Messages

1

General Issues / Questions / Re: throat slitting and halal slaughtering methods

« on: July 07, 2011, 06:36:21 PM »

Ragingaijin,

I have one last question for you. What does dhakkaa mean in your opinion and what is your source for the meaning that you accept?

Godbless,
Anwar

2

Matrimony / Re: Is Marriage all it's cracked up to be

« on: July 06, 2011, 03:06:06 PM »

Indelwyn,

I completely agree with that last part. Having others who know us help us in choosing a partner I think is completely a good thing and is probably the best practice, even though those reliationships may not work out as well either. So you are Quranist Muslim and you have an Imam? Is the local mosque mostly Quranists or am I seeing too much into what you said? Are you even a Quranist, Quran-alone, Quranite, Quran-only Muslim?

Godbless,
Anwar

3

General Issues / Questions / Re: throat slitting and halal slaughtering methods

« on: July 06, 2011, 02:28:27 PM »

raginggaijin,

God will judge us in the end indeed. You did not bring anything from the Quran that goes against my approach, so i don't need to refute those verses. Why would I refute verses from the Quran anyway, if I follow it in its entirety? It is through following the Quran in its entirety and heeding its call to follow al3aql, all-3ilm, al-albaabu and an-nuhaa and what it has said about being written in an Arabic that was clear to whom it was first revealed that i have adopted my approach. There is no need to refute the Quran, if I am fully complying with it. Whereas you are using translations based on linguistic works when you are comfortable with what they say and rejecting those works and relying on your conjecture where you are uncomfortable with what they say, instead of seeking to understand the matter in its entirety. I do not uphold the religious teachings of hadeeth and I do not uphold the teachings of all scholars (it is idiotic to generalize all scholars throughout time, when they don't even agree with each other in MANY, MANY matters. And what about the Quran-alone scholars of the past? Is it not okay to been in agreement with them either without being accused of following them). I uphold the correct understanding of the Arabic language in order to fully understand the Quran, without which we are only left to conjecture and guessing, and you should know well enough what the quran has to say about those who adopt conjecture as a basis of their belief. I, like you, follow the Quran-alone and reject the hadeeth as having any religious guidance. So your view, and seeming ultimatum to me, as if this were a choose or loose situation, as if we were talking about the fabrications about what we are to believe and where we are to find our guidance that are found in hadeeth, is quite myopic and based on a complete and seemingly willful ignorance of the matter. Your hatred of hadeeth has led you to be unjust. Reject the hadeeth as a source of religious guidance, YES. But understand that just becuase it is a hadeeth does not automatically make it untrue, especially when we have non-hadeeth linguistic sources that can confirm a meaning of a word. The hadeeth are not necesary, but that doesn't mean that each and everyone one of them is a lie. So there are two issues here. One is whether to consider them in our practice of the religion. And the other is if each and everyone of them is a lie.  We need not even consider them in the pratice of our religion. But that does not mean we have to consider each and every one of them to be a lie. Reject hadeeth, YES. But do not paint such a broad brush that you may be involved in an unnecessary lie. that would be considered prejudice and unjustified hatred.

You have made your choice as well.

Godbless,
Anwar

4

General Issues / Questions / Re: throat slitting and halal slaughtering methods

« on: July 06, 2011, 01:39:50 PM »

Ragingaijin,

I stated in an earlier post.

Believe me that had it not been for these linguistic works you would never have been able to open up even a translation of the Quran, because it would not have existed, nor would even any Arab today (or even of 500 or more years ago) have been able to understand it because of how much the spoken language has changed after the fact. The language WAS PRESERVED by works of men. And if God didn't include the preservation of the language that the Quran uses in the same package as the preservation of the Quran, then I don't know what sort of logic you ascribe to, if it's any logic at all.

Where do you think those 21 translations got their understanding of the Arabic of the Quran? Give me a break. You are not using logic, and are being blind and extreme. Maybe you are a genius and were only able to learn Arabic by comparing translations with the Arabic text (even the text you had to learn from the teachings of a human being, maybe the indexes and commentaries of your Quran translations WRITTEN BY MEN), but I'm sure you are still quite deficient in Arabic even with those 21 translations.
 

Your sect does not apply to me, as I follow only what Allah revealed, the word of an honored Messenger: The Quran.
You call me a Quranist, just as the Islamists call me kafir, but in the End it only matters what Allah knows. To Him I will be called to account, and I won't be asked what you did or said.

So now non-Quranist Muslims are Islamists and not even Muslims? HAHAHAHA. That is good. Do yo even understand what Quranist means? It means Quran-centric or Quran-alone, or a follower of the Quran. Quranist, Quranite, Quran-alone . . .it's all the same. Here is the defintion of 'ist' in English:

a suffix of nouns, often corresponding to verbs ending in -ize  or nouns ending in -ism,  that denote a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc.: apologist; dramatist; machinist; novelist; realist; socialist; Thomist.

