Messages

1

General Issues / Questions / Re: A new possible interpretation of Quran Ch. 33 Verse 50 [33:50]

« on: May 14, 2013, 05:22:07 AM »

Why copy and paste this? What does it it show?

It shows that the Sunni Shia Islam was a later invention. It has nothing to do with Muhammad and the Quran.

2

General Issues / Questions / Re: A new possible interpretation of Quran Ch. 33 Verse 50 [33:50]

« on: May 14, 2013, 12:57:37 AM »

Er . . . what evidence do you have - Prophet Muhammad wrote it? How do you know God dictated the Quran? In fact - who is Muhammad?

Quran can only be self-evident up to an extent. . . beyond that . . .

By your version . . . all a Muslim is meant to believe is really - that Quran came down and that is it . . .read the book. It did not happen that way. . . .

Islam has a long history. Over 1000 years old . . . 

It is obvious the one who understood Quran the best was Prophet Muhammad. . . then the Companions . . . and then their Companions. 

- - -

So all them were practising wrong . ..  and 1500 years later . . . boom - new meanings for everything.

Suddenly Salah just means - recitation of prayers [verses of Quran] . . . and what not.

And all those verses that have context . . . let us just do away with them.

- - -

Realistically - is that ever going to catch on?

No.

- - -

This position is doomed for failure.
 

Schacht asserts that hadiths, particularly from Muhammad, did not form, together with the Qur’an, the original bases of Islamic law and jurisprudence as is traditionally assumed. Rather, hadiths were an innovation begun after some of the legal foundation had already been built. “The ancient schools of law shared the old concept of sunna or ‘living tradition’ as the ideal practice of the community, expressed in the accepted doctrine of the school.” And this ideal practice was embodied in various forms, but certainly not exclusively in the hadiths from the Prophet. Schacht argues that it was not until al-Shafi`i that ‘sunna’ was exclusively identified with the contents of hadiths from the Prophet to which he gave, not for the first time, but for the first time consistently, overriding authority. Al-Shafi`i argued that even a single, isolated hadith going back to Muhammad, assuming its isnad is not suspect, takes precedence over the opinions and arguments of any and all Companions, Successors, and later authorities. Schacht notes that:

Two generations before Shafi`i reference to traditions from Companions and Successors was the rule, to traditions from the Prophet himself the exception, and it was left to Shafi`i to make the exception the principle. We shall have to conclude that, generally and broadly speaking, traditions from Companions and Successors are earlier than those from the Prophet.

Based on these conclusions, Schacht offers the following schema of the growth of legal hadiths. The ancient schools of law had a ‘living tradition’ (sunna) which was largely based on individual reasoning (ra’y). Later this sunna came to be associated with and attributed to the earlier generations of the Successors and Companions. Later still, hadiths with isnads extending back to Muhammad came into circulation by traditionists towards the middle of the second century. Finally, the efforts of al-Shafi`i and other traditionists secured for these hadiths from the Prophet supreme authority.

Goldziher maintains that, while reliance on the sunna to regulate the empire was favoured, there was still in these early years of Islam insufficient material going back to Muhammad himself. Scholars sought to fill the gaps left by the Qur’an and the sunna with material from other sources. Some borrowed from Roman law. Others attempted to fill these lacunae with their own opinions (ra’y). This latter option came under a concerted attack by those who believed that all legal and ethical questions (not addressed by the Qur’an) must be referred back to the Prophet himself, that is, must be rooted in hadiths.These supporters of hadiths (ahl al-hadith) were extremely successful in establishing hadiths as a primary source of law and in discrediting ra’y. But in many ways it was a Pyrrhic victory. The various legal madhhabs were loath to sacrifice their doctrines and so they found it more expedient to fabricate hadiths or adapt existing hadiths in their support. Even the advocates of ra’y were eventually persuaded or cajoled into accepting the authority of hadiths and so they too “found” hadiths which substantiated their doctrines that had hitherto been based upon the opinions of their schools’ founders and teachers. The insistence of the advocates of hadiths that the only opinions of any value were those which could appeal to the authority of the Prophet resulted in the situation that “where no traditional matter was to be had, men speedily began to fabricate it. The greater the demand, the busier was invention with the manufacture of apocryphal traditions in support of the respective theses.”

