023.005
YUSUFALI Who abstain from sex,
PICKTHAL And who guard their modesty -
SHAKIR And who guard their private parts,

023.006
YUSUFALI Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,
PICKTHAL Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy,
SHAKIR Except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blameable,

023.007
YUSUFALI But those whose desires exceed those limits are transgressors;-
PICKTHAL But whoso craveth beyond that, such are transgressors -
SHAKIR But whoever seeks to go beyond that, these are they that exceed the limits;

I guess its okay as long as you use your right hand rotfl
But seriously, I don't think masturbation qualifies as sex.

It bothers me when I read comments from christians (not on this site) who say the following

"Muhammad spread religion by way of the sword and Jesus spread religion by way of peace".

Are there any versus in the Quran that say this about the prophet or are they getting this from history books and/or hadith/sunnah?

Thanks,

dotty

Christians have selective memory when it comes to spreading religion by force. They seem to look over the fact that Christian Western Civilization forced its religion, culture, and languages on nearly the entire non-Western, non-Christian, and non-Caucasian world through colonization. Take South America for example. Prior to being colonized by the Christian West, South Americans followed tribal/indigenous religions and spoke tribal/indigenous languages,and they had thriving civilizations. Now South Americans are overwhelmingly Catholic, speak Spanish or Portugese as their first language, and are generally viewed as third world nations. The same can be said about much of Africa. In North America and in Australia, the Christian West all but completly annihilated the indigenous people and claimed the land as their own, and now boast of being Christian nations. Islam was never spread in this manner, even after it was transformed from a Deen into a religion.

Peace

The quran is not complete in the guidance it gives. However, it is complete in what it is trying to say. It explains all of its concepts. I have never seen a book that doesn't do that (unless there are more volumes) and the quran is no different.
and the quran hasn't been preserved either. If it was "protected," Khalifa would not have been able to make a copy with 2 of the verses missing. Like any other book, it is corruptible, and we must be careful with it.

The Qur'an IS preserved. It still exists in its original form. Because its preserved, Khalifa and others can make all the alterations they want, but all additions and deletions are detectable because the original still exists. Yes, there are corrupt copies of Qur'an, but the original Qur'an IS preserved.

Ok the Quran states it is complete, all muslims would say yes it is complete. Now I have a friend who believes it is complete and all the sets of rules are in it and also according to the above verse it allows more rules to be followed - following the Messenger from hadiths that don't contradict the Quran and also those in authority like governments.

How would you reply to that?

Hadith are hearsay. The various collections of hadith in use today were not compiled and recorded in writing until 200+ years after the death of The Messenger Muhammad. The content of many Hadith contradict the Qur'an, contradict one another, conflict scientificly proven facts, and insult the character of The Messenger, yet they are included in Sahih/authentic collections. This proves the "science" of Hadith is seriously flawed and unreliable. This means that following hadith does not equate to following The Messenger. It really equates to following the conjecture of men who met neither

• The Messenger, nor

• his companions

• nor, anyone from the generation of The Messenger's/companion's children,

• grandchildren,

• great grandchildren,

• great great grandchildren,

• great great great grandchildren,

• great great great great grandchildren

• nor great great great great great grandchildren.

In short, I'd ask them to prove that any hadith are the actual words of The Messenger Muhammad.

Peace

Sister Allya

Sorry to hear about your situation. I just wanted to offer a little advice. If you two do stay together, maybe it will be easier for him to share his beliefs if he does so in his own language (assuming its not Arabic). Like, he can say his "way of life", which really is the English equivilant of deen. He can say he's a submitter, his way of life is submission. It will probably lead to more questions, but it will be a good way for him to explain his belief in Allah, Qur'an and Muhammad without feeling he is being prejudged as soon as he says "Muslim" or "Islam".

