| Author | Topic |
usmani790
PAKISTAN
|
 Posted - Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 6:49 AM 
Dear Tilawat,
Quote:- So there is no condition of any specific place for offering 'namaz' as the entire face of earth has been declared fit for prostration.
Reply:- How do you see the following hadith.
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "No doubt, I intended to order somebody to pronounce the Iqama of the (compulsory congregational) prayer and then I would go to the houses of those who do not attend the prayer and burn their houses over them." (Sahih Bukhari Book #41, Hadith #602) |
|
tilawat
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 1:00 AM
Dear Usmani
Oh my God how the Mullah has duped the brains of Muslims that they have ceased to think altogether.
One aberration with which most of the Muslims are affected is that they treat the Mullah, a professional seller of Deen, equal to prophet as the Jews did in respect of their Ehbar (See Quran).
The Hadees you quoted only shows the expression of the extreme compassion (shafqat) the Prophet had for the ummat. In effect, he did neither intend to burn houses of the Muslims nor actually burn any house. He did however got a Mulla Masjid destroyed which was declared by Allah even as a bastion for division of the Umma.
You should mind that the call by the Prophet for whatever purpose cannot be equated with the call of the Mullah even for namaz behind him. There is a Quranic injunction and a ahadees also to this effect but I think common sense should be enough if not clouded by Mullah-gardi not to place a mullah at equal footing with the prophet. In fact the mullah is an unnatural and uncalled for product debasing the very religion of Islam which is called 'Deen-e-Fitrat'.
Practically now with the 'holy' loudspeaker of the Mullah calling you from all sides has made all this Mullah calling absurd. I personally hear the call for namaz from at least half a dozen mosques belonging to all kinds of sects even including Ahmadia. Now if I treat all of them as the calls of God or prophet, tell me, which one should i attend to save my house from being burnt down. |
|
usmani790
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Monday, September 4, 2006 - 8:25 AM
Dear Tilawat
Qoute:-The Hadees you quoted only shows the expression of the extreme compassion (shafqat) the Prophet had for the ummat.
Reply:- No person will ever think to burn the house of some one in compassion(shafqat).what kind of food you eating these days any way?what happened to you brother, were you sleeping while writing the reply?
Its only shows the extreme anger and extreme disliking of Prophet(pbuh) for those who are not coming to mosque for praying.
Quote:-He did however got a Mulla Masjid destroyed which was declared by Allah even as a bastion for division of the Umma.
Reply:-The reason of demolishing that mosque was that the few Munafiqeen using that mosque to plots agaist the Islam.
Quote:-Now if I treat all of them as the calls of God or prophet, tell me, which one should i attend to save my house from being burnt down.
Reply:-Check all of them and take the best among them for paring there.Once you finished yours prayer, don’t talk to mullah and come back to your home. If any one doing any thing wrong there,you won’t be caught for their fault. |
|
abm19
INDIA
|
Posted - Monday, September 4, 2006 - 10:14 AM
Dear brother raushan
Your quote:- You should agree with me that commonly agreed proof is a must for a serious discussion.e.g.
Quoting from Quran to a christian or followers of other religion is of no use becoz they dont belive this .
My response:- Right. Similarly quoting from only Qur’an to a man who believe fabricated prophetic hadith also is of no use because they don’t believe qur’an without fabricated hadith.
Your quote:- Fourth, it was Allah Almighty Who made His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) have that journey, and, certainly, nothing is impossible for Allah Almighty to do; He Almighty is able to do all things.
My response:- I earlier said that do not just say that Allah (swt) is most powerful and He can do any thing. Yes, I agree that Allah (swt) is most powerful and He can indeed do anything, but you will agree that He does not do stupid things.
Your quote:- there is nothing that calls us to doubt the occurrence of the journey in both body and soul.
My response:- Did you not see my 23 points against the fairy tell(Miraj of Mohammad)? If yes, Please answer first the said 23 points.
ABM |
|
sksamsherali
INDIA
|
Posted - Monday, September 4, 2006 - 11:05 AM
Salam,
This is for Abm19
Q:- If you think that this incident of Miraj occurred in vision or in dream, and the journey was spiritual in nature, then you will find very logical answers to all the questions that I posed.
REPLY:- Nowhere in the Qur’an you find the word “Miraj” regarding the subject and also Prophet Muhammad was not the subject of this incident.
This is for Raushan,
Q:- The majority of jurists, scholars of Hadith, and Muslim philosophers agreed that it was in both body and soul for many reasons.
First, according to Almighty Allah's words: (Glorified be He Who carried His servant by night from theInviolable Place of Worship to the Far Distant Place of Worship.) (Al-Israa’ 17: 1), He Almighty has referred to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as “His servant.” The word “servant” does not refer to one's soul only; it refers to the servant as a whole, body and soul.
REPLY:- Your majority of jurists, scholars of hadith are completely wrong because the soul (on its own) can also be called the servant of God, everything in the universe is the servant of God, body, soul, trees, animals, suns, moons, ....... etc
[42:21] THEY FOLLOW IDOLS WHO DECREE FOR THEM RELIGIOUS LAWS NEVER AUTHORIZED BY GOD. If it were not for the predetermined decision, they would have been judged immediately. Indeed, the transgressors have incurred a painful retribution.
[6:116] If you obey the majority of people on earth, they will divert you from the path of GOD. They follow only conjecture; they only guess.
Q:- Second, had the Prophet's journey of Al-Israa’ and Al-Mi`raj been in soul only, it would not have been regarded as a miracle.
REPLY:- Please tell me where Qur’an says that Al-Israa was a miracle. Also where did you find in the Qur’an the word “ Al-Mi’raj”?
Q:- Third, Allah Almighty says about the journey of Al-Israa’ and Al-Mi`raj: (We appointed the vision which We showed thee as an ordeal for mankind.) (Al-Israa’ 17: 60). “Ordeal” here refers to its being a trial. Contemplating this, the journey would not be a trial unless it was in both body and soul. Had it been in soul only, there would not have been a trial or something extraordinary regarding it.
REPLY:- Please read my earlier reply at no.1.
Secondly, you opined as “ the journey would not be a trial unless it was in both body and soul. Had it been in soul only, there would not have been trial or something…”
Brother, please give any reference from the qur’an in support of your above opinion.
Q:- Besides, when the unbelievers knew about the journey of Al-Israa’ and Al-Mi`raj, they wondered how the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) could make it on one night, when they would make a similar journey in a month. [Why should they disbelieve it, if it were a mere dream?]
REPLY:- Where did you find in the Qur’an that after knowing the incident, disbelievers were wondered? Rather they claimed for it and if Muhammad could not do that they would not believe on him. Please read the followings;
[17:90] They said, "WE WILL NOT BELIEVE YOU unless you cause a spring to gush out of the ground.
[17:91] "Or unless you own a garden of date palms and grapes, with rivers running through it.
[17:92] "Or unless you cause masses from the sky, as you claimed, to fall on us. Or unless you bring GOD and the angels before our eyes.
[17:93] "Or unless you own a luxurious mansion, or UNLESS YOU CLIMB INTO THE SKY. EVEN IF YOU DO CLIMB, WE WILL NOT BELIEVE UNLESS YOU BRING A BOOK THAT WE CAN READ." Say, "Glory be to my Lord. AM I ANY MORE THAN A HUMAN MESSENGER?"
The words “any more than” are indeed self explanatory. They assert that what the disbelievers demand of Muhammad (to climb into the sky) is not something that is going to happen. This clear Quranic verse as a matter of fact provides us with the knowledge that Muhammad was commanded by God to specifically DENY that he would ascend unto heaven, as the disbelievers asked of him.
Q:- Fourth, it was Allah Almighty Who made His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) have that journey, and, certainly, nothing is impossible for Allah Almighty to do; He Almighty is able to do all things. Hence, there is nothing that calls us to doubt the occurrence of the journey in both body and soul.
REPLY:- No brother, there are many many doubtful things, which you overlooked. Please read the followings;
“Most Glorified is the One who summoned His servant during the night, from the ‘Masjid Al-Haraam’ to the ‘Masjid Al-AqSsa’ whose surroundings We have blessed, in order to show him Our signs. He is the Hearer, the Seer” (Sura 17, verse 1).
Muslim scholars believe that 17:1 confirms the celestial journey of prophet Muhammad (mounted on the gigantic creature ‘Al-Buraaq’) from the ‘Masjid Al-Haraam’ (Sacred Masjid) in Mecca to the ‘Masjid Al-AqSsa’ (Farthest Masjid) in Jerusalem, from whence he ascended past the seven universes to where no being can go (not even Gabriel) where he received the prescribed prayers and saw heaven and hell.
To analyze these claims, these specifically are:
FIRST CLAIM
That the prophet received the prescribed prayers while he was at the highest place in the heavens.
SECOND CLAIM
That the words ‘Al-Masjid Al-AqSsa’ refers to the mosque in Jerusalem.
