Dont you think there is a difference between the Creator and the created and this distinction is obscured by Ibn Arabi and Hindu philosophy.

The reality we are experiencing is a 'created' reality, so there is a creator, or how I would express it, the existence if a Conscious Intelligent Creative Force. But what that Force creates in the physical realm that we experience itself is a Manifestation of the power and glory and wisdom and intelligence and creativity of that Force. As Rumi said, we are not a drop in the ocean, but we are the ocean in the drop. The reason I do not actually worship a tree or the sun or the moon is the same as me not being able to acknowledge that a drop of your blood, or a piece of your hair, or your finger nail is YOU. You are not the parts that make you WHAT you are. WHO you are is outside of your body. A metaphysical experience called Consciousness. God manifests in and as the very thing God creates ... but physical creation is not all that exists, there is creation outside of the physical as well ... beyond physical or metaphysical ... Nothing exists without Consciousness. As the observer effect in theoretical physics says a conscious observer has to observe something in order for it to exist. The Creative Force (God) which is the highest level of consciousness (divine consciousness) likewise observes reality in order for it to exist. You are not separate from your reality, you are in your reality and that reality is in your consciousness. God is in the reality God creates (God progressively creates) and that reality is expressed by this Conscious Intelligent Designer. You are Consciousness. Consciousness is you. Without Consciousness nothing exists. When you lose consciousness, your body is off, just like the radio or television can be off, but the signal is continuous. All of the individual components of physical and nonphysical reality and existence make up the whole of what this Intelligent Creative Force is. Just as how all of organs and bones and body parts and the millions of body cells, molecules, atoms and subatomic particles and continuous vibrating energy WHO too have certain levels of metaphysical intelligence and consciousness but make up WHAT you are in the physical sense. You can describe physical existence as a manifestation of WHAT God is and what God is capable of. But WHO is God? First and foremost, God is a not a HE or a SHE or a PERSON. God is not in any direction except within Yourself, within the reach of your subjective level of Consciousness, and yet outside of the physical Manifestation .... but the physical Manifestation exists only because metaphysical Consciousness which is everywhere and in everything focuses on it to Be and it is.

I think the terms monotheism and even the Arabic for monotheism Tawheed (the unity of the Divine) are terms describing the oneness of all that exists ... according to the Sufi thinker Ibn Arabi, this would be the case as well. The concept of Wahdatul Wajood - one single existence, or God is the only thing that exists, or unity of existence paints this picture pretty well .... however that is not called monotheism supposedly, rather it is referred to as monism, pantheism and panentheism ... regardless of what ISM you label it with, I think the broader idea is unity of existence ... one existence ... one God ... one consciousness subjectively experiencing itself ... the label "polytheism" does not do justice to Hinduism either, as the Divine is the creator of all that is, and yet the Divine is also able to create 'demi-gods' ... I think angels and human's are God, and hence created demi-gods ... and if these demi-gods are individual in nature, i.e. have subjective experience, still, I don't see it as a polytheism, because the God that embodies everything and manifests itself as everything is ultimately single in essence and being ... at least according to the Vedanta, right?

Replies to Paradox

Well traditional literal interpretation, is that one physically dies before judgement day. However, my interpretation is that these are merely poetical likenings, to what is known as gnosis, or what is also commonly called egodeath. This is also an experience of a kind of death, and what comes after, is a kind of rebirth. These expressions are also often used in this context. So what I am saying, is, that judgement day, is something one experiences in ones lifetime. And so it becomes "first life"->"gnosis"->resurrection->secondlife>eternal paradox. However all in one life time. Not really sure if that helped you? Smiley Good to see that you are interested in talking about this.

I agree with this, I think what the nature of a second life is will always be an unknown until it is experienced. Perhaps forms of mysticism can give you a taste.

Yes, the grand void. At death, or after all life is done on earth. Ofcourse there is the question of, if I am God, then I am all life. And if one life ends, another goes on. Am I still alive in this other life. Then one would have to wait, for the whole of the universe, to perish, to reach the eternal paradox. In some ways, this could be a way to defend hindu teachings of reincarnation. Do you understand?

I think we can even tie in genetics to this picture and quantum mechanics ... Deepak Chopra talks a lot about this ... where one can change their biology and their biological clock according to how one chooses to think about life. The more stress you put yourself through and how you cope with and handle/manage stress, along with your level of spirituality, God consciousness, optimism, positivity, creativity, motivation etc. that you bring about through your thoughts, actions, perceptions and intentions, that you can actually alter the physiology of your body including the genetics you pass on to your children! Likewise, I think that our rebirth, reincarnation, resurrection or what have you, will manifest itself in consciousness accordingly as well. How exactly this happens, is a paradox as far as where we stand in modern science and philosophy - but I think we are bound to figure it out one day. Genetics is a fascinating concept in of itself.

