News:

About us: a forum for monotheists, and discussion of Islam based on The Quran

Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Topics - Mohsin7

#1
It's a simple question, and yet I have not found an answer:

Where are the documents that were stored in the State Register of Medinah, founded by Umar, which contained the Political, Social, Financial, Judicial and Military directives for the Quranic State?

There is no reported natural disaster that could have destroyed these documents, nor was there any sacking of Medinah in which the city was destroyed...

So where are they?
#2
Salam,

I will be going through these articles one by one as I have time. I appreciate the effort done, but it seems this first article (http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-of-SuJuD-from-Quran.html) runs into a problem with its conclusion:

Quote"It simply means that no credible argument for SJD=prostration and therefore prostration during upholding/establishing the salat can be made using The Quran."

This is not a justified conclusion. The evidence presented does highlight the multi-dimensional aspect of "SuJuD" but we need to be aware the physical prostration is also part of the range of meanings allowed and it can fit perfectly fine in 4:102. Further, the last argument regarding verse 4:102 is invalid, and this verse is a clear example of the physical aspect.

Quoteit implies that one must take AND hold their weapons/goods with them (by use of 'tadaAAoo / lay down', later in the verse), but if it is understood as traditional Muslim prayer then physically bowing, kneeling and prostrating like this would be impractical and somewhat dangerous, e.g. prostrating with swords!

It is quite possible to prostrate with weapons at your side. A sword can be sheathed and hang by your side. A modern rifle has a sling and can also accommodate physical prostration.

Quoteit would imply that salat ends upon SJD, but if salat=prayer and SJD=prostration here, then we know traditional Muslim prayer has at least two prostrations per unit of prayer, not one, thus the verse by itself is not clear or does not make sense. The only way for it to make some sense would be to say traditional Muslim prayer normally consists of two prostrations, and since it is during wartime this can be reduced to one prostration. There is no such thing as a unit of prayer according to The Quran, nor do traditional Muslims do it in this manner (i.e. prayer does not end with prostration), but this explanation is just to show what sense could be made of this verse according to the traditional understanding.

I see no problem with ending the prayer with a physical prostration. This does not prove the conclusion. It may prove that the traditional limitations and rules on the form of prayer are not needed, but that is it.

Quoteit says if impeded by rain or illness then one can lay down weapons but does not say anything about being excluded from prostrating. So the obvious question becomes what kind of rain/illness would prevent one from carrying weapons yet allow one to physically prostrate? It would seem there is no easy answer to this problem.

All this section of the verse is saying is that you can lay down your arms if it is inconvenient due to conditions, or you are ill/tired/weak. It does not follow that physical prostration is not being referred to here.

QuoteSo, if SJD does not mean prostration here, then how is the leader or group meant to signal the end of salat? Well, it could theoretically mean some other meanings of SJD that are less problematic, e.g. make obeisance (i.e. any physical or verbal display of respect/obedience/reverence), lower the head, to salute/honour, to pay respect, to stand up etc but if it is left to the individual then imagining a coherent group salat seems somewhat difficult. In addition, this meaning would have to be cross referenced in AQ but as we have seen in our review of verses perhaps none of these other choices would fit well, or we would have to make 4:102 an exception.

It does not seem difficult at all to imagine a "coherent group salat". Only when you get stuck on asking God for unimportant details do you run into trouble. Such as, for how to signal the end/beginning etc. These are details that the Quran has clearly left open for us to decide. In a Quranic system Muslims would be free to come up with a standard form of prayer followed by all. It's details (e.g. number or rakats) are irrelevant, arbitrary and besides the point. The unit commander in times of battle, for example, should be able to modify such details on the spot.

Group salat is more than a ritual, it is communal gathering for administrative and organizational purposes. This is also part of the deeper meanings of "masjid" and "qiblah". I should point out that such definitions were presented by Ghulam Ahmed Pervez, though whose lectures I came to know such insights. From the other articles I scanned a bit, it seems there is some agreement on this front by the authors of these articles as well. However, GAP does not discount the physical act of salah as invalid and I don't think there is any reason for the authors of this article to subtract it either.

Salam
#3
Salam,

Brother Wakas has cited 4 arguments in this post (http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605358.msg327780#msg327780 ) and suggested that any discussion first deal with these before proceeding. So before I present my case I will critique these examples. I will concern myself only with the parts of these arguments which use the Quran to support their points.

1) The first argument by Dr. F.Rahman, defines ribba in his conclusion (1D) as: "whereby the capital sum is doubled several-fold". But an examination of the words in verse 3:130 shows that it is not the capital, but only the "riba" itself which is being doubled and multiplied. The capital itself does not have to double.

2) J. Islam's argument, I do agree with, but it even though it's premises are all correct, it does not reach a definitive conclusion. Terms are still left vague e.g. "exorbitant interest", but what should qualify as "exorbitant"?

3) M.L Chaudhery's argument is confusing distinct concepts. If we look at the same verses that he himself is citing, the term there is not "charity" but Zakat. And Zakat is fundamentally different than "charity" (discussion of this would require a separate thread). In any case, there is no clear definition of ribba in Chaudhery's argument.

4) Mohf's argument is mistakenly linking the two separate concepts of "Fraud" and "ribba". Fraud requires dishonesty. While ribba can be contractually transparent.

Beyond these arguments, the mainstream usually brings in concepts of "risk", but these are irrelevant to the Quranic description of Ribba which does not mention risk at all.

-----

Now that the prerequisite has been met, let me present a very clear and unambiguous definition of Ribba derived purely from the description given in the Quran i.e. "increase which is not trade": Any increase on the returned sum/asset which is in excess of incurred costs (inflation etc.) affecting a reduction in value of the original sum/asset lent. This definition requires no elaborate argument because it is derived from the precise description provided by the Quran.

I would like to state that this thread is not for getting into long discussions on the socioeconomic consequences of such a definition. The issue here is the definition of ribba itself. Unless we can sort out the starting point and agree on this, we can't proceed with building foundational models.
#4
Hi/Salam,

Quick question for the community: I want to get a sense of how many people here associate themselves with the "19" group? Is it a majority? Is there some official affiliation at all?

Just want to lay my cards on the table from the start: I believe in following the Quran alone, period. If this is a community whose purpose is to unite Muslims under the banner of Islam/Quran, then I want to join it. However, if there is a tendency towards sponsored sectarianism here, with preferred associations with groups like "19", which I consider to be just another sect, I'll tip my proverbial hat and take my leave. Apologies if I've offended anyone with this post, just want to be as direct as possible so that I get a clear answer.

Thanks