In summary, Goldziher sees in hadiths “a battlefield of the political and dynastic conflicts of the first few centuries of Islam; it is a mirror of the aspirations of various parties, each of which wants to make the Prophet himself their witness and authority.” Likewise,

Every stream and counter-stream of thought in Islam has found its expression in the form of a hadith, and there is no difference in this respect between the various contrasting opinions in whatever field. What we learnt about political parties holds true too for differences regarding religious law, dogmatic points of difference etc. Every ra’y or hawa, every sunna and bid`a has sought and found expression in the form of hadith.

And even though Muslim traditionalists developed elaborate means to scrutinize the mass of traditions that were then extant in the Muslim lands, they were “able to exclude only part of the most obvious falsifications from the hadith material.” Goldziher, for all his scepticism, accepted that the practice of preserving hadiths was authentic and that some hadiths were likely to be authentic. However, having said that, Goldziher is adamant in maintaining that:

In the absence of authentic evidence it would indeed be rash to attempt to express the most tentative opinions as to which parts of the hadith are the oldest material, or even as to which of them date back to the generation immediately following the Prophet’s death. Closer acquaintance with the vast stock of hadiths induces sceptical caution rather than optimistic trust regarding the material brought together in the carefully compiled collections.

Herbert Berg PhD

3

General Issues / Questions / Re: A new possible interpretation of Quran Ch. 33 Verse 50 [33:50]

« on: May 13, 2013, 11:32:58 PM »

I really need feedback....

Thanks

MMA is a Judaic tradition that probably existed in Medina where these verses came. There was a large Jewish community in Medina as the Quran reveals to us. There is no real difference between an MMA and a wife except dowry. Later Islamic authority changed MMA to mean slave.

4

General Issues / Questions / Re: Breaking an Oath

« on: April 27, 2013, 06:22:42 AM »

I use to make oaths and not think of them as too burdensome if broken I think but i've been troubled for a while now ever since I read this verse 3:77:

" The ones that purchase with God's pledge and their oaths a small price, those will have no portion in the Hereafter, and God will not speak to them nor look at them on the Day of Resurrection nor purify them, and they will have a painful retribution."

At first this appears to me as a very very heavy punishment for breaking an oath in that part of that verse but I saw some tafsirs that stated that it refers to if you make a false oath. For a while I was at peace thinking that and even had tried to rationalize the verse to fit that logic but it feels like i'm pulling at straws as it doesn't seem very evident of it referring to false oaths only but I may just not be reading it right, I don't know.

I don't even remember some of the oaths I had made in the past when I didn't think of them as too serious and thus I forgot them or broke them and so I fear that this may refer to simply breaking an oath. If I had known this verse I probably would avoid oaths for the most part all together.

What does everyone think? Does 3:77refer to making a false oaths or just simply breaking an oath?

And among the People of the Scripture is he who, if you entrust him with a great amount [of wealth], he will return it to you. And among them is he who, if you entrust him with a [single] silver coin, he will not return it to you unless you are constantly standing over him [demanding it]. That is because they say, "There is no blame upon us concerning the unlearned." And they speak untruth about Allah while they know [it].

3:76

But yes, whoever fulfills his commitment and fears Allah - then indeed, Allah loves those who fear Him.

3:77

Indeed, those who exchange the covenant of Allah and their [own] oaths for a small price will have no share in the Hereafter, and Allah will not speak to them or look at them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them; and they will have a painful punishment.

3:78

And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, "This is from Allah ," but it is not from Allah . And they speak untruth about Allah while they know.

This is a reference to the Talmud and how the Israelites broke their covenant thatw as entrusted upo them by changing many of the commandments of the OT and replacing it with their own traditions. Jesus as we know attacked the Talmud in the Gospel and accused the Pharisees of abrogating the OT comandments with their Talmud.

Example:

Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.

Baba Kamma 37b. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full."

Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b). Sanhedrin 76a. God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean..."

Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html

5

General Issues / Questions / Re: Sufi Quranist Muslim? Anyone?

« on: April 17, 2013, 01:49:47 PM »

thanks bigmo, is inayat khan a Muslim?

