Organisation of masses.Originally posted by porus:
What are the ideas that Islam brought for the betterment of mankind? I am interested to discuss those ideas that did not exist before Islam and which still better mankind.
tamne su bare che
Re: tamne su bare che
Re: tamne su bare che
The ideas are the religion of Islam only. Whatever Islam teaches starting from God's oneness to equality and rights for others.
Porus - you can argue Islam didnot bring anything new, yes, and Islam says it has combined the good of all religions and what all other prophets brought. It accumulates all good.
Having said that - i am of the opinion that Relgions should evolve, they need to change with time based on age, knowlege, human being's ability to grasp and appreciate new things (science and technology) - I say we should be able challange EVERY THING what ALL the religions have bought. If you remember, sometimes back, I had said I am gay and based on today's world and life, it should not be considered a sin (and/or disease) and that we should be able to discuss that and accept that.
Porus - you can argue Islam didnot bring anything new, yes, and Islam says it has combined the good of all religions and what all other prophets brought. It accumulates all good.
Having said that - i am of the opinion that Relgions should evolve, they need to change with time based on age, knowlege, human being's ability to grasp and appreciate new things (science and technology) - I say we should be able challange EVERY THING what ALL the religions have bought. If you remember, sometimes back, I had said I am gay and based on today's world and life, it should not be considered a sin (and/or disease) and that we should be able to discuss that and accept that.
-
Average Bohra
- Posts: 924
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 5:01 am
Re: tamne su bare che
JC,
Can you please elaborate on Islam's teachings regarding equality and rights for others which still better mankind ?
Can you please elaborate on Islam's teachings regarding equality and rights for others which still better mankind ?
Re: tamne su bare che
AB,
To me, Islam has taught equality and justice. All human beings are equal and are FREE to choose thier course of life and action. Better is the person, who has not hurt any one in any way and does all good which is generally considered good by all and sundry. To me, Islam teaches all have same rights as you have and we should respect others rights. RIGHT is MIGHT. I should let others do what i do and like for myself.
Though I am born Bohra, I beleive Religion is Great Divide today and that is why, I would say we should be able to question every aspect of every religion and re-visit what these religions teach us. To me religions should also evolve and change with time. To me, there is nothing divine or sacred in religions. They are just consititutions which can be amended based on age, time, science and technolgy, understanding and growth by human beings.
To me, Islam has taught equality and justice. All human beings are equal and are FREE to choose thier course of life and action. Better is the person, who has not hurt any one in any way and does all good which is generally considered good by all and sundry. To me, Islam teaches all have same rights as you have and we should respect others rights. RIGHT is MIGHT. I should let others do what i do and like for myself.
Though I am born Bohra, I beleive Religion is Great Divide today and that is why, I would say we should be able to question every aspect of every religion and re-visit what these religions teach us. To me religions should also evolve and change with time. To me, there is nothing divine or sacred in religions. They are just consititutions which can be amended based on age, time, science and technolgy, understanding and growth by human beings.
-
Average Bohra
- Posts: 924
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 5:01 am
Re: tamne su bare che
Can you please be more specific, where does Islam teach that ?Originally posted by JC:
AB,
Islam has taught equality and justice. All human beings are equal and are FREE to choose thier course of life and action. .
Re: tamne su bare che
i am of the opinion that Relgions should evolve, they need to change with time based on age, knowlege, human being's ability to grasp and appreciate new things...
With all due respect JC, you opinion doesn't matter. Besides, it is not in the nature of religion to evolve. And, evovle to what? To modern secular ideals of justice, freedom, tolerance, democracy? If so then you’re better off joining secular humanists, religion has no use for you. If you are into religion for spirituality then organised, faith-based religion can offer you little.
But if its mainstream religion you prefer, then you must know that the scripture is said to be the literal, inerrant word of God, and as a believer you have no choice but to accept it as such. It is absolute, unchanging dogma and it demands your absolute undivided submission. Of course, as a moderate you can choose to read the scripture in symbolic terms and interpret it as a cautionary tale for our times. But then it's neither here nor there. From this perspective, a story from one religion is as good as a story from any other. Nothing unique about Islam, Christianity or whatever.