THIRD CLAIM
That the words ‘His servant’ refer to prophet Muhammad.
It must be said that there is no evidence in 17:1, nor for that matter in all of the Quran, to confirm any of the above claims, instead these claims may only be supported by a number of ‘hadeeth’, and for that, it deems necessary for us to verify each of these claims. The Quran, as God Himself tells us, will always guide the believers to the truth;
“....We have revealed to you this Book to provide explanations for everything, and guidance and mercy and good news for the submitters.” (16:89)
FIRST CLAIM
The first claim is that Muhammad received the prescribed prayers at the highest point in the heavens.
The Quran does not give us any indication of this claim, this claim can only be found in hadith. Since there has already been a lot that has been written about this matter, and the issue has been conclusively dealt with, I can move on to the next issue.
It was also thought that Muhammad was given the Quran at the highest point in the heavens?
A careful study of the Quran in fact alerts us to quite the opposite situation. God tells us that the Quran was “sent down” to Muhammad. Nowhere in the Quran is there any indication that Muhammad went up to receive the Quran. Consider the following verses that relate the process of the revelation of the Quran. Note that they all denote a ‘sending down’ process:
· “We brought it down in a blessed night, for We are warners.” (44:3)
· “We brought it down in the Night of Destiny.” (97:1)
· “We brought down to you this book ……….” (39:2)
· “Say, ‘Anyone who opposes Gabriel should know that he has brought it down unto your heart, in accordance with God’s will.” (2:97)
It is true that since God be praised will always be higher than anyone or any place, and therefore wherever “His servant” in 17:1 was elevated to the Quran would still have been “brought down”, nevertheless there is sufficient evidence in these verses to suggest that the Quran was brought down to Muhammad here on earth and not somewhere up in the heavens:
First
We notice that although 17:1 on one hand (that describes the ‘Israa’), and the other verses on the other (that describe the revelation of the Quran), contain the word ‘night’, yet there is a marked difference between these verses concerning the use of the word ‘night’.
In 17:1 the words are ‘during the night’, while as in the other verses the words are ‘in a night’. To realize the difference in meaning it is necessary first to confirm three matters:
1- The ‘Israa’ was an upward phenomenon, while the revelation of the Quran to Muhammad is described in the Quran as a downward phenomenon.
2- The phenomena of night and day are terrestrial phenomena. They occur by God’s will on earth due to the spinning of the earth around its axis.
3- There is thus justification in stating that wherever “His servant” was raised, far beyond the seven universes, the term “night” did not apply.
But since both verses speak of “night” and since the phenomenon of night is a terrestrial one then we must conclude that “His servant” started the ascend from earth “during the night”, and similarly that Muhammad must have received the Quran on earth in the “Night of Destiny”. It is not feasible to say that Muhammad received the Quran at the highest point in the heavens “in a night” simply because at that location the spinning of our earth around its axis is totally insignificant. At that highest point in the heavens the phenomenon of ‘night’ does not exist. If the verse states that Muhammad received the Quran “in a night” then it must mean that he received it on earth.
The deliberate choice of words by the Almighty, “during the night” as opposed to “in a night” confirms the terminals of both journeys.
The words “during the night” indicate the time of the commencement (from earth) of the upward trip. Similarly the words “in a night” indicate the time as well as the destination (earth) of the downward trip.
Second
To demonstrate this second evidence it would be helpful to cite the following example:
Suppose you are selling some product and you tell one of your buyers:
‘I will bring the goods to you’
The words ‘to you’ implies that the buyer does not have to travel, and that the goods will be delivered to his location. Now let us look at 39:2 one more time.
“We brought down to you this book ………”
The words “to you” seems to indicate that Muhammad did not have to travel to receive the Quran, but that it was, as the verse says brought down to him. In other words he did not have to leave earth. Obviously reaching the highest point in the heavens requires quite a bit of travelling.
Third
The third evidence that indicates a terrestrial presence upon receiving the Quran is found in the Quranic words “upon your heart” in 2:97.
God could have said ‘upon your soul’ instead, why was the word “heart” the choice?
The word “heart”, being a physical organ, denotes a physical presence, as opposed to ‘soul’ which would denote a spiritual presence. If we can be justified in ascribing the physical presence to that of one who is on earth, as opposed to the spiritual presence which occurs on a terrestrial as well as on a celestial plane, then the physical “heart” would again imply a terrestrial presence at the time of receiving the Quran.
Fourth
Verse 17:1 states that ‘His servant’ was elevated to the ‘farthest place’. This is confirmed with the words ‘the highest horizon’ in 53:7, and the words ‘the ultimate point’ in 53:14.
The precise wording of these phrases implies that this point ‘farthest’, ‘highest’ and ‘ultimate’ is the point above which no being can exist except Almighty God (otherwise it would not be the highest or farthest place).
On the other hand verse 2:97 informs us that it was Gabriel who ‘brought down’ the Quran to Muhammad in accordance with the will of God.
Now to state that Muhammad received the Quran at the ‘highest point’ through a descending Gabriel (brought down), as per 2:97, would necessarily imply that Gabriel was originally at a point above the ‘highest point’ from whence he descended to deliver the Quran to Muhammad. This is not a feasible situation as mentioned since only God exists beyond such a point. Thus to accommodate the idea of a descending Gabriel rules out the possibility of Muhammad receiving the Quran at the ‘highest point’. This again points to the fact that Muhammad received the Quran here on earth.
SECOND CLAIM
The Muslim scholars have always maintained that the “Masjid Al-AqSsa” is the mosque in Jerusalem! This claim is false and that is because of the following:
1- The word “AqSsa” literally means farthest or most distant. Needless to say, the mosque in Jerusalem is not the most distant place from Mecca! On a global dimension alone, Jerusalem is relatively near to Mecca, let alone on a universal dimension, and larger still a seven universal dimension!
2- There is another very significant clue in the words :
“….. whose surroundings We have blessed”
These words describe the “Masjid Al-AqSsa” and not the “Masjid Al-Haram”. The ‘Masjid’ that is specifically singled out to receive God’s blessings “Masjid Al-AqSsa” must be the more favored of the two. This valuable piece of information rules out the possibility of the “Masjid Al-AqSsa” being the mosque in Jerusalem. How can it be that God would give preferential treatment to a mosque in Jerusalem over His own ‘Masjid’ in Mecca? After all, it is the mosque in Mecca that is called ‘sacred’ by God, as in 2:144.
However, and if the “Masjid Al-Aqsa” is the farthest place of prostration, at the highest point in the heavens, and where the angels constantly prostrate and glorify God, then it would quite rightly merit a higher status, and thus more preference to any place on earth.
THIRD CLAIM
The Quran does not name “His servant” who was summoned to heaven, yet Islamic scholars have always assumed that it was Muhammad, and have reinforced their assumption with numerous ‘hadeeth’ the most commonly propounded of which is a thinly disguised Jewish fabrication known as ‘hadeeth al-m'iraaj’.
The mere fact that the only link we have between the event of ‘Israa’ and the name of Muhammad is a number of fabricated ‘hadith’, makes the connection very dubious, and thus places an added obligation on us to research the matter further.
In actual fact the Quran offers various indications that the person summoned was not Muhammad, these are some of them:
1- We notice that every time the Quran associates a specific miracle to a messenger, the name of that messenger is mentioned. When the miracle of the parting of the sea was mentioned the name of Moses was mentioned (2:50-51). When the fragmented birds on hill tops were remolded into whole living birds the name of Abraham was mentioned (2:260). When the conversation between man and bird took place the name of Solomon was mentioned (27:20-28). Other miracles are also ascribed to David (21:79), Jesus (19:30, 3:49) and others. In the case of the miraculous event of the ‘Israa’, the identity of the messenger who witnessed it was not disclosed. We may quite rightly wonder as to why did God break the rule in this case? If Muhammad was the subject of that glorious miracle why did not God inform us of that? Why did God choose the undefined words “His servant” instead?
2- Additional evidence to that interpretation lies in the Quran’s emphasis that the only miracle ascribed to Muhammad was the Quran (see 29:51). Muhammad did not witness any personal miracles. This again indicates that the miraculous ascension of ‘Israa’ is not related to Muhammad.
3- Further evidence is found in another glorious Quranic verse where the choice of words by Almighty God is truly remarkable. Before we look into this verse it is necessary to refer first to another Quranic verse:
“Those who disbelieved, even if they possessed everything on earth, even twice as much, and offered it as ransom to spare them the retribution on the day of Resurrection, it would not be accepted from them.” (5:36).
The wording of this verse employs the situation of possessing “everything on earth” as an unattainable situation. In other words no one will possess everything on earth.