1. What really is, following God? God is consciousness. This can be seen in the verses about God breathing some of himself, into man and giving him life. The Quran mentions particulary mind. This makes god all life, and this is also something the gnostic gains understanding of, during gnosis.
   This makes the mind itself God, and it becomes important to listen to oneself, to follow ones own nature, and to weigh facts, back and forth, to reach the best conclusion. This ultimately, would be to follow God.

I agree ... however unfortunately due to limitations in language and culture Allah (swt) has become a HE ... when in reality the Divine is not a person or a HE as the Jewish/Christian/Muslim traditionalists see the Divine.

2. What really is judgement day? In the Quran, Judgement day is the day when the sky opens. And the gnostic who has experienced gnosis, knows it as the day all the stars become visible, when before their infinity were veiled to him. One becomes extremely godconscious, and reach deep insight into religious thought. This, is the same as egodeath. The Qurans first death therefore is a poetical likening, to gnosis, and egodeath.

Personally, I don't think one needs any type of dogma to figure this out. I think even the words of the Qur'an or any other sacred scripture is not needed. Life is a subjective experience and one has to, as you said, retain some type of insight and reflection in order to become God conscious and this results in egodeath and a new spiritual birth.

3. What is resurrection?
   Many people talk about experiencing God (gnosis) at different levels. And talk about a rebirth. This is the same as ressurection.

I agree ... I certainly do not believe there will be a day when all souls are risen and judged by a man in the sky ... I just don't see how anybody still believes that anymore ...

4. What is heaven and hell. Heaven is a state of mind, a good state. The quran describes it as "with rivers flowing underneath", which I interpret to tears of joy. Hell is a negative state. The quran describes it, as a being delivered by a "beast of the earth", which i interpret as related to animal behaviour. Heaven comes from correct belief. Hell comes from wrong belief.

I agree completely again. Heaven and Hell are ultimately experienced ON THIS PLANET as consequences to behavior and actions that we choose within the free-choice we have ... we reep what we sow ... karma ...

5. What happens at death then?
   The Quran states that everything will perish but God. So ultimately what will happen is that nothing will be left, than gods nature, which is a timeless, spaceless, eternal paradox.

I agree, but I also think that our subjective experience on this planet accounts for something ... as humans we become attached to things in our lives and attached to life itself ... I believe that the Divine must ultimately do justice and allow 'us' to continue to experience a form of reality.

I believe the true meaning of muslim, is one who has surrendered/given up his will, to God. This seems like a neccesary stage, to trust ones divine nature.

EXACTLY!

It has very little to do with religious ritual, including prayers. However if prayer is a part of seeking and learning to trust God, that is a part of ones surrender. This is most likely why it is included in the Quran.

In fact has absolutely nothing to do with ancient traditions and rituals .... however I do believe that meditation (such as Muhammad's Salat or Rumi's Darvish Whirling, or the Chakra meditation of the Hindus) CAN be beneficial, BUT far from required.

wasalaam,

Farhan

...

Asalaamu alaykum Tamara, I agree with the following statements

Yes, perhaps the problem is a semantic one - resurrection, recreation, rebirth, reincarnation. Maybe they all refer to the same process - getting another body so that our consciousness can be expressed. I consider the body like a radio receiver and transmitter - without a body, despite our consciousness, we can't communicate to others or receive their messages (in our physical existence anyway). So in that way I consider the body important and indispensible until our consciousness is able to be downloaded to a computer of some sort (another form of 'body&#039.

"Reincarnation" can only be supported, if it is not about a specific person, but the essence of Allah itself. (With the understanding of that) The lifeforce, of all beings, is Allah. All consciousness is Allah. Therefore one could say, that it is the same force, "reincarnating" itself, for as long as this process should go on.

The second statement I completely agree that life is a constant reincarnation of Allah (swt) or Consciousness ... The larger question I think you want answered is whether the subjective experience currently being experienced in your body will also be a subjective experience in another form or body on this planet - and to this I would say YES, it very well could be that, and in my belief it is going to be another subjective experience on this planet, you will live another life on this planet as whatever you/God/consciousness manifest as ... every bit as you are currently experiencing life in your current body you will experience it again. This makes sense to me.

Farhan

Asalaamu alaykum Paradox,

I couldn't agree with you more! I have identified God with Consciousness for a while now and too have the exact same interpretation and method of interpretation (about heaven, hell, God, the metaphysical) toward the Qur'an as you have described in this thread.

Every atom is a level of consciousness experiencing itself. All is one existence and the Divine is the ultimate reality.

