Qur'an Only
Zuiko Azumazi
of thought within the Islamic community. Can any subscriber explain what
this designation means? Are there, in fact, any subscribers in SRI who
willingly identify themselves with this school of thought? Or, does the
"Qur'an Only" school only reside, as an idea, in the minds of its Muslim
opponents?
--
Peace
--
Allah is one but Islam is a mosaic. The Muslim world is a linguistic tower
of Babel, an ethnic patchwork, a geographical puzzle and a political
kaleidoscope offering a picture of extraordinary doctrinal diversity.
[Slimane Zéghidour]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
digi...@hotmail.com
It's a mandatory requirement for all those who believe in the Qur'an.
Think of it as a list of prime directives.
It's no doubt that though a 'Qur'an only' society will also use some
secondary references for some stuff, or else they wouldn't be able to
do anything at all.
Altway
<digi...@hotmail.com> wrote
Regarding:-
> > Often we hear the "Qur'an Only" phrase used to designate a particular
> > school
of thought within the Islamic community. Can any subscriber explain what
this designation means? Are there, in fact, any subscribers in SRI who
willingly identify themselves with this school of thought? Or, does the
"Qur'an Only" school only reside, as an idea, in the minds of its Muslim
opponents?
> The use of the Qur'an as the only primary reference for all things.
Comment:-
Allah has created the Universe and our faculties and sent us the Messengers
and Scriptures.
The Quran is "a Guidance" and "a reminder unto creation".
and it has to be interpreted and applied by human beings.
But human faculties, owing to sin, have been corrupted.
He sent the Quran to rectify the misinterpretations and distortions of
previous
scriptures.
Allah sent us the Messenger to interpret and apply the Scriptures.
Those who think that everything apart from the Quran should be
rejected from Islam, are not really following the Quran because
the Quran certainly points to Creation and requires us to follow
and obey the Messengers and also to purify and use the faculties
Allah placed in us including His spirit.
Hamid S. Aziz
Uncle_Sinbad
Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
> Often we hear the "Qur'an Only" phrase used to designate a particular school
> of thought within the Islamic community. Can any subscriber explain what
> this designation means? Are there, in fact, any subscribers in SRI who
> willingly identify themselves with this school of thought? Or, does the
> "Qur'an Only" school only reside, as an idea, in the minds of its Muslim
> opponents?
There is one "modern" sect calling themselves Submitters and probably
founded by Dr. Khalifa the man who discovered the number "19" miracle
in the Quran. They reject the hadiths in total see
http://www.submission.org
I don't indentify myself with them nor do I agree with them on their
approach of hadiths and interpretation of the Quran concerning the
Sunnah.
Peace,
Kamal
G.Waleed
> Often we hear the "Qur'an Only" phrase used to designate a particular school
> of thought within the Islamic community. Can any subscriber explain what
> this designation means? Are there, in fact, any subscribers in SRI who
> willingly identify themselves with this school of thought? Or, does the
> "Qur'an Only" school only reside, as an idea, in the minds of its Muslim
> opponents?
Salaam
There is a growing "return to the Qur'an" movement, called by many
names. It isn't unified or codified, it doesn't have any single
champion. You find such believers outside of sects and within every
sect.
And the orthodox mainstream is scared to death of them.
Perhaps a more accurate label, if you have to have a label, would be to
call this school of thought "Qur'an First", because clearly if the
Qur'an alone were enough we would need only to hand an MP3 player with
a Qur'an recital to a Chinese farmer - an he would know Islam!
In the real would some access to Arabic helps.
No, it is not defining Islam by the Qur'an Alone that is re-awakening
in the Ummah, it is the recognition that the Qur'an is the First and
Final authority of all things Islam.
When it comes to such barbarities as stoning and female genital
mutilation that have seeped in to most sects, we find NO support for
such in the Word of Allah. But - wait! - this would mean that past
scholars have made errors. And worse, those errors have been upheld as
law!
As I said, the orthodox mainstream is scared to death of this.
I hope this helps clarify what is happening in this arena. If you want
to read up on some of the contemporary work that forms the basis of
this school I recommend reading up on Ghulam Ahamed Parvez (1903-1985).
If you want to see the roots of this line of thought further back in
time, read up on the early Mutazila. (Be careful, the later years of
this movement went off on a tangent.)
G. Waleed Kavalec
- an unhyphenated Muslim
----------------------------------------
Auozo Billah himinash shatan-ir-rajeem
kha...@sbcglobal.net
As I said, the orthodox mainstream is scared to death of this.
Dear Waleed.
Mainstream Muslims have defeated the Mu3tazila physically and
intellectualy way back when ,and they can do it again...
your sect is so small it can be crashed anytime,it is you
who is afread to death to confront such a huge massif
strong protectors of the Qur'an and the Sunnah ,
Ahla Sunnah wal Jama3a .
The Qur'an only ones can not answer or tell you what the Qur'an mean
even if they read it ,here an example of that.
Allah Almighty and Exalted said:
{Establish prayer (salat) and pay the poor-due (zakat)}
(2:43, 2:83, 2:110, 4:77, 24:56, 73:20). From this it is
understood that both prayer and the poor-due are obligatory.
However: what is the exact description of this obligatory prayer?
What is its modality? What is its timing? What is its quantity and
number?
Upon whom is it obligatory? How many times is it obligatory in one's
lifetime?
And what is the exact description of this poor-due? Upon whom is it
obligatory?
Concerning what kind of property is it obligatory? What is its amount?
And what is
the condition of its obligatoriness?
Allah Almighty and Exalted also said:
{So (give) glory to Allah when you enter the night and
when you enter the morning} (30:17). We understand from
this the obligatoriness of giving glory and its time in general terms.
However:
what is meant by such glorification? Is it the same as prayer in His
saying
{Establish prayer}? Or is it something else, such as saying: subhan
Allah?
And there is more ,but this is enough for you to know
that The Qur'an only Ppl can not help anyone.
Wa Salaam.
Yassir.
Altway
"G.Waleed" <kav...@gmail.com> wrote
> There is a growing "return to the Qur'an" movement, called by many
names. It isn't unified or codified, it doesn't have any single
champion. You find such believers outside of sects and within every
sect.
And the orthodox mainstream is scared to death of them.
> Perhaps a more accurate label, if you have to have a label, would be to
call this school of thought "Qur'an First", because clearly if the
Qur'an alone were enough we would need only to hand an MP3 player with
a Qur'an recital to a Chinese farmer - an he would know Islam!
Comment:-
There is a difference between "Quran First" and "Quran Only".
"Quran First" is accepted or should be accepted by all Muslims and it is
impossible for Muslims to argue against this.
So there is nothing to be scared of - it is only a question of accepting
this
and acting accordingly.
But the question was about "Quran Only" and that is completely
untenable in Islam as that also contradicts the Quran itself.
Hamid S. Aziz
Nima Rezai
> Mainstream Muslims have defeated the Mu3tazila physically and
> intellectualy...
The Mu´tazila have nothing to do with the "Quran only" faction.
And yes, "mainstream muslims", as you may associate yourself with them, have
always been good in silencing dissidents by means of violence.
It has always been easy to declare opponents unbelievers, traitors, murtad
or whatever and find a halfbrain who kills them with pride.
Nima Rezai
> Perhaps a more accurate label, if you have to have a label, would be
> to call this school of thought "Qur'an First"...
exactly. This is the point. Not Quran only but rather Quran first.
AS soon as we leave the Quran aside in favour of human regulation (may it be
the Khulafa, Ulama or whoever) we rely on history instead of on Allah.
And history is all but certain and authentic.
Just notice that even many important events or their dates are unknown or
unclear, e.g. the year of the birth of the prophet, the year of the battles
of Yarmuk or Qadisiya.
Tens of thousands took part in these battles and yet historians neither know
the exact commander, nor the exact year when it happened.
Then I ask myself, why the community must pay attention to spriritually
totally irrelevant details that were only reported by few individuals.
The Ahadith have a huge "technical" problem, and that is that the original
witnesses could not defend themselves against/comment on sayings attributed
to them.
The question is not whether Abu X ibn Abi Y was reliable or not (whatever
reliable may be and whoever is going to define it), but whether Abu X ibn
Abi Y really said a certain narration Z.
It seems that in Islam - the way man "mainstream muslims" view and practice
it - life of oneself and others is not worth much. There are a great bunch
of pretexts that are being used by muslims all around the world to kill
eachother and also nonmuslims. Human life is not sacred at all.
While the Quran compares the killer of one man with the killer of all
humanity, our "brothers" all over the world kill, stone, mutilate and behead
all kind of people always in the name of Islam.
The sad thing is that many hypocrites silently sympathize with the murderers
and try to justify and islamicize their crimes.
N.
Altway
"Nima Rezai" <Ni...@ngi.de> wrote
>> Perhaps a more accurate label, if you have to have a label, would be
to call this school of thought "Qur'an First"...
> exactly. This is the point. Not Quran only but rather Quran first.
AS soon as we leave the Quran aside in favour of human regulation (may it
be
the Khulafa, Ulama or whoever) we rely on history instead of on Allah.
And history is all but certain and authentic.
Comment:-
This is not true.
One can consult the works or opinions of People of Knowledge
and Understanding, such as the inspired Saints and Scholars.
This is not abandoning the Quran but explaining and applying it.
Whereas it is true that Muslims have abandoned Islam and ceased
to study and understand it to various degrees
and many Muslims, as predicted, have allowed it to be distorted
and adulterated by alien influences, ideas and practices
the fact is that this distortion is still going on,
and often in worse manner than formerly,
at the hands of people who claim to be "Quran Only" or "Quran First"
but have even less knowledge and understanding of the Quran
than those who created the sects in the past.
They claim the right to interpret the Quran as they wish
according to whim, speculation and rationalisation of their own desires
and lusts - things that the Quran forbids.
We have seen examples of this on this very site.
It is, of course, true that we are required to follow only that of which we
have knowledge and to develop our own understanding
rather than blindly follow scholars and other authorities,
but one does not develop one's own understanding by oneself without
help of an educational system, a discipline and teachers who
have undergone the appropriate course of study and discipline.
But some of those who express opinions appear not to practice the
Islamic discipline at all, but seem to be motivated by the desire to
rationalise
their failure to doso by pointing to the failure of others.
The correct thing to do, however, is to observe, admit and rectify their own
defects and lead others to what is right and good.
The Quran certainly refers to sources outside itself, namely Allah Himself,
the Prophet,
other Authorities, the created world, history, ones own nature and
faculties.
(No doubt the relevant references will be known by those who read the
Quran).
Hamid S. Aziz
tahir...@comcast.net
application of the Qu'ranic guidance:
1. The time periond when the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) was alive and
was actively receiving Divine revelations. Allah enjoined the
believers of that era to 'obey' him in all respects, accept all his
decisions and follow all his urgings. The followers knew very well
that even though Allah, the Most High, had all the authority for
issuing commands, it was the messenger--a human just like themselves--
who was receiving those commandments for them. Thus obeying the Rasool
was made equal to obeying Allah. The Qur'an makes this point very
clear and believers understood that well and they knew EXACTLY what to
do.
2. The period after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah. Now,
when the messenger (pbuh) passed away, the Message (the Glorious
Qur'an) remained behind in perfectly completed, documented, and
presrved form. Allah (swt) put His Personal seal of confidence on it
so that nothing could corrupt it till the Day of Resurrection. This
was because Allah wanted us to understand that even though the
Messenger is not around any more to be obeyed, but the Message was
still there. It is now the message that we are required to obey.
What the Messeger did --other than what we find in the Qur'an---was
NOT preserved. One may well ask why?
So now when the Messenger of Allah has been away for more than 1400
years, the ONLY thing written and preserved in the form of a book is
the Holy Book. It is the SAME book that the Messenger of Allah
followed and it is the SAME book we are required/supposed to follow.
Now, the Message is the same as the Messenger. If we follow the
Qur'an, we follow the Messenger--automatically. On the contrary, if we
do not follow the Qur'an, we do not follow the Messenger. The Qur'an
is the legacy/testament of the Messenger of Allah (sws).
This is my understanding of 'Follow Allah and follow the Messengers'.
May Allah guide us the Straight Path as preserved and defined in the
Qur'an!
However, having said that, we can listen to the imams and the ulema,
and take/accept whatever is CONSISTENT with Qur'an and discard
whatever is not. I think that is what the term "Qur'an First"
means as brother Waleed pointed out. It means everything-our
personal conduct, official conduct, our communal life, governance---our
whole individual and communal self must be according the Qur'an---NOT
according to the Qur'an AND something else!
Wassalam,
Irfan
kha...@sbcglobal.net
"mainstream muslims", as you may associate yourself with them, have
always been good in silencing dissidents by means of violence.
It has always been easy to declare opponents unbelievers, traitors,
murtad
or whatever and find a halfbrain who kills them with pride.
Anyone with a fullbrain knows that mainstream Muslims are the ones
who follow the middel path ,the ones that are extremist are the
halfbrain
like the Qur'an only ,the Khalifite,the Mu3tazila,the Salafeyah,the
people
who depend on their Brain instead of Allah ,all of these one as you may
associate
yourself with any one of them.
These groupes like to change Islam to suit their egos,Abu
Bakr(radeya'llah 3anh)
was one to fight against those who wanted zakat to be abolished...
Now we have Ppl who like the Sunnah and the Hadith to be Abolished,or
they
want to put their own understanding even without real knowledge of the
Deen'u'lIslam.
And you may associate yourself with them.
The Ahl as Sunnah wal Jama3a are the defenders of Dinu'l'Islam.
Altway
<tahir...@comcast.net> wrote
>I think it is very important to distinguish the two phases of
application of the Qu'ranic guidance:
> 1. The time periond when the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) was alive and
was actively receiving Divine revelations.
> 2. The period after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah.