Shalom dude, its true! actually long ago i kinda have a trouble with this path because i saw it as a cult. You know, many sufi in my place act like a Paranormal that could see other people destiny or future, and some claim can do a miracle but they just don't want to show it.

but after i learn it from the right Sufi guy, i found it quite fascinating and beautiful, especially since i listen to their meditation Music. im a musician and i really love their composition, its so simple yet divinely beautiful.

well actually it isn't hard to find Tarekat (i don't know in english, it some kind of sufi class) in my country, but its indeed hard to find the inclusive one, because many of them required their followers to be a Sunni Muslim.

you right! my sufi folks never ever get fanatic to hadith things, yet they still use some wisdom in it. They even use buddhism book and hinduism book, and.. BIBLE

but they solely holding the Quran alone as a source of all religious matters (but sometimes, they take hadith too)

i don't know about you and all people that has some sentiment to non-Quranist group (especially to sunni-shia). But, seriously i don't have any problem to take many wisdom and good things from anywhere, and yes include sunni and shia, therefore, i don't mind to be a Quranist that follow a Sufi path. and for the Masters things, they just LEAD our "ritual" stuffs and preach some khutbah, we as a sufi doesn't have to take the masters as sunnis take the Ulamas.

my sufi folks told me to study from everywhere, since God spread His signs throughout the entire universe. and of course that include buddhism

but me personally, i don't have any interest to buddhism.
me too a Rationalist, but then i begin to rethink that being a full Rationalist cannot bring any peace for my soul and mind, therefore it seems i need to take some "mystic" way to achieve my better understanding of universe and GOD

I don't think he followed Sunni Islam as such but he was a monotheist. I am not sure what you mean by "Muslim".

Foundational principles
 
Inayat Khan set forth ten principles that formed the foundational principles of his Universal Sufism:[2]
 1.There is one God; the Eternal, the Only Being; None exists save He.
 2.There is one master; the guiding spirit of all souls that constantly leads all followers toward the light.
 3.There is one holy book; the sacred manuscript of nature, the only Scripture that can enlighten the reader.
 4.There is one religion; unswerving progress in the right direction toward the Ideal, which fulfills every soul's life purpose.
 5.There is one law; the law of reciprocity, which can be observed by a selfless conscience, together with a sense of awakened justice.
 6.There is one brotherhood; the human brotherhood which unites the children of earth indiscriminately in the fatherhood of God. This was later adapted by followers to; "There is one Family, the Human Family, which unites the Children of Earth indiscriminately in the Parenthood of God."
 7.There is one moral; the love which springs forth from self-denial and blooms in deeds of beneficence. ... (later alternative; "which springs forth from a willing heart, surrendered in service to God and Humanity, and which blooms in deeds of beneficence").
 8.There is one object of praise; the beauty which uplifts the heart of its worshipper through all aspects from the seen to the unseen.
 9.There is one truth; true knowledge of our being, within and without, which is the essence of Wisdom.
 10.There is one path; annihilation of the false ego in the real (later alternative; "the effacement of the limited self in the Unlimited"), which raises the mortal to immortality, in which resides all perfection.
 
Inayat Khan's emphasis on spiritual liberty led many contemporary Westerners to think that his brand of Sufism is not inherently intertwined with Islam, although his followers continue to perform (Dhikr). There is a precedent of masters of the Chishti and some other orders not requiring non-Muslim followers to convert to Islam. The number of non-Muslim Sufis before the twentieth century, however, was usually relatively few.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inayat_Khan

Its a very good combination with the Quran.

6

General Issues / Questions / Re: Sufi Quranist Muslim? Anyone?

« on: April 16, 2013, 06:51:44 PM »

Hi Andantino,

I am very interested in this path.  I am fascinated by the mystical.  However I find it very difficult to find a path into it.  If you find some good resources, please share them.

Just my crazy thoughts...
JewishDude
Salam, Shalom, Peace

For a Quranist the only Sufi path that can be followed without problems is the universal Sufism like Inayat Khan and not Sunni Sufism of the likes of Nawawi and Ghazali etc. That Sufism is a wolf in sheep's clothings.

http://www.spiritual-learning.org/message/khanindex.html

Boxer Muhammad Ali is a great fan of Inayat Khan. Inayat Khan does not follow a religious tradition but is a monotheist Sufi.

7

Questions/Comments on the Quran / Re: Was Satan avoiding shirk when he refused to prostrate towards Adam?

« on: April 14, 2013, 10:11:48 AM »

Salaam everyone!

I hope you are all doing well.

I have had this question concerning a story in the Qur'an for a while now and I would be very interested to see what every one here has to say about it.