Now let us look at the verse that is related to our research. In 6:19 God commands Muhammad to testify that the Quran has been inspired to him, then in verse 25 God warns Muhammad of the disbelievers who will listen to him but their hearts are wicked, then in verses 33 and 34 God shows of His infinite mercy when He says to Muhammad that he should not be too saddened by what the disbelievers say, then in verse 35 God says to Muhammad:
“………….even if you climbed a ladder into the sky, and produced a miracle for them (they still would not believe)” (6:35)
Since the Quran confirms that Muhammad was not given any miracles (apart from the Quran), then the words “and produced a miracle” are used as an unattainable situation. It follows that the words “even if you climbed a ladder into the sky” are also used as an unattainable situation. Just like the logic of (5:36) where the situation of possessing “everything on earth” is used as an unattainable situation, in this verse the fact that Muhammad would ever climb into the sky, during his life on earth, and produce a miracle is used as an unattainable situation.
Here we must pose and think, God could have used any unattainable situation to demonstrate that Muhammad will produce no miracles. But the very important question is why did God deliberately use the words that stresses that Muhammad will not climb into the sky? Could it be because Almighty God is stressing to us that the ascension to the sky of the ‘Israa’ is not associated with Muhammad?
4- This meaning (that Muhammad will not climb into the sky) is indeed reconfirmed in the following verse:
“……….. or unless you climb into the sky. Even if you do climb, we will not believe….”
In reply to these words by the disbelievers God commands Muhammad to say:
“Glory be to my Lord. Am I any more than a human messenger?” (17:93)
The words “any more than” are indeed self explanatory. They assert that what the disbelievers demand of Muhammad (to climb into the sky) is not something that is going to happen.
This clear Quranic verse as a matter of fact provides us with the knowledge that Muhammad was commanded by God to specifically DENY that he would ascend unto heaven, as the disbelievers asked of him.
So brothers ABM & Raushan please think deeply on these points.
Samsher. |
|
tilawat
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Tuesday, September 5, 2006 - 12:50 AM
quote:
Dear Tilawat
Qoute:-The Hadees you quoted only shows the expression of the extreme compassion (shafqat) the Prophet had for the ummat.
Reply:- No person will ever think to burn the house of some one in compassion(shafqat).what kind of food you eating these days any way?what happened to you brother, were you sleeping while writing the reply?
Its only shows the extreme anger and extreme disliking of Prophet(pbuh) for those who are not coming to mosque for praying.
Quote:-He did however got a Mulla Masjid destroyed which was declared by Allah even as a bastion for division of the Umma.
Reply:-The reason of demolishing that mosque was that the few Munafiqeen using that mosque to plots agaist the Islam.
Quote:-Now if I treat all of them as the calls of God or prophet, tell me, which one should i attend to save my house from being burnt down.
Reply:-Check all of them and take the best among them for paring there.Once you finished yours prayer, don’t talk to mullah and come back to your home. If any one doing any thing wrong there,you won’t be caught for their fault.
Dear Usmani
Do you think the prophet really intended to burn the houses of those Muslims who did not attend to his call?
This looks blasphemic to say the least as the prophet called Rehmatuaalimin did not burn the house of any munafiq (or for that matter of any kafir for any reason) even who did not attend his mosque but did get a Mullah mosque destroyed no doubt. I can understand for a mullah duped to admit any thing which goes against his god , the mullah. |
|
usmani790
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Tuesday, September 5, 2006 - 8:37 AM
Dear Tilawat
Quote:-Do you think the prophet really intended to burn the houses of those Muslims who did not attend to his call?
Reply:-Prophet(pbuh) extreme anger for those who did not attend the paryers in mosque clearly shows that Prophet(pbuh) already given the clear instruction to the people to always perform the prayers in mosque not in their home.
Quote:-This looks blasphemic to say the least as the prophet called Rehmatuaalimin did not burn the house of any munafiq (or for that matter of any kafir for any reason)
Reply:-How do you know they were munafiq or kafir?.
Quote:-even who did not attend his mosque but did get a Mullah mosque destroyed no doubt.
Reply:-The facts will never be changed for keep telling lies on that.No one will lose any thing but only your own self.
There is a link for praying in mosque where it explained through Quran and Sunnah
http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=79&ln=eng&txt=congregational%20prayer |
|
tilawat
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 12:42 AM
Usmani
I am sorry dear you seem to be Mullah dupe and so it is useless to argue with you. I told you that in my view to treat the mullah's mosque or his call to prayer as equal to that of prophet's is shere blasphemic and that for a Muslim, as a general rule, the entire face of earth is a mosque of Allah and his Rasool. There is no need of any call by any body to call one to prayer. When the time for namaz comes you have to offer prayer wherever you are and if there is no water available you may perform tayammum for woozu. This is the order of the prophet (PBUH). He had come to end this 'dukaandari' of the professional mullah at his mullah-plaza fitted with horrible loudspeakers blaring out sectarian hatred and thereby causing lot of public nuisance. |
|
tilawat
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 1:53 AM
Dear Samsherali
You are so logical dear Samsher that I love to read your post just for its shere logic. I am however intrigued why you waste your logic by applying it on faith which is a purely subjective phenomenon, an antithesis to logic and commonsense. You just read the Punjabi lyrical epic named 'Mehraj Nama' which is read in our Punjabi homes mostly by the women-folk like Quran. Though Quran and Islam do exhort use of Aql (reason, logic,etc.) but only to the extent that it guides
you to recognizing the truthfulness of the prophet after which it requires you to suspend your aql and to confine yourselves to believe and follow as your safety lies in following the edicts of Islam only ( See Imam Ghazali's, Ehyaulaloom, Vol.I,page 84). |
|
nonstoptaxi
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 2:43 PM
Article on Behaviour of Submitters
This has been slightly updated since the last time I posted it. My rather clear accusation of lying against one of the Khalifites seems to have led him into a frenzy of posting (though not in defense against the accusation). So, as long as they are here, I'll post this periodicly. The moderators have my permission to break this into parts if they want.
The first part is my personal experience with Khalifites. Later in the paper I outline my theological andphilosophical reasons why the Khalifite position is not only absurd and contrary to reason, but is actually evil in that it is, in essence, dehumanized. The first time this was posted no Khalifite attempted to refute these points.
All Muslims have total permission to reprint this at will as long as it is printed in its entirety, with no editing (well, correct the spelling errors ), and with proper attribution.
Asalaamu alaikum,
A couple of years ago I used America Online. There was no Islamic forum in the religion discussion groups. I was the only Muslim and the folder on Islam opened and closed a couple of times. I doubt I had been Muslim for more than a year. One day I was rather excited when "AzharK" showed up... a Muslim, or so I thought. He introduced me to the idea that the Qur'an was possessed of a mathematical miracle. While I found this mildly interesting it really seemed to have little to do with actual faith and iman (more on this below). Of more interest to me were the problems he had with the sunnah... concerns that echoed mine (also more below).
For a brief period he seemed like a nice guy, and sent me (for free!) a copy of the Qur'an translated by Rashad Khalifa. I liked the translation, but those appendices in the back! Yikes! I don't think I had ever encountered so much gobbledy-gook in my entire life. There was downright nonsense as well as statements that I knew were contrary to accepted Muslim belief. This translator somehow "found" in the Qur'an references to himself based upon numerology and claimed to be a messenger from God! Well, never one for the occult (but rather knowledgable about it), and knowing there were to be no more messengers I knew I had hit upon a "live one".
I quickly learned, even before I had heard of "Khalifites" that AzharK was irrational in his views... so seemingly self-centered that he was unable to *discuss* issues. Non-Muslims began to find their way to the forum and my time was spent pointing out the errors of AzharK's thinking. Bored to tears with this I abandoned the forum and I think it died yet again. Others too, abandoned it as AzharK was a "one-note" poster... he was like a tape-loop endlessly repeating the same message and unable to dialogue. It was my opinion, coming from a strong background in psychology, that AzharK was mentally ill and used religious language to express his distubed psyche. I have since revised this assessment, as we shall see.
When I reopened the forum AOL had embarked on one of their massive advertising campaigns and more Muslims appeared on-line. Things were very interesting and then someone named "Ghazy" showed up. He was also taken with the alleged mathematical structure of the Qur'an, which I had since learned was questionable, if not down- right fraudulent. Ghazy's posts were like AzharK's in every way-- one note, unable to respond to questions, unable to discuss, to dialogue. Unfortunately, he ended up monopolizing the entire forum. Everyone was always "in response" to Ghazy who was easily the most obstinate, closed, and irrational being I may have ever met. The question of how he learned salat if he didn't follow *anything* but the Qur'an was asked over, and over, and over again and NEVER got a response.... because a response would mean an admission that he followed SOMEONE'S sunnah... and he could not bring himself to say such a thing.
Ghazy, however, was not mentally ill.... what was he? At first, people were extremely patient with him, not unlike Daniel Lomax is to the Khalifites that infest SRI. But, like we see here, Ghazy was unable to respond in an appropriate manner to the issues raised and the challenges made to his way of thinking--- but he would still not see the errors so clearly and kindly pointed out to him.