What the Messeger did --other than what we find in the Qur'an---was
NOT preserved. One may well ask why?
> Now, the Message is the same as the Messenger. If we follow the
Qur'an, we follow the Messenger--automatically. On the contrary, if we
do not follow the Qur'an, we do not follow the Messenger. The Qur'an
is the legacy/testament of the Messenger of Allah (sws).
> However, having said that, we can listen to the imams and the ulema,
and take/accept whatever is CONSISTENT with Qur'an and discard
whatever is not. I think that is what the term "Qur'an First"
means as brother Waleed pointed out.
Comment:-
I can agree with this with reservations. If I understand this correctly,
then from one point of view it seems to open up the doors to speculation,
fantasy and rationalisation.
The Quran does not give a time limit and does not confine the message to
only the small circle of people the Prophet was personally leading. His
function was to expound, explain, demonstrate and apply the message. He was
to be regarded as an example
However, he applied it to the conditions and situations of the time and
place that he was in. So one takes these as particular examples of how the
Quran should be understood and applied. It is not a question of
unintelligent imitation but of understanding. The particular are examples of
the general. The Quran is a guidance and contains similitudes. Similars are
not identicals. Changes in circumstances require changes in application but
this is no excuse for abandoning the guidance and allowing unintelligent
innovation, speculation, subjective desires and whim.
"O Prophet! Surely We have sent you as a witness, and as a bearer of good
news and as a Warner, and as one inviting to Allah by His permission, and as
a light-giving Lamp." 33:45-46
"Verily, you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent example for him who
hopes in Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much." 33:21
"Say: O you people! Verily, I am the Messenger of Allah unto you all, of Him
whose is the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth, there is no God but He!
He gives life and death." 7:158
"O mankind! There has come to you a direction (guidance, exhortation) from
your Lord, and a healing for the disease in your breasts, and a guidance and
a mercy for believers." 10:58
"Mohammed is but a Messenger, messengers (the like of whom) have passed away
before his time. What if he die or is killed, will you retreat upon your
heels? He who retreats does no harm to Allah at all; but Allah will
recompense the thankful. " 3:144
"We have sent you (Muhammad)not, but as a mercy to the worlds." 21:107
"Whoever obeys the Messenger he has obeyed Allah; and he who turns away - We
have not sent you as a warder over them." 4:80
"And We have not sent you (Muhammad) but to all mankind (or as a Universal
Messenger) as a bearer of good news and as a Warner, but most men know not."
34:28
Altway
> However, having said that, we can listen to the imams and the ulema,
and take/accept whatever is CONSISTENT with Qur'an and discard
whatever is not. I think that is what the term "Qur'an First"
personal conduct, official conduct, our communal life, governance---our
whole individual and communal self must be according the Qur'an---NOT
according to the Qur'an AND something else!
Comment:-
How will one determine that something is consistent with the Quran.
Is it not the problem that people interpret the Quran according to their own
whim?
I do not see any reason to depart from the order of priorities already
given:-
The order of importance is:-
(1) Allah
(2) Quran
(3) Sunna of the Prophet - He applied the Quran according to the conditions
of his time.
(4) The Third Authority - Quran 4:59. They can be using Aql (Reason),
especially Qias (analogical reasoning).
(5) Mutual consultation and agreement - Ijma, Shura.
(6) Istihsaan and Istislaah - Preferences based on judgement of what is
more relevant, suitable or important and what is more conducive to the
public interest, welfare and development. It includes the necessity for
social responsibility.
(7) Urf and Adat - Practices and Custom specially those of a righteous
community.
(The numbering is not important. For instance Qias can be regarded number
(5) and could refer to Scholars and Experts who used their reason. In that
case mutual consultation becomes number (6). Nor does the use of reason or
mutual consultation exclude numbers (6) and (7) above. Allah is placed
first because (a) It is Allah who provides the inspiration by which both
Quran and Sunna are understood (b) Allah has sent other Messengers and
Scriptures. (c) Allah has created the world and us and all the factors that
affect us.).
Hamid S. Aziz
tahir...@comcast.net
away - We
have not sent you as a warder over them." 4:80
"And We have not sent you (Muhammad) but to all mankind (or as a
Universal
Messenger) as a bearer of good news and as a Warner, but most men know
not."
34:28 >>>
Thanks for the verses. I am familiar with these and similar verses and
my point was to understand these verses from the Book of Allah as I
find with me today when the Messenger of Allah is not among us. The
Qur'an is the ONLY evidence of truth in the documented form from the
time of the Prophet Muhammad (sws). Nothing else has ever been
documented from that time, nor there is ANY hint to be found in the
Book about the possibility of any "Hadith" or "Sunnah" of the Prophet
to be documented 250-300 years later by some Persian 'imams'. There
was no need of that because the Truth is well expounded and explained
by Allah Himself in the Book and He has made it repetitive,
self-expalnatory, plain and easy for us so we do not have to depend
upon ANYONE if we have the ability to reflect upon it (54:17,22,32,40).
It is unfair to say that those who try to understand the Qur'an on
their own are following their own whims and desires, even thuogh I have
seen similar allegations made against the Qur'an-firsters countless
times. Those people are following what they are supposed/commanded to
do, and that is to REFLECT upon the verses of Allah and find the truth
for themselves (afala yatadabbaroon???). In fact, they are the ones
who are NOT following vain desires!!! They are the most sincere people
I can think of who follow 17:36 by not accepting anything other than
the Absolute guraranteed Truth and not pay attention to fairy tales
tossed around as "Islamic source" when when we have no way to verify
that extra-Quranic information.
Wassalam,
Irfan
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
"Altway" <alt...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> The Quran does not give a time limit and does not confine the message to
> only the small circle of people the Prophet was personally leading. His
> function was to expound, explain, demonstrate and apply the message. He was
> to be regarded as an example
>
> However, he applied it to the conditions and situations of the time and
> place that he was in. So one takes these as particular examples of how the
> Quran should be understood and applied. It is not a question of
> unintelligent imitation but of understanding. The particular are examples of
> the general. The Quran is a guidance and contains similitudes. Similars are
> not identicals. Changes in circumstances require changes in application but
> this is no excuse for abandoning the guidance and allowing unintelligent
> innovation, speculation, subjective desires and whim.
If the truth be told, the so-called "Qur'an-only" sect does not rely
only on the Qur'an. They have recourse to the interpretations of others
or to their own "private" interpretation of the Qur'an. The Qur'an, like
all writing, must be interpreted, that is, it must be understood in the
context of time, place, circumstance and whether a particular passage is
to be taken literally or allegorically.
Sunni Muslims, in approaching the interpretation question, try first to
know (to the extent possible) how the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him)
understood a particular passage and how he applied it to the life of the
community. If he were among us today, we, like his companions, would go
directly to him and ask for guidance. We cannot do that and we do not
have a direct record of all his words and deeds. However, we do have an
indirect and imperfect record in the hadith literature. Recognizing that
the hadith record is imperfect and indeed sometimes false, we approach
it with caution. Nevertheless, it is a valuable tool for us when we
study the Qur'an. Then we have the opinion of pious and knowledgeable
scholars throughout the ages. We see where there is consensus and
divergence among them. We use their commentaries judiciously as an
adjunct to the Qur'an.
Some Qur'an-only sectarians would have us believe that Sunni Muslims
substitute non-Qur'anic sources for the Qur'an itself. Such a claim is a
gross distortion and a terrible calumny. For Sunni Muslims, the Qur'an
is the bedrock on which all religious knowledge is based. An
individual's ability to understand the Qur'an is limited by a variety of
factors. If the meaning of the Qur'an were immediately and infallibly
accessible to all believers, there would have been no need for it to be
brought by a Prophet. Allah could have chosen to instil it directly into
the hearts of every single person in the way he chose to instil it into
the heart of the Prophet. Instead, throughout the ages, God chose to
send his Book to a Prophet and to send the Prophet on a mission to
deliver the Book to mankind and, during each Prophet's lifetime, to
guide the community of believers as to the correct understanding of the
Book.
When a Qur'an-only sectarian reads the Qur'an, he runs the risk of
falling on passages that he does not perfectly understand. What does he
do? If he rejects the Prophetic Traditions, to whom does he turn? Will
he turn to the whole community of scholars who throughout the ages have
engaged in an intellectual jihad aimed at better understanding God's
Book? Probably not, since those scholars rely on the Prophetic
Traditions. The Qur'an-only sectarian is then left with two
possibilities. He may turn to other Qur'an-only sectarians and follow
their guidance or he may decide to "go it alone" and rely on his on
imperfect intellectually abilities to understand without outside help.
The latter is the most dangerous approach. It is not unlike the
"scriptura sola" doctrine of some Protestant Christians, which first
emerged in the 14th century during the Lutheran reformation.
The term itself existed as early as St. Thomas Aquinas, who wrote, "sola
scriptura canonica est regula fidei" (canonical scripture [i.e. the
Bible] is the only measure of faith). In context, it is clear the Thomas
is not suggesting that scripture alone is the only component in
theological knowledge. Theology is chiefly a reflection on Sacred
Scripture. Scripture is its source, its nourishment, and its measure.
When push comes to shove scripture alone is the rule of faith.
In the wake of the Protestant Reformation, the centuries old
understanding of scriptura sola was changed by some of the reformers.
Luther himself used the term in same way as Thomas Aquinas. Luther
simply wanted to rid the Church of his day of the excesses that had led
to unsound doctrine having no basis in or being in contradiction to
Scripture. Some later Protestants went much further. They adopted a
"Bible-only" doctrine that every single Christian can independently and
without any outside guidance understand Scripture.
We see the bitter fruit of that kind of Bible-only doctrine in the
proliferation of evangelical sects in the Christian Church, particularly
in the U.S. There are thousands of people who, relying only on their on
imperfect understanding of the Bible and often in the absence of any
knowledge of relevant context, adopt and teach the most extreme and
far-fetched doctrines.
Muslims are specifically warned by Allah to avoid sectarianism. The
Qur'an is the perfect material embodiment of God's Eternal Word. Except
for the Prophet, who was guided by God, no single person can ever have
full and perfect understanding of it. It is perfect; we are not. As
individuals who will stand alone before Allah on the Last Day, we are
free to believe or not believe; we are free to accept or reject the
guidance and opinions of others. However, we are wrong if we utterly
reject all extra-scriptural guidance and claim the not only is the
Qur'an the ultimate measure of faith but that an individual in his
imperfection can fully understand its meaning without the guidance of
others (whether through the judicious use of hadith or the knowledge of
pious scholars).
Indeed, a Qur'an-only sectarian who totally rejects all other sources of
understanding and who believes that he can, alone, privately, read and
understand the Qur'an, without benefit of the collective wisdom of the
community of believers throughout the ages, is not far from the sin of
shirk--associating another with the sovereignty of Allah.
Any single human being who dares to believe that individual human beings
are able to fully understand the meaning of the Qur'an with no reliance
whatsoever on other sources of theological knowledge has set himself up
as a being with perfect understanding of God's Perfect Book.
Now, I have just traced an extreme portrait. The Qur'an-only sectarians
generally do not rely solely on their own private understanding of the
Qur'an. When they find a difficult passage, they ask others how that
passage should be understood and they form an opinion based in part on
the answers that they receive. So, like Sunni Muslims, the Qur'an is the
bedrock of their beliefs and like the Sunnis, they turn to others, past
or present, to help them form an understanding of the Qur'an.
For many of thenm, the term "Qur'an only" is a convenient fiction. It
allows them to reject those who, as followers of the sunnah and
consensus, believe as fundamental to faith all that has been believed
collectively in every age, in every place and by every Muslim. Instead,
by claiming to be "Qur'an only", they in fact have simply substituted
their own fellow sectarians (who are few in number and limited in time
and place) for the Great Cloud of Witnesses that "mainstream" Muslims
rely on. We rely on the Prophet, his companions, the scholars and the
blessed company of all faithful believers throughout the ages. They rely
on themselves alone and a few latter-day teachers who prefer the sound
of their own weak voices over the mighty thunder of the undivided ummah.
The Prophet Muhammad (God's grace and peace be on him) said:
"Men who are religious scholars are the heirs of the Prophets. Men who
are religious scholars are the stewards of Allah over His creatures.
Those who separate themselves from the community of Believers will die
like the people of the Age of Ignorance that preceded Islam. Doing a
little something according to the Tradition of the Prophet is better
than doing a lot according to an innovation."
None of those sayings means that the Prophet ever put anything above the
Qur'an. He too was "Qur'an only" but in the pure sense of the term,
meaning that the Qur'an is the ultimate measure of belief. He said:
"The most authentic word (hadith) is that which is found in the Book
revealed by Allah."
--
Peace to all who seek God's face.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
Nima Rezai
> Anyone with a fullbrain knows that mainstream Muslims are the ones
> who follow the middel path ,the ones that are extremist are the
> halfbrain
> like the Qur'an only ,the Khalifite,the Mu3tazila,the Salafeyah,the
> people
> who depend on their Brain instead of Allah ,all of these one as you
> may associate
> yourself with any one of them.
In your first mail you wrote: "Mainstream Muslims have defeated the
Mu3tazila physically.."
This has nothing to do with "middle path", but a lot to do with "extremism".
It seems your definition of "mainstream Muslim" is different from what most
people imagine.
And it is funny that you denounce "people who depend on their brain" as
extremists. On which body part do you depend?
Since when is it a duality of either "depend on the brain" or "depend on
Allah".
This kind of sound like GWB: "Either you are with us or you are with the
terrorists."
> Abu
> Bakr(radeya'llah 3anh)
> was one to fight against those who wanted zakat to be abolished...
Abu Bakr fought against apostates. Besides, Abu Bakr was a normal human
being who also admitted mistakes when it came to an end with him. The fact
that he was a companion does not make me a blind follower of everything he
or other companions did or said.
