bump

but is halal for them to wear Iron or cheap metal rings etc , Qur'an 732

I do not see anything in 732 that gives guidance specific to jewelry; I understand it to mean that WHATEVER falls within the context of that verse is NOT haram

Thanks Wakas-

I would appreciate it if you did not refer to it as my site, my language, my list etc.
OK. My apologies - I meant no offense.

The concepts you discuss are mentioned in several of the misconceptions, not just one.
I agree

In peace-
Samson

Wakas - I was hoping you might have time (or the desire) to respond

Peace-

I believe I have resolved the apparent contradiction. The wording used in Arabic is "man FI al-ardh" which means "what is IN the Earth" not "what is ON the Earth". The Arabic for "what is on the Earth" would be "man ALA al-ardh". People are not IN Earth but they are ON Earth. So "man FI al-ardh" would not be inclusive of the people.

What do you make of 4131? Is it your belief that this verse is also not inclusive of people? How about 383? 63? 2284? 329?

I believe these verses also use "FI" as the qualifier?

truthseeker11

Thanks for your findings. I appreciate the information-

Peace-

May peace be upon you-

rashidala - my apologies but I do not know what "daleel" means. Since you say "the" Messenger, I suspect you are talking about Muhammad.

Maybe this excerpt below will address your question?

Messengers say "Revere/obey/worship God and obey/follow me"

One of the arguments I often hear is that the Quran instructs us to obey Prophet Muhammad ? and so we must follow the Hadith and Sunna of Prophet Muhammad.

I have a very different interpretation of the verses that tell us to obey Prophet Muhammad. I interpret this to mean that his followers should obey him during his lifetime, of which I believe the most crucial thing to obey is his recitation of the Quran. I believe that ALL of the messengers were given God?s authority to instruct their followers to OBEY THEM. If this is so, then again, selecting ONLY the Hadith and Sunna of Prophet Muhammad would be in contradiction to the Quranic theme ?Make no distinctions among God's messengers?.

Let's compare the following verses (Khalifa translations for the most part)

331 Proclaim "If you love GOD, you should follow me." GOD will then love you, and forgive your sins. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

350 "I confirm previous scripture - the Torah - and I revoke certain prohibitions imposed upon you. I come to you with sufficient proof from your Lord. Therefore, you shall observe GOD, and obey me.

2090 And Aaron had told them, "O my people, this is a test for you. Your only Lord is the Most Gracious, so follow me, and obey my commands."

26108 "You shall reverence GOD and obey me.

26110 "You shall reverence GOD and obey me."

26126 "You shall reverence GOD and obey me.

26131 "You shall reverence GOD and obey me.

26144 "You shall reverence GOD and obey me.

26150 "You shall reverence GOD and obey me.

26163 "You shall reverence GOD and obey me.

26179 "You shall reverence GOD and obey me.

4363 When Jesus went with the proofs, he said, "I bring to you wisdom, and to clarify some of the matters in which you dispute. You shall reverence GOD and obey me.

713 "To alert you that you shall worship GOD, reverence Him, and obey me.

John 1421 (NIV) Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."*

• As we see, this verse in the Bible aligns with the Quran (e.g. 4363)

My point If the name of the messenger is not given, I cannot distinguish which messenger said they should be obeyed -- without looking in the Quran or the Bible.

Here is which prophet said what

Prophet Muhammad 331
Prophet Jesus 350, John 1421 (this verse also aligns with the Quran e.g. 350)
Prophet Noah 26108, 26110, 713
Prophet Hood 26126, 26131
Prophet Saaleh 26144, 26150
Prophet Lot 26163
Prophet Shu?aib 26179

A common argument I hear is the position that because the Quran said we needed to obey Prophet Muhammad, that we need to follow the Hadith and Sunna of Prophet Muhammad. I would argue that if we are going to follow the Hadith and Sunna of ONE of the prophets, that the Quran infers we must follow any existing Hadith and Sunna of the OTHER prophets as well. Otherwise, I believe we are violating the guideline ?Make no distinctions among God's messengers?.