The experience was odd.... it is like someone looking at an apple and saying "it is a grape" and you say "no, it is an apple". He disagrees, so you provide a clear definition of both: apples are bigger, have a certain shape, come in these colors and varieties. You would then go on to give a description of a grape. He would say "yes, that is a description of an apple and a description of a grape". You would then, reasonably, think the problem was solved, wouldn't you? Not with Ghazy, he'd then come right back and called the grape an apple and the apple a grape! Very, very, very strange and frustrating. Actually, it was down-right *creepy*.
Ok, so it was odd, to say the least. What was worse, imho, was how he was able to commandeer all discussion on the forum. When new participants came on, Muslim or non-Muslim, Ghazy was immediately right there.... all time was spent refuting his statements rather than discussing other issues of interest to Muslims and educating non-Muslims about our din. In a sense, he had successfully shut down the forum.( We see a similar dynamic on SRI as the Khalifites are prolific and untiring in the face of all evidence....)
It was then that I reluctantly concluded that Ghazy's insane irrationality could NOT be explained as misguidance, ignorance, or even mental illness.... but only by real evil. And this is my view of the Khalifites.... they are evil. I shall explain why I think this in
greater detail below. Every Khalifite I have encountered on-line is just like AzharK and Ghazy (he was even on SRI for a while. When I resumed school and got my Internet account I thought I was free of him and them forever-- no such luck! Soon AOL had a Usenet feed.... and there he was! And of course, now, like bugs who reproduce by the millions, we have four or five of them.) One of them has even been publicly accussed of lying, and produces no defense against the charge. Those posts are reproduced at the very end of this paper.
Now, I am not saying that *every* Khalifite is evil... some, undoubtedly ARE simply misguided, ignorant of Islam AND the use of reason, or are mentally deficient/disturbed in some way... but I haven't encountered them. My hunch is that all begin like this, but once in this group its "cult-like" characteristics take over... essentially a brainwashing that is difficult, if not impossible for the individual to break out of. Frankly, I do not believe the claims of some to have been born Muslim-- how many have ever shown the slightest knowledge of Arabic (or any other language)? If indeed it is true for some, then we must conclude that they have massive oppositional disorders. Mental and or psychological problems can be a fertile ground for the seduction by the Evil One. This, however, is not the topic at present, but I would refer people to the book, available in just about any bookstore "People of the Lie" by the psychiatrist M. Scott Peck.
Here then, are my views on the Khalifite position:
1. The alleged "mathematical miracle".
First, it takes a high-level statistician to actually analyze the claims. IF there is a pattern of multiples of 19 the question becomes whether it is truly statistically significant. That is NOT a simple issue, by any means, as anyone who has studied the science of statistics knows. It is also quite clearly documented that there are errors in the counting of letters, inconsistencies, etc. But in actuality, and more importantly to my mind, THE ISSUE IS IRRELEVANT! Why? Well, any good Catholic, or ex-Catholic, as the case may be, could tell you: faith based on supposed miracles is a weak faith, perhaps it is even "not-faith". The Catholics are certainly no strangers to miracles and maintain a rigorous validation process of identifying true miracles.
I was raised Catholic, and yes, have actually read the Vatican II documents, as well as high-level theology. I'll never forget what I was told waaaay back in fourth grade. (How far back I'm not sayin')
"Tank" the principle, was a nun (at a time when when they wore hijab-in-extremis). She told us a story: There was a parish with two priests. The older one was of firm faith, the younger had doubts. One day, the younger was celebrating the Mass and lo and behold, a miracle occurred! The bread and wine, which Catholics believe actually becomes the body and blood of Jesus Christ (called "transubstantiation") actually, visibly changed! The wine become blood and the bread became an image of Jesus! A person, breathless and excited, ran to fetch the older priest: "Father, Father, hurry! Come see! Its a miracle! A miracle! The bread and wine have changed into Jesus!" The priest calmly looked up, and without leaving his seat said "I know". Think about it. Its powerful enough to have stuck in the mind and heart of a fourth-grader. Apocryphal or not, the story makes a valid point.
If you need something extra-ordinary you are looking for magic-- not faith, and certainly not *iman* which does not even mean "faith" as we use it in English. How blind such people are to miss the miraculous of the ordinary! Reflect upon that. "And in themselves are signs, and in the seasons too..." "You have eyes that do not see, ears that do not hear."
"Signs" and the asking for signs have NEVER been within the behavioral repretoire of a believer. As Prophet Jesus said: only an evil generation seeks a sign.
2. Complete and total rejection of sunnah.
A *highly* irrational position to take that implies an almost insane rejection of plain old *reality*, not to mention the social construction of human reality.
"Sunnah" is a simple word that means a "way"... that is, a way of doing things, of approaching life, a life-style, a set of characteristics and behaviors.
You see, "no man is an island", that is, we are ALWAYS enculturated, within traditions, within a social context. Even a hermit is such only within a background of social traditions... it is IMPOSSIBLE to be wholly "individualized"-- completely unique >from others. Even when alone we are ALWAYS in a community of others. It is embedded in your very language, your thoughts, your perceptions-- there is simply no way around it-- ALL people, at ALL times, EVERYWHERE, ALWAYS are following SOMEONE ELSE'S "way"-- someone else's sunnah.
Some follow the sunnah of a sports star ("I wanna be like Mike"). Others a rock star ("Madonna wannabe"). We talk about our "heroes" or our "role models". We talk about teachers who had a deep effect upon us. We talk about how our childhood experiences effected us ("the child gives birth to the man")("he's a chip off the old block"). In psychology we talk about "family systems"-- patterns that are set up and repeated-- such as a victim of domestic violence growing up to be an abuser himself. This is "sunnah".
To deny that we follow a sunnah is insanity. The question then becomes *who's* sunnah, who's pattern, who's example do you follow?
To some extent, we can choose this. Most people follow a sunnah unreflectively... others try to learn and follow a particular sunnah. We may learn a sunnah from fashion magazines, biographies, television, parents, etc.
The absurdity of the Khalifite position should be clear from the above. It is even worse because they specifically reject the sunnah of Muhammad, who even non-Muslims acknowledge was an exceptional man, as any reader of seerah knows. What is the sunnah of Muhammad? Well, some chapter headings in Afzalur Rahman's "Encyclopaedia of Seerah: Vol. I" on the topic give us a clue: love and mercy, forgiveness, generosity, hospitality, sacrifice, simplicity, humility, modesty, sincerity, honesty and truthfulness, fair dealing, justice, fulfilment of promises, piety and righteousness, moderation, perseverence, courage and bravery, and humour. It would seem that the Khalifites thus imply a rejection of these qualities.
The Khalifite position on the sunnah is one of the ways in which they reveal themselves as evil. Real evil is rarely blatant--- it is usually subtle, hidden, sneaky. It mixes good things with the bad. It mixes falsehood with truth, thus confusing and seducing people-- even people of good will and sincerity. It especially goes after those who would love Allah, and be among the Creator's friends. It targets those who could be among the foremost of Muslims. There is a saying "The devil can quote Scripture to its own end." Evil can assume a pleasing shape.
All things created, being "not-God" have a degree of imperfection in them, as only Allah is perfect. (This is actually a subtlety-- one can say that creation is perfect *as* creation, but this is not the place for such high-level theology.) One of the traditional signs of evil is to take this element of imperfection and thus label something as "all bad", thus keeping people from the good that is present. This is what Khalifites are doing with the sunnah, or more precisely, they are taking people's imperfect understanding and application of the sunnah as a basis for condemning the whole thing.
A very simple example of this type of a dynamic can be found in chocolate. Most people really like chocolate. It tastes really good, but of course, it is extremely high in fat. It is not a perfect food. Some go to an extreme and thus never eat chocolate because of the fear of fat. They then deny themselves this delicious bit of Allah's creation.
There are certainly problems with how we (Muslims) understand and embody the sunnah of Muhammad. New Muslims especially can be put off by how some embody the sunnah-- i.e. emphasizing beards, Arab- style clothing, use of what I call "hadith bombs" to shut off questions. They may be sympathetic to Khalifites because of this. Christian reverts, in particular, may see much of this as idolization of Muhammad in a way similar to how they used to think of Jesus. Undoubtedly, for some Muslims today, there *is* idolization of Muhammad. There is a truth here... and imperfection.
Khalifites exploit this. They reason from imperfect application to total rejection, but this is not the proper use of reason. (They may say they are arguing from Qur'an, but this is not true as they misinterpret Qur'an. They use both arguments: actual imperfect practice as well as misinterpretation of Qur'an. See below.) It is the same error as those who would reject the ideal of Islam because of, say, the actions of Muslims in the Middle East, or those who reject the ideal of Christianity because of the Inquisition. It is simply invalid, as anyone of average intelligence can see. The Khalifites though, show themselves as evil by their obstinacy in maintaining their position of rejection. Most people are able to clearly see the absurdity and error of logic in this form of argument.
So, on this issue, the Khalifites clearly show one of the traditional signs of the presence of evil.