Abu Bakr for example made use of commanders such as Khalid ibn Walid who
hardly knew the Quran and was more interested in mere booty and warfare or
Al Muthanna ibn al Harithah, a chief of a robber band. These were the people
who Abu Bakr sent forward to offer Islam to other nations (Persians in this
case). No wonder Umar was against Khalid. This was only one example.
People who switch off their brain do not automatically depend on Allah as
you wrongfully assume. They start to become sheep of self-proclaimed
"leaders". Many uneducated simple people have a tendency to have a "leader"
think and decide for them. What they not have is the capability to evaluate
the leader. The "Sheikh" or "Imam" is always right. "Why?" "Because he is a
good muslim. He prays five times, has a beard, nobody has ever seen his
wife..", etc.
And those who switch off their brain are like those unbelievers who praised
idols. And when they were asked why, they say: "We found that our
forefathers did this".
N.
kha...@sbcglobal.net
And it is funny that you denounce "people who depend on their brain" as
extremists. On which body part do you depend?
Yassir.
I depend on the maker of these body part.
And it is more funny to depend on a brain that can
make you think thursday is wendesday...
Nima.
Abu Bakr was a normal human
being who also admitted mistakes when it came to an end with him.
Yassir.
Abu Bakr (radeya'l'llah 3anh) is mentioned in the Qur'an as
"thany ithnayn" when he was in the cave with the Prophet
(3alayhe 'salaam) ,that is an honnor above the normal human,
I dont think you are fit to be like him with all your brain.
Nima.
And those who switch off their brain are like those unbelievers who
praised
idols. And when they were asked why, they say: "We found that our
forefathers did this".
Yassir.
Those who depend on God,God reward them by giving them intelligence
to not fall in idole worship of their brain,those who depend on their
brain
as a god they are lead to falshood as you may associate yourself with
them.
People who switch off their brain because they depend on Allah ,Allah
shower their brain with divine wisdome ,the brain is not the source as
you wrongfully assume.
Nima.
What they not have is the capability to evaluate
the leader.
Yassir.
So they should follow the evaluatore instaid of the leader!
you can be a good condidat for them.
Wa Salaam.
Yassir.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:42b09aa7$0$32240$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
To summarise the debate so far, I think we can all accept that the 'Qur'an
Only' term doesn't strictly comply with the classical version of the
'orthodox' Sunni creed. Although, without further clarification , it's
virtually impossible to establish whether its a 'sect' beyond the Sunni
pale. Likewise, simply because of its name, 'Quran Only', one must infer
that it doesn't uniformly comply with all the normally designated 'defining
characteristics' (comprehensively listed in Altway's post) associated with
the word Islam. But, its not clear if this is a matter of the hierarchical
'degree of emphasis' given to the Qur'an over the various other 'defining
characteristics' or the exclusion of the others totally.
No one has given any indication of the history of the 'Qur'an Only' school,
its original founder (if there is one), any formal body of knowledge
associated with the school, or writings by its supporters. This might help
clarify the term or make it clearer to subscribers, Muslim or otherwise. Can
anyone provide this information?
Doesn't this still leave us somewhat up in the air along these, hopefully
neutrally described, questioning lines: "Can we know what X is if we don't
know the definition of "X"?; and, "Can we know any facts about X without
knowing what X is?"
Could it be that the term 'Qur'an Only' is, in fact, just an attitude, or a
state of mind, and not a formal 'school' doctrine at all?
kha...@sbcglobal.net
And it is funny that you denounce "people who depend on their brain" as
extremists. On which body part do you depend?
Yassir.
Nay! man is most surely rebellious, transgresses all bounds),
Because he sees himself self-sufficient, independent).
Quran, sura The Clot (96) verse 6/7
Nima.
Since when is it a duality of either "depend on the brain" or "depend
on
Allah".
This kind of sound like GWB: "Either you are with us or you are with
the
terrorists."
Yassir.
You cannot serve two masters
"A person may do something either for his ego's pleasure or for his
Lord's pleasure.
There is not a third factor. No! You may act either for Your Lord's
pleasure
trying to make your Lord pleased with you; or you are trying to make
your
ego pleased with you. There is no third factor, no. Either right or
left.
You are always in a crossway. You must choose one of two ways:
one taking you to the Pleasure of Allah Almighty; and the second taking
you
to your ego's pleasure, as well as to shaytan's pleasure. Through
every action
therefore, intention is an obligation for everyone seeking to do
something."
033.004
YUSUFALI: Allah has not made for any man two hearts in his (one) body:
Wa Salaam.
Yassir.
Altway
<tahir...@comcast.net> wrote
> <<<"Whoever obeys the Messenger he has obeyed Allah; and he who turns
away - We have not sent you as a warder over them." 4:80
> "And We have not sent you (Muhammad) but to all mankind (or as a
Universal Messenger) as a bearer of good news and as a Warner, but most
men know
not." 34:28 >>>
> Thanks for the verses. I am familiar with these and similar verses and
my point was to understand these verses from the Book of Allah as I
find with me today when the Messenger of Allah is not among us.
Comment:-
This is like saying how to understand "The Theory of General Relativity"
now that Einstein is not among us.
There is the Quran, the Sunna, the fact that there is a chain of
transmission
through various scholars and saints and the practices of Muslims.
Yes there have been corruptions and adulterations, but it is the job
of sincere scholars to conduct research.
> Qur'an is the ONLY evidence of truth in the documented form from the
time of the Prophet Muhammad (sws). Nothing else has ever been
documented from that time, nor there is ANY hint to be found in the
Book about the possibility of any "Hadith" or "Sunnah" of the Prophet
to be documented 250-300 years later by some Persian 'imams'. There
was no need of that because the Truth is well expounded and explained
by Allah Himself in the Book and He has made it repetitive,
self-expalnatory, plain and easy for us so we do not have to depend
upon ANYONE if we have the ability to reflect upon it (54:17,22,32,40).
Comment:-
I cannot agree with you.
There is certainly material that has been transmitted and there are
certainly
people who understand the Quran at a much deeper level than most others.
And there are many who understand it extremely naively.
The ablity to perceive, think and motivation have been corrupted
and it is not very difficult to see from observation that this is so.
"Surely, We have created man in the best of moulds. Then We reduced him to
the lowest of the low; Save those who believe and act right; for theirs is a
reward unfailing." 95:4-6
The various sects and the many malpractices are the result of the fact
that people who have little capacity for understanding but a great capacity
for whims, rationalisation of their desires and fantasies have interpreted
the
Quran.
Anyone who reads the Quran with intelligence, can see that the Quran warns
us against this.
We are told:-
"O you who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and those in
authority amongst you.." 4:59
> It is unfair to say that those who try to understand the Qur'an on
their own are following their own whims and desires, even thuogh I have
seen similar allegations made against the Qur'an-firsters countless
times. Those people are following what they are supposed/commanded to
do, and that is to REFLECT upon the verses of Allah and find the truth
for themselves (afala yatadabbaroon???). In fact, they are the ones
who are NOT following vain desires!!! They are the most sincere people
I can think of who follow 17:36 by not accepting anything other than
the Absolute guraranteed Truth and not pay attention to fairy tales
tossed around as "Islamic source" when when we have no way to verify
that extra-Quranic information.
Comment:-
I do not agree.
People have a great cpacity for self-deception and rationalisation of
desires.
Sincerity can mean that they believe the are doing right but are
nevertheless this belief is wrong.
It is arrogance that assumes that their abilities are perfect.
Much self-awareness and self-control is required and this requires a
discipline
and as in any other educational system it requires guidance and teachers
and humility.
As for following 17:36, this requires the ability to distinguish between
knowledge
and opinion or speculation. And if there is little knowledge and little
understanding or misunderstanding then there is no progress but further
degeneration and going astray.
This is not to deny that there are some people who to various degrees have
developed the capacity for correct and deeper perception. If there were not
then there would be no guidance whatever.
But without them we have the blind leading the blind.
Hamid S. Aziz
ahlulbayt786
And among mankind is he who disputeth concerning Allah
without knowledge or guidance or a scripture giving light, 8:22
The Qur'an in many places praises the people of
intelligence; thinking people; the people who use their minds.
You may do a search in the Qur'an at http://holyquran.net
for the terms: 'Aql and al-albaab as in Ulul albaab and
Ya'qiluna and see the great number of verses in this regards.
a few examples:
He giveth wisdom unto whom He will, and he unto whom wisdom
is given, he truly hath received abundant good. But none
remember except men of understanding. 2:269
Are those who know equal with those who know not? But only
men of understanding will pay heed. 39:9
(in it) are signs (of Allah's Sovereignty) for people who
have sense. 2:164
And they say: Had we been wont to listen or have sense, we
had not been among the dwellers in the flames. 67:10
Furthermore there are a host of verses which put blame on
those who don't use their minds.
Lo! the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the deaf, the
dumb, who have no sense. 8:22
Lo! the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful
who will not believe. 8:55
If we compare these two verses above it becomes clear that
from the Qur'anic point of view lack of use of intelligence
is tantamount to disbelief/ungratefulness.
Likewise with some pondering it becomes clear that in that
case this means that the people of faith and belief in God
are the people of intelligence and sight and hearing.
Their is one more subtle point and that is learned from the
following three verses:
It is not for any soul to believe save by the permission of
Allah. He hath set uncleanness upon those who have no sense.
10:100
Allah's wish is but to remove uncleanness far from you, O
Folk of the Household, and cleanse you with a thorough
cleansing. 33:33
Which none toucheth (the Qur'an) save the purified, 56:79
The Qur'an act attributes filthiness to those who don't use
their intelligence ('aql).
When this is clear it becomes evident that when Allah says
that He only wishes to purify the Ahlul-Bayt (as) from all
impurity it means that the Ahlul-Bayt (as) are the most
intelligent people in the Ummah after the Prophet (sawa).
It also means that the Ahlul-Bayt (as) are the people of the
greatest faith in God and His Messenger (sawa) because faith
is inseperable from intelligence in the Qur'anic view.
Because the Ahlul-bayt (as) are purified it naturally means
that only they after the Prophet (sawa) have access to the
real esoteric meanings of the Qur'an.
(The Qur'an is ) Exalted, purified, 80:14
Only the purified can understand the purified.
See ye not how Allah hath made serviceable unto you
whatsoever is in the skies and whatsoever is in the earth
and hath loaded you with His favours both without and
within? Yet of mankind is he who disputeth concerning Allah,
without knowledge or guidance or a scripture giving light. 31:20
Notice the verse mentions 3 criteria for
disputation/argumentation and the Qur'an is 1 of them:
1.knowledge
2.guidance
3.scripture giving light.
In the Prophetic traditions as handed down from the
Ahlul-Bayt (as), Allah has two arguments against mankind;
the inner and the outer argument (Hujjah).
The inner Hujjah is the God-given intelligence.
The outer Hujjah are the Prophets and Messengers and
Successors to the Prophets.
The English translation of Usul al kafi which is an
encyclopedia of Hadeeth as narrated by the Ahlul-Bayt (as)
is available at http://theislamicseminary.org/
The translation may not be perfect but it is pretty good.
Notice the title of the first chapter of the book.
"The book of Intelligence and Ignorance".
Without intelligence which is the inner guidance that Allah
gives humanity, it is hopeless for them to find the right path.
The relationship between intelligence and scripture is like
the relationship between a windows in a house and the sun.
If the sun is blazing with light and the windows are closed
or covered with thick curtains then how much light can be
expected to enter the house?
Sometimes the window is very small.
Sometimes the window is uncovered but the window is dirty.
intelligence is the window and scripture is the light. You
can not benefit as a human being from one without the other.
Will they then not meditate on the Qur'an, or are there
locks on the hearts? 47:24
Nay, but that which they have earned is rust upon their
hearts. 83:14
Abu Muhammad
Nima Rezai
> Sunni Muslims, in approaching the interpretation question, try first
> to know (to the extent possible) how the Prophet Muhammad (peace be
> on him) understood a particular passage and how he applied it to the
> life of the community....
Your words here are dangerous and you are inciting sectarianism in a subtle
manner.
By emphasizing "Sunni Muslims" you do two dangerous mistakes:
1. You exclude all other Muslims from the capability to perform Islam
correctly. Mostly your words can be interpreted as an offence against Shias.
The interpretation of such claims is not very far: "Sunni Muslims" are also
those who support the violence in Iraq under the pretext of defending "real"
Islam. At the same time they are justifying all kinds of horrible crimes
against non-Sunnis by calling them traitors, apostates or whatever.
You feel offended? Then dont symplify matters by painting white and black
and comfortably associating yourself as Sunni with correct Islam and
denouncing others as bad muslims. After all, you may oppose the actions of
those who call themselves Sunnis in Iraq and perpetrate crimes, but they too
make use of their right to call themselves "Sunni Muslims". Do you agree
with them, because they are simply Sunnis and therefore automatically
"correct" because ex definitione they follow the right path of the prophet?
2. "Sunni Muslim" is only a vague definition and no wildcard for eternal
religious rightfulness and correctness. Being Sunni does not qualify anybody
for any "higher" ranking. A black african is a black african, and everybody
knows what a black african is. A Sunni muslim is merely a theological
definition. It is not that you see a Muslim whom you like and you say: "Man,
you are a good muslim person. You MUST be a Sunni".
Do you understand this?
Altway
"ahlulbayt786" <ahlulb...@yahoo.com> wrote
> And among mankind is he who disputeth concerning Allah
without knowledge or guidance or a scripture giving light, 8:22
> The Qur'an in many places praises the people of
intelligence; thinking people; the people who use their minds.
> Are those who know equal with those who know not? But only
men of understanding will pay heed. 39:9
> Their is one more subtle point and that is learned from the
following three verses:
> It is not for any soul to believe save by the permission of
Allah. He hath set uncleanness upon those who have no sense.