What is unique is that each religion carries with it the character, colour and temper of the time and place of its origin. In this sense they are real artefacts, and are best left alone as you would the findings form an achaeological digs, and perhaps put them away in a museum as a testament to unending human folly.
Expecting a religion to evolve is like expecting a dinosaur's fossil to evolve.
With all due respect JC, you opinion doesn't matter. Besides, it is not in the nature of religion to evolve. And, evovle to what? To modern secular ideals of justice, freedom, tolerance, democracy? If so then you’re better off joining secular humanists, religion has no use for you. If you are into religion for spirituality then organised, faith-based religion can offer you little.
But if its mainstream religion you prefer, then you must know that the scripture is said to be the literal, inerrant word of God, and as a believer you have no choice but to accept it as such. It is absolute, unchanging dogma and it demands your absolute undivided submission. Of course, as a moderate you can choose to read the scripture in symbolic terms and interpret it as a cautionary tale for our times. But then it's neither here nor there. From this perspective, a story from one religion is as good as a story from any other. Nothing unique about Islam, Christianity or whatever.
What is unique is that each religion carries with it the character, colour and temper of the time and place of its origin. In this sense they are real artefacts, and are best left alone as you would the findings form an achaeological digs, and perhaps put them away in a museum as a testament to unending human folly.
Expecting a religion to evolve is like expecting a dinosaur's fossil to evolve.
Re: tamne su bare che
It is people who change. They do not evolve in the Darwinian sense of getting better and better in dealing with their environment, here, their societies. They change their interpretation of their scriptures and religion.
Let us get back to the time when Prophet was 40 years old. He was respected by his people and the society in which he lived was peaceful and civilized. They wrote good poetry and respected their elders. Women ran businesses too. Makka was a center of a thriving international market. There were many idols in the Kaaba and Arabs held them sacred and made offerings to them. Why was this so terrible? We hear they did not like it when their wives gave birth to girls and they were prone to tribal feuding. Not much different from today, eh?
But then, God tasked Muhammad to change all that. Why did he do that?
In the nineteenth century, people used to go to Medina to express reverence near Prophet’s tomb. Why is that so bad? Then Wahhabis decided that was Shirk and instead of engaging Muslims in a dialogue, they desecrated Prophet’s tomb by razing it. They did the same with the graves of his daughter Fatima and the first Shia Imams in Jannat-ul-Baqi. Similarly, they attacked the shrine of Imam Husain in Karbala. Sunni insurgents in Iraq, nurtured by Wahhabis, blame the Shia for American invasion of their country and anything Shia is legitimate target. They destroyed the tomb of Imam Askari in Samarra last year. Wahhabis destroyed the the statues of Buddha in Afghanistan.
These are the works of the Islam in its original purest form, as proclaimed by their adherents. It is the same Islam that has spread to South Asia because its people like all the petrodollars they get from their Wahhabi masters to build schools and madrasssas to teach ‘pure’ Islam.
How does all this lead to betterment of mankind?
[Maybe MF, no doubt a Wahhabi, should enlighten us on what it means to worship. Paying respect to departed ones and saying a prayer at their graves is worshipping graves?]
Let us get back to the time when Prophet was 40 years old. He was respected by his people and the society in which he lived was peaceful and civilized. They wrote good poetry and respected their elders. Women ran businesses too. Makka was a center of a thriving international market. There were many idols in the Kaaba and Arabs held them sacred and made offerings to them. Why was this so terrible? We hear they did not like it when their wives gave birth to girls and they were prone to tribal feuding. Not much different from today, eh?
But then, God tasked Muhammad to change all that. Why did he do that?
In the nineteenth century, people used to go to Medina to express reverence near Prophet’s tomb. Why is that so bad? Then Wahhabis decided that was Shirk and instead of engaging Muslims in a dialogue, they desecrated Prophet’s tomb by razing it. They did the same with the graves of his daughter Fatima and the first Shia Imams in Jannat-ul-Baqi. Similarly, they attacked the shrine of Imam Husain in Karbala. Sunni insurgents in Iraq, nurtured by Wahhabis, blame the Shia for American invasion of their country and anything Shia is legitimate target. They destroyed the tomb of Imam Askari in Samarra last year. Wahhabis destroyed the the statues of Buddha in Afghanistan.