Farhan

http//www.fadakbooks.com/taala.html is a link to Tafsir al-Kashshaf by Zamakhshari ... four volumes only 64 dollars ... but its in Arabic -(

1. The ritual prayer is not mutawaatir as there is no isnaad that can trace this back to the last prophet. Even when considering the term raka'ah, this word means to bow once. The meaning most Muslims understand today is a purely invented theological meaning, just as 'rapture' has a theological meaning connected to the return of Christ (God bless him), but does not possess this meaning at all in a purely linguitistic sense. It is the linguistic meanings that hold water when we read old literature, not the invented theological meanings imposed on the text later on. So in essence these traditional Islamic prayers aren't even saheeh in nature, let alone mutawaatir.

So the Ahadith that describe the Salat are not mutawattir? Question then, why is it that the Shi'a who do not accept the Sunni canon of Ahadith happen to pray their Salat in the same ritual fashion?

2. The Quran does mention the Ka'bah, clear as day. Please revisit the Quran again. It says that God has made the Ka'bah God's house.

I know the Qur'an mentions Masjid al Haram and 2127 says that Abraham built al bayti - the house ... but nothing about the Ka'bah. Please show me where the Qur'an mentions the Ka'bah? Black Stone? Random Tawaf or circling of the temple chanting here I am? I think all of this is from Ahadith.

as-salaatul-wustaa as 'asr.

The middle prayer? What about it?

4. Have you read Zamakhshari's tafsir or any of Al-Jahiz's work. I have yet to get my hands on Zamakhshari's work. I am dying to get a hold of it. i have read bits and pieces of al-jahiz's work. There is one online that i have favorited. The Arabic is tough, but I plan on tackling it one of these days.

I am familiar with some of Jahiz's literature, but I am not able to understand the tafsir by Zamakhshari because its all in Arabi and my Arabi is limited.

Question, since you are familiar with the Mu'tazilah ... is there any record of Mutazilites or Jahmites or even the Khawarijites praying the ritual Salat as the Sunnis/Shi'a pray theirs?

...

Antibhondi

3. The Hukum for Wudu indicates that the hukum for Salat is ritual in nature.

How so?

4. The hukum for assembly Salat indicates that you cannot have a different meaning of your own for "Salat".

How so?

6. If I start thinking from the period of Sahaba, the system of Salat (I take Salat for example, whereas I could take example for Zakat, too) must have been established in the society, whatever the meaning of Salat is. So, everywhere there were the daily practice of the System of Salat (and other system commanded by Islam, and duly practiced by Muhammad (sm)). I assumed this based upon only the importance given by the concerned quranic ayats.You don't need to believe in the history or HADITH! You can simply read quranic ayats, and these can be easily calculated.

Even if the Salat was practiced by Muhammad (sa) that way, does it mean that when the Qur'an instructs people for Salat that it is instructing them and limiting them to only do how Muhammad (sa) performed his Salah? Isn't true that Muhammad (sa) according to your Ahadith used to make different hand and arm gestures at different times, thus changing the way he did his Salah? Isn't there a 'sahih' Hadith that says someone from the jama'ah or congregation during the Salah once said something random in Arabic, yaani, hamdan katheeran thoiyaban mubarakan feeh, and after the Salah, Rasul Allah (sa) said that thousands of angels descended on that person? So who is to say the Salah is limited to what Muhammad (sa) did?

Asalaamu alaykum again, brother antibhondo, did you have a chance to review my last post?

wa'alaykumus salaam,

Now, would you tell me what you think about the basic method of Salat (which got a similar treatment)? Let alone Ahadith for the time being. [Of course I will talk to you about this later, if you allow.

I think it becomes very difficult to argue that the Salat as it is practiced by the Sunni Muslims is not from the Prophet (sa) given that both Sunni and Shi'i Muslims with different sources perform the Salat similarly and as you said there are 'mutawattir' chains that back the Salat method as it is described in Ahadith. However, we should first define the word and concept of Salat according to the Qur'an before we allow any other source to define it. We should also distinguish Salat from dua, as dua is a supplication, invocation, or prayer in the literal sense; whereas the word Salat/Salah can have different meanings. For example

Allh sends His Salt (Graces, Honours, Blessings, Mercy, etc.) on the Prophet (Muhammad SAW) and also His angels too (ask Allh to bless and forgive him). O you who believe! Send your Salt on (ask Allh to bless) him (Muhammad SAW), and (you should) greet (salute) him with the Islmic way of greeting (salutation i.e. As?Salmu 'Alaikum). (Al-Ahzab 3356)

Many Christians have tried to make an objection that Allah (swt) and his angels prayed to Muhammad (sa) according to this verse, when in actuality this is not the case. I have also heard Salat being defined as 'connection' or to make a connection with God. But clearly, this ayah is not talking about prayer nor is it talking about the five daily Sunni/Shi'a Salat.