Also, you both sound a little immature and insecure. You two may not be ready for marriage yet. I was in a situation similar to yours a few years ago. I had a nikkah with woman. We had a very small ceremony, where about 4 others were present. She refused to tell her family and her friends that we had a nikkah, but I told mine. It became very confusing and frustrating. Sometimes she treated me like her boyfriend, other times like her fiance, and on rare occasions like her husband. Needless to say, it did not work out. What I learned from the situation is, do not get too involved with someone who is overly concerned with what others think about them. That's a sign that the person lacks self confidence and is insecure. You both fit that description. My advice is for you two to take a break from one another and work yourselves. You both need to work on gaining self confidence and feeling secure about who you are. Please don't make the mistake of having children until you two are a bit more mature.

Best wishes

SHM

Your whinning is really becoming annoying. By now you know the rules for posting and I'm sure you're intelligent enough to change your approach to meet the rules. Its been explained we're open to your critiques as long as you
support any and all claims with evidence. So please post something of substance and stop wasting precious bandwith. This is beyond ridiculous, we don't come here for your pitty party.

Peace

Brother SatanHatesMe,

This will be my final post on this topic. Yes, ProgressiveMuslims.org is an organization, but the users of this discussion forum (sometimes called progressive muslims, quranists, quran aloners, god aloners, but we're really just believers) are not necessarily a part of or members of ProgressiveMuslims.org. Many of us post on a variety of similar sites, some even host their own sites. This discussion forum is just one of many online places where we congregate to share, teach, interact, socialize and learn. We don't have concensus on all issues because we are searching for answers. Due to "Islam" being under the tight fisted control of traditionalists for 1000+ years, our attempt to understand the Quran without interpretations from others sources is an enormous task, which will take time.

We are individuals who believe the Qur'an is Divine Revelation, we believe the Qur'an by Itself shows The Way to the development of the ideal individual and society, but we do not see that reflected in the traditionalist interpretation and implementation. Our motivation is not to please or assuage the West. Many of us were born and/or live in the West. If our goal was to please the West, it would be much easier for us to become Christians and denounce the Quran. Instead, we invest our time and engery in better understanding it. We have not damaged Islam or Muslims in anyway, (except for maybe the egos of the imams, sheikhs, and mullahs), because we're just individuals sharing knowledge and ideas. Who has that hurt? You are in no way required to agree with any of us on any issue. In fact, you're welcome to disagree, but if you disagree, debate in a manner that is productive. State what you disagree with, why you disagree with it, provide evidence that supports your point of view, and don't come across arrogantly and immaturely. But, if your argument is that we need to follow traditional interpretation across the board, then your in the wrong place and your argument will not be well received. We enjoy using our God given ability to think and reason.

Peace

It funny how my character always comes into play when I simply state observations that are true. For example, PM have no consensus for four years. People are hating that statement simply because it true.
Also, I dont want nor need to defend Islam. I talking about PM and its wrongs.
Also, Brian, the Quran is not a weapon. Do throw verses in an attempt to demean and demonize. The Quran wasn't delivered for you to use in that purpose.

...and I'm not defending PM. I'm not a member, because its not an organization. I've already acknowledged that it is true that we do not have concensus on a lot of issues. There will always be things we don't agree on, much like the Sunnis and Shias don't have concensus on a lot of issues, and there will probably always be issues the two don't agree on. My problem with you is you are not here to share ideas. You have an obvious agenda, which is to discredit us for rejecting traditionalist thought. Your agenda is partly built on the preconceived notion that "quranists" are an organization (which is close to implying we are a sect). As I've already explained to you, we are like-minded individuals who come hear to share ideas, which means we present our ideas, listen to others ideas, and draw conclusions based on sound evidence (i.e. Qur'an, intelligence, reasoning, etc.). You've mastered giving your opinion, but there's room for much improvement in your ability to listen and reason. A characteristic common among traditionalist. So its obvious we're not your kind of people and you're not our kind of people. So what's your motivation in visiting this site? It appears to be to preach, not to share ideas. That's where your character comes into play. One last thing, the Quran IS a weapon. A weapon to fight falsehood. If you see any falsehood here, bring your proofs from the Quran.

Peace

This guy satanhatesme obviously just doesn't get it. He thinks he's a defender of Islam but he's really just a defender and blindfollower of one of the many man-made psuedo-Islamic sects.