(Incidentally, it must be pointed out that the sunnah is derived not just from the hadith literature, but also the actual practice of Muslims-- particularly the actual practice of the first generation(s) of Muslims following the Qur'anic revelation.)
Consideration of the Khalifite rejection of sunnah leads to, and is related to the next point:
3. Interpretation of the Qur'an.
Like their position on the sunnah, the Khalifite position is absurd and untenable for any rational, thinking person. It is also another clue that can lead to the conclusion that they are evil.
The Khalifites maintain that the Qur'an is "fully detailed" in its religious guidelines and they maintain that translation is irrelevant to understanding. Both of these can be understood within standard Islam, but not in the way the Khalifites utilize these terms and ideas. They need to be nailed down on the definition of their use of "detailed" and "understanding". (But of course, they always strenuously resist being "nailed down" on anything!)
If by "fully detailed" we mean that the Qur'an is "enough" for a proper religious life we are ok. If by "fully detailed" we mean that the Qur'an has given us "all that we need to know" we are ok. BUT, if we mean, like the Khalifites, that it provides such detail such that there is no need for explication, interpretation, or the use of analogies to apply Qur'anic guidelines to particular situations, then we are clearly into the realm of absurdities, as we shall see.
If by "understanding" we mean that people can come to an acceptance of the Qur'an as a revelation from the One True God by only using a translation we will have no argument by regular Muslims. After all, it is happening every day. BUT, if we mean, like the Khalifites, that we can understand all nuance, all subtlety, all shades of meaning and connotation in a translation of the Qur'an than we are clearly outside the bounds of reason. No language translates cleanly and clearly into another, and this may be even more so for Arabic which is noted by all for its subtlety and shades of nuanced meaning. (And of course, it is in denial of the Qur'an itself which is self-described as an "*Arabic* Recitation".)
These issues are *intimately* related to the issue of sunnah.
The Qur'an provides very few "details" of the Muslim lifestyle. It provides many generalities. This is clear even in translation. To deny it is an almost insane rejection of reality.
For example, some of these details are the clear prohibition against pork and wine. But even here, there is a need to go outside of the Qur'an AND to refer to the Arabic language. For instance, the word translated as "wine" is a word that means "that which intoxicates". To use only the translation, and to rely upon the "Qur'an alone" one could reasonably conclude that beer or marijuana is allowed. As all but the newest Muslims know, beer and pot are *not* allowed based upon this Qur'anic statement. So, even the details in the Qur'an are not "details" as used by the Khalifites!
And of course, questions arise: well, if I'm not allowed to drink beer or smoke pot can I own a liquor store or grow pot for others to smoke? Indeed, we know from the hadith literature that this question *was* asked and answered in the negative--- no matter how hard one looks, one will not find the answer in the Qur'an, much less in an English translation. This dynamic is so obvious to any thinking person that its denial is the height of absurdity.
Of course, the issue of salat is the thorn in the Khalifite's side on these points.
Essentially, the Khalifites are rejecting the need to interpret the Qur'an, and refuse to acknowledge that they are indeed, engaged in the act of interpretation-- the interpretation being supplied by Rashad Khalifa. This is a denial of "hermeneutics", which is especially distressing to me.
"Hermeneutics" is the field of inquiry into how humans derive meaning from texts and other areas of their experience. It is a field that has, in this century, taken on an added urgency in many other fields of inquiry such as history, philosophy of science and law, as well as in its traditional place in literary criticism and religious studies (from which it emerged as a distinct field).
Without going into it, which is rather complicated, suffice it to say that the human IS the "creature-that-interprets" we are "homo hermeneuticus". It is the essence of being human. It is what makes us distinct and unique-- apart from all other creatures-- *it is by means of hermeneutics that we discover human freedom*.
By denying the importance of interpretation (by means of holding to the irrelevance of translation, as well as outside reference) the Khalifites deny and reject that which is most "human" of human being. They reject it and lead others away from it--- they are engaged in *dehumanization*! In the rejection of sunnah they are, in essence rejecting history and memory. It is through history and memory that people know who or what they are-- it is essential for human self-definition. By implicity rejecting hermeneutics, history and memory the Khalifites are engaged in a gross act of dehumanization. They are seeting themselves up as contrary to that which which is distinctively human, as against it, as enemies to the human. Now, is *that* not a good indication of evil?? Indeed, is it not one of the definitions?
The interpretation of the Qur'an, even in translation, ALWAYS begins with the sunnah, but does not necessarily END with the sunnah. (This is another side of those who are seduced into a rejection of history, but that is another group and another story.)
Muhammad, as the messenger of God bringing the Qur'anic revelation to us, it is reasonable to conclude, best understood (properly interpreted) the Qur'an. Even then, further hermeneutic work was done by Islamic scholars and has led to the four madhabs. But that is a whole other issue. Suffice it to say, it is reasonable to refer to the sunnah in order to properly understand the Qur'an-- in spite of actual Muslim practice.
And so, that concludes my understanding of Khalifite claims. I hope you enjoyed it.
On a different tone, did you get the reference in the title?? (Americans and Brits should!) Here's a hint: "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste... ...Pleased to meet you! Hope you guess my name! Ah, what's puzzlin' you is the nature of my game..."
(and who says rock 'n roll has nothing of value to give us?!)
May Allah protect us all from the evil one. May our Creator and Lord forgive us, grant us guidance, and open the gates of Paradise for us to enter into.... |
|
nonstoptaxi
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 2:45 PM
This has been slightly updated since the last time I posted it. My rather clear accusation of lying against one of the Khalifites seems to have led him into a frenzy of posting (though not in defense against the accusation). So, as long as they are here, I'll post this periodicly. The moderators have my permission to break this into parts if they want.
The first part is my personal experience with Khalifites. Later in the paper I outline my theological andphilosophical reasons why the Khalifite position is not only absurd and contrary to reason, but is actually evil in that it is, in essence, dehumanized. The first time this was posted no Khalifite attempted to refute these points.
All Muslims have total permission to reprint this at will as long as it is printed in its entirety, with no editing (well, correct the spelling errors ), and with proper attribution.
Asalaamu alaikum,
A couple of years ago I used America Online. There was no Islamic forum in the religion discussion groups. I was the only Muslim and the folder on Islam opened and closed a couple of times. I doubt I had been Muslim for more than a year. One day I was rather excited when "AzharK" showed up... a Muslim, or so I thought. He introduced me to the idea that the Qur'an was possessed of a mathematical miracle. While I found this mildly interesting it really seemed to have little to do with actual faith and iman (more on this below). Of more interest to me were the problems he had with the sunnah... concerns that echoed mine (also more below).
For a brief period he seemed like a nice guy, and sent me (for free!) a copy of the Qur'an translated by Rashad Khalifa. I liked the translation, but those appendices in the back! Yikes! I don't think I had ever encountered so much gobbledy-gook in my entire life. There was downright nonsense as well as statements that I knew were contrary to accepted Muslim belief. This translator somehow "found" in the Qur'an references to himself based upon numerology and claimed to be a messenger from God! Well, never one for the occult (but rather knowledgable about it), and knowing there were to be no more messengers I knew I had hit upon a "live one".
I quickly learned, even before I had heard of "Khalifites" that AzharK was irrational in his views... so seemingly self-centered that he was unable to *discuss* issues. Non-Muslims began to find their way to the forum and my time was spent pointing out the errors of AzharK's thinking. Bored to tears with this I abandoned the forum and I think it died yet again. Others too, abandoned it as AzharK was a "one-note" poster... he was like a tape-loop endlessly repeating the same message and unable to dialogue. It was my opinion, coming from a strong background in psychology, that AzharK was mentally ill and used religious language to express his distubed psyche. I have since revised this assessment, as we shall see.
When I reopened the forum AOL had embarked on one of their massive advertising campaigns and more Muslims appeared on-line. Things were very interesting and then someone named "Ghazy" showed up. He was also taken with the alleged mathematical structure of the Qur'an, which I had since learned was questionable, if not down- right fraudulent. Ghazy's posts were like AzharK's in every way-- one note, unable to respond to questions, unable to discuss, to dialogue. Unfortunately, he ended up monopolizing the entire forum. Everyone was always "in response" to Ghazy who was easily the most obstinate, closed, and irrational being I may have ever met. The question of how he learned salat if he didn't follow *anything* but the Qur'an was asked over, and over, and over again and NEVER got a response.... because a response would mean an admission that he followed SOMEONE'S sunnah... and he could not bring himself to say such a thing.
Ghazy, however, was not mentally ill.... what was he? At first, people were extremely patient with him, not unlike Daniel Lomax is to the Khalifites that infest SRI. But, like we see here, Ghazy was unable to respond in an appropriate manner to the issues raised and the challenges made to his way of thinking--- but he would still not see the errors so clearly and kindly pointed out to him.
