we feared for ourselves and corrected ourselves and things we done wrong then nothing bad will happen to us. But, in next aayet we can read, if we tried to get out of aayaat and were arrogant then it'll be bad for us. Even I haven't found anything against the idea that Allah is still sending His message through some people, I don't see that this aayet is talking about that. I think this is about people relating stories from the Qur'an to mistakes we do neglecting the Qur'an for any reason. When we're told about that by 3 or more people who're conveying Allah's aayaat against what we do, then we should rethink about our deeds and fear for ourselves and correct our errs. These people should be of "us", not some strangers we know nothing about their intentions.

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in United States -- Muslim 0..6% Australia -- Muslim 1.5% Canada -- Muslim 1.9% China -- Muslim 1.8% Italy -- Muslim 1.5% Norway -- Muslim 1.8% Funny how he tries to claim this but is not the case at all, this is only true in Canada, perhaps Norway too. In China, Muslims can't even fast and in most areas aren't even allowed to pray, mosque or not. In Italy, Australia and United States there is a constant mistrust of Muslims, usually being linked with immigration. Many Conservatives, including Chuck Norris, actually believe Sharia law is being implemented in its 'fullest' form in some areas of the States, and this has led to some States even going as far as blocking both it and international law in legal code. by redefining the criteria of Muslim Scholars and Pillars of Islam Its even simpler than that, people just need to understand that both religious 'Scholars' and these so called Pillars are human inventions, cheap lazy recognisable aspects which casual followers can adhere to in order to make themselves feel better. We don't need Scholars to read the Quran for us, and we don't need a small list of really basic Fard actions to tell us what commands we really need to be following.

I think the main question to ask is what was the basis of that understanding of the Jews at the time of the Prophet? An invented tradition, an interpretation based on scripture itself, or guidance provided by subsequent prophets and / or inspired messengers? Something being 'kataba' (prescribed, decree, ordained) doesn't mean it has to be written down in a Book or Law. When this is the case, the Quran makes this clear. Please see verse 545 "therein We prescribed for them A life for a life, the eye for an eye..." It is worthy to note that the continuation of inspired words through appointed agents of God is clearly confirmed in the same verse (532) that deals with the ordainment you mention "?and surely Our messengers came to them with clear signs" From my humble perspective, It is also useful to remember that the Torah was not the only revelation given to the Children of Israel, but many other prophets and messengers came with inspired words and shared musings which became part and parcel of the holistic understanding of the religious communities of yore. The Quran even mentions some of these writings such as the 'Zabur' (Psalms) Verse 532 does not say that such an understanding was prescribed in a particular 'book'. It speaks of a Divine prescription that was generally understood by the Children of Israel (irrespective of what particular source) as ?religious?, hence the term ?kataba?. This is also corroborated by the The Mishna, Sanhedrin 45 which does not 'invent' this prescription. It seems to clearly understand it as being derived from SCRIPTURE ITSELF. "Therefore, humans were created singly, to teach you that whoever destroys a single soul , Scripture accounts it as if he had destroyed a full world; and whoever saves one soul of Israel, Scripture accounts it as if she had saved a full world." This scriptural interpretation may have been derived from Genesis 410 as noted by commentaries such as below "It doesn?t say, ?The blood of your brother?, but rather ?The bloods of your brother??meaning his blood and the blood of his descendants." This was the understanding of some of those from the Children of Israel contemporaneous to the Prophet. All the Quran did was to confirm this understanding and ratify it (as true). The Quran even confirms aspects of the Apocryphal Christian texts (clay birds etc). As I mentioned in the post below, with some critics an inconsistent approach seems fair play. INSATIABLE DESIRE TO CRITICISE THE QURAN https//www.facebook.com/joseph.a.islam/posts/153440904793045 With regards (b) i.e. those that use this as an argument to authenticate the 'Sunnah', there are three key differences why this comparison is untenable. (1) The Quran clearly confirms itself to be a 'furqan' and a ?Muhayminan' (54 over the previous scriptures. It also deals with the beliefs and practices of the preceding religious communities. It does not a ?furqan? over the hadith which wasn?t compiled at times until centuries after the death of the Prophet. (2) The Quran acts as the final verification point and the last religiously 'ordained' source for guidance for believers. This is an explicit ordainment. Appealing to the Talmud is at best, implied. (3) There are no subsequent verification points after the Quran. Therefore, any such comparison is only superficial and without any religious warrant. I hope this addresses the matter, God willing. REFERENCE http//www.on1foot.org/text/mishna-sanhedrin-45