The Qur'an also talks about Prophets such as Abraham and Isaac and Jacob performing the Salat, but it is unlikely that they repeatedly went up and down and up and down saying words in Arabic. Example

And We made them (Isaac and Jacob) leaders, guiding others by Our Command, and We inspired in them the doing of good deeds, performing Salt, and the giving of Zakt and of Us (Alone) they were worshippers. (Al-Anbiya 2173)

Now the Qur'an by itself never gives us any details about what Salat is or how to perform it. As a rationalist, whenever a Sunni Muslim asks - well how do you know how to pray if you use only the Qur'an? The very question itself surprises me as if there is a 'how' to pray. There shouldn't be a 'how' to pray, prayer to God is something the individual can do without being taught. I can communicate to God, praise Him, worship Him, without any formal ritual.

It is interesting for example, that the Qur'an gives full details about wudhu/ablution (56) but does not describe any method on 'how' to pray. This is because I don't think there is a necessary HOW to pray. But if there is no necessary 'how' to pray then why do we have Muhammad (sa) praying the way he (sa) did? And if he prayed the way he did, how can you say that we should pray other than the way that he prayed and makeup our own Salat?

This has been the battle between rationalism and traditionalism. My belief is that Muhammad ibn Abdullah (sa) completely made up his Salat according to his own seventh century Arab rationale. This was not something that was mandated by God himself, that you have to go up and down and up and down repeatedly saying words in Arabic. Hence it is my belief that the Salat is not limited to the way Muhammad (sa) did it, nor is ritualistic 'Salat' of Muhammad (sa) from Allah, but it is from the Prophet. When Allah judges whether a believer performed Salat, He will not judge it according to the performance of repetitious raka'ats with ritualistic Arabic words; rather Salat is a personal, subjective meditative state of mind where one can pray however and in whatever position he or she likes given that the Qur'an itself does not dictate what Salat is. Had the Qur'an dictated a specific way to pray, fine, but since it did not, we cannot limit the understanding and definition of Salat according to how Muhammad (sa) chose to perform it.

Also, the Qur'an simply gives three times for the Salat - Fajr, Asr, Isha ... the Hadith where Moses and Muhammad went back and forth between 5,000 prayers a day and finally ended up with five is just ... well ... nonsensical, with all due respect.

Likewise is the issue of Hajj. The Qur'an does not mention any Kabaa or any devil statue that you have to throw rocks at, or any black stone you have to kiss, nor that you have to run between the mountains to relive Hagar finding water for Ishmael, nor is there anything about walking about the Kabaa chanting I am here .... these are pagan rituals that are not from the Qur'an, nor does Allah (swt) require them. The Hajj is simply a pilgrimage to a city called Mecca, where one should go to learn from scholarly individuals, experience unity and brotherhood, and for other spiritual witnessing. Not rituals.

Your thoughts?

Farhan

Now, think otherwise, starting from the Quran. You believe/I believe, Quran is unaltered. So, the transmission source was definitely reliable. So, description about Muhammad (sm)'s practice related to Quran's command transmitted by them must have been reliable.

First of all you make many good points, there is no doubt that the rationale behind your arguments makes sense - especially to one who is have literal interpretations and pursue dogma (not meant to offend one who takes this approach but rather to define what type of approach we are dealing with); but as a follower of Ilm-al-Kalam and the Qur'an (only), there are philosophical responses to the ordeal.

I think we need to consider first and foremost that the 'sanad' that the compilers of Sunni Ahadith considered were trusted according to the theology as it was understood and believed in according to the theology of the four Sunni Fuqaha. Prior to the compilation of Ahadith, the Sunnis had already formed their four schools and condemned all other existing denominations such as the Jahmiyya, Mu'tazilah, Khawarij, Shi'a, and had also shunned Ilm al-Kalam by then. This means narrations from any people from these schools was regarded as 'fabricated' ... the Muhaditheen even identified that there were many fabricated Ahadith and fabricators and untrustworthy narrators etc. etc. This means that the Sunni Ahadith have a biased isnad; the entire science of Ahadith is based on accepted 'isnad' - there is nothing more to the 'science' other than who are the narrators in the chain of narrations; although, except for one other aspect called 'matn' - or the implications of the Ahadith; in other words any Ahadith that disagrees with their theology due to the 'matn' or implications of the Hadith, it is usually dismissed.

In any event, one would have to evaluate whether those individuals found in each isnad at some point are 'Sunni-biased' or not.

Now comes the dilemma of the Qur'an. Is it true that there were Hufaz among the Khawariji, Shi'i, Mu'tazili, and Jahmi Muslims? Well, we do know that its verses are authenticated by Shi'i and Sunni sources, making the preservation of the Qur'an more likely, given that denominations agreed on the ayats of the Qur'an, whereas they did not agree on the Ahadith. There is no way to possibly say that the early denominations of the Muslims during the first three generations of Muslims ever agreed on the Sunni-biased science of Ahadith or with the compilation of Ahadith by its Sunni compilers. Is this true?