10:100
> Allah's wish is but to remove uncleanness far from you, O
Folk of the Household, and cleanse you with a thorough
cleansing. 33:33
> Which none toucheth (the Qur'an) save the purified, 56:79
> When this is clear it becomes evident that when Allah says
> that He only wishes to purify the Ahlul-Bayt (as) from all
impurity it means that the Ahlul-Bayt (as) are the most
intelligent people in the Ummah after the Prophet (sawa).
It also means that the Ahlul-Bayt (as) are the people of the
greatest faith in God and His Messenger (sawa) because faith
is inseperable from intelligence in the Qur'anic view.
Because the Ahlul-bayt (as) are purified it naturally means
that only they after the Prophet (sawa) have access to the
real esoteric meanings of the Qur'an.
(The Qur'an is ) Exalted, purified, 80:14
Only the purified can understand the purified.
Comment:-
Comment:-
It is certainly correct to say that the degree of intelligence or
consciousness (if these are regarded as synonymous) determines the degree to
which the Quran is understood. This depends on the degree to which the
spiritual discipline has been followed and purification of consciousness
from subjective desires and fantasies has been achieved. See Quran 95:4-6
and 91:7-10. Also 18:61-83
But the idea that the understanding is confined to "Ahlul-Bayt" depends on
what you mean by that term. If you mean the physical or biological
descendants of the Prophet then this is a false understanding. The verses
33:33 and 95:6 do not say that, nor does it refer to unrighteous people
even if they claim descent from the Prophet, and there are many thousands of
these. It refers to the spiritual descendants, those who follow the Prophet.
This has been discussed in a previous articles. The Quran mentions the Cable
of Allah (3:103). The Light verses (24:35-37 should be understood. The
Prophet Muhammad is called the Light giving Lamp. (33:46-47)
"For him to whom Allah has given no light, he has no light." 24:40
"He it is who sends down clear revelations upon His servant, that he may
bring you forth from darkness into light; and lo! For you Allah is most
Kind, Merciful." 57:9
"O you people of the Book! Now has Our Messenger come to you to expound unto
you much of what you used to hide in the Book, and forgiving (or abolishing)
much. Now has come unto you light from Allah, and a perspicuous Book - Allah
guides thereby those who seek His pleasure, to the way of peace, and leads
them out of darkness into light by His decree, and guides them unto a
Straight Way." 5:15-16
"Nay, but it (the Quran) is a clear revelation in the hearts of those who
are endowed with knowledge, and none deny Our revelations save the
wrongdoers (or unjust)." 29:24
"It is naught but a reminder unto all creation (or all the worlds), For him
among you who wills to go straight. And you will not, unless Allah wills,
the Lord (or Cherisher) of Creation (or all the Worlds)." 81:27-29
"Most surely it is an honored Quran, in a book that is protected. None
shall touch it save the purified ones. A revelation by the Lord of the
worlds." 56:77-80
"Those unto whom We have given the Scripture, who read it with a right
reading, those believe in it. And whoso disbelieves in it, those are the
losers." 2:121
"On the Day on which Allah will not abase the Prophet and those who believe
with him; their light shall run on before them and on their right hands.
They shall say, "Our Lord! Make perfect for us our light, and grant us
protection, surely you have power over all things." 66:8
NOTE 1:-
The Quran-only stance looks like excuse making for self-indulgence in whims.
But Allah knows best:-
"On the day when the hypocritical men and the hypocritical women will say to
those who believe, "Wait for us, that we may borrow a light from your
light"; it shall be said, "Turn back and seek a light." Then there will
separate them a wall having a door in it, whereof the inner side contains
mercy, while the outer side faces wrath and doom." 57:13
"Therefore, believe in Allah and His Messenger and the Light which We have
revealed; and Allah is Aware of what you do." 64:8
No. To reject the Messenger is to reject the message and Him who sent it.
NOTE 2
I have been struggling for some time to understand some of the deeper
implications of the verse "And unto Allah do prostrate whoever is in the
heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly, as do their shadows in the
morning and the evening." 13:15. If the Quran-only people are
self-enlightened can they please expound these deeper implications?
On the other hand, if I were to follow the Quran-only brigade, I would have
to reject their assertions because obviously they are other than the
Quran!!! However, I doubt very much that their opinions are based only on
reading the Quran unaffected by traditions or other people. As the Quran
points not only to itself, but also to Messengers and Scriptures in general,
to human beings and their faculties and circumstances, to those who have
been given knowledge and to the rest of the created world, all these have
relevance to Muslims.
Hamid S. Aziz
Zuiko Azumazi
news:3i2euvF...@individual.net...
<kha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1119816056.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"ahlulbayt786" <ahlulb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Mc1we.51$aY6...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
<snip> ...
> And those who switch off their brain are like those unbelievers who
praised
> idols. And when they were asked why, they say: "We found that our
> forefathers did this".
Comment:-
Have we considered, that the ill-defined "Qur'an Only" term, for its
advocates (I'm not one) may mean that Muslims should only quote the Qur'an
and not add any 'ideological' words or phrases in-between? Would that aid
and promote 'understanding' between Muslim factions, protagonists and
antagonists alike? For, isn't it generally correct, that both 'ideological'
camps (parties, movements or schools, etc) always manage to find a verse or
verses in the Qur'an that supports their 'ideological' words and phrases
in-between? To be more precise, as one Muslim sage has supposed to have
said: "The Qur'an is the Qur'an the rest is opinion.", which, in the context
of this thread, for example, is difficult to dispute.
--
Peace
--
An ideology is a body of widely held but false beliefs that has the effect
of making practice and institution that is not legitimate seem so. [T.
Eagleton - "Ideology- An Introduction"]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Altway
"ahlulbayt786" <ahlulb...@yahoo.com> wrote
> And among mankind is he who disputeth concerning Allah
without knowledge or guidance or a scripture giving light, 8:22
> Their is one more subtle point and that is learned from the
following three verses:
> It is not for any soul to believe save by the permission of
Allah. He hath set uncleanness upon those who have no sense.
10:100
> Allah's wish is but to remove uncleanness far from you, O
Folk of the Household, and cleanse you with a thorough
cleansing. 33:33
> Which none toucheth (the Qur'an) save the purified, 56:79
When this is clear it becomes evident that when Allah says
that He only wishes to purify the Ahlul-Bayt (as) from all
impurity it means that the Ahlul-Bayt (as) are the most
intelligent people in the Ummah after the Prophet (sawa).
It also means that the Ahlul-Bayt (as) are the people of the
greatest faith in God and His Messenger (sawa) because faith
is inseperable from intelligence in the Qur'anic view.
Because the Ahlul-bayt (as) are purified it naturally means
that only they after the Prophet (sawa) have access to the
real esoteric meanings of the Qur'an.
(The Qur'an is ) Exalted, purified, 80:14
> Only the purified can understand the purified.
Comment:-
It is certainly correct to say that the degree of intelligence or
consciousness (if these are regarded as synonymous) determines the degree to
which the Quran is understood. This depends on the degree to which the
spiritual discipline has been followed and purification of consciousness
from subjective desires and fantasies has been achieved. See Quran 95:4-6
and 91:7-10
But the idea that the understanding is confined to "Ahlul-Bayt" depends on
what you mean by that term. If you mean the physical or biological
descendants of the Prophet then this is a false understanding. It does not
NOTE 1:-
NOTE 2
implications of the verse 13:15. If the Quran-only people are
self-enlightened can they please expound these deeper implications?
On the other hand, if I were to follow the Quran-only brigade, I would have
to reject their assertions because obviously they are other than the
Quran!!! However, I doubt very much that their opinions are based only on
reading the Quran unaffected by traditions or other people.
Hamid S. Aziz
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
"Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Could it be that the term 'Qur'an Only' is, in fact, just an attitude, or a
> state of mind, and not a formal 'school' doctrine at all?
The foremost promoters of the so-called "Qur'an only" postion are the
"submitters" who follow the teachings of Rachad Khalifa, including his
belief that there is a mathematical code based on the number 19 that
proves the accuracy and divine origin of the Qur'an.
They have a website at http://quran.org.
On one page (http://quran.org/mosque/index.html) we see an interesting
example of their arguments. At the top of the page, under the heading
"Hadith and Sunnah: Satanic Innovations", we are told, "Hadith (oral)
and Sunna (actions) were invented and attributed to the Prophet."
Several paragraphs later on the same page, we are told that the Prophet
Muhammad (peace be on him) once said, "Do not write down anything from
me except the Quran." According to the Web site, this quotation that
they fully accept and cite as being from the Prophet himself is found in
the hadith collections written down by Ahmad and Sahih Muslim!
Intellectual honestly says that you can't have it both ways. If you
reject all extra-Qur'anic writings on the sayings and actions of the
Prophet as "satanic innovations", you can hardly expect to be taken very
seriously if you then contradict your own thesis by using a citation
from those same "satanic innovations" to support your your main
assertion.
Nima Rezai
> You cannot serve two masters
> "A person may do something either for his ego's pleasure or for his
> Lord's pleasure.
> There is not a third factor. No! You may act either for Your Lord's
> pleasure
> trying to make your Lord pleased with you; or you are trying to make
> your
> ego pleased with you. There is no third factor, no. Either right or
> left.
> You are always in a crossway. You must choose one of two ways:
> one taking you to the Pleasure of Allah Almighty; and the second
> taking you
> to your ego's pleasure, as well as to shaytan's pleasure. Through
> every action
> therefore, intention is an obligation for everyone seeking to do
> something."
This is a laughable statement.
There are no two masters as 1. Allah and 2. "Mans brain".
It is the brain that "understands" Allah and processes information and
knowledge about Allah and his religion.
Who says that "Brain" is Allahs enemy who always wants to reject Allahs
commands?
Is it not the Quran where in many verses Allah appeals to human beings
senses and understanding?
If the brain would be a hindering tool in understanding and following Allah,
would Allah require that human beings use it?
Your problem is that you think that human being is a monkey who copies and
that human is prohibited from thinking and questioning.
kha...@sbcglobal.net
It is the brain that "understands" Allah and processes information and
knowledge about Allah and his religion.
Yassir.
Noah (3alayhe's'Salaam) has a son
who used his brain saying to his father that the flood
can not reach me if i go up on that montain,his brain
was off ,because the flood was beyond his brain,and
that is a good lesson for those who depend on their brain
as you may associate yourself with.
Nima.
Your problem is that you think that human being is a monkey who copies
and
that human is prohibited from thinking and questioning.
Yassir.
Now this is real laughable statement,you think you know what I think!!!
thinking and questioning is what Noah's son did ,and it was illogical
for
a big boat to be in the midde of nowhere ,and for the water that goes
down
to go up untop of the montain,the Qur'an say "we hear and we obey"
Sami3naa wa ata3naa ghufraanaka rabbanaa wa ilayka'l'masseer"
it does not say "we think and ask questions " like Noah's son and
his Ppl as you may copy them like monkey brain does.
Wa Salaam.
Fariduddien
> > Perhaps a more accurate label, if you have to have a label, would be
> > to call this school of thought "Qur'an First"...
>
> exactly. This is the point. Not Quran only but rather Quran first.
> AS soon as we leave the Quran aside in favour of human regulation (may it be
> the Khulafa, Ulama or whoever) we rely on history instead of on Allah.
> And history is all but certain and authentic.
I think all "mainstream" Muslims would say they follow "Qur'an first".
It's a fact that it's difficult (if not impossible) to understand parts
of the Qur'an without a historical context. Similarly, we rely on
extra-Qur'anic material in order to understand the definitions of the
Arabic words in the Qur'an (the Qur'an doesn't come with it's own
lexicon).
Whether you admit it or not, everyone who tries to understand the
Qur'an uses some kind of outside material. It's a matter of whether you
are clear-minded enough to realize it or not.
> Just notice that even many important events or their dates are unknown or
> unclear, e.g. the year of the birth of the prophet, the year of the battles
> of Yarmuk or Qadisiya.
> Tens of thousands took part in these battles and yet historians neither know
> the exact commander, nor the exact year when it happened.
Are you saying, unless you know every historical detail to perfection,
you should throw away all historical knowledge? How is that logical?
To extend your "logic" to another example - there may be some debate
about the precise meaning of a specific Arabic word used in the Qur'an.
Does that mean that, because of this imprecision in knowledge, that all
knowledge of Arabic should be thrown away too?
> Then I ask myself, why the community must pay attention to spriritually
> totally irrelevant details that were only reported by few individuals.
Who is to say details are "spiritually totally irrelevant"? Why - if
you claim it is so - should we listen to you that such details are
"spiritually totally irrelevant" - rather than make up our own minds
about it?
My personal view is that many details are not "spiritually totally
irrelevant"... But, it is certainly possible that not everyone may
realize their spiritual relevance. However, one person's ignorant
opinions is not a good basis upon which to make decisions to throw away
possibly important knowledge. It's always safer to keep and transmit
knowledge (as "Sunni" Muslims have done historically), rather than
throw it away (as you apparently are advocating).
> The Ahadith have a huge "technical" problem, and that is that the original
> witnesses could not defend themselves against/comment on sayings attributed
> to them.
That's true for all history.
> The question is not whether Abu X ibn Abi Y was reliable or not (whatever
> reliable may be and whoever is going to define it), but whether Abu X ibn
> Abi Y really said a certain narration Z.
Again, that's true for all history.
Are you suggesting that all historical knowledge should be thrown away?
If not, exactly what are you saying?
> It seems that in Islam - the way man "mainstream muslims" view and practice
> it - life of oneself and others is not worth much. There are a great bunch
> of pretexts that are being used by muslims all around the world to kill
> eachother and also nonmuslims. Human life is not sacred at all.
This appears to be a very ignorant statement.
Which Muslims are using such pretexts? I think you'll almost always
find that such pretexts are being used by so-called "Wahhabi" and
"Salafi" groups, or by "secular" Muslims (such as Baathists in Iraq).