The experience was odd.... it is like someone looking at an apple and saying "it is a grape" and you say "no, it is an apple". He disagrees, so you provide a clear definition of both: apples are bigger, have a certain shape, come in these colors and varieties. You would then go on to give a description of a grape. He would say "yes, that is a description of an apple and a description of a grape". You would then, reasonably, think the problem was solved, wouldn't you? Not with Ghazy, he'd then come right back and called the grape an apple and the apple a grape! Very, very, very strange and frustrating. Actually, it was down-right *creepy*.
Ok, so it was odd, to say the least. What was worse, imho, was how he was able to commandeer all discussion on the forum. When new participants came on, Muslim or non-Muslim, Ghazy was immediately right there.... all time was spent refuting his statements rather than discussing other issues of interest to Muslims and educating non-Muslims about our din. In a sense, he had successfully shut down the forum.( We see a similar dynamic on SRI as the Khalifites are prolific and untiring in the face of all evidence....)
It was then that I reluctantly concluded that Ghazy's insane irrationality could NOT be explained as misguidance, ignorance, or even mental illness.... but only by real evil. And this is my view of the Khalifites.... they are evil. I shall explain why I think this in
greater detail below. Every Khalifite I have encountered on-line is just like AzharK and Ghazy (he was even on SRI for a while. When I resumed school and got my Internet account I thought I was free of him and them forever-- no such luck! Soon AOL had a Usenet feed.... and there he was! And of course, now, like bugs who reproduce by the millions, we have four or five of them.) One of them has even been publicly accussed of lying, and produces no defense against the charge. Those posts are reproduced at the very end of this paper.
Now, I am not saying that *every* Khalifite is evil... some, undoubtedly ARE simply misguided, ignorant of Islam AND the use of reason, or are mentally deficient/disturbed in some way... but I haven't encountered them. My hunch is that all begin like this, but once in this group its "cult-like" characteristics take over... essentially a brainwashing that is difficult, if not impossible for the individual to break out of. Frankly, I do not believe the claims of some to have been born Muslim-- how many have ever shown the slightest knowledge of Arabic (or any other language)? If indeed it is true for some, then we must conclude that they have massive oppositional disorders. Mental and or psychological problems can be a fertile ground for the seduction by the Evil One. This, however, is not the topic at present, but I would refer people to the book, available in just about any bookstore "People of the Lie" by the psychiatrist M. Scott Peck.
Here then, are my views on the Khalifite position:
1. The alleged "mathematical miracle".
First, it takes a high-level statistician to actually analyze the claims. IF there is a pattern of multiples of 19 the question becomes whether it is truly statistically significant. That is NOT a simple issue, by any means, as anyone who has studied the science of statistics knows. It is also quite clearly documented that there are errors in the counting of letters, inconsistencies, etc. But in actuality, and more importantly to my mind, THE ISSUE IS IRRELEVANT! Why? Well, any good Catholic, or ex-Catholic, as the case may be, could tell you: faith based on supposed miracles is a weak faith, perhaps it is even "not-faith". The Catholics are certainly no strangers to miracles and maintain a rigorous validation process of identifying true miracles.
I was raised Catholic, and yes, have actually read the Vatican II documents, as well as high-level theology. I'll never forget what I was told waaaay back in fourth grade. (How far back I'm not sayin')
"Tank" the principle, was a nun (at a time when when they wore hijab-in-extremis). She told us a story: There was a parish with two priests. The older one was of firm faith, the younger had doubts. One day, the younger was celebrating the Mass and lo and behold, a miracle occurred! The bread and wine, which Catholics believe actually becomes the body and blood of Jesus Christ (called "transubstantiation") actually, visibly changed! The wine become blood and the bread became an image of Jesus! A person, breathless and excited, ran to fetch the older priest: "Father, Father, hurry! Come see! Its a miracle! A miracle! The bread and wine have changed into Jesus!" The priest calmly looked up, and without leaving his seat said "I know". Think about it. Its powerful enough to have stuck in the mind and heart of a fourth-grader. Apocryphal or not, the story makes a valid point.
If you need something extra-ordinary you are looking for magic-- not faith, and certainly not *iman* which does not even mean "faith" as we use it in English. How blind such people are to miss the miraculous of the ordinary! Reflect upon that. "And in themselves are signs, and in the seasons too..." "You have eyes that do not see, ears that do not hear."
"Signs" and the asking for signs have NEVER been within the behavioral repretoire of a believer. As Prophet Jesus said: only an evil generation seeks a sign.
2. Complete and total rejection of sunnah.
A *highly* irrational position to take that implies an almost insane rejection of plain old *reality*, not to mention the social construction of human reality.
"Sunnah" is a simple word that means a "way"... that is, a way of doing things, of approaching life, a life-style, a set of characteristics and behaviors.
You see, "no man is an island", that is, we are ALWAYS enculturated, within traditions, within a social context. Even a hermit is such only within a background of social traditions... it is IMPOSSIBLE to be wholly "individualized"-- completely unique >from others. Even when alone we are ALWAYS in a community of others. It is embedded in your very language, your thoughts, your perceptions-- there is simply no way around it-- ALL people, at ALL times, EVERYWHERE, ALWAYS are following SOMEONE ELSE'S "way"-- someone else's sunnah.
Some follow the sunnah of a sports star ("I wanna be like Mike"). Others a rock star ("Madonna wannabe"). We talk about our "heroes" or our "role models". We talk about teachers who had a deep effect upon us. We talk about how our childhood experiences effected us ("the child gives birth to the man")("he's a chip off the old block"). In psychology we talk about "family systems"-- patterns that are set up and repeated-- such as a victim of domestic violence growing up to be an abuser himself. This is "sunnah".
To deny that we follow a sunnah is insanity. The question then becomes *who's* sunnah, who's pattern, who's example do you follow?
To some extent, we can choose this. Most people follow a sunnah unreflectively... others try to learn and follow a particular sunnah. We may learn a sunnah from fashion magazines, biographies, television, parents, etc.
The absurdity of the Khalifite position should be clear from the above. It is even worse because they specifically reject the sunnah of Muhammad, who even non-Muslims acknowledge was an exceptional man, as any reader of seerah knows. What is the sunnah of Muhammad? Well, some chapter headings in Afzalur Rahman's "Encyclopaedia of Seerah: Vol. I" on the topic give us a clue: love and mercy, forgiveness, generosity, hospitality, sacrifice, simplicity, humility, modesty, sincerity, honesty and truthfulness, fair dealing, justice, fulfilment of promises, piety and righteousness, moderation, perseverence, courage and bravery, and humour. It would seem that the Khalifites thus imply a rejection of these qualities.
The Khalifite position on the sunnah is one of the ways in which they reveal themselves as evil. Real evil is rarely blatant--- it is usually subtle, hidden, sneaky. It mixes good things with the bad. It mixes falsehood with truth, thus confusing and seducing people-- even people of good will and sincerity. It especially goes after those who would love Allah, and be among the Creator's friends. It targets those who could be among the foremost of Muslims. There is a saying "The devil can quote Scripture to its own end." Evil can assume a pleasing shape.
All things created, being "not-God" have a degree of imperfection in them, as only Allah is perfect. (This is actually a subtlety-- one can say that creation is perfect *as* creation, but this is not the place for such high-level theology.) One of the traditional signs of evil is to take this element of imperfection and thus label something as "all bad", thus keeping people from the good that is present. This is what Khalifites are doing with the sunnah, or more precisely, they are taking people's imperfect understanding and application of the sunnah as a basis for condemning the whole thing.
A very simple example of this type of a dynamic can be found in chocolate. Most people really like chocolate. It tastes really good, but of course, it is extremely high in fat. It is not a perfect food. Some go to an extreme and thus never eat chocolate because of the fear of fat. They then deny themselves this delicious bit of Allah's creation.
There are certainly problems with how we (Muslims) understand and embody the sunnah of Muhammad. New Muslims especially can be put off by how some embody the sunnah-- i.e. emphasizing beards, Arab- style clothing, use of what I call "hadith bombs" to shut off questions. They may be sympathetic to Khalifites because of this. Christian reverts, in particular, may see much of this as idolization of Muhammad in a way similar to how they used to think of Jesus. Undoubtedly, for some Muslims today, there *is* idolization of Muhammad. There is a truth here... and imperfection.
Khalifites exploit this. They reason from imperfect application to total rejection, but this is not the proper use of reason. (They may say they are arguing from Qur'an, but this is not true as they misinterpret Qur'an. They use both arguments: actual imperfect practice as well as misinterpretation of Qur'an. See below.) It is the same error as those who would reject the ideal of Islam because of, say, the actions of Muslims in the Middle East, or those who reject the ideal of Christianity because of the Inquisition. It is simply invalid, as anyone of average intelligence can see. The Khalifites though, show themselves as evil by their obstinacy in maintaining their position of rejection. Most people are able to clearly see the absurdity and error of logic in this form of argument.
So, on this issue, the Khalifites clearly show one of the traditional signs of the presence of evil.