Asalaamu alaykum

Has anyone on this forum ever had any formal or traditional instruction in Islam? Have any ever been scholars or students of knowledge (learning from teachers as part of a chain to the Prophet)? Is there anyone here from the Prophet's family, with an unbroken chain to their grandfather, the Beloved of Allah? Where is your connection to the Prophet?

Brother Isa, I have studied formally under Salafi, Hanafi and Shia-Jafari scholars. Have you studied Kalam from the lens of the Mutakallimeen? Or are you void of this knowledge?

Proof of this is Salah and Hajj and Zakat.

But not all believe that the Salah or Hajj are what you believe it to be. As I said before, the Kaaba, black stone, the devil's statue you stone, the way you shave your head and wear the ihram cloth, all of that is not from the Qur'an, it is from the Sunni Ahadith. These rituals are never given by Allah (swt) nor does Allah (swt) require these rituals for the Hajj to be complete. Hajj is simply a spiritual journey that involves brotherhood, unity, spirituality and wisdom. Salah is simply a form of meditation, worship and prayer. It is not limited to the Sunnah. Ibrahim (as) observed the Salat, but I seriously doubt that he (as) followed the rituals we find in Ahadith, where one goes up and down multiple times repeating words in Arabic, as if this process is all what Salat is. The spirit of the Salat as I said before is to connect with God and could involve simply sajood and no other posture if one wanted. It just you are so fixated on Islam being what the Ahadith describe instead of what the Qur'an says. If Allah (swt) Himself did not tell us how to pray, why should there be a question of 'how' in the first place? Shouldn't you just invoke God? Pray what's in your heart? If Allah (swt) tells you to make the pilgrimage, wouldn't it be to simply experience the brotherhood and discipline and wisdom found in that city? Or is the purpose of Hajj to perform specific rituals that God accepts?

And does one need to know how much to give for Zakat? Can't one just give what makes sense? No matter how much or how little it is, as long as its sincerely from the heart and makes sense to the person financially. If the Quran is not putting limits on what Salah or Hajj and Zakat is, then why are you?

In this ayah, Allah (swt) teaches the Believer to do wudhu

56 O ye who believe! when you stand up for Prayer, wash your faces, and your hands up to the elbows, and pass your wet hands over your heads, and wash your feet to the ankles. And if you be unclean, purify yourselves by bathing. And if you are ill or you are on a journey while unclean, or one of you comes from the privy or you have touched women, and you find not water, betake yourselves to pure dust and wipe therewith your faces and your hands. Allah desires not that He should place you in a difficulty, but He desires to purify you and to complete His favour upon you, so that you may be grateful.

How is it that Allah (swt) can teach us how to purify ourselves with ablution but not teach us how to pray in the Quran? And yet other brothers and sisters have shared many verses like these

Shall I seek other than GOD as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed?

And yet you claim that the book is not fully detailed because the details of how to pray or make the pilgrimage are not in the Quran?

My questions that I still would like an answer to are

1. Do you agree that the Mu'tazilah and Jahmiyyah were schools of thought that predate any Hadith collection and that they were Quran only Muslims even after the Sunni Muhaditheen collected their Ahadith?

• Also according to 'our' ahadith he gave permission for it to be documented. How can you use an evidence that you don't understand?

Where in the Sunni Ahadith does it say the Prophet (sa) gave permission for his sayings or actions to be documented? I am aware of ahadith that say 'follow the sunnah', but none to his companions instructing them to document ahadith. I am not sure that the Ahadith instruct Muslims to indefinitely mimic his ways either ... does following 'tradition' mean to mimic his every move?

Wasalaam,

Farhan

Thanks Caveman,

Appreciate the welcoming.

Asalaamu alaykum brother Isa,

If I misunderstand your question or fail to to answer it adequately I apologize for that. I also apologize if my beliefs are offensive, but I am supposed to state my beliefs right? Sure it's up to me to be able to defend those beliefs but I have to state them first. A Sunni Muslim might feel that my beliefs are 'bid'ah' or even 'kufr' they have a right to that perspective and belief, and we can kindly challenge each other on our perspectives. I also said the shirk was unintentional, but I believe following a human to the level of mimicking him on almost every move is worshiping him.

When I get home inshaAllah I will bring forward the verses of the Quran you want. But it is essential to understand that as humanity progresses in fields of science, philosophy and technology our views of reality adapt accordingly. Without using the mind and simply following traditional rituals expecting the rituals to make God pleased with you defies justice and rationality.

My intentions are not to offend you rather to test your beliefs. Do you at least acknowledge that the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah were Quran only Muslims who did not follow the Fiqh and Ahadith of Sunni Muslims? Do you agree that the Ahadith were collected and "authenticated" by followers of the four Sunni jurists?

wa'alaykumus salaam,

I am a student of Ilm-al-Kalam and the Mutakallimeen (rationalists). The four schools of Kalam are Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Ashariyyah, and Maturidiyya. The founding schools being the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah - both of these schools of thought were Quran only Muslims; they did not accept the Ahadith and Sunnah as it was narrated by the followers of the Sunni Fuqaha (Jursits) and Muhaditheen (Scholars of Sunni Ahadith). Coming from this perspective, allow me to answer your questions.