These are the works of the Islam in its original purest form, as proclaimed by their adherents. It is the same Islam that has spread to South Asia because its people like all the petrodollars they get from their Wahhabi masters to build schools and madrasssas to teach ‘pure’ Islam.
How does all this lead to betterment of mankind?
[Maybe MF, no doubt a Wahhabi, should enlighten us on what it means to worship. Paying respect to departed ones and saying a prayer at their graves is worshipping graves?]
Re: tamne su bare che
One of the commonest charges brought against Islam historically, and as a religion, by Western writers is that it is intolerant. This is turning the tables with a vengeance when one remembers various facts: One remembers that not a Muslim is left alive in Spain or Sicily or Apulia. One remembers that not a Muslim was left alive and not a mosque left standing in Greece after the great rebellion in l821. One remembers how the Muslims of the Balkan peninsula, once the majority, have been systematically reduced with the approval of the whole of Europe, how the Christian under Muslim rule have in recent times been urged on to rebel and massacre the Muslims, and how reprisals by the latter have been condemned as quite uncalled for.
In Spain under the Umayyads and in Baghdad under the Abbasid Khalifas, Christians and Jews, equally with Muslims, were admitted to the Schools and universities - not only that, but were boarded and lodged in hostels at the cost of the state. When the Moors were driven out of Spain, the Christian conquerors held a terrific persecution of the Jews. Those who were fortunate enough to escape fled, some of them to Morocco and many hundreds to the Turkish empire, where their descendants still live in separate communities, and still speak among themselves an antiquated form of Spanish. The Muslim empire was a refuge for all those who fled from persecution by the Inquisition.
The Western Christians, till the arrival of the Encyclopaedists in the eighteenth century, did not know and did not Care to know, what the Muslim believed, nor did the Western Christian seek to know the views of Eastern Christians with regard to them. The Christian Church was already split in two, and in the end, it came to such a pass that the Eastern Christians, as Gibbon shows, preferred Muslim rule, which allowed them to practice their own form of religion and adhere to their peculiar dogmas, to the rule of fellow Christians who would have made them Roman Catholics or wiped them out.
The Western Christians called the Muslims pagans, paynims, even idolaters - there are plenty of books in which they are described as worshiping an idol called Mahomet or Mahound, and in the accounts of the conquest of Granada there are even descriptions of the monstrous idols which they were alleged to worship - whereas the Muslims knew what Christianity was, and in what respects it differed from Islam. If Europe had known as much of Islam, as Muslims knew of Christendom, in those days, those mad, adventurous, occasionally chivalrous and heroic, but utterly fanatical outbreak known as the Crusades could not have taken place, for they were based on a complete misapprehension. I quote a learned French author:
"Every poet in Christendom considered a Mohammedan to be an infidel, and an idolater, and his gods to be three; mentioned in order, they were: Mahomet or Mahound or Mohammad, Opolane and the third Termogond. It was said that when in Spain the Christians overpowered the Mohammadans and drove them as far as the gates of the city of Saragossa, the Mohammadans went back and broke their idols.
"A Christian poet of the period says that Opolane the "god" of the Mohammadans, which was kept there in a den was awfully belabored and abused by the Mohammadans, who, binding it hand and foot, crucified it on a pillar, trampled it under their feet and broke it to pieces by beating it with sticks; that their second god Mahound they threw in a pit and caused to be torn to pieces by pigs and dogs, and that never were gods so ignominiously treated; but that afterwards the Mohammadans repented of their sins, and once more reinstated their gods for the accustomed worship, and that when the Emperor Charles entered the city of Saragossa he had every mosque in the city searched and had "Muhammad" and all their Gods broken with iron hammers."
That was the kind of "history" on which the populace in Western Europe used to be fed. Those were the ideas which inspired the rank and file of the crusader in their attacks on the most civilized peoples of those days.
http://www.zaytuna.org/articleDetails.asp?articleID=51
In Spain under the Umayyads and in Baghdad under the Abbasid Khalifas, Christians and Jews, equally with Muslims, were admitted to the Schools and universities - not only that, but were boarded and lodged in hostels at the cost of the state. When the Moors were driven out of Spain, the Christian conquerors held a terrific persecution of the Jews. Those who were fortunate enough to escape fled, some of them to Morocco and many hundreds to the Turkish empire, where their descendants still live in separate communities, and still speak among themselves an antiquated form of Spanish. The Muslim empire was a refuge for all those who fled from persecution by the Inquisition.