QURAN + IST, is not the name of a sect it is A name for those who concern themselves with only following the Quran. I personally wish those who are Quran only were actually united enough as a group to be considered a sect, as that would be a good thing.

Calling you a Quranist Muslim is no slander and is no different than calling you a Quran-alone, Quran-only or Quranite Muslim.

My own words bear witness that i only serve Allah with knowledge, sound logic, honest intelligence and whatever wisdom and good jugement God gives me.


It is unfortunate that the Quranist/Quran-alone/Quran-only/Quranite community has to be divided on such issues. But unfortunately it is because of the likes of you who base their religion on pure emotion instead of knowledge and sound judgment that this divide exists.


My being a Quranist Muslim means that I only follow the Quran for my religious guidance as well, the word of an honored messenger, Gabriel, given to another honored messenger, Muhammad (sas). But instead of guessing at the meaning of Arabic words and claiming that is how the Quran defines them or accepting translations of translators who also used MEN'S work to understand the Arabic of the Quran and then rejecting those very works of men (which formed the basis of their translations) when I don't like a certain meaning or when it behooves me, then claiming that these mens' work are some how only fabrications of men just because I don't like the meanings (and again still accepting the various translations based on these same works where I am comfortable with them),  instead of doing all of that, I actually study the Quran understanding that it borrowed the language of the Arabs of old and therefore must be understood using this language. And I will not hypocritically accept a translation based on the sources of the language and then reject the sources as fabrications of men when I don't like something it says. Rather I will try to distinguish between a linguistically valid meaning, a theological meaning or a later meaning inappropriate to the Quran's time context. The fact that those 21 different translations you have exist is because not only do different Musilms stick their different theological ideas into the text redefining Arabic words, but many times the sources like Lisanul-Arab also have a number of meanings that are omitted from the translation due to that translator's school thought. Going to the original souces ensures that one can distinguish better between any theological meanings and how the Arabs of old actually used the language as a whole despite sects and schools of thought.
 

The Quran calls for the use of wisdom, intelligence and logic in order to gain a better understand of it, not ignorance, conjecture and emotion.

Godbless,
Anwar

5

General Issues / Questions / Re: throat slitting and halal slaughtering methods

« on: July 05, 2011, 02:05:57 PM »

Jack,

i don't see any problem with stunning either, as long as the animal doesn't die by stunning and God's name is mentioned over it. Then it should be cut at the neck or in the chest to let the flowing blood of the veins run out and then it is good to go. I do not know if the blood can be let out just by washing the meat once it is cut up. But God's name is to be mentioned over it at slaughter.

Godbless,
Anwar 

6

General Issues / Questions / Re: throat slitting and halal slaughtering methods

« on: July 05, 2011, 02:01:20 PM »

raginggaijin,

I did not read all of your post. You are overflowing with words and say so much, but very little of it reaches the point. I'm sure it does for you, but not for me. It is good that you read Arabic. How did you learn Arabic? I'm sure the Quran did not teach you Arabic, because you learned Arabic in order to read the Quran(although through reading it it may have shown you some grammatical, orthographic and stylistic usages that you were not familiar with). It was through the teachings of human beings, i.e. men, that you learned Arabic. Teachings that would not exist if were not for Lisanul-Arab. Claiming that lisanul-Arab is really based on teachings of the hadeeth and is among the works of satan covering up the truth is like saying the teachings that were given to you for you to learn Arabic in order to read the Quran are the works of Satan trying to cover up the truth and keep you from the truth of the Quran. What you learned in order to read the Quran is a direct result of Lisanul-Arab. If the definitions of those words happen to coincide with what is in a hadeeth that just goes to show you that even though hadeeth are not necessary they are not always wrong or lies.