However, if you look at the views of scholars of the "Ahl al-Sunnah
wa'l Jama`ah" - by which I mean followers of the four Sunni madhhabs
(schools of thought) - you'll find general condemnation of acts of
violence perpetrated against innocent civilians. (I'm not
knowledgeable enough to comment on the Shi`ah perspective.)
What your statement seems to show to me is that you are only familiar
with statements and actions by Wahhabis and Salafis - and then you
assume that all "mainstream Muslims" follow that point of view.
> While the Quran compares the killer of one man with the killer of all
> humanity, our "brothers" all over the world kill, stone, mutilate and behead
> all kind of people always in the name of Islam.
Your generalized statement just reveals how ignorant you are about the
Muslim world, and the different perspectives within it.
> The sad thing is that many hypocrites silently sympathize with the murderers
> and try to justify and islamicize their crimes.
Yes, some do. But your generalizing from a numerically small group to
the majority of Muslims is false.
Fariduddien Rice
(Speaking for myself)
Zuiko Azumazi
news:kevans-38A8B8....@r01.iad01.newshosting.com...
> In article <42bdf74c$0$29752$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> "Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The foremost promoters of the so-called "Qur'an only" postion are the
> "submitters" who follow the teachings of Rachad Khalifa, including his
> belief that there is a mathematical code based on the number 19 that
> proves the accuracy and divine origin of the Qur'an.
> They have a website at http://quran.org.
Comment:-
Thanks for the link, quite eccentric!
Since, I've not come across the unorthodox 'submitters' sect before, is it
specifically a USA Muslim phenomena? Does it have a significant following
domestically, as well as in the wider Islamic community? Did their "Qur'an
Only" position come before, or after, the rather odd "#19 mathematical code"
idea? That point isn't entirely clear on the website? Are there any other
'sects' that subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, would nominate as being
'Quran Only'?
--
Peace
--
You cannot teach a person who is not anxious to learn and you cannot
explain to one who is not trying to make things clear to themselves.
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
wrote:
> Abdelkarim Benoit Evans wrote:
>
> > Sunni Muslims, in approaching the interpretation question, try first
> > to know (to the extent possible) how the Prophet Muhammad (peace be
> > on him) understood a particular passage and how he applied it to the
> > life of the community....
>
> Your words here are dangerous and you are inciting sectarianism in a subtle
> manner.
(...)
You have misunderstood my intention. I did not mean to exclude Shia
Muslims or any others. I mentioned the Sunni position because that is
the one with which I am most familar.
You assumption about my motives is wrong and not a logical inference. If
I had said, for example, that Moroccans have certain beliefs or
practices, would you have accused me of inciting favouritism toward
Moroccans and discrimination against the peoples of other parts of the
world?
Fariduddien
> By emphasizing "Sunni Muslims" you do two dangerous mistakes:
>
> 1. You exclude all other Muslims from the capability to perform Islam
> correctly. Mostly your words can be interpreted as an offence against Shias.
Then how do you explain Sunni Muslim scholars who accept Shi`ah Muslims
as a legitimate approach to Islam?
Eg.
Verdict from the head of al-Azhar University :
"The Ja'fari school of thought, which is also known as "al-Shia al-
Imamiyyah al-Ithna Ashariyyah" (i.e., The Twelver Imami Shi'ites) is a
school of thought that is religiously correct to follow in worship as
are other Sunni schools of thought."
>From http://www.sunnah.org/history/fatwa_ashar_shia.htm
Here is perhaps a more common Sunni perspective, given from a Hanafi
perspective (note in particular category #3 of Shi`ah):
"3. tafDîli (tafDîlîyyah): this group revers all the companions; the
accept the leadership of all the four Caliphs raDiyAllâhu ta`âlâ
`anhum; but just elevate the position of `Ali raDiyAllahu `anhu above
all others. these people are nowhere near kufr. however it is bid`ah
to do so (consider `Ali higher than others)."
>From http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00000597.aspx
As the scholar says, this group of Shi`ah is "nowhere near kufr".
> The interpretation of such claims is not very far: "Sunni Muslims" are also
> those who support the violence in Iraq under the pretext of defending "real"
> Islam. At the same time they are justifying all kinds of horrible crimes
> against non-Sunnis by calling them traitors, apostates or whatever.
While most who are fighting against the American occupation in Iraq are
"Sunni", you cannot then generalize this to all Sunnis. From what I've
read, the "insurgents" in Iraq are mostly Baathists (i.e. secular
socialists), with a smaller number who are probably Wahhabis and
Salafis (that would be al-Zarqawi and those associated with him).
For a scholarly Sunni perspective (from the Hanafi madhhab) on the
violence in Iraq, see
http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00004476.aspx
Here's a quote...
"The problem with the individuals behind actions such as the
kidnappings in Iraq, or the monstrosity in Beslan is that they are
motivated by their raw passions and act on ignorance. Thus, they are
misguided, and act in misguided ways, while the Messenger of Allah
(Allah bless him and give him peace) told us that, "None of you
believes until their whims are made to follow the guidance I have come
with." [Nawawi's 40 Hadith, from Kitab al-Hujja; Nawawi said: it is
rigorously authenticated (sahih)]
"Those who take the law in their own hands are brigands and outlaws,
and have nothing to do with the example of the Messenger of Allah
(Allah bless him and give him peace), who was sent as a mercy to all
humanity, a light of guidance, an exemplification of all good. Can any
of us ever imagine the Beloved Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and
give him peace) ever doing anything like these acts? Or condoning
anything like this?"
(This is regarding attacking or kidnapping innocent civilians.)
> 2. "Sunni Muslim" is only a vague definition and no wildcard for eternal
> religious rightfulness and correctness.
Traditionally, a "Sunni Muslim" is one who follows one of the four
surviving Sunni schools of thought - the Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, or
Hanbali schools of thought.
In more recent times, breakaway groups have tried to usurp the name, in
particular Wahhabis. However, one way they are different is that
Wahhabis, to my understanding, have a tendency to consider anyone who
disagrees with them to be guilty of idolatry ("shirk").
In contrast, the four Sunni schools accept that there are those who may
have a differing interpretation who are still Muslims - see the
opinions from Sunni sources regarding the Shi`ah that I referred to
above as an example.
Some very extremist Wahhabis and Salafis are sometimes referred to as
"takfiris" or "takfiriyyah" - because one of their hallmarks is
"takfir". "Takfir" means to declare someone else a "kafir" or
nonbeliever, and they have a strong tendency to do that to anyone who
disagrees with them. Takfiris also tend to consider it justified to
kill anyone in that category (Muslim or non-Muslim).
Hopefully this shows some of the differences. You can't take the
extremist example of takfiris, then paint every single Sunni Muslim
with the same brush! I think there are some huge differences -
hopefully I've conveyed some of my understanding of that here.
Ayman
> the Qur'an say "we hear and we obey"
> Sami3naa wa ata3naa ghufraanaka rabbanaa wa ilayka'l'masseer"
> it does not say "we think and ask questions" like Noah's son and
> his Ppl as you may copy them like monkey brain does.
Can a deaf person who doesn't hear be a "muslim"?
Is a group of Trinitarians who hear very well their priest telling them
to take Jesus as an intercessor and obey without "thinking and asking
questions" better than a deaf person because they said "we hear and we
obey"?
If you really think that "hear" means to hear with one's ears, then I am
afraid that you have only scratched the surface of the great reading and
have not heard its true message.
Read the following passages:
41:44. And had We made it a non-Arabic reading/quran, they would have
said: "If only its verses were made detailed!" Non-Arabic or Arabic,
say: "For those who believe, it is a guide and healing. As for those who
disbelieve, there is a deafness in their ears, and they are blind to it.
These will be called from a place far away"
25:73. And those who when they are reminded of their Lord’s verses, they
do not fall on them deaf and blind.
31:7. And when Our signs are recited to him, he turns away arrogantly as
if he did not hear them, as if there is a deafness in his ears. So
announce to him a painful retribution.
18:57. And who is more wicked than one who is reminded of his Lord's
revelations but he turned away from them, and he forgot what his hands
had done. We have made veils upon their hearts from understanding it,
and a deafness in their ears. And if you invite them to the guidance,
they will never then be guided.
Since the average rejecter's ear drums transmit the sound waves just
like anybody else, in this context "not hearing" is not actually hearing
with the ears but is used to signify "not thinking and understanding".
The rejecters are blocked from "hearing" (i.e. understanding) the signs
of The God in the great reading. For example, when sectarians hear "obey
The God and obey the messenger" in verses such as 4:59, they don't think
and hence hear instead "obey the book of Bukhari or the Book of Matthew"
and "obey the mullah/priest". Another example is Noah's son who was
hearing and obeying the majority/"ijma3" of his people instead of
thinking about The God's message.
Haven't you heard what we are told throughout the great reading about
think, ponder, or reflect on The God's message? If you can't hear, then
how can you obey correctly?
Peace on who followed the guidance,
Ayman
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users:
http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html
Altway
"Ayman" <dra...@fast-email.com> wrote
> Since the average rejecter's ear drums transmit the sound waves just
like anybody else, in this context "not hearing" is not actually hearing
with the ears but is used to signify "not thinking and understanding".
> Haven't you heard what we are told throughout the great reading about
think, ponder, or reflect on The God's message? If you can't hear, then
how can you obey correctly?
Comment:-
I understand that you are a Quran-only person -
as such you are yourself a rejecter of what the Quran is telling you
and follow another Prophet, not the Quran.
The ability to understand the Quran depends on having the capacity
to understand it and that depends on following the discipline that the
Quran provides.
You have selected only this one aspect of the Quran to think and reflect
but ignored or rejected all the other things the Quran points to namely the
Prophets, the various authorities, human nature and faculties, the rest of
creation.
In a sense Quran-only is Idolatry because Muslims submit to Allah, they
do not make the Quran into an idol and obey the Quran because they
understand
it is the Word of Allah.
But if you misunderstand it or reject parts of it then that is not the Word
of Allah.
Hamid S. Aziz
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
"Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Since, I've not come across the unorthodox 'submitters' sect before, is it
> specifically a USA Muslim phenomena?
It is a VERY small group (or groups). You will find a succinct
description of them and links to their own an related Web sites in the
following Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Submitters_International
You could also look at another Web site, which is the work of a
dissenter who claims that his sect is the true heir to Khalifa's
teaching. They also call themselves "subnmitters" and also call
themselves "Qur'an only" Muslims.
http://www.yuksel.org/e/religion/submitters.htm
One of their "trademarks" is their insistance that the direction of
Mecca from the U.S. is southeast rather than northeast. To arrive at
that conclusion, they use the Mercator projection of the earth. All
other Muslims believe that the direction of Mecca for the purpose of
prayer orientation must be based on a great circle arc, which is the
shortest direct line from the worshipper to Mecca. Because most of us
are so accustomed to the "flat-earth" Mercator projection, the northeast
direction seems counter-intuitive. However if we look at a globe of the
earth, it becomes obvious that the tradtion, northeast, direction is
correct.
kha...@sbcglobal.net
"obey The God and obey the messenger"
Yassir.
What happen to "ouli-l -Amr-i- minkum?
Why did you leave it out?
The thinking,pondering,or reflecting on God's
message is good for faith ,but once you got the faith
then you have to obey the teaching of the Prophet.
for example the Jum3a prayers is sermon that have
2 sections and then 2 rak3at afterwards.
Then we say as the great reading say "sami3naa
wa ata3naa ....
Jum3a was done on Friday for Ppl of "sami3naa wa ata3naa"
for the ppl of" we think and we question" Jum3a can be done
any day .
Peace on who followed the guidance of the Prophet.
Yassir.
G.Waleed
> Some Qur'an-only sectarians would have us believe that Sunni Muslims
> substitute non-Qur'anic sources for the Qur'an itself. Such a claim is a
> gross distortion and a terrible calumny.
Salaam alaikum warahmatullah wa barakatuhu
One word: Rajm (stoning)
A little googling will bring up hundreds of past discussions on this
subject.
The Qur'an says lash.
The Sunni interpretation of the Sunnah says stone.
Sunni mainstream Ulema claim stoning is the rule if the adulterer is
married.
The Qur'an continues to tell us to lash.
No distortion.
No calumny
--
G. Waleed Kavalec
http://www.IslamAwakened.com/Quran
----------------------------------------
Auozo Billah himinash shatan-ir-rajeem
Ayman
> Comment:-
> I understand that you are a Quran-only person -
> as such you are yourself a rejecter of what the Quran is telling you
> and follow another Prophet, not the Quran.
If you think that a person criticizing the notion that thinking is "bad"
is a "Quran-only" person then your understanding is prejudiced and
subjective. I am not a "Quran-only" person.
Did Abraham have the great reading? No. The signs of The God are not in
the great reading alone. They are all around us and even within us.
The fact is that this book tells us at its very beginning (2:2) that it
provides guidance only for those who are ALREADY mindful of The God
("motaqin"). For others it is useless.
Do you even know what "quran" means? If so, why don't you tell us insead
of slapping on it an empty title?
> The ability to understand the Quran depends on having the capacity
> to understand it and that depends on following the discipline that the
> Quran provides.
The first step is to understand that the word "quran" means "reading".
It doesn't mean "Hadith needing", or "Sufi Saints needing", etc. This
means that one should read it for themselves, think about it and try to
understand it to the best of his abilities. The command is to "read in
the name of our Lord" it is not to "read through Hadith, Saints, or
Mullahs".
> You have selected only this one aspect of the Quran to think and reflect
> but ignored or rejected all the other things the Quran points to namely the
> Prophets, the various authorities, human nature and faculties, the rest of
> creation.