(Incidentally, it must be pointed out that the sunnah is derived not just from the hadith literature, but also the actual practice of Muslims-- particularly the actual practice of the first generation(s) of Muslims following the Qur'anic revelation.)
Consideration of the Khalifite rejection of sunnah leads to, and is related to the next point:
3. Interpretation of the Qur'an.
Like their position on the sunnah, the Khalifite position is absurd and untenable for any rational, thinking person. It is also another clue that can lead to the conclusion that they are evil.
The Khalifites maintain that the Qur'an is "fully detailed" in its religious guidelines and they maintain that translation is irrelevant to understanding. Both of these can be understood within standard Islam, but not in the way the Khalifites utilize these terms and ideas. They need to be nailed down on the definition of their use of "detailed" and "understanding". (But of course, they always strenuously resist being "nailed down" on anything!)
If by "fully detailed" we mean that the Qur'an is "enough" for a proper religious life we are ok. If by "fully detailed" we mean that the Qur'an has given us "all that we need to know" we are ok. BUT, if we mean, like the Khalifites, that it provides such detail such that there is no need for explication, interpretation, or the use of analogies to apply Qur'anic guidelines to particular situations, then we are clearly into the realm of absurdities, as we shall see.
If by "understanding" we mean that people can come to an acceptance of the Qur'an as a revelation from the One True God by only using a translation we will have no argument by regular Muslims. After all, it is happening every day. BUT, if we mean, like the Khalifites, that we can understand all nuance, all subtlety, all shades of meaning and connotation in a translation of the Qur'an than we are clearly outside the bounds of reason. No language translates cleanly and clearly into another, and this may be even more so for Arabic which is noted by all for its subtlety and shades of nuanced meaning. (And of course, it is in denial of the Qur'an itself which is self-described as an "*Arabic* Recitation".)
These issues are *intimately* related to the issue of sunnah.
The Qur'an provides very few "details" of the Muslim lifestyle. It provides many generalities. This is clear even in translation. To deny it is an almost insane rejection of reality.
For example, some of these details are the clear prohibition against pork and wine. But even here, there is a need to go outside of the Qur'an AND to refer to the Arabic language. For instance, the word translated as "wine" is a word that means "that which intoxicates". To use only the translation, and to rely upon the "Qur'an alone" one could reasonably conclude that beer or marijuana is allowed. As all but the newest Muslims know, beer and pot are *not* allowed based upon this Qur'anic statement. So, even the details in the Qur'an are not "details" as used by the Khalifites!
And of course, questions arise: well, if I'm not allowed to drink beer or smoke pot can I own a liquor store or grow pot for others to smoke? Indeed, we know from the hadith literature that this question *was* asked and answered in the negative--- no matter how hard one looks, one will not find the answer in the Qur'an, much less in an English translation. This dynamic is so obvious to any thinking person that its denial is the height of absurdity.
Of course, the issue of salat is the thorn in the Khalifite's side on these points.
Essentially, the Khalifites are rejecting the need to interpret the Qur'an, and refuse to acknowledge that they are indeed, engaged in the act of interpretation-- the interpretation being supplied by Rashad Khalifa. This is a denial of "hermeneutics", which is especially distressing to me.
"Hermeneutics" is the field of inquiry into how humans derive meaning from texts and other areas of their experience. It is a field that has, in this century, taken on an added urgency in many other fields of inquiry such as history, philosophy of science and law, as well as in its traditional place in literary criticism and religious studies (from which it emerged as a distinct field).
Without going into it, which is rather complicated, suffice it to say that the human IS the "creature-that-interprets" we are "homo hermeneuticus". It is the essence of being human. It is what makes us distinct and unique-- apart from all other creatures-- *it is by means of hermeneutics that we discover human freedom*.
By denying the importance of interpretation (by means of holding to the irrelevance of translation, as well as outside reference) the Khalifites deny and reject that which is most "human" of human being. They reject it and lead others away from it--- they are engaged in *dehumanization*! In the rejection of sunnah they are, in essence rejecting history and memory. It is through history and memory that people know who or what they are-- it is essential for human self-definition. By implicity rejecting hermeneutics, history and memory the Khalifites are engaged in a gross act of dehumanization. They are seeting themselves up as contrary to that which which is distinctively human, as against it, as enemies to the human. Now, is *that* not a good indication of evil?? Indeed, is it not one of the definitions?
The interpretation of the Qur'an, even in translation, ALWAYS begins with the sunnah, but does not necessarily END with the sunnah. (This is another side of those who are seduced into a rejection of history, but that is another group and another story.)
Muhammad, as the messenger of God bringing the Qur'anic revelation to us, it is reasonable to conclude, best understood (properly interpreted) the Qur'an. Even then, further hermeneutic work was done by Islamic scholars and has led to the four madhabs. But that is a whole other issue. Suffice it to say, it is reasonable to refer to the sunnah in order to properly understand the Qur'an-- in spite of actual Muslim practice.
And so, that concludes my understanding of Khalifite claims. I hope you enjoyed it.
On a different tone, did you get the reference in the title?? (Americans and Brits should!) Here's a hint: "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste... ...Pleased to meet you! Hope you guess my name! Ah, what's puzzlin' you is the nature of my game..."
(and who says rock 'n roll has nothing of value to give us?!)
May Allah protect us all from the evil one. May our Creator and Lord forgive us, grant us guidance, and open the gates of Paradise for us to enter into.... |
|
raushan
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
|
Posted - Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 9:12 AM
The word Me’raj (Ascent of Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) is derived from Urooj, which means, ‘height’, ‘ascension’. It occurs in Hadith. The Qur’anic word for the event is ‘Israa’, meaning ‘the journey’. The event is briefly mentioned in the Qur’an, its detailed provided by Hadiths while the people’s fantasies add the usual garnishing. Taken from Qur’an and Hadiths the essential details of the event (with necessary explanation and discussions) are as follows;
The Heart Operation
Archangel Jibriel alongwith two other angels visited the holy Prophet (Pbuh) one night, while he was asleep in the Hateem part of Ka’abah. The angel then operated upon his heart and made some changes probably because the material body could not withstand the space travel with the required velocity without certain protection. The related part of the narration reads; “... Jibriel among them took upon himself to make a cut from the throat down to a part below the heart of the Prophet till he emptied the chest and the stomach. Then with his hands he washed it with Zamzam water till the stomach was cleaned. Then was brought a golden tray in which was a golden light filled with faith and wisdom. Pouring it inside, the chest and the veins of throat were filled up. Then the opened part was closed...” (Bukhari)
By incorporating the changes in the body system, his body was probably converted from material into Noorani (lightening) body to withstand the journey of space. It may be remembered that the material bodies of people destined for heavens would also be changed to lightening bodies after The Maidaan-e-Hash’r (The place of great gathering) before taking them to heavens.
Burraq
After the transformation of the body, a conveyance named Burraq was presented before him. Burraq, the narration says, resembled a horse-like animal but its very name indicates that it also possessed a lightening body. The word Burraq is derived from the root Bar’q which means ‘electricity’ in Arabic. Burraq signifies that he had to be taken with the velocity of Bar’q that is electricity or light which is 300,000 km per second.
In the Mosque of Jerusalem
No wonder, within no time he reached Baitul Maqdis or Masjid-e-Aqsa. The Qur’an has summarised the event in one verse; “Exalted is He (Allah) who took his bondsman (Muhammad) for a journey by night from Masjid-il-Haram (Ka’abah) to Masjid-il-Aqsa (the Mosque in Jerusalem), the neighbourhood whereof we have blessed, in order that we might show him our signs...” (17:1)
In Baitul Maqdis, the Prophet (Pbuh) led in prayer, all the earlier Prophets who were gathered for the occasion (naturally in their Barzakm or transitional and transcendental bodies). The journey from one holy Mosque to the other and the Prophet leading signifying that the inheritance of Divine leadership was being transferred to him from Bani Israel who no more deserved the honour.
Towards Heavens and Beyond
From there, he was raised to the heavens where he again met and conversed with different Prophets. Then came the most honoured moment of the journey as he was elevated to a point beyond heavens, called Sidrat-ul-Muntaha. What he observed there is described in Qur’an in the following words; “One free from any defect in body and mind then He (?) rose and became stable, While he was in the highest part of the horizon. Then he approached and came closer and was at a distance of two bows length or (even) closer. So, He (Allah) revealed to his bondsman (Muhammad) whatever he revealed. The Prophet’s heart lied not in what he saw. Will you then dispute with him (Muhammad) about what he saw? And indeed, he (Muhammad) saw him at a second descent near Sidrat-ul-Muntaha. Near it is Paradise of Abode. When that covered the Sidrah, which did cover it, the sight (of Prophet Muhammad) turned not aside nor it transgressed beyond the limit. Indeed he (Muhammad) did see of the greatest signs of his Lord (Allah)”. (53:6-18)
Whom did he meet? Allah or Jibriel?