Why would Allah mention the Messenger if we should only follow the Qur'an? <

Allah (swt) has mentioned many Messengers and Prophets, revelations and books etc. They served their purpose. His duty was but to deliver the message, to deliver the warning, and he (sa) did.

Allah tells us that His Beloved was the recipient so that he could expound it for us. Is this not the Sunnah? <

The reason why the Quran was separated from the Ahadith according to your sources was so that history and cultural traditions would not get mixed in with the religion, as was the case with the Jews and Christians, whose Bible consists of revelation - Taurat and Injeel, as well as history, perspectives of the authors, and rumored sayings of some of the Prophets. It was a mixture of revelation and ahadith - the Bible was. And that is why it is so untrustworthy today. If the Messenger of Allah (sa) said something at one point but Allah revealed something different to him later - as would be the spirit of the abrogation doctrine - then how do we know if one Hadith is valid for all times and generations? And what science of Ahadith are you depending on that only acknowledged people in a sanad as realiable because the followers of your Sunni Fuqaha trusted them?

When the Ahadith became separated from the ayats of Allah (swt), as instructed by the Messenger (sa) himself according to your sources, they now become susceptible to fabrication, unlike the Qur'an. Even the Muhaditheen admit that there were many fabrications and fabricators of Ahadith; likewise Sunni Muhaditheen did not accept narrators from Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Shi'a or Khawarij. The narration and collection of Ahadith is therefore biased as it accepts only those who the Sunni Muhaditheen (who were followers of Sunni Fuqaha) felt were trustworthy because they agreed with them theologically.

So Sunnah according to who? The followers of your Fuqaha? Your Muhaditheen? How is this fair?

The Messenger of Allah (sa) expounded as much as he needed to so that his companions and followers chould become content with the Deen and so that they could have some practical guidance in order to maintain some type of organization and discipline. This however was a seventh century man expounding to seventh century Arabs. There were contemporary and cultural implications to the thought processes of these individuals. They were limited in knowledge and understanding when it comes to fields of technology, science and philosophy as well. Thus the explanations were for them at that time, the Quran however is universal in its spiritual application.

What is this 'Hikmah' that the Beloved educates us with, in addition to the Qur'an? Is it not the Sunnah? <

No, it is Rationality - the Aql - or Mind. Hikmah or wisdom is something one arrives at when one uses the mind to reflect.

If the Prophetic guidance is restricted to the time of the sirah, how do you interpret his mercy for the universe and all existence? <

The consequences of Muhammad ibn Abdullah (sa)'s existence is the emergence, completion and perfection of the Deen. That by itself is a mercy.

Why is Allah referring to His Beloved as a a giver of glad tidings, and warner? Why not refer 'only' to the Qur'an? <

The Quran is a book. The Messenger of Allah (sa) is the one who Allah (swt) used to spread the message of that book. Thus he (sa) is appreciated for that, but not worshiped as a diety besides Allah (swt) by mimicking his every move - which is shirk. When you roll up your pants, sit and eat and bathe like him (sa) ... that is shirk in our eyes.

Why would Allah mention His Beloved being a good example to follow in such a general sense without it being relevant to all? <

He is no longer alive brother. He has passed away. He was a good example for the seventh century.

Some more questions

How do you pray? <

Personally, I still follow the sunnah as it is described by the Sunni/Shia. HOWEVER, I do not believe that the Sunni/Shia Salat is what the Qur'an intended Salat to be. To me, why is there even a question of 'how' to pray ... you should be able to pray in any position, however you want to pray to Allah (swt) without any ritual attached to your prayer. The only thing the Qur'an describes in full detail is how to do wudhu - and ablution is actually something commendable. But to go up and down and up and down talking in a language that is neither personal to me nor do I speak it, does not make any sense, nor does the Qur'an suggest for us to do it. Sometimes I pray in sajood only. I recite Sura al-Fatiha often. There are three times a day that I pray, as instructed to me by the Qur'an. My prayer does not have to be the formal Sunni/Shia Salat. Salat is not limited to the Sunnah. Even according to Sunni/Shia Ahadith the Prophet (sa) allegedly did different body gestures and said different things during the Salat. According to an authentic Hadith, a Muslim during the Salat being lead by the Prophet (sa) said Hamdan katheeran Toyaban Mubarakan feeh when the Prophet (sa) stood up from ra'koo. The Prophet (sa) said thousands of angels descended upon that man. This shows that the Salat was not limited. I've learned the Arabic, but I purposely pray in my own language. I don't need to follow Najdi Islam.

How many times do you pray?