The Western Christians, till the arrival of the Encyclopaedists in the eighteenth century, did not know and did not Care to know, what the Muslim believed, nor did the Western Christian seek to know the views of Eastern Christians with regard to them. The Christian Church was already split in two, and in the end, it came to such a pass that the Eastern Christians, as Gibbon shows, preferred Muslim rule, which allowed them to practice their own form of religion and adhere to their peculiar dogmas, to the rule of fellow Christians who would have made them Roman Catholics or wiped them out.
The Western Christians called the Muslims pagans, paynims, even idolaters - there are plenty of books in which they are described as worshiping an idol called Mahomet or Mahound, and in the accounts of the conquest of Granada there are even descriptions of the monstrous idols which they were alleged to worship - whereas the Muslims knew what Christianity was, and in what respects it differed from Islam. If Europe had known as much of Islam, as Muslims knew of Christendom, in those days, those mad, adventurous, occasionally chivalrous and heroic, but utterly fanatical outbreak known as the Crusades could not have taken place, for they were based on a complete misapprehension. I quote a learned French author:
"Every poet in Christendom considered a Mohammedan to be an infidel, and an idolater, and his gods to be three; mentioned in order, they were: Mahomet or Mahound or Mohammad, Opolane and the third Termogond. It was said that when in Spain the Christians overpowered the Mohammadans and drove them as far as the gates of the city of Saragossa, the Mohammadans went back and broke their idols.
"A Christian poet of the period says that Opolane the "god" of the Mohammadans, which was kept there in a den was awfully belabored and abused by the Mohammadans, who, binding it hand and foot, crucified it on a pillar, trampled it under their feet and broke it to pieces by beating it with sticks; that their second god Mahound they threw in a pit and caused to be torn to pieces by pigs and dogs, and that never were gods so ignominiously treated; but that afterwards the Mohammadans repented of their sins, and once more reinstated their gods for the accustomed worship, and that when the Emperor Charles entered the city of Saragossa he had every mosque in the city searched and had "Muhammad" and all their Gods broken with iron hammers."
That was the kind of "history" on which the populace in Western Europe used to be fed. Those were the ideas which inspired the rank and file of the crusader in their attacks on the most civilized peoples of those days.
http://www.zaytuna.org/articleDetails.asp?articleID=51
Re: tamne su bare che
(with great respect)
Hey you all...
Are not you Progressive but Dawoodi-Bohra?
Are not you Dawoodi Bohra?
Are not you Shia'a
Are not you Muslims even
what I have to say?? confuzed
Hey you all...
Are not you Progressive but Dawoodi-Bohra?
Are not you Dawoodi Bohra?
Are not you Shia'a
Are not you Muslims even
what I have to say?? confuzed
Re: tamne su bare che
Feelgud brother, I'll really feel good if you stopped cutting and pasting other people's thoughts. Don't you have anything of your own to say? In any case, what's the relevance of your above post to the ongoing discussion?
Re: tamne su bare che
porus,For some Sunnis, like MF and Anajmi, debate is all but closed. There is only one sect in Islam and it is theirs. It distinguishes itself by practicing rituals in accordance with 'their' hadith.
Oh I am open to debate. Infact I encourage debate. Let us have a debate. What do you want to discuss? The quran, hadith, science? Wahabis? Of course, you don't expect that I should be the one to change my point of view after the debate do you?
As far as sects and Islam is concerned, there is only one sect in Islam and, it is not mine. It is as per the quran and the hadith, which by the way, was not written by me or my family. Every other "sect" is falsehood either by people like the pigs and frogs which represent the orthodox bohras or by people like you and the other "free thinkers" on this board which represent the progressive bohras.
Let me repeat, only one sect - Quran and the Hadith not mine or brother MF's.
Of course I know that I will need to keep repeating that, but rest assured, unless Allah begins to hate me and makes me into one of "free thinkers" I will keep repeating it.