It gives us the examples of the people that came before us so that we
don't make the same mistakes that they did. It tells us that the
prophets are dead. It tells us that after their death the message of The
God was corrupted by their religious authorities. It tells us that the
various "religious authorities", such as "ruhban"/mystics/saints and
"a7bar"/religious scholars are nothing more than con artists who are out
to deceive people or profiteer. It tells us that every person is
responsible for his own salvation.
As for human nature, it tells us that most humans are like cattle that
blindly follow the majority. This is evident from the people on this
thread who are objecting to "thinking". We can empirically verify that
it is our God-given brain that differentiates us from the other animals.
It is because thinking with this brain is essential for accomplishing
our purpose. Our ONLY purpose is to serve The God.
> In a sense Quran-only is Idolatry because Muslims submit to Allah, they
> do not make the Quran into an idol and obey the Quran because they
> understand
I agree that Quran-only is idolatry. We are here to serve The God alone.
> it is the Word of Allah.
> But if you misunderstand it or reject parts of it then that is not the Word
> of Allah.
I agree. Also, it is an indisputable fact that Hadith is not the word of
The God. If you misunderstand it or reject parts or all of it then that
is OK because it is not the word of The God. But people who are addicted
to Hadith will find this hard to swallow.
Trinitarians believe that the Bible is the word of The God. Therefore
blind belief in the word of The God is irrelevant. That is why, unlike
the false Bible, in the great reading The God challenges us to think,
ponder, and reflect on His signs.
Peace on who followed the guidance,
Ayman
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.
G.Waleed
> To be more precise, as one Muslim sage has supposed to have
> said: "The Qur'an is the Qur'an the rest is opinion.", which, in the context
> of this thread, for example, is difficult to dispute.
Salaam
Excellent summary
Let me reiterate this way, first with a quote from Khurram Chaudhary
"...there is nothing in the QURAN that says that anyone
who recites the book of God and believes it to be true,
but is honest about his doubt about all other things is a
disbeleiver.
"we could be labelled ... as whatever, if we were to
propogate any thing outside the QURAN or were we to
proclaim our personal interpretations to be divine law.
"expressing doubt about sources outside the QURAN
and expressing the lack of knowldege to be able to judge
scholarship as competent or able to be trusted is just an
expression of honesty.
"being honest about not knowing does not make anyone
a non-MUSLIM.
Now, as I posted in another forum, my own words this time...
"Orthodox Sunnis call me "out of Islam" because I reject
the authority they give to hadith transmitted through the Sahaba.
"Orthodox Shi'a call me "out of Islam" because I reject the
authority they give to hadith transmitted through the Ahl ul Bayt.
"Mainstream Parwezis reject me because I don't believe Salaat
can be changed when the time ever comes that an Islamic
government is in place (G.A. Parwez taught that the details could
be changed by such a government.)
"Rashad Khalifa followers reject me because I don't recognize his
authority to throw away two complete ayah of the Qur'an based on
some tricks of arithmetic.
"What's a Muslim to do?
"Yes ... I am influenced by the teachings of men. Right from the
get-go, since my own Arabic is fledgeling, I have to rely on men to
even be able to start reading the Qur'an.
"Why else do you think I keep refering to
http://www.IslamAwakened.com/quran ?
"NO ONE should be blinded from seeing the full range of
understanding men gain from God's Book.
"NO ONE should be herded and corralled (like cattle) into the
understanding of a single given group."
I hope this makes it clear that I do not "reject the Sunna" as has been
hurled at me so many times. I do not reject the Sunna, I do not reject
hadith, I do not even reject any sect's scholars.
I simply don't place them at the level of the Qur'an, I certainly don't
place them ABOVE the Qur'an, and I will not place them BETWEEN me and
the Qur'an.
See http://www.IslamAwakened.com/quran again...
No SINGLE translator stands between the reader and the Word of Allah.
This is as it should be, and it is as it should be also in the case of
sects, schools of thought, and scholars.
May Allah bring it to pass.
Nima Rezai
> Nima wrote.
> It is the brain that "understands" Allah and processes information and
> knowledge about Allah and his religion.
>
> Yassir.
> Noah (3alayhe's'Salaam) has a son
> who used his brain saying to his father that the flood
> can not reach me if i go up on that montain,his brain
> was off ,because the flood was beyond his brain,and
> that is a good lesson for those who depend on their brain
> as you may associate yourself with.
Your bringing of the example of Noahs son as "thinker" or "brainuser" is
totally flawed.
Noahs son is a clear example of a person who did NOT think.
His father was Gods Prophet and living close to him. He saw how his father
anticipated (through Gods revelation) the flood, how he unsuccessfully
warned the unbelievers, how he built the ship...Still he deided to not obey
his father, who was a direct recipient of Gods commands.
When, however, a sane and intelligent muslim rejects some little sense
making statements of a Sheikh XYZ (which the latter tries to justify/explain
by attributing it to Allah and his prophet without any proof) this muslim
neither becomes a disbeliever nor a "Quran only" muslim.
Neither Allah has ever forbidden anything except what is mentioned in the
Quran, nor does Allah require Muslims to be more strict in anything than the
Quran requires.
The Prophets Sunnah and many Ahadith serve the purpose that the "Usul
u悲een" are correctly understood and performed.
The order, with which foot one has to leave his bed first or how long the
beard must be definitely has not the slightest spiritual value.
God is greater than what man claims from him.
Waleeds example of stoning is a good example. Regarding adultery the Quran
has spoken, and it has spoken clearly. There is no need to offset the
commandment of Allah and stick to fabricated stories like the one, where
Umar "regrets" that the people forgot the verse of Rajam. Oh yes, of all the
verses of the Quran, the people forgot just this one. And the entire
invention for what? Because some Hadith transmitter said something. How
comes then, that the same circles say the Quran is absolutely unchanged,
because Allah protects it? Or do these people want to claim thatb Allah was
not able to "save" the ayat ul rajam?
Altway
"Ayman" <dra...@fast-email.com> wrote
>> I understand that you are a Quran-only person -
as such you are yourself a rejecter of what the Quran is telling you
and follow another Prophet, not the Quran.
> If you think that a person criticizing the notion that thinking is "bad"
is a "Quran-only" person then your understanding is prejudiced and
subjective. I am not a "Quran-only" person.
Comment:-
When did I say that thinking is bad?
Prejudiced thinking is bad; distorted thinking is bad.
Thinking based on false premisses and fantasies is bad.
Egotistical thinking is bad. Thinking based on false motives,
that are not concerned with Truth, is bad.
If you are not a "Quran-only" person then I apologise.
My remarks cannot then apply to you.
> Did Abraham have the great reading? No. The signs of The God are not in
the great reading alone. They are all around us and even within us.
Comment:-
Very good.
But also in those who have been given discernment and knowledge
and have earned it through a discipline.
Above all
"Nay, but it (the Quran) is a clear revelation in the hearts of those who
are endowed with knowledge, and none deny Our revelations save the
wrongdoers (or unjust)." 29:24
"This is indeed a noble Quran in a Book kept hidden which none touches save
the purified, a revelation from the Lord of the Worlds." 56:77-80
Nothing is said here about thinking.
If thinking alone had been sufficient then we would not have so
many anti-islamic critics.
Hamid S. Aziz
Altway
"G.Waleed" <kav...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Some Qur'an-only sectarians would have us believe that Sunni Muslims
substitute non-Qur'anic sources for the Qur'an itself. Such a claim is a
gross distortion and a terrible calumny.
> One word: Rajm (stoning)
A little googling will bring up hundreds of past discussions on this
subject.
> The Qur'an says lash.
The Sunni interpretation of the Sunnah says stone.
> Sunni mainstream Ulema claim stoning is the rule if the adulterer is
married.
The Qur'an continues to tell us to lash.
Comment:-
You write as if the Rajm is based on sheer whim without any justification.
and that your desire against it is sufficient reason for rejecting it.
Firstly, what people do does not necessarily mean that it is
Islamically right.
Secondly, Quran first does not mean that everything else is excluded.
If that were so all other laws that apply in the modern world e.g.
those covering computer fraud, killing through drunken driving of cars
and so on would have to be avoided.
Thirdly, the Quran is a guidance and the Prophet demonstrated how
it should be applied.
But certainly one can argue that the conditions under which the Prophet
allowed rajm do not now exist or that Quranic Law has replaced Mosaic Law.
The purpose of the Law was, of course, to prevent the spread of adultery.
Will it be controlled by lashing? Or will lashing be disallowed also.
Or is adultery no longer a sin?
Hamid S. Aziz
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1120414732.10...@webmail.messagingengine.com...
<snip>
> If you think that a person criticizing the notion that thinking is "bad"
> is a "Quran-only" person then your understanding is prejudiced and
> subjective. I am not a "Quran-only" person.
Comment:-
There is a popular Islamic maxim which states: "Seek knowledge even though
it be in China", to-whit, "Respond intelligently to unintelligent
treatment." [Lao Tse].
Just thought this knowledgeable observation might help you cope with the
obvious "unintelligent treatment" from some commentators in this thread.
--
Peace
--
Examine what is said, not him who speaks. -Arabic Proverb
Zuiko Azumazi.
azu...@hotmail.com
G.Waleed
> You write as if the Rajm is based on sheer whim without any justification.
> and that your desire against it is sufficient reason for rejecting it.
What I wrote is: "The Qur'an says lash."
If you want to wrap your own interpretations into my words, and call
the result something from me, why should I be immune?
> [...]
> Thirdly, the Quran is a guidance and the Prophet demonstrated how
> it should be applied.
THERE IS NO GUIDANCE TO RAJM in the Qur'an.
THERE IS MUCH GUIDANCE AWAY FROM RAJM in the Qur'an.
Let me reiterate the evidence that stoning is an early error
propagated by the over-zealous, and now so deeply intertwined
that to admit the error would shake the roots of the orthodox
understanding of shariah.
Some scholars tell us stone. The Qur'an still says lash.
Given that Allah says one thing and some scholars report that the
Prophet(sallallahu alaihi wa salaam) did another, believers should
believe Allah.
But there is a way to get closer to the truth here.
Gather all the hadith that report that stoning was called for by the
Prophet(sallallahu alaihi wa salaam).
Identify those which occured before the revelation of an-Noor 24:2.
These can be disregarded, as the instruction to lash the
adulterer had not yet been given.
Identify those which cannot be dated as to before or after
the revelation of an-Noor 24:2.
These must be disregarded, because they might have
occured before 24:2.
Identify those cases where the defendants were Jewish.
These too must be disregarded as you probably know
the Prophet(sallallahu alaihi wa salaam) was in a treaty
with the Jews in Medina - Muslims would be judged by
Islamic law, Jews would be judged by Judaic law.
(And Jewish law DOES call for stoning.)
Now take the few hadith you have left. A small straggling group of
them. Hadith that allege that the Prophet(sallallahu alaihi wa salaam)
sentenced Muslim adulterers to stoning AFTER the revelation of
an-Noor 24-2.
(http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/024.qmt.quran.aspx#024_002)
Not many, are they?
To those hadith I say you must apply this one...
In the Farewell Pilgrimage, the Prophet(sallallahu alaihi wa salaam)
is reported to have said:
"Forging lies against me has been common to a great
extent. However, it will increase. He who forges lies
against me intentionally should find himself a place
in Hell. When you receive any hadith, you should first
measure it according to the criteria of the Qur'an and
my Sunna. If it conforms to them, you will then adopt
it. If not, you should then throw it away."
Quoted from At-Tabirsi's Alihtijaj
Now: Stoning does NOT conform to the Qur'an. This is not just
an assertion...
Find stoning in the Book of Allah. Search carefully.
Let me save you some time: not only will you NOT find the command to
stone ANYWHERE in the book of Allah, if you carefully read His book
ayat by ayat you will find exactly five mentions of the act of stoning
by men...
* Nuh threatened with stoning by disbelievers
(ash-Shu'araa 26:116)
http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/026.qmt.quran.aspx#026_116
* Ibrahim's father threatens Ibrahimwith stoning
(Maryam 19:46)
http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/019.qmt.quran.aspx#019_046
* Men in the cave scared of stoning by disbelievers
(al-Kahf 18:20)
http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/018.qmt.quran.aspx#018_020
* The three messengers threatened with stoning by disbelievers
(Yas-Sin 36:18)
http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/036.qmt.quran.aspx#036_018
* Shu'aib threatened with stoning by his people
(Hud 11:91)
http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/011.qmt.quran.aspx#011_091
Read these ayah.
IN EVERY CASE stoning is shown to us to be a practice of men...
...only when those men are UNBELIEVERS.
Unless one believes that Allah creates His book by chance and
happenstance one MUST HEED the underlying message:
Only unbelieving men STONE.
The mainstream Sunni orthodox stance on stoning is based almost
entirely on hadith records, records narrated through Omar, who
tells us he remembers the "ayat-ul-rajm" (verse of stoning).
Even if he did, would that be any call for believers to ignore the
works of the only One who has the power to remove such a verse?
ALLAH has REMOVED such a verse IF it existed!
This makes any stories of an "ayat-ul-rajm" powerful proof indeed.
Proof AGAINST stoning.
Proof against stoning is found elsewhere in the Qur'an, but this is
only of importance for those who believe the Word of Allah to be the
greatest authority. Are you of those? Then read...
In al-Kahf Musa says to his companion...
Faintalaqa hatta itha laqiya ghulaman faqatalahu qala
aqatalta nafsan zakiyyatan bighayri nafsin laqad ji/ta
shay-an nukran
(So they went on until, when they met a boy, he slew him.
[Musa] said: Have you slain an innocent person otherwise
than for manslaughter? Certainly you have done an evil thing.)
http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/018.qmt.quran.aspx#018_074
So, in the law as known to Musa, killing for any reason - other
than for the crime of killing itself - is a thing NUKRAN. This is
by the word of Prophet Musa...
...as reported through an isnad that includes Allah Himself.
We can agree this is a reliable chain, I assume?