Three times a day.

How many rakat do you pray?

No such things as rakats. This is from the Sunnah not the Quran. If I choose to follow the Sunni/Shia Salat, I will do the prescribed rakats according to their books.

When do you pray?

Fajr, Asr, Isha'

How much do we give for zakat and how often do we spend it?

Whatever one can rationally give. It does not matter how little or how much. One has to do it from the heart.

How do you do Hajj? What are the rites?

The Kabaa is not even mentioned in the Quran, nor is the black stone. We believe that those who stone a devil statue, kiss the black stone, run between the mountains and circle the Kabaa are unintentionally doing shirk. The pilgrimage has nothing to do with rituals and everything to do with the State of the Ummah address.

Can we consume alcohol? How do we know the chronology of the ayat on the topic?

For medicinal purposes, not necessarily for intoxication, unless the intoxication is supposed to be therapeutic for an illness.

What do you say of the Sahifah of Hammam b. Munabbih? He was a student of Abu Hurayrah and the manuscript dates to his time.

Who is this Father of the Cats you mention? How many years did he know the Prophet (sa)?

Why weren't the early Muslims 'Qur'an ONLY?' The Sahabah, including 'Umar, narrated hadith once they were sure the Qur'an was firmly established among the people. The followed Prophetic teachings in addition to the Qur'an and passed these on the following generations. Why isn't there a Qur'an only group with an unbroken chain back to the Prophet? Why has it only emerged in the wake on colonialism? <

The Early Muslims were. Before the Four Sunni Fuqaha and Muhaditheen ever started narrating and collecting their Ahadith, the Mu'tazilah and Jahmiyyah who were Muslims from the second and third generations of Islam (as-Salaf) never followed any Ahadith or Sunnah. Not only that but the Prophet (sa) forbade his followers from documenting any Hadith and told them only to write down the Quran - this is according to your Ahadith.

Ma'a salaama,

Farhan

Shalom JewishDude,

You are right that according to many Quran only Muslims the Salat is not the 5 time daily ritual that Sunnism and Shi'ism demonstrate, and I don't believe that the Salat is the five daily ritual either - BUT that doesn't mean I haven't learned the Sunni and Shi'a Salat and don't occasionally practice it. If you want to know why I still practice it sometimes I can explain, just ask ... in any event, when I do go to Sunni or Shi'a Mosques, most of them do not even know that I am Qur'an only, unless we've gotten into theological debates/conversations before, which I only have with people who I personally feel might benefit from the conversation versus just arguing for the sake of arguing. So for the most part because there are so many Muslims in the masjid to begin with, usually I just go in listen to the Khutba, observe the traditional rituals and leave just like everyone else does.

Hey Citizen, Asalaamu alaykum,

The issue is that I've been told(you can call it brainwashed) that MY and ONLY my version of Islam( i.e. some branch of Sunnism) is right, and all the others are wrong. <<

Well we can prove to whoever told you that that they are Quranically wrong. The Quran talks about sectarianism and division at length.

I think that Qur'an-only does have quite some characteristics in common with the Mu'tazilah <<

The Mu'tazilah were Quran only Muslims. They denied the sunnah, fiqh and ahadith of the Sunni Muslims. I can provide you with more details about this history if you'd like to know it?

Because I know there is something in me which wants to believe,- living with the knowledge that this wordly life is everything and that Divine Justice and an hereafter doesn't exist freaks the hell out of me. <<

This is the spirit of philosophy - that is to figure it all out using science, logic, and whatever sources are available to us. Another part of the spirit of philosophy has to do with us humbling ourselves to the point where we must admit that we are truly ignorant and can only work off of what information and knowledge we accumulate while we are alive.

Hope you ask more questions! Also read my previous message to you more than once, perhaps it might help enlighten you. -)

I would like to identify myself with being a skeptic. <

Advice Try to identify yourself as a philosopher (vs just a skeptic).

My parents/environment are all Sunnis, and quite devout. <

Mine too (a version of Sunnism, just like yours)

In other words Extremely conservative, and all others are destined for Hell. (Quranists are seen even worse than Kuffaar(=non Muslims) as you consider yourself Muslim, while clearly(to many) you are not.) <

I think their definition of Islam and Muslim are flawed. I think just like Muslim and Islam go, so do other terms, as in Mu'min (believer) and Iman (belief/faith) or Taqwa (piety) and Mu'taqi (a pious person) ... Submission to God or submission to the Divine will (Islam) and one who submits (Muslim) would be seen in the same light. These are Divine principles that individuals strive for, they are not labels. Looking at it another way, as water evaporates, precipitates and condensates in its cycle, what it is doing is submitting to the will of Allah (swt). It is glorifying God by way of Islam (submission to the Divine will). However with our species is the mysterious personal and subjective consciousness and intelligence that can decipher truth from error using a mind that then applies the scientific method and also in instances receives divine intuition and revelation. What is your definition of Islam? An organized religion or a Divine principle? Abraham and Moses were Muslims, not because they prayed 5 times a day ritually and fasted in Ramadhan but because they submitted to the Divine.