3120 (This was some of the wisdom Luqman was endowed with.) Do you not realize that Allah has made of service to you all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth? And He has lavished upon you His Blessings, tangible and intangible. And yet, among people are those who argue about Allah without exploring the realm of knowledge, without taking the right approach or a Book giving Light.

3121 And when such people are told to follow what Allah has revealed, they say, "Nay, we follow that which we have found our fathers doing." What! Even though Satan had invited them to the doom of Flames?"

Humbly

Brian

Brain, I completely understand the intention of Progressive Muslim. They believe something is broken, and needs to be fixed. However, it is my believe (which is support by no unity and consensus within the organization) that Progressive Muslims are not fixing anything just demolishing.
The rough article I wrote is pointing out why. I planned to elaborate on it and cite more examples. I think it is important people are aware that many bad deeds can start with good intentions.

Its Brian not Brain, but I'll take that as a compliment .

While you may understand the intention of Progressive Muslims, you are missing the point that we are not an organization. We are basically in the stage of bouncing our thoughts and ideas off of one another. The traditional interpretation of Islam prohibits thinking or having ideas where Deen is concerned. That is one of the many views we take issue with. Our motiviation is not to change the Qur'an, and thus Islam. Instead our motivation is to identify false interpretations and replace them with true Quranic ideals and principles.

I love your analogy. But there is a different between renovating, and demolishing. The majority of Progressive Muslim wishes to demolish Submission (Islam). This is not a claim but fact. They refuse to listen to any outside reason base on their concept of ?Quran Alone.? So anything that was already built and still works is demolished. That is the real problem. For example, is the implementation of Zakat as mandatory charity need to be demolish or renovated if it is functional and proven successful in society? To a Progressive Muslim it must be simply because it has traditional value. To a Progressive Muslim it must be demolish because it is a ?traditional sectarian? interpretation. This is completely illogical. You are no longer viewing the issue objectively but subjectively base on bias and personal emotions simply to eliminate anything traditional. This is not renovating but simply demolishing carelessly.

All that we want to demolish is any and all practices that are peddled as Islam, but do not originate from the Qur'an. Yes, Zakat is a Quranic principle, but the traditional Islamic interpretation of Zakat is not based on the Qur'an. Zakat equaling 2.5% is a man made idea. The Qur'an says spend that which is beyond your needs (2219). Under the man made implementation of Zakat, seventeen countries with majority Muslim populations (50% or more) are among the fifty poorest nations on the planet (They are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen). Obviously 2.5% is not right for all situations, and Muslims are suffering as a result of this misinterpretation.

You are right I am satisfied with a fully functional house, old or new. This plays into my statement within the article that Progressive Muslims is a movement to appease mainstream. A ?neo Islam? must be created to show mainstream that we are not terrorist, not misogamist, etc. A ?new Islam? with a more secular flavor needs to please the majority of secular people. But still playing along your analogy, there is no need to destroy or demolish a perfected house. Just evict its inhabitants. And such individuals who support those views (terrorist, misogamist etc.) have already evicted themselves.

Personally, pleasing the majority of secular people plays no part in my use of the Qur'an alone, and I have not heard anyone else express that sentiment. That is an intentionally false allegation of traditionalists made against "Quranists" to rally the traditionalist's blind followers to the defense of Islam from secularization. I and many other "Quranists" think the Qur'an should be the source of law and constitution of Muslim states. I don't, however, think any un-Quranic idea, thought, or philosophy should carry the same weight. If that's considered secular and/or pleases secular people, so be it. I'm anti-sectarian not pro-secular. BTW, sects are un-Quranic (6159)

Humbly,

Brian

I think your article is way off base. For one, use of "The Progessive Muslim Movement", "its members", and "organization" is misleading. We are not an organized "movement". We are individuals who reject the traditional sectarian interpretation of Islam. For the most part we agree that the hadith literature, which is central to traditional sectarian Islam, is the primary culprit in the misinterpretation of Islam. When Islam is stripped of hadith, you are left solely with the Qur'an. For centuries in many Muslim nations, following the traditional sectarian interpretation of Islam has been made the law and voicing disagreement has been made a punishable crime. Meaning the traditional sectarian interpretation of Islam has been forced on Muslims. Many Muslims made their lives easier by just complying instead of challenging. Now that Islam has spread beyond the borders of Muslim nations, there are increasing numbers of Muslims who have the freedom to critically analyze the traditional sectarian interpretation of Islam.