I'm not attacking you at all. I'm just trying to show you that your line of thinking is hypocritical. You learn the definition of many Arabic words in an attempt to learn Arabic, definitions that are in essence based on the works of the linguistic scholars you damn and condemn. Yet you reject these scholars and trump up all sorts of false charges on them when a word in the Quran can be defined in a way that might coincide with a hadeeth or what it says about a related issue. You ARE to take these lexicons at face value unless you have some sort of evidence to the contrary. I believe in innocent until proven guilty. The hadeeth in how they try to teach us our religion outside of the Quran are in general the words of satans. Although some hadeeth may be accurate, they are still completely unnecessary in order for us to observe the Quran. But the fact that you learned Arabic through teachings of men which are derived from Lisanul-Arab and other ancient dictionaries and lexicons and then you reject these dictionaries when you come across a meaning that you don't like or that coincides with some hadeeth, is disingenuous on your part. In the end the Quran does not define Arabic words, MEN DO. And in order to get the correct definitions you must consult with the works that represent the ARAB MEN closest to the time of the last prophet. Hadeeths don't define words either. All the Quran and the hadeth can do is act as supporting sources for already understood words or explicitly refer to how the Arabs of that time used those words. And that last part is what the lexicons do. The word 'gay' is a good example of what I am saying. How would you know that a book from the 1930's doesn't mean homsexual when it uses gay? By consulting a dictionary appropriate to that time or one comprehensive enough to include the time frames and/or origins of the meanings of diffrent words. And that is my whole point. I would only accuse a dictionary of dishonesty or subterfuge with real evidence, not just pure accusations and Quranic verses that don't apply. It's one thing to say that a certain dictionary is inappropriate because of its limited scope and how much in depth it goes into the origins and meanings of a word. I've found Lane's Lexicon very deficient or innaproppriate in many cases for these reasons, and have only rarely found this to be the case with Lisanul-Arab. In the case of the hadeeth there IS some real evdience of disingeniousness, error or dishonesty (but this has to do with their messages, not their use of the language), starting from how most hadeeth were preserved to the fact that many of them contradict each other and what the Quran has to say, the Quran being the most authentic source for the teachings of the last prophet because it IS the teachings of the last prophet. But this is not the case for lexicons like lisanul-arab that don't intend to offer up teachings of the prophet besides the Quran, but rather how the Arabs of that time understood the very language they used and which the Quran borrowed to communicate its teachings and messages. And it is their linguistic works that allowed you to learn the Arabic that you learned in order to begin to read and understand what you understand of the Quran in Arabic.  So how can you equate these works with the teachings of the hadeeth as a whole and the works of satan that many hadeeth are (as they purport to offer up extra-Quranic teachings, not define words) , just because they may coincide with a hadeeth here or there. Please take into consideration that just because it's a hadeeth doesn't make it automtically untrue, although it DOES make it altogether unnecessary.

I hope you get this with everything I've said here, but if you don't oh well. I've done what I can to impart wisdom to into the ranks of the Quranists (whether you like that word or not it applies)
Godbless,
Anwar

7

General Issues / Questions / Re: throat slitting and halal slaughtering methods

« on: July 04, 2011, 09:46:53 PM »

Peace,

Whatever about me incriminating myself. I just gave you some additional definitions and didn't want you claiming I had contradicted myself. As expected you went for the low blow anyway.

My main points are these:

1. The Quran is written in the Classical Arabic language.
2. God said he would preserve the Quran, and he did this through the pens, minds and mouths of PEOPLE.
3. In order for God to preserve the Quran so that we all can understand it he also has to preserve the language it was written in.
4. The language the Quran was written in was preserved through the pens, minds and mouths of PEOPLE.
5. Preservation of the language goes hand and hand with preservation of the Quran.

It is written in a language isn't it?

All I am doing is expounding for you the meaning of the words used in the Quran. You mention scholars who break pacts. which scholars? You can't generalize them all. The defintions of the words I present to you were researched by scholars of old, who did not want to influence anyone's reading of the Quran one way or another. They just set out to provide a resource for people to be able to understand the meanings of Arabic words wherever they are found. The Quran does not define its words. You must know what the words it uses mean before you read the book. Do you pretend to read a book in English without knowing English? Do works in English DEFINE their words through context? No. They use their already KNOWN definitions in context. You ask me to bring proof from the Quran of what I say. Would you ask me to bring proof from the Quran that the sky is blue? Well then don't ask me to bring proof from the Quran that you need to know the language of a book you study before you study it. Don't ask me to bring proof that literary works do not define their own words, but rather use the already known definitions of words in context within their works. As one last thing just tell me this. You don't even have to respond to any of the above (or the following) in my post, just answer me this. How does the Quran (don't use a translation, because the translator used a dictionary, i.e. a work of man/a scholar), how does the Quran define the word 'ism'?

When you figure that one out, then you'll know that dictionaries which are works of men are necessary for understanding ANY literary work, including the Quran and you can't just exclude them and dismiss them as 'works of men.' The Quran does't define 'jinn' or any other word, bro. Literary works don't define their words. They can give you more information about a vague concept or even describe a being, but it doesn't define any of the words it uses. If a book uses the word 'ghosts' and give a description of them, it's not defining the word 'ghosts.' You have to already know the meaning of that word when you read it.