So we are clear on this, inshallah: In al-Khaf 18:74 Allah has
shown us the limits as they were as known to Musa and in the
law as sent via him: NO KILLING except as punishment for killing.
Come forward to the law as set down in the Qur'an.
We are oft reminded of the evil of killing, and the laws against
killing from prior scriptures are confirmed. (see al-Ma'idah 5:32
http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/005.qmt.quran.aspx#005_032)
One exception is given us, in that same ayat -
"those who spread mischief through the land".
Now we know Allah is just and He is merciful, and expects us
to try to be, too. Let's test your notion of justice...
An unmarried traveling salesman becomes adept at
seducing lonely housewives. He does this as often
as he can.
Who has "spread mischeif through the land"?
The salesman?
Or any one of the married women who succumbed to him?
It should be clear that only someone willing to twist meanings
into abject nonsense would name the woman.
It should be clear that NOWHERE in the Qur'an is killing her made
legal.
By the report of Allah Himself, killing her will be a thing NUKRAN.
By the examples given by Allah Himself, only unbelieving men stone.
It is issues such as rajm that have kept me (inshallah) an UNHYPHENATED
Muslim.
As for the murajameen? In my humble opinion they will be burning -
with their stones.
Altway
"G.Waleed" <kav...@gmail.com> wrote
>> You write as if the Rajm is based on sheer whim without any
>> justification.
and that your desire against it is sufficient reason for rejecting it.
> What I wrote is: "The Qur'an says lash."
> If you want to wrap your own interpretations into my words, and call
the result something from me, why should I be immune?
Comment:-
You misunderstand me - I am not saying that your objection is wrong,
but that you have provided no evidence.
One is able to see beyond the words from its tone and context.
Are you telling me that you said that without a motive?
We can all see that you were criticising some Sunnis without refuting their
reasons
for the practice of rajm.
>> Thirdly, the Quran is a guidance and the Prophet demonstrated how
it should be applied.
> THERE IS NO GUIDANCE TO RAJM in the Qur'an.
> Gather all the hadith that report that stoning was called for by the
Prophet(sallallahu alaihi wa salaam).
> Identify those which occured before the revelation of an-Noor 24:2.
These can be disregarded, as the instruction to lash the
adulterer had not yet been given.
> Identify those which cannot be dated as to before or after
the revelation of an-Noor 24:2.
These must be disregarded, because they might have
occured before 24:2.
> Identify those cases where the defendants were Jewish.
These too must be disregarded as you probably know
the Prophet(sallallahu alaihi wa salaam) was in a treaty
with the Jews in Medina - Muslims would be judged by
Islamic law, Jews would be judged by Judaic law.
(And Jewish law DOES call for stoning.)
> Now take the few hadith you have left. A small straggling group of
them. Hadith that allege that the Prophet(sallallahu alaihi wa salaam)
sentenced Muslim adulterers to stoning AFTER the revelation of
an-Noor 24-2.
Comment:-
Now then, this is an argument that might well be valid and I accept it.
It is different from mere assertion.
So I apologise for assuming that you had no valid reason, but you did not
give us one.
Did I not write:-
"But certainly one can argue that the conditions under which the Prophet
allowed rajm do not now exist or that Quranic Law has replaced Mosaic Law."
You ignored this. Why?
> Now: Stoning does NOT conform to the Qur'an. This is not just
an assertion... Find stoning in the Book of Allah. Search carefully.
Let me save you some time: not only will you NOT find the command to
stone ANYWHERE in the book of Allah, if you carefully read His book
ayat by ayat you will find exactly five mentions of the act of stoning
by men...
* Nuh threatened with stoning by disbelievers (ash-Shu'araa 26:116)
* Ibrahim's father threatens Ibrahim with stoning (Maryam 19:46)
* Men in the cave scared of stoning by disbelievers (al-Kahf 18:20)
* The three messengers threatened with stoning by disbelievers (Yas-Sin
36:18)
* Shu'aib threatened with stoning by his people (Hud 11:91)
IN EVERY CASE stoning is shown to us to be a practice of men....only when
those men are UNBELIEVERS.
> Only unbelieving men STONE.
Comment:-
I do not think that the followers of Moses were unbelievers.
> The mainstream Sunni orthodox stance on stoning is based almost
entirely on hadith records, records narrated through Omar, who
tells us he remembers the "ayat-ul-rajm" (verse of stoning).
Comment:-
I do not think so. It is also based on what the Prophet did.
But I am aware that he allowed the Jews to go by their Scriptures.
Hamid S. Aziz
kha...@sbcglobal.net
Nima Rezai wrote:
> Your bringing of the example of Noahs son as "thinker" or "brainuser" is
> totally flawed.
> Noahs son is a clear example of a person who did NOT think.
Yassir.
He did not think that God can do something illogical and
unreasonable,he used his brain to think and asked questions
and his brain answered saying to him that the water can
not reach the top of the montain,and that is logical ,what his
father said to him defied logic.
If he did NOT think and said to his father "I hear and I obey"
"Sami3naa wa ata3naa" he would be saved.
So he died untop the montain as a brainuser and a thinker.
Nima.
..Still he decided to not obey
> his father, who was a direct recipient of Gods commands.
Yassir.
His logic prevented him from obeying his father who was
saying something illogical.
Nima
> When, however, a sane and intelligent muslim rejects some little sense
> making statements of a Sheikh XYZ (which the latter tries to justify/explain
> by attributing it to Allah and his prophet without any proof) this muslim
> neither becomes a disbeliever nor a "Quran only" muslim.
Yassir.
Well this Muslim can be a "brainuser Muslim".
And all of this depend on who is the Shaykh,can a Shaykh be a lier ?
in other words can a saint be a lier?
if yes then that is not a shaykh or a saint (wali)
but if a true wali tells you not to take this car or not to take
this airplaine, because it is going to crash,you will like Noah
(3alayhe Salaam) aske why and use your brain.
Nima.
> not able to "save" the ayat ul rajam?
Yassir.
the word tawaf or circumbulating around the House
of God is in the Qur'an ,but the word seven times is not there.
But we all do seven rounds.
the word RAJM is not there by words ,it is there like seven
is hidden in Tawaf.
Your logic can not give you faith ,you need more than that,
not to trust except your logic is flawed faith.
Wa Salaam.
Yassir.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
"G.Waleed" <kav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Abdelkarim Benoit Evans wrote:
>
> > Some Qur'an-only sectarians would have us believe that Sunni Muslims
> > substitute non-Qur'anic sources for the Qur'an itself. Such a claim is a
> > gross distortion and a terrible calumny.
>
>
>
> Salaam alaikum warahmatullah wa barakatuhu
>
> One word: Rajm (stoning)
>
> A little googling will bring up hundreds of past discussions on this
> subject.
>
> The Qur'an says lash.
> The Sunni interpretation of the Sunnah says stone.
>
> Sunni mainstream Ulema claim stoning is the rule if the adulterer is
> married.
> The Qur'an continues to tell us to lash.
>
> No distortion.
> No calumny
>
assalaamu alaikum,
When you say "the Sunni interpretation...", you commit a distortion that
is essentially a calumny, i.e., a misrepresentation that damages
another's reputation.
The truth of the matter is that there is disagreement among Sunni
scholars. Abdur Rahman I. Doi clearly points this out in _Shari'ah: The
Islamic Law_:
"**MANY** scholars have said that because the Holy Qur'an is silent on
punishment [of married adulterers] by stoning to death, therefore this
punishment is not justifiable." (emphasis added)
Under shari'ah, there is a crime called "zina" which, juridically
speaking covers both adultery and fornication. (Adultery is an act of
fornication where one or both of the parties is married.)
The question that may arise is whether the Qur'anic punishment for zina
(fornication, strictly speaking) is limited to non-adulterous
fornication or extends to adulterous fornication.
Translators of the Qur'an have not always agreed on this point. The
punishment divinely ordained in 24:2 is 100 lashes for "alzzaaniiyatu
walzzaanii".
Depending on the translator, these two words are variously translated as
"aduteress and adulterer", "whore and whoremonger", "woman or man who
commits debauchery", "fornicatrix and fornicator".
The verb "zanaa" can have three meanings: commit lewdness, commit
fornication, commit adultery. The general hadd punishment for lewd and
lascivious behaviour (zina: debauchery, sexually unchaste or licentious
behaviour) regardless of its degree or the marital status of the
offenders, is 100 lashes.
The question can then be asked whether or not there is a separate,
additional or different punishment for a married fornicator (an
adulterer). This is where there is disagreement. Some Sunni scholars
hold that 100 lashes is the only punishment and applies to all
situations. Others hold that stoning is a separate punishment that is
applied to a married offender in addition to 100 lashes. Others hold
that since adultery is a more serious offense than fornication between
unmarried people, the general punishment is superseded by a harsher
punishment, i.e., stoning.
God punishes all lewdness--public or private--according to His perfect
justice and mercy. Society, through shari'ah, punishes public or
notorious lewdness. Unless a person openly and freely confesses zina, he
or she cannot be punished under shari'ah unless there are FOUR
eyewitnesses to the act, and the scholars have ruled that the witnesses
must have actually witnessed penetration. The observation of
compromising circumstances, for example, an unmarried man and woman
together, nude, lying in bed, is NOT, according to the jurists,
eyewitness observation of zina. Generally speaking, that means that the
use of shari'ah against fornicators is limited to rare cases where the
act was notorious and in plain sight and therefore socially disruptive.
The Qur'an decrees 100 lashes for fornication generally. The real
question and one that divides scholars is whether adultery can be
punished more harshly, since there is no Qur'anic prohibition against a
harsher penalty for adultery IF the interpretation of zina as a general
term for lewd, lascivious debauchery is correct. In other words, are the
scholars correct to assume degrees of zina. First degree zina is
punishable by 100 lashes but second degree zina (i.e., adultery) is
punishable by stoning?
Under the Torah of Moses (peace be on him), such a distinction was made
and adulterers were stoned. That rule was upheld under the Evangel of
Jesus (peace be on him), who did not forbid the practice but spared a
women caught in adultery because the gang of men who wanted to stone her
(without due process of law) were themselves tainted and unworthy of
holding her to a higher standard than they held themselves.
There is some anecdotal evidence that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on
him) had some adulterers stoned. In one case, the offender was a Jew and
we might suppose that he was punished according to his own law, the
Torah. If the historical evidence is true, then we have strong evidence
that the Prophet considered adultery to be more serious than
fornication. Surely, if he had been wrong, Allah would have corrected
his interpretation.
Since the Qur'an sets the maximum punishment for fornication but does
not tell us whether or not adultery is to be included under that
heading, the Muslim community is free to apply all the usual rules of
law-making to set the penalty for adultery. That penalty, being set by
man and not divinely ordained, is subject to review according to the
social imperatives of a particular place or time and its imposition
should be tempered by the the usual discretion accorded to the qadi
(judge).
khurr...@yahoo.com
there is no such thing as QURAN ONLY. but there is a group called
MUSLIMS to which I belong. and this group accepts only Quran to be
representative of what God and Prophet Said.
all else is human intellect.
even interpretation and application of QUran by any group at any time
is but that.
and cannot be labelled as divine law.
regards,
Khurram Chaudhry
kha...@sbcglobal.net
The command is to "read in
the name of our Lord" it is not to "read through Hadith, Saints, or
Mullahs".
Yassir.
The command to read in the name of our lord , does not only mean
to study books as you think,This is a command for the Prophet ,and
you probably dont know what the Prophet responded when Gibreel
(3alayhe'Salaam) commanded Him by saying "Iqra'.
Saint or Awliya are Ppl that are praised by God they
are "la khawfun 3alayhim wa laa hum yahzanun".
Hadith Masters are Mutaqeen,and Mullah can not be a lier
and Mullah at the same time,you seem like a steamroller
you go over the Good and the Bad ones,except yourself
you keep riding on top your favorit steamroller.
Ayman.
But people who are addicted
to Hadith will find this hard to swallow.
Yassir.
Ppl are not addicted to Hadith,you are the one
not able to swallow Hadith that defy your thinking.
The meaning of {And obey the Prophet} is "Know
that whatever the Prophet commands or forbids you to do,
it is I Who commands and forbids you to do" as explicited in the verse
{And whatsoever the Messenger gives you, take it,
and whatsoever he forbids, abstain from it} (59:7). Without such order,
the Prophet's command would not have been binding upon us.
Ayman.
...It tells us that the prophets are dead.
Yassir.
And it tells us that those who were killed in
the way of Allah are alive,Martyres then are higher
than the Prophets according to your thinking.
Ayman.
such as "ruhban"/mystics/saints and
"a7bar"/religious scholars are nothing more than con artists.
Yassir.
Since they are cons ,they are copying the REAL ones,
but for you these real ones dont exist.
You give the impression that only you know the Qur'an
and no one else.
Ayman.
Our ONLY purpose is to serve The God.
Yassir.
Do you think this is so profound that Bukhari,the Saints ,the Mullah
the Sufis The Imams..etc.. dont know it ?
Peace on who followed the guidance of the Prophet Muhammed
(3alayhe afdal as Salaam)
Wa Salaam.
Yassir.
G.Waleed
> Since, I've not come across the unorthodox 'submitters' sect before, is it
> specifically a USA Muslim phenomena? Does it have a significant following
> domestically, as well as in the wider Islamic community? Did their "Qur'an
> Only" position come before, or after, the rather odd "#19 mathematical code"
> idea?
Salaam
Their founder INVENTED the whole "19 mathematical code".
Rashid Khalifa did some early translation work, his 1980 English
translation of the meaning of the Qur'an still helps to bring many into
the fold of Islam.
It is included at http://www.IslamAwakened.com/Quran
Though reading it today I find it over-simplistic, and bordering on
childish at times, the fact is that for the newcomer to Islam and the
Qur'an it is one of the most clear readable translations available.