What we are doing is more like renovating an old poorly constructed house, than painting a picture on a used canvas. The foundation of the house (Qur'an) is sound, but everything else must be replaced. In this house the flooring was unstable, the walls were collapsing, the wiring was faulty, and the roof was leaking. None of them appeared to be built according to the specs of the foundation. So first we must study the foundation of this very old house so it can be rebuilt to be a better and more functional house for its inhabitants. We also need to see where the previous builder went wrong. We need to rebuild the flooring to the specs of the foundation, so the inhabitants footing is secure. We need to make the walls durable, so they don't fall down. We need to make sure it is propered wired, so its inhabitants have consistent and reliable power. We need to make a new roof, so outside forces will not destroy the interior. We are only rebuilding that which was preventing the house from being functional, which is all but the foundation (Qur'an).

There is more than one way that this house can be rebuilt and still be compatible to the specs of the foundation. We are still in the planning stages, sharing our individual ideas about how this house should be rebuilt. Some of our ideas will prove to be incompatible with the foundation and they will be discarded. Once we have reached a consensus on how to properly rebuild this house we will start the actual work. For the best result, we will have to work as a team (movement). We are not yet at that stage. So I agree with IronSky, any of these problems you point out can be overcome eventually with patience, persistence, and prayer.

Apparently, you are satisfied with your old house. Despite its problems, its familiar and gives you comfort. You'd rather remain it "as is", than be exposed and feel insecure while your old house is being gutted and rebuilt. For me, I'd rather live in a tent on the reconstruction site until the house is rebuilt, knowing I will eventually have a much better house. I only ask that you hold your criticism until the renovation is complete.

Humbly,

Brian

Greetings fellow believers in Allah, His Book, and His Divine System!

When Allah uses "We" in self-reference, it is called "royal we" or "royal plural".

This is my source http//godallah.com/we_and_he.php

I did, however, find other sites that deny "royal we" exists in Arabic. They were all anti-Islam sites. Their motivation seems to be to prove the trinity, saying "We" means Allah and "Jesus". yeah

Why does the Quran use "WE" and "HE" in Quran when referring to God (Allah)?

This is a good question and one that Bible readers have also asked about. The term "We" in the Bible and in the Quran is the royal "We" - as an example when the king says, "We decree the following declaration, etc." or, "We are not amused." It does not indicate plural; rather it displays the highest position in the language. English, Persian, Hebrew, Arabic and many languages provide for the usage of "We" for the royal figure. It is helpful to note the same dignity is given to the person being spoken to in English. We say to someone, "You ARE my friend." Yet the person is only one person standing there. Why did we say "ARE" instead of "IS"? The noun "you" is singular and should therefore be associated with a singular verb for the state of being, yet we say, "are." The same is true for the speaker when referring to himself or herself. We say, "I am" and this is also in the royal plural, instead of saying, "I is."

When Allah uses the term "HE" in Quran it is similar to the above answer. The word "He" is used when referring to Allah out of respect, dignity and high status. It would be totally inappropriate to use the word "it" and would not convey the proper understanding of Allah being who Allah is; Alive, Compassionate, Forgiving, Patient, Loving, etc. It is not correct to associate the word "He" with gender, as this would be comparing Allah to the creation, something totally against the teaching of Quran.

Humbly,

Brian

I've noticed that when the topic is discussed of "quran-alone" Muslims collectively migrating to form an ummah, its frequently done so with the premise of forming of a country. Corrective me if I'm wrong, but "ummah" means "community", not "country". The idea of being able to form a country over-night is extremely unrealistic. I'm all for collective migration, but it would have to start off considerably smaller than a country. For one, no country in the world is going to give up any significant portion of its territory to any group of people to start a new country. Secondly, a "start-up" country made up of citizenry from diverse cultures would have no cohesiveness. Third, it would have no way of protecting itself.