Re: tamne su bare che
...there is only one sect in Islam and... It is as per the quran and the hadith
anajmi, the Quran and Hadith do no exist in a vacuum. They still need to be interpreted. But you insist that there can only be one interpretation i.e. one sect of islam (no matter what's the cultural, historical context of their origin or that of the interpreter). Fine. So what do make of this Quranic verse:
"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks"
If you're not seizing and slaying the renegades, unbelievers, hypocrites then you're not following Islam as prescribed by the Quran, and which by the way you insist is the only way to follow Islam. Now don't jump and say that the Qurna doesn't mean it literally. If you do then you're opening it up to interpretation, and if one verse of the Quran is open to interpretation then every verse is open to interpretation. And each person will interpret the Quran in his/her own light - thus many sects of Islam.
You have two options: Believe in one sect of Islam and follow its prescription by the letter- a near impossibility. Or allow for multiple sects (and interpretations)of the Quran - a reasonable reality.
anajmi, the Quran and Hadith do no exist in a vacuum. They still need to be interpreted. But you insist that there can only be one interpretation i.e. one sect of islam (no matter what's the cultural, historical context of their origin or that of the interpreter). Fine. So what do make of this Quranic verse:
"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks"
If you're not seizing and slaying the renegades, unbelievers, hypocrites then you're not following Islam as prescribed by the Quran, and which by the way you insist is the only way to follow Islam. Now don't jump and say that the Qurna doesn't mean it literally. If you do then you're opening it up to interpretation, and if one verse of the Quran is open to interpretation then every verse is open to interpretation. And each person will interpret the Quran in his/her own light - thus many sects of Islam.
You have two options: Believe in one sect of Islam and follow its prescription by the letter- a near impossibility. Or allow for multiple sects (and interpretations)of the Quran - a reasonable reality.
Re: tamne su bare che
Br.Anjami
You said you only believe in Quran and Hadith
Lets talk about that, Quran has not specified anywhere how to do Salat, it comes from Hadith now which Hadith do you follow. I understand the Practice of Islam is based on 3 principles, teaching of Quran, Sunnah and Ijma. Salats are based on Ijma.
Among Sunnis we have 4 fiqhs and they have different
ways to perform Salat. I remember during Hajj while everyone combined Zoher and Asar while at Arafat there was a group of people who didnot combine those two saying they belons to Hanafi Fiqh which doesnot allow. So here comes the problem you say you only follow Quran and Hadith but AS I UNDERSTAND IN PRACTICAL LIFE IF YOU TELL ANYONE AMONG MUSLIMS THAT YOU ARE MUSLIM THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH THEY ASK YOU WHAT FIQH DO YOU BELONG?
Another question I have for you and Br. MF, do you accept Shias as part of Islamic Fiqh becuase even Maulana Maudodi didnot accept Shia Jurisprudence for a long time and he finally accepted them just few year before his death.
We talk about corruption in present Syedna's family but this is not new. You should read Maulana Maudodi's book "KHILAFAT AND MALUKEET" to know that Hazarat Usman's Khilafat was the most corrupted period in Khulfa Raashidin era. So money and power corrupts whether you are a Khalifa or a leader of a sect. Even in Saudi Arabia and Iran, most of the Khutbas recited during Friday prayers are cleared by government and they donot dare to criticize the authority more so in Saudi Arabia then in Iran
You said you only believe in Quran and Hadith
Lets talk about that, Quran has not specified anywhere how to do Salat, it comes from Hadith now which Hadith do you follow. I understand the Practice of Islam is based on 3 principles, teaching of Quran, Sunnah and Ijma. Salats are based on Ijma.
Among Sunnis we have 4 fiqhs and they have different
ways to perform Salat. I remember during Hajj while everyone combined Zoher and Asar while at Arafat there was a group of people who didnot combine those two saying they belons to Hanafi Fiqh which doesnot allow. So here comes the problem you say you only follow Quran and Hadith but AS I UNDERSTAND IN PRACTICAL LIFE IF YOU TELL ANYONE AMONG MUSLIMS THAT YOU ARE MUSLIM THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH THEY ASK YOU WHAT FIQH DO YOU BELONG?
Another question I have for you and Br. MF, do you accept Shias as part of Islamic Fiqh becuase even Maulana Maudodi didnot accept Shia Jurisprudence for a long time and he finally accepted them just few year before his death.