Reply to truthseeker11

I agree with you in that there seems to be an apparent contradiction and it is bothering me a lot. "Man fil ardh" includes "alnaas" and "haq alaihi alazaab", so there will be a contradiction between first part of 2218 and the second part and also with 1315.

EXACTLY my point. What do you think of my response to Wakas above?

Reply to Wakas

It seems all is more of an interpretation, relative pronoun "man" can mean whoever/whatever/who/what. I have not studied this though, but M.Asad states his interpretation of it is "all" implying it can have other interpretations, which other translators have used.

His note on 2218

http//www.islamawakened.com/Quran/22/18/default.htm

Thanks for your post Wakas - as I examine Asad's translation of 2218, he says

ART THOU NOT aware that before God prostrate themselves all that are in the heavens and all that are on earth that..." is explained in note on 1315.]

It seems to me that REGARDLESS of which translation is used for (man in / whoever in / whatever in ...), I believe that this phrase is ALL INCLUSIVE (i.e. I do not believe that this is referring to a SUBSET of " or of "". I understand the MEANING of this verse to be that within God's creation prostrates themselves, including the sun and the moon etc...

And if I am correct, then I believe this suggest the following to be true

1. If God has just stated that is subservient to Him, then there is no need to qualify this with "willingly or unwillingly". To me, adding such a qualification is redundant and so I do not agree with the relevance that you place upon the absence of "willingly or unwillingly" in 2218 when you contrast this verse to 1315

See 2218. The difference between this verse and 1315 seems to provide the answer. If 2218 had said willingly or unwillingly, then it would have to say or include "all mankind", but it says "and many from mankind" i.e. not all.
Anyone can surrender, anyone can give recognition, anyone can be thankful, anyone can make peace, anyone can obey, but not everyone will do so willingly.... that is the key.

2. Whatever " " means (translation referenced earlier by thegod was "and many of mankind&quot, I do NOT believe that it can mean anything that CONTRADICTS the prior phrase.

As I examine this verse (thanks for referencing it so that I could observe what I believe to be a contradiction), this verse makes MORE sense to me if "and many of mankind" is the BEGINNING of the next sentence.

I will use Asad's translation since you have referenced it

ART THOU NOT aware that before God prostrate themselves all that are in the heavens and all that are on earth, the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and the mountains, and the trees, and the beasts? And many human beings , whereas many will inevitably have to suffer ; and he whom God shall scorn will have none who could bestow honour on him for, verily, God does what He wills.

Note Asad is the ONLY translator that I have found who begins a new sentence as I am suggesting, so I was delighted that you pointed me towards his translation.

I do not speak arabic, so I really need help here. I see the arabic to be " "

Examining this, it seems that the arabic words are identical and repeated twice, which to me would mean '". To me, this might suggest an emphasis on the word "MANY" because of the repetition. Yet Asad has chosen to differentiate the two identical phrases by translating them as "and many" vs. "whereas many" in order to suggest that there are two groups of people being contrasted. Although I would be OK with such a translation if classical arabic grammar supports such a differentiation (this is where I am lacking and need help from others), I find that NEITHER meaning (neither Asad's nor mine) is in conflict with the prior phrase - which to me is a GOOD thing. 18 other translations I have examined pose the contradiction as I have described.

PS - I found Asad's translation on IA, but it seems IA is missing some of Asad's notes (e.g. for 1315). Is there another online source that anyone is aware of for Asad's complete translation and notes?

That is because most of the people here follow God alone and what you wrote is in harmony with what The God says.

Then I am blessed to have found such a group of people. Thank you for your post.

I do not consider "Islam" (capital "I&quot and islam (small "i&quot as the same thing. Secondly, to describe Islam as a religion is perfectly correct, however one cannot describe islam as a religion.

Wakas - Thanks for the clarification. I like your distinction on Islam vs. islam and Muslim vs. muslim.

I recommend reading the rest of the website, as it rather obviously covers what you highlighted.

Wakas - After having reviewed your site again, your conclusion suggests that either I have missed something obvious, or maybe that my points were unclear.