You have to crawl before you can walk. Any ummah formed through collective migration would have to involve purchasing property in an already established country. The government and laws of the "host" country would have to be respected and followed. To some degree, the new ummah could create and enforce it own "rules" on its people. It would have to start off very small, resembling a neighborhood more so than a city, province, or country. Overtime, it would grow, during which time a culture and government would develop through trial and error. Maybe someday its success would draw more people to it, possibly even to the point of it becoming a city, province, or country. But, it may not ever expand beyond being a neighborhood. Regardless of how big it becomes, the fact that it is a sanctuary for people wanting to live under true Qur'anic law is what's important. The goal of forming a "quran-alone" country is indeed very noble. That, however, is a long term goal. Long term goals are met through a series of achieved short term goals.

I'll start by saying, I not well versed in any branch of the sciences. Nonetheless, I've concluded that scientific knowledge is limited to the technological abilities available to each generation. As technology increases, new theories and discoveries appear. In turn, many old theories are disproved and new light is shed on past discoveries. Every generation claims its theories and discoveries provide irrefutable explanations, only to have the next generation disprove them or greatly expand on them. I don't think science will ever reach its peak, because man does not have the capacity to develop all encompassing scientific technology. There will always be things we cannot explain and there will always be things in existence that we will never even know exist.

Humbly,

Brian

2754- And Lot, when he said to his people "Are you committing lewdness while you can clearly see?"

2755-"You are approaching the men out of lust instead of the women! No, you are an ignorant people!"

2756- But the reply of his people was that they said "Expel the family of Lot from your town, for they are a people who are being pure!"

2757- So We saved him and his family, except for his wife, for We found her to be of those who will remain.

2758- And We rained down a rain upon them. Miserable was the rain of those warned.

2759- Say "Praise be to God, and peace be upon His servants whom He has selected." Is God better, or that which you set up?

The Fading "Gay Gene"
http//www.narth.com/docs/fading.html

The Boston Globe published an article on February 7, 1999 which was reprinted by permission in the April 1999 NARTH Bulletin. It is an important article because it contributes to the growing body of evidence that homosexuality is not simply "genetic."
Serious scientists have long known that a simply "genetic" cause for homosexuality was highly unlikely, but the mass media conveyed the misimpression of genetic causation to the general public. In the Globe article, prominent researchers admit the distinct limitations of the "born that way" theory.

"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer comments, "It is the same for every human behavior--environment matters for extroversion, smoking cigarettes, just about anything you can name."

Interestingly, Dr. Hamer--himself a gay man--adds that science remains "just as clueless" as ever about the environmental influences on homosexuality. Dr. Hamer's statement is consistent with a position taken by most gay advocates, who flatly deny the existence of evidence that points to certain family and social influences on homosexuality. (Gay advocates almost invariably either say "I was born that way," or "How I became gay doesn't matter.&quot Only prominent gay writer Andrew Sullivan has publicly given credence to the Freudian model of homosexual development.

...And how do we know that the Quranic texts you speak of are variants? We know because the authentic Quran has been preserved. Therefore, any text claiming to be the Quran can be proven or disproven by comparision.

Christians and Unitarians are not the same thing. First of all to be a Christian you have to believe that there is only one God and that is God (Allah). You have to believe in the Holy Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, and The Holy Spirit. Also that Jesus is God's son. That he died and rose again. If a person does not believe those things then they are not a Christian. A Unitarian does not believe in the Holy Trinity, so he would not be a Christian.

A Jehovah's witness is not a Christian. They do not believe in the Holy Trinity, or that Jesus is God's son.

To me it sounds like you are operating under "The Church's" definition of what a Christian is. My understanding of the meaning "Christian" is, one who attempts to be "Christ-like". Therefore, if in pursuit of learning the truth about Jesus, one's understanding of the Gospel's leads them to reject the Trinity, this does not make them any less of a Christian. In my opinion it makes them closer to being Christ-like. Calling Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. non-Christians because of there rejection of the Trinitarian concept parallels calling persons who reject Hadith being viewed as non-Muslims because they do not follow mainstream Muslim doctrine.

