Salam,
I have to apologize if you think my posts were intended in a negative fashion in any way, they weren't - just a friendly warning. I think you misunderstood what I was saying broadly. For instance, here you interpreted it as if I was ascribing those things to you, but I wasn't. Apologies if I didn't make it clear enough, but I was talking about the general case, and a few examples, not necessarily the same person.
Salam brother,
Your tone and context did appear to refer to me specifically, rather than generalizations
Peace, just because it's your choice doesn't mean you alone will reap the benefits and harms of alcohol. So you drink and are happy. Your neighbour sees a drunkard on the street (i.e. you) - big deal, you're entitled to your fun. So it continues, and all sorts of things happen until you hop in your car and mow a kid down - big deal?
Perhaps your intention was not to mean me specifically, perhaps it was not. You do not strike me as someone unintelligent enough to be so vague in wording, where you could have replaced 'you' with 'someone', hense why I took the comments as personal attacks.
It's a simple fact that alcohol in a majority will cause problems and in the current world, it's a major problem. The same things as I said, then you have the hidden effects on people who, say, grow up with rowdy & abusive fathers or parents with a drinking problem (I know a few such people and they aren't very well off from it). It's a rather established fact that Britain of all places has issues with drinking - not major, definitely but surely it has more effect than just what we see late at night (see for instance this link). So again, I was trying to drive the point that just because you alone make the choice, i.e. the cause, doesn't mean the effect will only come back onto you alone - especially on a very large scale.
So ascribing harmlessness to alcohol, is far from the case; intoxicants constitute the biggest killers around (,), both directly and from related illnesses in developed countries. There is a reason it's called a satanic act in the quran - because it is. It doesn't appear harmful at all to an individual, that is the "whisper" or "temptation" but on the large scale, it results in chaos.
I hope I've made myself clearer here -\
I understand your point, brother, but, we are only responsible for our own actions, not the actions of others. I do not deny that alcohol (and other drugs) can cause problems, but, those are other people's problems, arising from their own personal weaknesses, not mine. Just because I might choose to occasionally have a glass of wine with a meal, that does not make me responsible for the alcoholic down the street, who considers a six-pack of beer, and giving the wife a black eye, to be his evenings entertainment. I know my limits for alcohol. It is for them to know their own limits. Throughout Al Qur'an, there are warnings not to 'exceed the limits' (bounds etc depending on translation)
For the time being, no. Not until I get solid evidence from somewhere. But please do note the boldened words, and what I asked - does making those movements initiate some sort of connection between you and god that wasn't already there? Something your own brain isn't making up for you (placebo effect, or the "I remember this happened because I want it so badly to have happened" effect)?
If it is not stated thus in Al Qur'an, then no. It is a somewhat irrelevent querstion, and I must admit I am not seeing its relevence to the topic under discussion.
Do you think the quran preserves itself? It's a huge collaboration, and certainly not a 'miracle'. If everyone of those people preserving it (by memory, etc) used this line to justify their beliefs, what hope would islam have of spreading? It's already not in the best state with a whole set of specific meanings assigned to everything in the quran by fatwa-happy "scholars", do you think your exact opposite ideal will help anything?
I must admit, I cannot see the relevence of this question either. All the time hardcopy of Al Qur'an exists, it is preserved in an un-corruptable version. Preserving it by memory is admirable, but, memory is falible, so that could make such recitations fallible. As for what hope would Islam have of spreading, that is a rather different matter. Islam is submission to Allah. Someone may read about it, or be told about it verbally, but either way, they are still being told about Islam, thus it would continue to spread.
Call yourself muslim all you wish - everyone has the right to do that. On the other hand, to call yourself "quran only" and then not follow through with it to the best of your ability - that makes you no different from a cultural muslim.
Again, I take that to refer to me directly, rather than others. I do follow Al Qur'an to the best of my ability, as I illustrated above with my comments about alcohol not being specifically forbidden, and how people travelling are excused from fasting for that day. That is information I had to research, learn, and accept, for myself, which makes me very different to a cultural Muslim, who may simply follow a practice out of habit, but with no idea as to why that practice is required.
People do get their ideas of islam off other people's actions, most people have little idea otherwise. Why do you think that the vast majority of criticism of islam is on the people who follow it and not the teachings (and the slim amount that is aimed at the quran is either fraudulent or misguided, again because of the same people)? Again, I hope you won't interpret this as a negative thing, but the quran places a limit on you following your desire, and that limit is achieved through reason and following the book well.
Indeed, I quite agree with your points, brother. A person should only judge a religion by the content of it's original scripture, and nothing else.
Actually not at all. On another forum I frequented a while back, there were some recent converts (or 'reverts', if you want), who were so ridiculously extreme in their thinking that it was scary, to know these people were around. Now, having extreme beliefs is one thing but I'm concerned about the method which was equally extreme, just a "this is my way of belief, don't like it? shove it" line of thinking and that is what I like to call, "close-minded". What I couldn't understand is why these people who barely converted not only condoned the death penalty for apostates of islams, but welcomed it readily (more than the "already sunni" group there). It's counter-intuitive and again, comes from the mindset they started off with. How does that relate to willpower? Read the story of Abraham. He kept a pure open mind and he was guided as a result, and also gained willpower, as a result. So in my experience, converts tend to be overly extreme in their beliefs and reasoning and I just don't like seeing that happen. Maybe you're different, maybe you're like them, but there's no way to really tell over the web.
I quite agree. There is a difference between 'fundementalism' (the study of 'fundementals' and 'extremism' (taking things to their most extreme outcome) I would view myself as a fundementalist, as I study Al Qur'an, and only take that as true guidance. While the teachings and hadiths of the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, can be interesting, or provide insight or an example, they are not Al Qur'an, and, following those teachings and hadiths is not 'obeying the messenger', but 'adding another to Allah', so I do not follow them. (particularly not when a passage in Al Qur'an warned Muhammad, peace be upon him, specifically by name, that our guidance was not his affair, but Allah will guide whom He chooses)
Again I hope I clarified myself.
Not really, no.
That's great you said that (I don't remember telling you to convert your parents? hmm), and keep it up.
Irrelevent point, I never said that you did. The point I was making, was that my family are not Muslims. Keeping to the fast in the restaurant, would have created difficulties. Difficulties, are something Allah does not wish us, as he wishes us ease.
That caveat is itself over-ruled, by the statement that travellers are not required to keep the fast. Had I chosen to, it would have been better, but, there was no fault by not keeping it, as it was not required for me on that day (due to travel)
Nor am I in a position to say it's "satisfactory", which is what I keep trying to tell you, but you insist otherwise and then tell me I'm wrong - confused
Do not try to twist my words. I am not trying to insist that you are in a position to say what is satisfactory. I was saying, that having already stated that alcohol is not specifically forbidden, continue to point out issues of my choice to consume it. And raised doubt about my will power, despite the clear examples that the broken fast was not a failing of will power, but a fast not taken under circumstances where no fast was required. I was merely pointing out, that for someone who (by their own admission) is not in a position to state what is or is not satisfactory, are certainly spending a lot of time trying to criticise/draw attention to/find fault, where there is none.
Peace