There has been difference of opinion among scholars right from the days of Sahaba about whom the Prophet (Pbuh) met and saw at the place beyond heavens and horizon. Some say he saw Allah while others opine that he saw Jibriel in his original form. Ibne Abbas swore by the earlier while the Prophet’s wife Aisha strongly reprimanding the idea of physical sighting of Allah, favoured the latter opinion.
Both these assumptions invite serious apprehensions that could not be answered satisfactorily. Did the Prophet set eyes on Allah? Qur’an says; “No (material) vision can grasp him”. (6:103) When Prophet Musa (A.S) expressed his desire to see the Almighty, he said; “You can not (bear to) see me (in your material mould)”. (7:143). Those supporting the ‘saw Him’ theory say that it was an exclusive honour of Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) alone and an exception that the Lord appeared for him. It may also be argued in the light of what I have written above that the holy Prophet, during Me’raj was in a spiritual mould. What goes against the idea of Allah’s appearance before the Prophet then? Well, primarily the holy Prophet (Pbuh) himself never claimed seeing Allah, while narrating the events of Me’raj. If he had, it would have been the most important part worth description. Secondly, none of the companions insisting on ‘Deedar’ (sighting) ascribe the claim to the Prophet. Instead, they say so based on conjectures. Thirdly, the Prophet’s wives should have been the first to be privy to such information if it was true. Not only none of them narrated thus but also Hazrat Aisha strongly denounced and even reprimanded such claims. Fourthly, the description in Qur’an, of the person, whom the Prophet (Pbuh) met in Me’raj seems too materialistic to fit the conception of Allah. Read them again; “.. Then he approached and came closer and was at a distance of two bows length or (even) closer..” And lastly, the Prophet himself denied that he saw Allah in Me’raj; “Narrated Abuzar that he asked the Prophet (Pbuh); Did you see your Lord? He replied; He is Noor. How can I see Him.” (Muslim)
The second theory of seeing Jibriel in his real form is also very unlikely. It is an anticlimax of a very extraordinary miracle described with much importance by Qur’an and Hadith. Seeing Hazrat Jibriel, a frequent visitor to the Prophet (Pbuh) (even in his original form) would not have been such a big event. The traditions also say that Hazrath Jibriel was not permitted to accompany the Prophet to Sidratul-Muntaha. He alone was elevated upto the all-important destination and hence the question of his seeing Jibriel there does not arise.
If neither Allah nor Jibriel, then who was he, whom the Prophet met there? Naturally some personage who is in between them both in stature, Haqeeqat-e-Ahmadi, of whom Muhammad r was a part and material manifestation. The Prophet (Pbuh) was informed and shown his own spiritual reality at Sidrat-ul-Muntaha. The Qur’an briefly mentions only the following; “So He (Allah) revealed to his bondsman (Muhammad) whatever he revealed... Indeed he (Muhammad) did see of the greatest signs of his Lord (Allah)”.
(And surely Allah alone knows the absolute truth.)
The Five times a day Salaat was ordained for the Ummah on the occasion. The Prophet (Pbuh) was also shown Paradise and Hell during the journey. After the great event he was again taken back to Ka’abah. The whole journey was completed within the night.
After the detail of the event, the answer to the uncovered parts of the question is the following.
Other Prophets also travelled by Burraq
1. The other Prophets, whom Prophet met, were also there with their transcendental bodies, which could travel in space as he did. They also travelled back to heavens from Baitul Maqdis with the help of their Burraqs at lightning velocities. There is a mention of other Prophets also possessing Burraqs in Muslim, in the Hadith describing Me’raj, reported by Anas Bin Malik.
Nothing Unscientific
ii) Hadiths clearly state that Burraq is a mute-like animal. There is no mention of wings. Only earthly animals with material bodies need wings to fly against the gravitational force. The basic constituent of Burraq’s body, as the word indicates, is electrical energy, instead of the elements of earth. There is nothing unscientific about this. The realities pertaining to the subjects which science has not covered yet cannot be termed unscientific. Science has not comprehended till date, the subject of spirits and spiritual bodies. There are a large number of Allah’s creations that are invisible to human eyes, as human sight can only comprehend the matter and not energy. The angels and the Jinns possess non-material bodies constituted of light and heat energies. The existence of other beings should not be unbelievable.
Neither Dream Nor Awake
iii) The Qur’an in Surah Israa, in which the advent is mentioned, indicates the state in which the Prophet (Pbuh) was carried to his journey. It says; “... And we made not the vision which we showed you, but a trial for mankind..” (17:60)
It was neither a dream nor the state of wakefulness in the material sense. The Qur’anic word for the vision is ‘Ru’ya’ which is different from a dream. We find in one of the Hadiths describing Me’raj thus; “... They (the angels) came in such a state that the heart (of the Prophet) was seeing them. The eyes were asleep but the heart was awake. Likewise, the eyes of (all) the Prophets sleep but their hearts do not sleep..” (Bukhari; Kitab-ut-Tauhid; Narration of Abu Hurairah)
The above narration of Me’raj in Bukhari, which is a very lengthy one, ends with the following words; “..And when he (Muhammad r woke up, he was in Masjid-il-Haram (Ka’abah).” (Ibid).
So, the material body of the Prophet (Pbuh) was in a state of sleep after the Me’raj, while during the vision his transcendental body actually visited the places and witnessed the signs of Allah. In sleep he was taken and to sleep he was returned before and after the journey. During the journey, he was not asleep. He saw and witnessed everything with a transcendental body and with eyes, which were not material. Such is the vision of Prophets.
The Veracity of 27th Rajab
About the celebration, I must point out that there is not a single Hadith or authentic narration certifying the popular belief about 27th Rajab being the date of Me’raj. There are differences among scholars regarding the date, month and also the year of Me’raj. However, there is nothing against praying and glorifying the Lord and remembering the Prophet (Pbuh) on a particular night. At worst, it would be a distortion of a date in history, if the date is not actually true. It certainly is not a Bid’at unless the prayers of 27th Rajab are assumed to be obligatory part of Deen. |
|
tilawat
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Monday, September 11, 2006 - 12:50 AM
| They say 'namaz' was prescribed during mehraj. Will some body tell me what kind of namaz the prophet and the Muslims had been offering before the one prescribed in mehraj? They say namaz was offered by the prophet in kaaba even when idols were being worshipped there. Is it so? |
|
raushan
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
|
Posted - Monday, September 11, 2006 - 9:19 AM
dear brother,
you have raised excellent point.its really good to know about it.
As we know Almighty has given His command through His Messanger in Quran not at one time but in subsequent stage, which is the best way to guide people. Like commands about wine and gambling are not declared haram at once.First it was said that there are more harm than any profit in these things then muslims ordered that if you have taken wine dont offer pray and then finally it was revealed that these are Haram things and must be forbidden.
One may ask why not and if yes,how muslims were performing Haj those times which is indicated in your question.
The answer is simple Muslims of those time doing only things which was revealed to the prophet till then.
The entire commands about Haj or namaz or any other rituals were completed when Almighty declared in the Quran that
005.003
YUSUFALI: Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows: that is impiety. This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, Allah is indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.''
It would be interesting to know who are these"they" quoted in your post.
wassalam |
|
tilawat
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 1:10 AM
Dear Raushan
Thank you for your courteous response.
So you mean the religion was being served in small doses to Mushrikeene Mekka reached us in full dose. Should we be happy over it? Muslims won the important battle of Badr when wine was still 'Hallal' and today we are being beaten by those who do not offer namaz and consider wine to be hallal. So can we use our aql to make our own dcisions about hallal or harram in the face of compulsions of necessity as allowed in Quran?
From 'they' I meant what is a common knowledge. They say that filth was thrown once on the prophet when he was in 'sajida' (prostrating)in Kaaba. |
|
raushan
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
|
Posted - Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 8:48 AM
>>So you mean the religion was being served in small doses to Mushrikeene Mekka reached us in full dose.
reply: Yes I believe so ,if you dont plz share your views with reason.
>> Should we be happy over it?
reply: I dont get you dear.
>>Muslims won the important battle of Badr when wine was still 'Hallal'
reply: they won coz of their firm belief and moreover Almighty Himself promised that angels will come to their help.
what do you say about the victories achieved by muslims after wine declared HARAM.
>>and today we are being beaten by those who do not offer namaz and consider wine to be hallal.
reply:we are being beaten coz we are not good muslims,powerless ,lack in knowledge of scientific inventions etc
>>So can we use our aql to make our own dcisions about hallal or harram in the face of compulsions of necessity as allowed in Quran?
reply:Its already allowed ,if someone has nothing to eat and afraid of dying due to it ,he can eat even dead animals which is forbidden in normal circumstances to save his life.
>>From 'they' I meant what is a common knowledge. They say that filth was thrown once on the prophet when he was in 'sajida' (prostrating)in Kaaba.
reply:Yes ,if you believe what is written in the past by experts on these issues.
wassalam |
|
 Reply to Topic 
Printer Friendly |
| Jump To: |
|
|
|