Brian

Just glancing over your posting of the verses in question, I immediately noticed that the verses say, what the weak will say to the arrogant, and, what the devil will say to those eternally condemned. It does not say that the weak and the devil are correct or Quranically supported in their opinions.

?Chickens Come Home To Roost? - Malcolm X

America's reason for invading Afghanistan was, Afghanistan's government (Taliban) was harboring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, who were at the time alleged to be behind the 9-1-1 terror attacks (they had not taken responsibility for 9-1-1 until later). America's reasons for invading Iraq were Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Saddam defied the international world by denying weapons inspectors access to their alleged WMD arsenal, and Saddam committed war crimes against his own people and Iran during the Iran-Iraq war.

What America ignores however, is its role in the strengthening of Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and Saddam. The US supported Osama bin Laden militarily and financially in driving the Soviet Union's military out of Afghanistan. George W. Bush was even a business partner of Osama's brother-in-law prior to Bush becoming President. As recently as 2001 (the year of 9-1-1) the US provided the Taliban with significant financial aide. This despite the oppressive practices of the Taliban, which the US was well aware of. The US sided with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war by providing Iraq/Saddam with military intelligence and the chemical/biological weapons which were first used on the Iranian military and later on Iraqi citizens.

Prior to invading Afghanistan, the US demanded that the Taliban turn over Osama and al-Qaeda. The Taliban responded by asking for proof of their involvement in 9-1-1, which the US refused to provide. Now I don't like or endorse the Taliban, but they did what any government, including the US, would and should do, if one of its citizens was accused of a crime by another country and extradition was requested. They asked for proof. The US responded to this request of the Taliban by invading Afghanistan. In the process, thousands of innocent Afghanistan citizens were killed and Osama bin Laden/al-Qaeda escaped. The US was morally and legally wrong for this action.

The US invaded Iraq under the false pretense of Iraqi possession of WMD. We now know Iraq had no significant WMD's. So, this invasion was also immoral and illegal. Then, to make matters worse, they deposed Iraq's government and military and even had a major role in the hanging of Saddam. Saddam was accused of, tried for, convicted of, and executed for war crimes, which included the use of chemical/biological weapons. The very weapons Iraq acquired from the US. The US made sure these facts were not allowed in Saddam's trial. The US was morally and legally wrong for these actions.

Whatever comes back to the US for its immoral and illegal actions was earned by the US Government. I am not a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism. This is simply a case of "chickens coming home to roost".

Siddiq

The Chickens have come home to roost!

The question "which son?" can also be asked of the Bible.

Genesis 222 - Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

At no time was Isaac Abraham's only son. That distinction belonged only to Ishmael, as he was Abraham's first born. In the conversations I've had on this topic, many explain this "inconsistency" by saying Issac was was Abraham's only "legitimate" son, because Hager (Ishmael's mother) was merely a hand maiden/servant to Abraham. This is untrue as the verse below clearly shows, Hager was Abraham's second wife

Genesis 163 - So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife.

As far as what Qu'ran says on the matter, the following verses (as interpreted in QXP 2nd edition) show Ismael was the son sacrificed in Abraham's vision

37100 (Abraham emigrated to Syria and prayed), ?My Lord! Grant me the company of the righteous, and children who will be righteous.?

37101 So We gave him the good news of a clement son (Ishmael).

37102 And when he was old enough to strive along with him, Abraham said, ?O My dear son! I have a vision that I must give you to a life of test and tribulation for a Noble cause (37107). So look, what do you think?? He said, ?O My father! Do what you are commanded. God willing, you will find me of the steadfast.?

The mentioning of Ishmael in parenthesis in 37101 is an addition of the QXP interpreter, which I believe is accurate, based on

1. 37100 shows Abraham was without children when he prayed for ..."children who will be righteous.?

2. 37101 shows "We" (Allah) answered his prayer. Even the Bible, in Genesis 154, supports the fact
   that Ishmael was born after Abraham spoke to God, and was promised,..."a son coming from your own body will
   be your heir."

I, therefore, am confident that Ishmael was the son Abraham had a vision about sacrificing.

Siddiq