One of my points is that by 'validating' the misuse (as I see it) of the terms Islam and Muslim, I argue that you are reinforcing / promoting the most fundamental misconception.

For example, under "All Muslims are Arabs"

A) "While Islam is often associated with Arabs, they make up only 15% of the world's Muslim population. The country with the largest population of Muslims is Indonesia (which is a non-Arab country). Muslims make up about 1/5 of the world's population"

If I am not mistaken, your message reaffirms the belief that

1. a Muslim is one who "claims" to be a Muslim.
2. The members of Islam are Muslims
3. People who are not Muslims are not associated with Islam

I am arguing that such a belief is the most important of misconceptions. I argue that this belief is contrary to one of the most fundamental of themes in the Quran ""

If I have missed something obvious on your website, my apologies... and would you please help me to see what I have missed.

I do acknowledge that you have addressed one of my points in some areas of your website, for example, in "Muhammad was the founder of Islam"

B) "The Quran specifically mentions the term "muslim" for those before prophet Muhammad, including Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Jacob, and the companions of Jesus. . Thus, the prophet Muhammad was not the founder of islam/submission, but simply continued this universal message as one of many messengers of God."

However, I do not see that you acknowledge the point you make here as a critical misconception by LISTING it as such (i.e. "Misconception What is a Muslim" / "Misconception What is Islam&quot. And I find there to be a contradiction between the two quotes I have referenced above (A & B). Yes, I see that you have distinguished between Muslim/muslim and Islam/islam (I had missed that until you pointed it out), but I think it would be helpful to add to your LIST of misconceptions the misconceptions that I am describing. Yes, maybe one could deduce what I consider to be truer meanings of muslim and islam from B above, but I would argue that "Misconception What is a Muslim" / "Misconception What is Islam&quot might be the most effective means of interesting a non-"Muslim" to learn more - because I believe that the TRUE meaning may not result in the reader feeling EXCLUDED. I believe that MOST non-"Muslims" who make it to your site are of the mindset "I am not a 'Muslim' - I knew that before I clicked on this site". But if the definition of muslim makes it clear that you don't have to be a member of the sect of Muslims in order to meet the definition of muslim in the Quran, then maybe a reader might think "Hmmm... this definition does NOT exclude me - before reading this definition, I would have sworn that I was not a Muslim because I am not a member of that Muslim sect".

I find that you alluded to the difficulty I see with addressing this misconception in an earlier post when you said

if the above is true that would mean almost everyone has made a totally basic error in understanding the term "aslama", and consequently "islam".

Although I am quoting you out of context, I found your point to be relevant here I am arguing that most people who call themselves Muslims and most people who call their religion Islam have made a basic error in understanding the meaning of those words in the Quran. I am arguing that changing to Capital M and Capital I resulted in a sect.

To me it is no wonder that the world views the Quran as the holy book of the Muslims because it is those who call themselves Muslims that promote such a belief. I am arguing that people who call themselves Muslims have fostered the most important of misconceptions by promoting that Islam is the Muslim religion as documented in the Quran, I find that MOST people who already HAVE a religion dismiss the Quran as being irrelevant (i.e. if I am interested in learning about ANOTHER RELIGION, then I might be interested in Islam and the Quran)

I am trying to argue that your website contains language that promotes and reinforces this misconception, such as in A above.

In summary, I find that

1. Some of your language PROMOTES what I am suggesting is the most important of misconceptions
2. Your list does not not have an entry that clearly addresses these misconceptions

My apologies for the length of my response... I often suffer from the delusion that other people want to hear everything that I have to say

Wow - I expected to at least get "flamed" for my post... but nothing! Wow!

Peace-

Many Thanks Samia!

Thanks Samia. I am pleasantly surprised that the first response to my post was a supportive one. In my experience, that is highly unusual for the position I stated!

As I am unaware of Ayman's posts, I am afraid that the new thread I created may be redundant...

I would be grateful if someone can point me towards Ayman's writeups on this matter and I agree in principle to the primary/secondary misconceptions as you've described.