Anyway, my problem as mentioned in the topictitel is the following Without seerah/hadiths/authority-of-ulema(madhap etc), there is just nothing left of Islam..! Hadiths contain lots of BS, but the same is true for the Qur'an. The following are just simpel observations I made about the Qur'an <

In my school of Kalam or Ilm-al-Kalam, we don't need seerah/hadith/ulema etc. The two sources we use are the Qur'an - Divine revelation and the Aql - or mind; i.e. rationality ... however if tradition (sunnah) is what you seek, then know that there were Quran only Muslims in the second and third generations of Muslims that we know of who did not follow the Ahadith of the Fuqaha (Jurists) and Muhaditheen (Scholars of Sunni Ahadith). The Shi'a also did not follow the edicts of the 4 Sunni Jurists - Hanbal, Hanafi, Shafi'i, Mailiki, nor did they accept the biased Ahadith narrated and collected by their followers. The entire sanad is biased as it narrated only according to narrators that were theologically acceptable to them and their ways). This Qur'an only group who followed the Quran and Rationality were known as the Mu'tazilah. Look em up.

As far as not understanding verses of the Qur'an, your problem is rooted in the fact that you neither speak Fusah Arabic nor do understand the parables and metaphors that make up the spirit of the poetic verses. Bring your verses if you want.

• Many ayats are about the kuffaar(What's ur interpretation of "KFR"?) , and the grave punishment which awaits them. Certainly doesn't make a good case in convincing me that it is divine(Why so many threats?) <

There are different levels of iman (faith/belief) as there are different levels of kufr (disbelief/denier). Kufr or disbelief could be in a number of things including God, or even denying facts, whether theological facts, scientific facts, logic etc. Kufr is not always a bad thing. There is a second definition that says kufr means to 'cover up' or hide ... i.e. deny the truth even though it is apparent.

Also, I do not see them as threats, I see them as warnings for natural, self-inflicting consequences. For example, your choices in this world have consequences, both good and bad. I think those who have the advantage of inner-spiritual connections with the divine have a higher potential for positive or good experiences.

Many ayats are about fairy tales ( Contrary to "ordinary" Muslims, I don't expect you to be easily offended, but I mean the stories of the "former prophets".. (cf Surahi Fil(Elephant), the destruction of former tribes, Noahs flood.. No different than the Greek mythology for me..) <<

Well those stories could be 'made-up' stories but metaphors that are supposed to be used for reflection. Even Adam and Eve could be a metaphor with a message? Perhaps evolution is real and Adam and Eve is simply a concept that we are supposed to understand to help us better our spiritual and moral lives. And you know what? Maybe Native American Folk tales or Greek mythology has inner-messages to ponder over as well?

• Many surahs are about shariah(laws). But here again Just a few compared to the vast collection of do's and dont's of Sunnism. And many of those laws don't make sense nowadays. (CUtting of hands ISS in the Qur'an,- don't try to find a loophole by endless "re"interpreting !) <<

You would have to try and look at the spirit of the message instead of the letter (i.e. stop taking stuff literally) because the immediate audience of the Quran were seventh century Arabs not 21st century Americans (like me) and then you will be able to see how 'shariah laws' are no longer carved in stone rather the idea that one arrives at, for example stealing is bad, alcohol and gambling can lead to problems but there are benefits to it, eating of the pig meat is unhealthy for you (would suggest that we eat healthy and clean things) etc. ... once we put the Quran in context with its time-period and immediate audience we can understand how many of the verses applied to 7th century Arabs receiving this message but as humanity progressed the spirit of the message and its application can still be practical. Stealing should still be punished. Monogamy should be encouraged etc.

As I can't see myself believing in the tenets of Islam,- even the most naked version of it, I have even lost the possibilty of becoming a "Qur'anist".
Kind regards, <<

Maybe you need to see Islam not as an organized religion but a divine principle. Maybe you need to understand that Sunni Islam is not the true religion.

Hey Serve search Mutazilah ... It was the first Quran only, unaffiliated to dogma or tradition, purely philosophical and spiritual path that emerged during the early period of Islam.

Asalaamu alaykum,

Awesome story and conviction bro. I myself spent time in sunnism and wahhabism before I embraced philosophy as my path ... The Mutazilah path was the original Quran only perspective which launched what the west describes as the golden age of Islam. I also mingled with Progressive Muslims (aka Muslims for Progressive Values), studied the opinions of Muslim feminism - Irshad Manji, Asra Naumani, Aminah Wadud and sat in Sufi circles. I found that Quran only and Mutazilah Islam fit with me. Stay in touch and visit often.