These are the verses of the story I am referring to:

"وَإِذْ قُلْنَا لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ اسْجُدُوا لِآدَمَ فَسَجَدُوا إِلَّا إِبْلِيسَ أَبَىٰ وَاسْتَكْبَرَ وَكَانَ مِنَ الْكَافِرِينَ"
"And [mention] when We said to the angels, "Prostrate before Adam"; so they prostrated, except for Iblees (Satan). He refused and was arrogant and became of the disbelievers." 2:34

"وَلَقَدْ خَلَقْنَاكُمْ ثُمَّ صَوَّرْنَاكُمْ ثُمَّ قُلْنَا لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ اسْجُدُوا لِآدَمَ فَسَجَدُوا إِلَّا إِبْلِيسَ لَمْ يَكُن مِّنَ السَّاجِدِينَ"
"And We have certainly created you, [O Mankind], and given you [human] form. Then We said to the angels, "Prostrate to Adam"; so they prostrated, except for Iblees. He was not of those who prostrated." 7:11

"قَالَ مَا مَنَعَكَ أَلَّا تَسْجُدَ إِذْ أَمَرْتُكَ ۖ قَالَ أَنَا خَيْرٌ مِّنْهُ خَلَقْتَنِي مِن نَّارٍ وَخَلَقْتَهُ مِن طِينٍ"
"[ Allah ] said, "What prevented you from prostrating when I commanded you?" [Satan] said, "I am better than him. You created me from fire and created him from clay."" 7:12

"إِلَّا إِبْلِيسَ أَبَىٰ أَن يَكُونَ مَعَ السَّاجِدِينَ"
"Except Iblees, he refused to be with those who prostrated." 15:31

"قَالَ يَا إِبْلِيسُ مَا لَكَ أَلَّا تَكُونَ مَعَ السَّاجِدِينَ"
"[ Allah ] said, O Iblees, what is [the matter] with you that you are not with those who prostrate?" 15:32

"قَالَ لَمْ أَكُن لِّأَسْجُدَ لِبَشَرٍ خَلَقْتَهُ مِن صَلْصَالٍ مِّنْ حَمَإٍ مَّسْنُونٍ"
"He said, "Never would I prostrate to a human whom You created out of clay from an altered black mud."" 15:33

"وَإِذْ قُلْنَا لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ اسْجُدُوا لِآدَمَ فَسَجَدُوا إِلَّا إِبْلِيسَ قَالَ أَأَسْجُدُ لِمَنْ خَلَقْتَ طِينًا"
"And [mention] when We said to the angles, "Prostrate to Adam," and they prostrated, except for Iblees. He said, "Should I prostrate to one You created from clay?"" 17:61

"قَالَ يَا إِبْلِيسُ مَا مَنَعَكَ أَن تَسْجُدَ لِمَا خَلَقْتُ بِيَدَيَّ ۖ أَسْتَكْبَرْتَ أَمْ كُنتَ مِنَ الْعَالِينَ"
"(Allah) said: "O Iblis (Satan)! What prevents you from prostrating yourself to one whom I have created with Both My Hands. Are you too proud (to fall prostrate to Adam) or are you one of the high exalted?"" 38:75

Ok so you all probably already know this story. My questions regarding this story are as follows:

1. Why would Allah order any of his servants, including the angels, to prostrate towards anything but Allah?

2. Is Iblis then avoiding shirk by not prostrating towards Adam?

3. It says it is because he was arrogant not because he was trying to avoid shirk. So does it have something to do with customs of the region at that time? Remember in the bible people prostrated themselves before other people all the time, kings, priests, prophets, holy men... is this shirk?

4. Would you prostrate yourself to another human being?

I am very interested to see what everyone thinks about this story and these questions.

Thank you in advance for you time and patience in go over this material.

Peace!

Maybe you should first start looking at what is shirk since I am not sure what prostrating to Adam has anything to do with shirk.

You need to first define what is shirk and what constitutes shirk.

8

General Issues / Questions / Re: Liberal Muslims and Quranists

« on: April 14, 2013, 09:12:41 AM »

Peace

People, I am surpirsed as I have seen many so called liberal thinkers in modern times take some stances as the Quranists as opposed to the Fundamentalists.

Like, Tariq Ramadan and Reza Aslan, I have seen both of them saying that Hijab is NOT compulsory. Infact, Reza emphasises the fact that it is NOWHERE commanded in the Quran.

As to what I am puzzled is, Do they forget to consult Hadith and Sunnah,

or Do they NOT regard them as a VALUABLE Source.

If the second is true, Why are they NOT RIDICULED and MOCKED by the Mainstreamers as QURANISTS.

Despite the fact that they hold several views CONTRARY TO HADITHS.

I wonder whether Quranist Movement is the offshoot of GIVING A RATIONAL DIMENSION to the already valid NOTION OF THE REJECTION of SHAMEFUL HADITHs.??