We talk about corruption in present Syedna's family but this is not new. You should read Maulana Maudodi's book "KHILAFAT AND MALUKEET" to know that Hazarat Usman's Khilafat was the most corrupted period in Khulfa Raashidin era. So money and power corrupts whether you are a Khalifa or a leader of a sect. Even in Saudi Arabia and Iran, most of the Khutbas recited during Friday prayers are cleared by government and they donot dare to criticize the authority more so in Saudi Arabia then in Iran
Re: tamne su bare che
Humsafar,
Different interpretations of the quran aren't the reason for different sects and you are smart enough to know that. The problem is that you think that I am stupid enough to not know that!!
Yes they need to be interpreted. Kindly tell me, which interpretation of the quran did you read to figure out that quran is a book of fiction and not actually dictated by Allah to the prophet Muhammed.anajmi, the Quran and Hadith do no exist in a vacuum. They still need to be interpreted.
Different interpretations of the quran aren't the reason for different sects and you are smart enough to know that. The problem is that you think that I am stupid enough to not know that!!
Re: tamne su bare che
omabharti,
In general all muslims accept the four schools of thought as authentic. So if someone from one school of thought refuses to recognize the other's way of performing salaah, then he is wrong, plain and simple. Infact there is evidence that the Imam of one school of thought has prayed according to the Imam of the other school of thought. If someone were to ask me what fiqh I belong to, I would insist on calling myself only a muslim. If the other person insists, then either you can walk away or punch him in the face.
I personally do not consider the Shias as non-muslims. Shias are muslims unless they believe that the prophet Muhammed was not the last prophet, which they do not. Cursing the first three khalifa does not disqualify you from being a muslim.
Although I am not sure which interpretation of the quran you are following to do something like that!!
And yes money and power corrupts and the leaders of Saudi Arabia and all other muslim nations, even the puppets of America, are the some of the most corrupt leaders in the world. I am not sure I understand your point though.
In general all muslims accept the four schools of thought as authentic. So if someone from one school of thought refuses to recognize the other's way of performing salaah, then he is wrong, plain and simple. Infact there is evidence that the Imam of one school of thought has prayed according to the Imam of the other school of thought. If someone were to ask me what fiqh I belong to, I would insist on calling myself only a muslim. If the other person insists, then either you can walk away or punch him in the face.
I personally do not consider the Shias as non-muslims. Shias are muslims unless they believe that the prophet Muhammed was not the last prophet, which they do not. Cursing the first three khalifa does not disqualify you from being a muslim.
Although I am not sure which interpretation of the quran you are following to do something like that!!
And yes money and power corrupts and the leaders of Saudi Arabia and all other muslim nations, even the puppets of America, are the some of the most corrupt leaders in the world. I am not sure I understand your point though.
Re: tamne su bare che
MF how do you know that you are on the right path
-
Muslim First
- Posts: 6893
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 4:01 am
Re: tamne su bare che
Profrog questioned:
7.170: And as to those who hold fast to the Book (i.e. act on its teachings) and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat)certainly We shall never waste the rewardf those who do righteous deeds.
The book (Qur'an) or Prophet does not tell me to do Wadahvnu, Kadam Bosi, Maatam, Visit graves, waste time listening to tall tales, or like this and list goes on and on.
I hope this will make sense to your froggy brain.
Wasallam
.
This is how I know Iam on right path.MF how do you know that you are on the right path
7.170: And as to those who hold fast to the Book (i.e. act on its teachings) and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat)certainly We shall never waste the rewardf those who do righteous deeds.
The book (Qur'an) or Prophet does not tell me to do Wadahvnu, Kadam Bosi, Maatam, Visit graves, waste time listening to tall tales, or like this and list goes on and on.
I hope this will make sense to your froggy brain.
Wasallam
.
Re: tamne su bare che
Br. Anjami
Here you go again by saying that generally all Muslims accept 4 Fiqah, a typical Wahabi or LoT answer effectively removing almost 5% of 1.2 billion Muslims. Even the most conservative Sunni Molana Maudodi even accepted 5th fiqh of Islam which is Jafferia or SHIA.
You or MF still did not answer some of points I raised regarding combining of Zuhr and Asar during Hajj or during Qasar Namaz? Nowhere Quran tells you how to read Namaz or Salah as you may refer. so how do you know which one is correct?