OK I will not comment on that verse, yeah because I hold different translation by now and that translation you pointing is in english, as non english speaker, it's difficult to me for intepretate it. Remember Quran is not the Bible, so Quran translation is never appoarch 100% of the real meaning of the Quran.There are no translations is perfect. Ok I will you give explanations, but if you already know just take it as reminder. There is two methods for translating Quran. Tarjamah Harfiyah (word by word translation) Tarjamah harfiyah means you translating with harfiyah meaning/literal meaning, like you translating something by dictionaries, google translate etc. Example = son, = sea, = ritual etc. Tarjamah Tafsiriyah (translation by intepretating). This translation always used by for translating a Scripture.The method is we aren't translating words for the real meaning instead we change the real meaning of that words so it can fit with the theology. Example (1311) Note the red words real meaning is " accompanist ", but Sunni translate it as "malaykat" or angel. #The proof is, the difference between free-mind's and traditional translation of 1311 "For him are angels ranged before him and behind him....." (Pitchhall) "Present with him and behind him are retainers......" (Free-Minds) See the difference right )? The another example is the word "junub" in 56. The red word is "junub", the real meaning of "junub" is far not "sexual intercouse" nor "after sex" etc" The proof is verse 436 436 ".....the neighbor farther (junub/ ) away" But why the the junub is translated as activity? once again it's tafsir. The best Quran translation is not too much use harfiyah translation, or not too much use tafsir instead in moderate ways What is the safest translation according to me? The translation by Quranist especially free-minds translation, because it's no sectarian bracket words and not use too much tafsir which very mislead the real meaning. You can also use Aidid Safar's translation if you want to became the "real" Quran Alone ). So you may avoid sectarian (Sunn-Shia) translations, because they translate Quran with too much tafseer, which misslead the real meaning so it's fit with their fatwa agenda.

Allah externally interfering to help someone can not be true. It can not happen. Allah will not interfere and change the condition of any people externally. It is against Quranic truth. It is not Allah's plan. A five year old girl in India was brutally raped by two brutes a few days before. Allah could have saved the innocent girl just giving a headache or stomach pain for both during their criminal act. It will not happen. Allah does not interfere. However, it does not mean Allah is incapable to externally intervene.

Hi Everyone, Isn't the success of the west primarily due to the fact that we divided and bombed the rest of the world back into the stone age? Colonization ... First strategy in divide and conquer. World War I ... Destroyed large parts of Europe and dissolved the Ottoman empire. World War II ... Destroyed large parts of Europe and North Africa. Afganistan wars ... Destroyed an entire country. Iraq wars ... Destroyed an entire country. Letting Syria destroy itself without trying to intervene for peace. Keep others angry and destroying each other then the west takes it all right from under them. Sell the other countries bad loans and default on them driving their economies down... Just my crazy conspiracy thoughts... (take them with a grain of salt). JewishDude peace Salam, Shalom, Peace peace Salaam Jewishdude, I agree quite a lot with this. Warfare, divide and conquer, proxy wars - which some say is kind of happening in Syria with the rebels being armed even though at least some of them say they don't want any negotations with Assad (at least that's what I've read), taking resources, huge debts on loans, sanctions, even the way borders were set out all affect the success of a nation.