Advice on this matter, highly recommended?

Peace
Harun

Like Hassan Al Turabi they work within the confinements of Sunni Islam and they don't challenge it. Liberal Muslims usually find alternative interpretations without questioning Sunni Islam and so the Sunni establishment do not take them serious. Many Muslims also do not take them serious. They are seen as relying on minority views within Sunni Islam and are seen as trying to copy the West. They are like Liberal Jews who do not really question the legitimacy of Rabbinic Judaism.

9

Salat & Zakat (The Contact & Purification) / Re: :: Sajda is not prostration ::

« on: April 08, 2013, 10:06:08 PM »

Salaam brother Bigmo,

Thanks for your input, although I am still not certain about the word Qiblah. It seems not to mean direction, but being a sort of structure. Of course I may be wrong, my Arabic is not really perfect, I was using a bit of own philosophical thinking and the work of other knowledgeable people on the forum.

Of course, with this reasoning, the Kabah can still be a Qiblah and thus a direction, if you pray towards it.

Furthermore,  I have thought that these ancient structures function as beacons, since there must be a reason to kneel/prostrate towards something.

That is why it feels wrong to prostrate to a psychedelic black cube, which was not always a cube either. Later generations turned it into what it is.

I feel like it is a big idol, a big thing comparable with a statue.

In lack of a better comprehension, I still pray in this direction, but I am not 100 % comfortable with it. My intention is certainly not to worship the Kabah. The site still seems to be sacred despite this. I am not as quick drawing conclusions that Mecca is not a sacred place as many others.

God bless you

We talked about this before. This whole Ka'ba being an idol and worshiping it stuff. First you have to define what an idol is and what is worshiping something. The Quran specifically says that the Jews and Christians have their own Qibla and would not follow eah other's Qibla. However it also reminds us that prayer direction is not going to deterind your faith. Its just a ritual to make community worship easier. A way to make people feel part of a sommunity. All rituals have a purpose, they are not the purpose itself.

10

Salat & Zakat (The Contact & Purification) / Re: :: Sajda is not prostration ::

« on: April 08, 2013, 12:39:25 PM »

Salaam again,

I did some research, since I got curious after my last post, and read information about the Kabah. I discovered that the Kabah was rebuilt 1627 due to rainwater causing the walls to collapse, it is not illogical that this natural phenomenon could cause it and the old structure was probably vulnerable. The probability that it happened more times over the thousands of years is high.

A remnant wall piece from the old Mosque is still present at the site. And did you know the kabah was not a cubic building?

The Kabah today is probably just a tiny bit of what it once was. And I doubt it was covered in black. It feels the form and black fabric is just to make it an item to worship, it feels like a statue, does it not remind you of pagan worship?

The Kabah today gives me a slight psychedelic feeling to be honest.

I am almost absolutely certain the location is the correct one and I even think Moses came there. I think it was the zamzam well that he came to. Now it is my theory, and I do not claim this, it is only in my philosophies. I also think the mountain Moses went to is somewhat north of Mecca.

I apologize sincerely to those who may have been offended by my words, but this feels like the Truth to me. I feel it has become an item of worship, this cube. It is not a building, it is an object of worship. I do not ridicule anyone for praying toward the Kabah, I do so myself, even if the old sacred Mosque is something else these days. But I certainly want to seek the Truth about the Kabah and I am open to other rational ideas and explanations too.

Someone said that there was a verse telling Moses people to turn their houses into Qiblahs? The word Qiblah seems to mean a house of prayer rather than a direction for prayer. I felt that Qiblah means a building with some special feature or features. I still think what makes a Qiblah.

The Bible talks about altars, do you think this item is just a piece of paganism or does it have to do with God's religion? Did it have any other use than for sacrifices? Could it be an item of worship which helps you focus on God or is it just a man-made invention?

Anyone thought about the verse which talks about dressing nice and be clean for the Masjid? I wonder why it says to eat and drink moderately in the same verse. I had that crazy thought that this word does not mean the same thing as it is thought to mean (Masjid). Was a really crazy and controversial thought, I know, but could not help it since it felt so incoherent with Masjid and eat and drink moderately in the same verse. Otherwise I suppose I simply cannot understand God and He knows better. Or does anyone have a rational explanation to this?

I say like Jewish Dude,

Just some crazy thoughts. ..

God bless you

The Quran says both the Jews and Christians have their own Qibla and neither will follow each other's Qibla. Early Christian and Jews use to pray towards the East and some Christians still do.