Here you go again by saying that generally all Muslims accept 4 Fiqah, a typical Wahabi or LoT answer effectively removing almost 5% of 1.2 billion Muslims. Even the most conservative Sunni Molana Maudodi even accepted 5th fiqh of Islam which is Jafferia or SHIA.
You or MF still did not answer some of points I raised regarding combining of Zuhr and Asar during Hajj or during Qasar Namaz? Nowhere Quran tells you how to read Namaz or Salah as you may refer. so how do you know which one is correct?
Re: tamne su bare che
omabharti,
I would like to answer your questions, which I already have, but considering the fact that the answer will be typical wahabi or LoT answer, there is no point right?
I would like to answer your questions, which I already have, but considering the fact that the answer will be typical wahabi or LoT answer, there is no point right?
Re: tamne su bare che
MF how do you know the way you perform salat is the right way .quran does not specify in any way about rakats or the times or the number
Re: tamne su bare che
and if you do not wish to remember the dead then why do praise your so called usurpers and their followers by adding ra or sa after their names
-
Muslim First
- Posts: 6893
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 4:01 am
Re: tamne su bare che
Profrog wrote;
Point 2: Sahabas RA has observed Prophets Salat and has recorded in Ahadith.
Point 3: Authentic report exists about Night prayers of Prophet from his wives.
Traditionally one learns how to pray from his Ustaad who follows one of 4 fiqh in Sunni Islam or Jaffary Fiqh for Shies. There are minute differences in Salat among 5 Fiqh but they all agree that there are 5 distinct times of prayers (Even Imam Khomeini has issued Fatwa regarding 5 distinct times of prayers and recommended that 12vers should pray them on time) and Number of Rakats for fird prayers.
Those who have studied Islam and can make his own judgment.
You can go to Shia site or read about Prophets Prayers here .
Wasalaam brother and keep those questions coming.
.
Point one: Salat is being performed everyday since Prophets Time at Mecca & Medina. So if Salat was changed it would be obvious.MF how do you know the way you perform salat is the right way .quran does not specify in any way about rakats or the times or the number
Point 2: Sahabas RA has observed Prophets Salat and has recorded in Ahadith.
Point 3: Authentic report exists about Night prayers of Prophet from his wives.
Traditionally one learns how to pray from his Ustaad who follows one of 4 fiqh in Sunni Islam or Jaffary Fiqh for Shies. There are minute differences in Salat among 5 Fiqh but they all agree that there are 5 distinct times of prayers (Even Imam Khomeini has issued Fatwa regarding 5 distinct times of prayers and recommended that 12vers should pray them on time) and Number of Rakats for fird prayers.
Those who have studied Islam and can make his own judgment.
You can go to Shia site or read about Prophets Prayers here .
Shies have made big deal about 'So called usurpers'. It is no big deal for 85% of Muslims. They do not dwell on it for every minutes of their spiritual life. Adding RA for Sahabas and departed saints is normal practice and we do not pass any judgment on them. Allah will judge them. We do not add SA for Sahabas or Imams. SA is reserved only for Prophets and use of SAWS for the last prophet Muhammad Rasul-Allah. BTW so called 'usurpers' i.e. 1, 2, 3 have been given 'Basharat' of Janna by Prophet SAW himself.and if you do not wish to remember the dead then why do praise your so called usurpers and their followers by adding ra or sa after their names
Wasalaam brother and keep those questions coming.
.
Re: tamne su bare che
Simply by choosing some people to honor with RA, logically, you are judging them. You are setting them apart from all other people.Adding RA for Sahabas and departed saints is normal practice and we do not pass any judgment on them.
What harm is there in honoring my departed grandfather, whom hardly anyone knows now, with RA? [RA = radi-allahu an-hu = may Allah be pleased with him]
SAW is after a command of Allah in Quran (33:56).SA is reserved only for Prophets and use of SAWS for the last prophet Muhammad Rasul-Allah.
[SA = salla-allahu alay-hi (male) or salla-allahu alay-ha (female) = May Allah bless him or her]
[SAW = salla-allahu wa sallam = May Allah bless him an keep him in peace]
Fom salla we get salaat=prayer=blessing; and plural of salaat is salawaat=prayers=blessings.