This is especially true for someone coming from a secular/western
mindset.
But the time Khalifa published his 1989 edition, he had clearly gone
completely mad. His "19 code" had become an obsession and he not only
claimed that it proved at-Taubah 9:128 and 9:129 to be "false" verses,
he had also interpreted the code to say HE was a messenger.
Enough said?
Nima Rezai
> Unless a person openly and freely confesses zina,
> he or she cannot be punished under shari'ah unless there are FOUR
> eyewitnesses to the act, and the scholars have ruled that the
> witnesses must have actually witnessed penetration. The observation of
> compromising circumstances, for example, an unmarried man and woman
> together, nude, lying in bed, is NOT, according to the jurists,
> eyewitness observation of zina. Generally speaking, that means that
> the use of shari'ah against fornicators is limited to rare cases
> where the act was notorious and in plain sight and therefore socially
> disruptive.
Dear Abdelkarim,
thanks for your extensive explanation. My personal understanding is very
similar.
A problem case that we have is the following:
What do we do with a pregnant, married woman, whose husband is for example
in jail?
Nobody has seen the penetration, leave alone 4 eyewitnesses, but her belly
speaks a clear language.
Has she comitted adultery? Should she be stoned, or not?
Lets assume for the sake of argumentation that stoning is the appropriate
islamic punishment for adultery, but the more important aspect is whether
pregnancy replaces 4 eyewitnesses.
As long as the woman cannot prove that her pregnancy is not through rape,
one could conclude that sex (not with her husband) has been the reason. With
DNA tests one could possibly find out the identity of her "lover". Lets
assume the "lover" is an unmarried man.
Their are TWO relevant questions:
1) Should stoning be applied because it can be proven beyond doubt that a
married woman had extramarital sex?
or
2) Should she not be stoned because there were no 4 eyewitnesses so that
there has been no "notorious" act "in plain sight and therefore socially
disruptive"?
I am interested in your opinion and explanation.
Best regards
Nima
Nima Rezai
> As for the murajameen? In my humble opinion they will be burning -
> with their stones.
Given, that "our" assertions are correct: Yes, Insha´allah.
What wonders me is, what human beasts can show up to stone someone?
I doubt that it is easy to find a group of people who are so free of sin
that they are "qualified" for this purpose.
Which sane person (and I am talking generally, not about Muslims) agrees to
stone someone to death without absolutely being sure that this person 100%
committed the crime he/she is accused of and that the crime deserves this
rigid sentence?
In case of Iran and Afghanistan I know that some of the lowest (not in
material terms) elements of society were involved in carrying out stonings
or other executions.
Really Jesus was right, when he said that he who is innocent should throw
the stone.
And at least those around him were honest enough to hit the road.
In todays islamic world, an illiterate "judge" easily decides to give death
sentences, and he
will find enough sick adult males full of hatred and complexes who willingly
carry out every order in the hope to see paradise.
I remember Irans supreme judge in the early years of the hijacked
revolution. Talking about how to deal with arrested opponents, he said it
would be a waste of time and resources to have a regular lawsuit against
them, so the pious soldiers of the revolution should get free hand to shoot
them wherever they arrest them.
This way a soldier who killed any person he disliked could easily say he/she
was a "munafiq", a "murtad" a "kafar", a "muharreb" or whatever.
The same is happening in Iraq, too. Many outraged Mosque speakers,
erroneously called Imams though they dont deserve this title, easily
denounce opponents as apostates, traitors of Islam, etc. No wonder why so
many feel obliged to suicide bomb their own fellow arab Muslims.
Nima
hajj abujamal
Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
> Abdelkarim Benoit Evans wrote ...
>> It is a VERY small group (or groups). You will find a succinct
>> description of them and links to their own an related Web sites
>> in the following Wikipedia article: ...
> Out of curiosity, I followed up in a bit more detail on the Rashad
> Khalifa - Wikipedia article you suggested, quite fascinating in an
> 'eccentric' sort of way. In one of the Wikipedia links it mentions
> and I quote:-
> "On January 31, 1990, Khalifa was stabbed to death at his Tucson,
> Arizona mosque."
He was killed in his bedroom, apparently during the course of a
residential burglary. His followers could not believe it was that simple.
> "It is commonly believed that the extremist group al-Fuqra',
> based in Pakistan, was responsible for the assassination."
Al-Fuqaraa was not operating in Arizona at that time.
> Have the perpetrators of this 'assassination' ever been caught?
No.
> Did it get much coverage in the world's mainstream media, since,
> at the time, the infamous 'Rushdie' affair was extremely topical?
Virtually none.
> Who are the "al-Fuqra" group? Does anyone have any idea?
They are the widely-scattered remnants of the Darul-Islam Movement
established at the hand of Imam Yahya 'Abdul-Kareem of Ya Sin Mosque
at 52 Herkimer Street in Brooklyn in the Sixties. By 1971, "The Dar"
included over 36 indigenous masajid from New York to Montreal to
Atlanta to Los Angeles, and had attempted to establish masajid
elsewhere, including in Oregon. It thereafter split rather violently,
spinning off the North American Association of Masajid ("NA'AM"),
losing Ohio and Georgia ~ and me.
Some time after the split, a "sufi" shaykh (I've forgotten his
name unless it was Jilani), said to possess relics from Shaykh
'Abdul-Qadir al-Jilani (founder of the Qadiri tariqah), came from
Pakistan via Madinah al-Munawwarah, where he was told that he should
not go to America. He came anyway, arriving at Ya Sin Mosque, where
he immediately replaced Yahya as the amir of the Dar, taking bai'ah
from the members of all the mosques or expelling those who did not
give him bai'ah, and re-naming the Darul-Islam Movement as "al-Fuqaraa'."
Pursuing a vision ("FatH! FatH! FatH!") he reported to his new
followers, he split the movement into small groups of four or five
families, dispatching them in all directions. One of these, in
Oregon, attempted to bomb the Rajneeshi Hotel in Portland, and their
leader blew off several of his fingers in the attempt. He spent
several years in the Oregon State Penitentiary under the protection of
the muslims there. It appears that the shaykh from Pakistan brought
with him his war with Hindus. He has since returned to Pakistan, and
the young white boy who blew off his fingers was last seen proclaiming
himself caliph of the muslims and ruler of the world's sufis. That
was about 1990.
Previously of interest to J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, the Darul-Islam
Movement - cum - "Fuqara Movement" became the FBI's favorite muslim
bugaboo, and was credited with virtually every frightening escapade
carried out by anyone who could be made to seem muslim. Quite
adventurist, the Fuqaraa' continued as lately as 1993 to isolate their
far-flung small-size jama'at from any other muslims in their
localities, pursuing whatever low-profile agenda they had from their
shaykh, who had returned to Pakistan, or their imaginations.
Had there been any remotely tenable connection between the Fuqaraa
and the murder of Rashad Khalifa, it would have suited the FBI's
agenda to widely publicize it. This did not happen, and the FBI
investigation concluded it had been a residential burglary gone awry.
My files on the Darul-Islam and the Fuqaraa are quite thick, but
they're in the basement and I'm not going to go through sixty boxes of
archives to find them. They're about as interesting as my archives on
the Murabitun and their predecessor formations, or the scattered
remnants of the followers of Rashad Khalifa ~ rather uninteresting,
unless you're involved with law enforcement or a researcher in
clinical psychiatry, but certainly symptomatic of certain tendencies
among converts.
Somehow, saintly relics (as in Pakistan), Scottish legends (as
with the Murabitun), and Anheuser-Busch (as with Rashad Khalifa) do
not strike me as indicators of Islamic authenticity.
was-salaam,
abujamal
--
astaghfirullahal-ladhee laa ilaha illa
howal-hayyul-qayyoom wa 'atoobu 'ilaihi
Rejoice, muslims, in martyrdom without fighting,
a Mercy for us. Be like the better son of Adam.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip>
> It is a VERY small group (or groups). You will find a succinct
> description of them and links to their own an related Web sites in the
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Out of curiosity, I followed up in a bit more detail on the Rashad Khalifa -
Wikipedia article you suggested, quite fascinating in an 'eccentric' sort of
way. In one of the Wikipedia links it mentions and I quote:-
"On January 31, 1990, Khalifa was stabbed to death at his Tucson, Arizona
mosque. It is commonly believed that the extremist group al-Fuqra', based in
Pakistan, was responsible for the assassination."
Have the perpetrators of this 'assassination' ever been caught? Did it get
much coverage in the worlds mainstream 'media', since, at the time, the
infamous 'Rushdie' affair was extremely topical? Who are the "al-Fuqra"
group? Does anyone have any idea?
--
Peace
--
Allah is one but Islam is a mosaic. The Muslim world is a linguistic tower
of Babel, an ethnic patchwork, a geographical puzzle and a political
kaleidoscope offering a picture of extraordinary doctrinal diversity.
[Slimane Zéghidour]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
G.Waleed
[...cutting to one point...]
> Since the Qur'an sets the maximum punishment for fornication but does
> not tell us whether or not adultery is to be included under that
> heading, the Muslim community is free to apply all the usual rules of
> law-making to set the penalty for adultery.
Salaam Abdelkarim
If you will review the daleel I posted you will
see that stoning-to-death is clearly NOT within
"all the usual rules of law-making".
The Qur'an sets clear guidelines for the death
penalty. I addressed this in my post.
Forgive me if you feel I am picking on Sunnis,
but in all my past discussion on this subject it
has been drilled into me - over and over - that
"all four madhabs are agreed..." that stoning is
the punishment for the married adulterer.
If in fact Sunnis are divided on this issue then,
frankly, I am glad to hear it.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
wrote:
> As long as the woman cannot prove that her pregnancy is not through rape,
> one could conclude that sex (not with her husband) has been the reason. With
> DNA tests one could possibly find out the identity of her "lover". Lets
> assume the "lover" is an unmarried man.
No, such a conclusion would be improper as it would be based on
speculation and involve a measure of doubt. Under shari'ah, a hadd
punishment cannot be carried out if there is any doubt. Circumstantial
evidence is not admissible--only freely given confessions and direct
evidence.
How can a woman become pregnant? Through consensual sexual intercourse,
through rape, through artificial or accidental insemination or through a
postitive act of Allah himself.
Using your logic, Our blessed lady Mary (God be pleased with her) could
have been stoned as an adulteress since she was betrothed to a man
(according to the Christians) or lashed as a fornicatrix since she was
unmarried.
Pregnancy is proof of reproduction--nothing more. When a women (as
occurs often in some Muslim countries) claims to have been raped by an
employer or other man and the man denies the charge, there has been no
confession of fornication but an accusation of criminal rape. Her
pregnancy is not proof of rape or of fornication. If there is no direct
proof or qualified eyewitnesses, neither party should be punished for
fornication or adultery.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:42CEB2B...@muslimamerica.net...
<snip> ...
Salaam Abujamal,
> Somehow, saintly relics (as in Pakistan), Scottish legends (as
> with the Murabitun), and Anheuser-Busch (as with Rashad Khalifa) do
> not strike me as indicators of Islamic authenticity.
Comment:-
Thank you for your detailed historical summary, it certainly puts things
more into perspective. It is a welcome change to get real facts, or an
explanation that tells things as they really are, without partisan
adornment. Can you recommend a 'unadorned' book on the history of Islam, or
Muslim society, in the USA? Would that include coverage of those subjects
mentioned in you last paragraph?
Thanks once again.
--
Was- salaam
hajj abujamal
Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
> Can you recommend a 'unadorned' book on the history
> of Islam, or Muslim society, in the USA?
None that would be comprehensive, although there are a handful
that tell parts of the story ~ omitting the nationalism, racism, and
other forms of elitism that cause vast numbers of indigenous muslims
to be completely ignored.
http://www.muslimamerica.net/mp/siyasa.htm has a synopsis in the
footnotes, but not much in the way of detail.
http://www.muslimamerica.net/mp/isna.htm has a slightly more detailed
overview, and http://www.muslimamerica.net/mp/damnarab.htm has some
more. http://www.muslimamerica.net/lf/covenant.htm might give you
some insights into what's been going on in America since the Mayflower
landed.
> Would that include coverage of those subjects
> mentioned in your last paragraph?
Fair enough. The shaykh from Pakistan rode on the authority of
his possession of relics from 'Abdul-Qadir al-Jilani, which did not
keep him from disobeying the command from Madinah to avoid America,
nor did it enable him to give the muslims of Darul-Islam right guidance.
'Abdul-Qadir al-Sufi al-Murabit, nee Ian Dallas of Achnarnagain
Scotland, claims descent from Scottish nobility of ancient times.
This did not prevent him from asking Alan Watts, of LSD fame, to write
something promoting his book "The Book of Strangers" and making a cult
out of discovering Islam and more particularly mysticism.
Rashad Khalifa retired from Anheuser-Busch, a beer brewery engaged
in the production of alcoholic beverages. Perhaps that's why his
initial propagation of his "Nineteen" theory about the Qur'an had
columns of numbers that did not lead to the sums at the bottom
"proving" that the Qur'an is "encrypted" in such a way as to prove
that certain surahs weren't geniune and that certain other passages
"actually" refer to Rashad Khalifa.
Will there ever be a book that contains a comprehensive history of
Islam in America? Sure ... it's already there, it's called The
Inscribed Tablet in most translations. We're still reading it.
But whether I get the time to write what I have seen and
discovered is rather an open question ... I'm currently aggregating my
Web writings over the last few years for hardcopy publication, and
that's going rather slowly.
Meanwhile, the enemies of humanity are still hard at work among
the muslims in America ~ and elsewhere. For some reason newcomer
muslims don't seem to realize this, although He states it quite
clearly in His Book.
> Thanks once again.
Warning: those who are Arabs and/or place Arabs on a pedestal are
not likely to enjoy the links above. Truth hurts.