Hi Bigmo, I agree with you. But I would like to ask a question to everyone and see what they think. If the Quran prescribes the punishment to a crime, does that mean we have to use that punishment? Or can we use a lesser punishment and only use the prescribed punishment in extreme cases? Hence we should use mercy to temper the punishment? This is a problem Judaism faced long ago. The conclusion was that the punishment was to be no harsher than the prescribed punishment. Just my crazy thoughts and questions... JewishDude peace Salam, Shalom, Peace peace Can you cite examples? In the Quran justice is to be proportional (eye for an eye). For murder the Quran says soul for a soul but allowed exile from the community as the lowest ceiling of punishment. But the prunishment can not exceed the crime. Deterence or crime prevention is not Quranic. Only proportional justice. Judaism allowed disporportionate punishment (thousand eye for an eye) and so did Islam (eye for an eye lash). In the Quran we are told if someone does good to you do the same or better, and if someone does bad to you do the same or less but its better to forgive. At all circumstances the punishment should never exceed the crime. Apples for apples and oranges for oranges.

Peace huruf, I meant by the meaning of R - S - L as you mentioned it. God bless you

Salam Friends, Are the following verses addressed to the blessed Muhammad or mankind in general? 876 By degrees We will teach you to declare the message, so you will not forget, 877 Except what God wills, for He knows what is manifest and what is hidden. Many translators assume that they are addressed to Muhammad and while trying to explain it, end up with the theory of abrogation. 876 , We shall teach you and you will not forget?? 877 unless God wishes; He knows both what is open and what is hidden?? Would appreciate a better and clear understanding. Thanks.

Peace. Any true "Muslim" should fear the divine justice. He/she knows they are accountable at GOD.Earning your living and being responsible is a requirement from the Almighty. Being honest and straightforward is another requirement. GOD is watching. GOD knows our intention. No one can hide anything from Him. GOD bless. Peace.

Dear All, Salaam 5728 O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah and believe in His Messenger He will give you two portions of His mercy, and make for you a light with which you will walk, and forgive you, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful; Upon reading this verse, I am wondering if it is addressing those who came to believe in Allah, Muhammad (PBUH) and The Quran, or has it been addressed to those who believed in previous Messengers (Ahl e Kitab)? Why would Muslims be asked to believe when they already believed? Muhammad Asad has translated the verse in a slightly different way 5728 O YOU who have attained to faith!*Remain conscious of God, and believe in His Apostle, He will grant you doubly of His grace, and will light for you a light wherein you shall walk, and will forgive you for God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace. In his foot note to this verse he writes "...* As is evident from the preceding passage as well as from verse 29, the people thus addressed are the followers of earlier revelation (ahl al-kitab), and in particular the true - i.e., unitarian - followers of Jesus..." If this verse is asking the believers (Muslims) to fear Allah and believe in His apostle then Allah makes a promise to them. Looking at the Muslim world we find majority Muslims fear Allah and believe in His Apostle but still they are not doing too well in the world. Would appreciate comments from my respected brothers and sisters. Thanks. Mubashir

StopS What? You make some wild claims and when I call you out on it you sidetrack into definitions of gravity and philosophical observations. When that shows to be futile and I put you back on track and continue asking you for some proof you run away? Yes.

I think the question here is whether there will ever be a Quranic nation where the citizens are predominately Quranist or whether Quranist will always be a minority in different countries. As far as democracy is concern the main desire for Quranist will be freedom and equality especially if they are a minority so other religious traditions cn not be imposed on them and they can practice and preach their religion freely. A non Quranist democracy might have some laws against the Quran but not that many. A Quranist state and a democracy are very similar in many ways. I can not see how a Sunni nation can be a democracy. There is too much contradictions between the two systems. So it seems the real question is what are the simlarities and differences between a Quranic state and a demoracy.