In peace-
Samson

Wakas - thanks for all the hard work that you do. My first comment on your website

Many articles and books have been written about a religion followed by over one billion people worldwide

I believe the concept of your statement to be contrary to the teachings of the Quran. What exactly is "a muslim"? I suspect that this number you are referencing is a count of the number of people that refer to themselves as "a muslim". I believe that this excludes from your count the number of people that follow God's guidance but do not call themselves "muslims". It also includes (in my experience) a tremendous number of people who call themselves "muslims" but do a poor job of following God's guidance.

What exactly do you mean by ""? Are you suggesting that they are "following the 'religion' in conformance with God's guidance"? Or do you simply mean that these people have labeled themselves "muslims" and so they get to be counted as one who "" the "religion" regardless of whether they are actually following it or not?

I believe that the PRIMARY misconception of non-"muslims" and "muslims" alike is the misconception that the Quran suggests that only those people who recognize the Quran as God's guidance should be counted as "muslims".

I suggest that from the start, you are fueling the most damaging misconception with your statement above. You are claiming that the "religion" that is "followed" is ONLY followed by "one billion people" - and that this "religion" is "Islam" and is "followed " by "muslims".

I believe the Quran teaches us that AlKtab was given to all prophets and that the Quran is an explanation of AlKtab. I don't find that other sects have corrupted AlKtab any more than people who call themselves "muslims" have done. Yet those who call themselves "muslims", who HAVE the Quran (i.e. the only accurate recording of God's guidance), behave no differently than the other sects by taking the same position as the other sects, a position that I find the Quran teaches us NOT to take

"We are the ones who follow God's true guidance and this is what we are called. We are different from you other sects and we will try and teach you how to follow God's true guidance".

In peace-
Samson

PS - I don't want my post to 'derail' this thread, so I have created a new thread for those who may have something to say on this topic

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598127.0

Response to belH

moslem is a person who submits to God's Laws and not a person who makes peace; A person who makes peace has a word in Arabic Mosalem

Although I may agree that your definition is correct, I also believe that "God's Laws" are all about promoting peace.

I may be mistaken, but I have concluded that God's guidance is ALL ABOUT PEACE. If you wish to disprove this, please post any of God's guidance that, should we follow it, does not PROMOTE peace.

Reply to Fadhi

Thank you for your kind words. I very much appreciate them-

Reply to Wakas

In my original post, I was suggesting that Yusuf Ali had superceded his authority with his definition of Islam.

Your response was

Is ?Islam is bowing to the Will of God? in The Quran?

I interpreted your response to imply you somehow disagreed with me.

Your latest response suggests to me that you are in agreement Yusuf Ali's definition cannot be correct.

The word "islam" by itself has no connection with God or Quran etc, thus definitely has no connection to "Will of God".

Please correct me if I have misunderstood your position.

Response to Wakas

I was highlighting 2218 does not say "willingly or unwillingly", as it does in 1315. Thus, when it says "many from mankind" in 2218 it would be referring to those who willingly sjd.

I am currently struggling with what I perceive to be a contradiction in this verse that maybe you and others can help me with

I believe the beginning of the verse is stating that there is no choice God prostrates to Him "whoever". I find the 'flavor' of this to be all-encompassing (and many of the translators use the word "all" e.g. "... bow all who are in the heavens and all who are in the earth" as posted by thegod)

The contradiction that I see is at the end of the sentence ("many from mankind&quot. If this phrase is PART of the first sentence, then is this phrase not in contradiction with the earlier part of the sentence which I believe to be all-encompassing?

2218 Hast thou not seen how to God bow all who are in the heavens and all who are in the earth, the sun and the moon, the stars and the mountains, the trees and the beasts, and many of mankind? And many merit the chastisement; and whom God abases, there is none to honour him. God does whatsoever He will.

Thank you for your reference to Toshihiko Izutsu. Is there a website re linguistic analysis of words/concepts? I did a search and found information about him and excerpts from some of his books, but am hoping you can point me towards his content on linguistic analysis of words/concepts.

response to Eid

Thanks - and COOL link you posted!