Now, what harm is there in honoring others with these words? Only the bigots will think that by doing that, others are being elevated to the status of the Prophet. Now that is judging.
By the way, The Shia use as= alay-hi as-salaam = peace be upon him, after the names of their Imams.
(And the use of the word Imam for Khomeini is inappropriate. He is only entitled to that designation when leading congregational prayers. He is not the Imam in the sense that the Shia use the term.)
Re: tamne su bare che
One would need to actually believe in the status of these people to be able to honor them with specific commands. For eg, I believe that the prophet was actually the prophet and so reserve certain commands only for him.
For someone who doesn't believe that, it will obviously appear illogical. I wouldn't even debate it.
For someone who doesn't believe that, it will obviously appear illogical. I wouldn't even debate it.
Re: tamne su bare che
You believe in the status. So you made a judgement. MF said Sunnis do not judge. I think that that is a logical error and I was replying to that.
My beliefs or unbeliefs do not matter in this issue or any issue we discuss on this board. You can keep calling me kafir. However, I do not reject or cover Quran over (meaning of kufr). I want it fully discussed. Now what about those seven heavens bit? Where do you think they are? No taawil stuff, please.
Besides I have already proven that you have broken faith and are headed to hell. That is a Bohra view and is as valid as your view of me being a Kafir.
By the way, in your eagerness to respond did you notice an error?
[SAW = salla-allahu alay-hi wa sallam = May Allah bless him an keep him in peace]
My beliefs or unbeliefs do not matter in this issue or any issue we discuss on this board. You can keep calling me kafir. However, I do not reject or cover Quran over (meaning of kufr). I want it fully discussed. Now what about those seven heavens bit? Where do you think they are? No taawil stuff, please.
Besides I have already proven that you have broken faith and are headed to hell. That is a Bohra view and is as valid as your view of me being a Kafir.
By the way, in your eagerness to respond did you notice an error?
[SAW = salla-allahu alay-hi wa sallam = May Allah bless him an keep him in peace]
Re: tamne su bare che
taawil:
anajmi's view: "that crap!"
MF's view: "last refuge of the scoundrels"
My view: Some of Islam's greatest personalities have instructed us in taawil; among these are Ali ibn Abi Taalib, Imam Jaafer al-Sadiq, and dare I say, Prophet himself. And I am not going to quote hadith for this view.
anajmi's view: "that crap!"
MF's view: "last refuge of the scoundrels"
My view: Some of Islam's greatest personalities have instructed us in taawil; among these are Ali ibn Abi Taalib, Imam Jaafer al-Sadiq, and dare I say, Prophet himself. And I am not going to quote hadith for this view.
-
Muslim First
- Posts: 6893
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 4:01 am
Re: tamne su bare che
Br. Porus
AS
Your comment;
I would say "Grand Father Porush" Rehmet-Allah Alehi (RA Again?). Roughly meanining God's mercy on him.
Wasalaam
.
AS
Your comment;
We have another tradition for thatWhat harm is there in honoring my departed grandfather, whom hardly anyone knows now, with RA? [RA = radi-allahu an-hu = may Allah be pleased with him]
I would say "Grand Father Porush" Rehmet-Allah Alehi (RA Again?). Roughly meanining God's mercy on him.
Wasalaam
.
Re: tamne su bare che
MF,
I am quite happy with that too. Would Allah have mercy on him if He wasn't, in some small way, pleased with him?
I am quite happy with that too. Would Allah have mercy on him if He wasn't, in some small way, pleased with him?
Re: tamne su bare che
porus,
Unfortunately, you had to go through the "taawil crap" to prove that I have broken faith. Besides, I didn't have to prove that you are a kafir. You acnowledge that you are.Besides I have already proven that you have broken faith and are headed to hell. That is a Bohra view and is as valid as your view of me being a Kafir.
Re: tamne su bare che
porus,
Shouldn't we also to consider the fact that you actually do not believe in anything these great personalities taught us?My view: Some of Islam's greatest personalities have instructed us in taawil; among these are Ali ibn Abi Taalib, Imam Jaafer al-Sadiq, and dare I say, Prophet himself. And I am not going to quote hadith for this view.