It could be about Medina but if you look at the Quran the sword verses are talking about the pagans of Mecca who forced the believers into exile. Some of the Jews there are refered to as their allies. In Medina we had no conflict of this sort although the Jews there rejected the prophet. We are told in the Koran (9.13) that the people who were fighting Muhammad were the same ones who forced him and the believers into exile. There were hypocrites mentioned in Medina in the Quran but these are the ones who often sided with the meccans whenever it was convenient. There is only a very brief reference in the Quran of Muhamamd fighting the Jews (33.26 - 27) probably because the meccans were dominated by the pagans with the Jews being the side show. The vast majority of the war verses in the Quran is talking about the pagans. As far as Medina charter I think it has to do with the source this charter is found. "Scholars do not possess the original document but rather a number of versions can be found in early Muslim sources. The most widely read version of the Constitution is found in the pages of Ibn Ishaq's Sirah Rasul Allah (see wikisource), while alternative copies are located in Sayyid al-Nas and Abu ?Ubayd's Kitab al-Amwal. Most scholars accept the authenticity of the document." http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina#Sources The problem is Ibn Ishaq narrations does not have the same clout for Sunnis as Bukhari, Muslim and Abu Dawood or Ibn Majah. I think this is why it does not hold a strong place for Sunni Islam. Salam Bigmo You have to enlighten me here........ Surah 59 is called "The Mustering". Other names normally used are "Mobilization", "Banishment" and "Exile". It speaks of the "immigrants" referring to the muslims that left Mecca and settled in Medina 598 For the immigrants who are poor and were driven out of their homes and deprived of their properties; they were seeking a grace from God and acceptance, and they supported God and His messenger; these are the truthful ones. 599 And those who provided them with shelter, and were believers before them; they love those who immigrated to them, and they find no hesitation in their hearts in helping them, and they readily give them priority over themselves, even when they themselves need what they give away. Indeed, those who overcome their desires are the successful ones. Before Medina there were no muslim immigrants because you have migrate to become an immigrant. Most historians including non-muslims tend to agree the surah came about in Medina. To me, this is pretty strong evidence the surah is from the Medina period. There is no evidence that prophet Muhammed were ever betrayed by the Meccan jews. By betrayal I mean the jews in some fashion promised/made a contract/signed an agreement with prophet Muhammed/the muslims which they later broke. The Medina Jews however did sign the Medina charter but did not honour it. There is no evidence that prophet Muhammed ever attacked Mecca. On the contrary, he was true to islam and only practiced defensive warfare. Surah 59 speaks of the jews sitting behind strong walls, thinking that they were safe against harm (meaning someone is attacking them) 592....and they thought that their fortresses would protect them from God. But then God came to them from where they did not expect, and He cast terror into their hearts. They destroyed their homes with their own hands and the hands of the believers. So learn from this, O you who possess vision.. The "attack" had not much to do with religion, it was simply enforcing the law of Medina. Therefore it could hardly be the Meccan jews but the Medinan jews surah 59 is referring to. Please show me if there is any evidence that surah 59 is speaking of the Meccan jews. Anyways, a lot more interesting topic is the Medina charter. I will leave you with this which I find "in a nutshell" why Sharia and Saudi Arabia are soooo unbelievable out of islam Mark Graham writes Muhammad?s brilliance lay in politics as well as spirituality. One of the most extraordinary events to take place during this time was the drafting of the Covenant of Medina (Sahifat al-Madinah), what some consider to be the world?s first constitution. It was a treaty and city charter between the Arabs and Jews of the city. All groups (Muslims, Jews, and non-Muslim Arabs) pledged to live in civic harmony, governed by mutual advice and consultation. The Covenant bound these varied groups into a common defense pact and stipulated that the Jews of the city were one community with the Muslims, that they were free to profess and practice their religion and that they were entitled to all the rights pertaining to the Muslims. This amazingly foresighted document was a revolutionary step forward in civil government. Despite the ultimately tragic end of Muslim and Jewish cooperation in Medina, this blueprint of interreligious tolerance would serve Islam and its subject peoples well in the future. Mark Graham. How Islam Created the Modern World. Amana Publications, 2006. Pages 21. Read more http//www.themuslimtimes.org/2011/11/islam-a-religion-of-peace/the-constitution-of-medina-the-first-written-constitution-of-the-world#ixzz2JlWKnmG8

Salaam, Youssef posted links to this chap's/ organisation's "Youtube" page some days ago http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604895.msg318771#msg318771 Shalom!

the messege is always the same and a warning answer is in this statement or so i believe do they completely support them? differnet warnings to different people but as sins are limited so are the types of sinners and warnings ALLAH is the unlimited one