As for the Quran being available to non-Arabic speakers. Translators translated for them and through providence allowed the basic message to get through. Also, as you know, be the person a non-Arabic (or not well educated on Classical Arabic) speaker reading a translation or Abu Lahab, the last prophet's uncle who listened to the Quran himself and spoke and understood the Arabic of the Arabs of the prophet's day that the Quran was composed in, to the unopen heart even the most basics of the message are incomprehensible, more because of a deepseated disinterest than anything else. But the person reading the translation or not educated in Classical Arabic is at a serious disadvantage should they be interested in delving into the nuances and specifics of the Quran. Scholars who just focus on the sciences of hadeeth or shari'ah or only HOW to recite the Quran instead of the sciences of Al-lughah will also be severely deficient. Remember what the Quran has to say about respecting those who have knowledge and using good judgement/wisdom and intelligence. Believe me that had it not been for these linguistic works you would never have been able to open up even a translation of the Quran, because it would not have existed, nor would even any Arab today (or even of 500 or more years ago) have been able to understand it because of how much the spoken language has changed after the fact. The language WAS PRESERVED by works of men. And if God didn't include the preservation of the language that the Quran uses in the same package as the preservation of the Quran, then I don't know what sort of logic you ascribe to, if it's any logic at all.

Godbless,
Anwar

8

General Issues / Questions / Re: throat slitting and halal slaughtering methods

« on: July 04, 2011, 06:16:00 AM »

raginggaijin,

No disrepect, but you have said nothing. If the Quran was preserved but not the language with which to read it then what is the point of that? We find many texts from ancient civilizations preserved under the soil or sands of many a place but their languages were not preserved. Which means that they can not be read or understood. Languages do change over time which is why those linguists analyzed works preserved from the 6th and 7th centuries, and spoke with people who to their ears and from their research still accurately spoke the language of those works. In all actuality there was a whole class of poets and reciters who diligently memorized poems from even pre-islamic times and composed poetry that was true to its form and language. The Arabic language was changing especially in the cities and areas with many non-Arabs and that continued as time went on changin both the language and the appearence of the Arabs. But the bedouins of that time were quite isolated (THEN, not now) and spoke a language most true to the language of the ancient poems and the Quran (THEN, not now). So counting these works and the speech of the bedouin there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the language had changed besides those clearly post-Quranic meanings that can be traced to a school or line of Islamic thought.

With all that said, how you can even begin to say that the Quran was preserved for all to read and study if the language it was written in was not preserved as well? Does that really make sense? That would leave us guessing and conjecturing about every word in the book and then some how "claiming" that it is the original meaning as it is from the Quran, when it fact it is not from the Quran but from our own minds.

Godbless,
Anwar

9

Matrimony / Re: Is Marriage all it's cracked up to be

« on: July 04, 2011, 05:59:51 AM »

I know it sounds like I'm knocking marriage, but I'm not. It's just not that end all and be all, or perfect solution for lonliness that everyone single person imagines it to be, even if for the most part it does solve the lonliness issue. Because I've been there too, a young bachelor longing for marriage "knowing" that when I do get married everything will work out just fine, that I will tolerate and be understanding of her in everyway and she will do likewise. I had no idea until I got married that it is not like that. Well, maybe it's like that for some couples that I've never met, but for most it is not like that and it is very hard for men and women in close and constant quarters to tolerate each other all of the time. It's a constant up and down with no direct or logical way to reach resolutions to problems. But i can't speak for everyone. However, the Quran says that women and children are a test for men. I couldn't sum it up better. And although there is no Quranic verse that states the opposite (which is very telling to me), we know from real life that depending on the character of the men in our families, men can be a real test for women too.

Godbless,
Anwar

10

General Issues / Questions / Re: throat slitting and halal slaughtering methods

« on: July 03, 2011, 03:04:01 PM »

What you said about hunting is untrue. Nahr includes injuring the neck or chest. The Quran allows what our hunting animals catch as well. And we can fatally injur an animal and then slit its throat additionally. An arrow which hits the heart will enter the chest. Otherwise you can injure, by piercing, chop, blow or a non-fatal fall and then slit it's throat while still alive. That is is how much old hunting went and some people still hunt like this. I saw a video recently of a hunter with dogs. He had about 7 dogs trapping a huge deer and then went to slit its throat while it was being held by the dogs. A sharp piercing bullet would work as well so as not to allow the animal to die by a blow, which a regular bullet creates. But if you perice it in the chest or neck you're good to go. Or if you injure it and then cut it at the neck (stab, cut or pierce) then you are good to go.

Please don't go say I am contradicting myself about nahr. Nahr primarily means 'to injur in the chest/or lower neck', Nahr al-labbah, means to cut/pierce the neck and equals dhabh, and nahr al-ba3eer is to stab the a camel where the chest meets the neck. There may be more in the Quran about 'hunting' I have not reviewed in this aspect. So, in the end. God knows best.

Godbless,
Anwr