Show Posts

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

Messages - Mubashir

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13
General Discussions / Re: 4:48 Vs 4:153
« on: June 07, 2014, 04:11:16 PM »
Thanks Good Logic.

Will post your response !!

General Discussions / 4:48 Vs 4:153
« on: June 06, 2014, 05:50:37 AM »
Salam Dear All

A "contradiction" in the Quran has been pointed out on a Facbook page as follows:

4:48 VERILY, God does not forgive the ascribing of divinity to aught beside Him, although He forgives any lesser sin unto whomever He wills: for he who ascribes divinity to aught beside God has indeed contrived an awesome sin.

4:153 (part)...Yet they worshipped the calf even after clear signs had come to them; even so we forgave them; and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority.

Kindly comment. Thanks in advance.

General Discussions / Why has Meaning not been preserved?
« on: June 05, 2014, 08:08:28 PM »
A question has been asked at another forum. We accept Allah preserves the Quran by protecting it's words.  Why did Allah not choose to preserve it's meanings?

We have the issue of each sect interpreting the Quran i'ts own way. This is not limited to different sects alone. We even have Quran Centric believers arguing about meanings of different words, concepts, ayahs, etc.  For example, some say no to Salat the prayer. Others say yes, but limit it to three prayers. Some argue for 5 prayers. Some find the method to pray in an unbroken 1400 year old practice. Others find method of prayer in the Quran. Same is the case for proper definition of Zakat and Hajj.

On different Quran based forums, there are fierce debates going on over it's interpretation and the proper lexicon meaning of different terms.

How could we ever hope to come to an agreement and unite? When Allah's Messenger is with them, people are able to refer their differences to him. Once a Messenger passes on, things run fine for a while then differences and disputes over proper interpretation of Deen raise their head leading to accusations, conflicts, and even war [which continue to this day, whether it is Judaism, Christianity and Islam].

Dear Zack

Re: "....c) Islam re-acknowledges the death and resurrection of Isa. This again is starting to gain momentum amongst modern Islamic scholars...."

I have not read any scholar so far who suggests that Jesus did die and was resurrected. What I find is that some suggest that although he was put on the cross, he did not die but recovered and healed.

As the Quran categorically rejects the notion of Jesus dying on the cross, I think this could be a sticky one to address. 

Many Christians are also beginning to distinguish between what Jesus preached and what Paul preached which may lead to some leaning more towards Jesus, in the future which may lead to Jesus being acknowledged as a Messenger with mighty powers, rather than God [One from God rather than God Himself].

General Discussions / Re: Quran followers put on notice!
« on: May 23, 2014, 12:17:44 AM »
Thanks friends, for your input. I appreciate it.

Brother Wakas, I am going to share your "What does the Quran say" tips on my Facebook page (mentioning your kind self as the author), if you don't mind. Also, I would like to put the text before verse references though, for example:

- Seek God's spiritual aid, away from the forces of satan/opposition (e.g. emotional instability, personal desire, self-delusion, arrogance, prejudice, deviation) [16:98]

- Ground oneself in solid principles, maintain sincerity (3:7)

Brother Ahmed, Brother Joseph's quransmessage website, I believe aims to achieve some of the goals, which you have suggested.

Brother Joseph says:

"Lexicographers may advance different shades of meanings and discuss words but to INVENT NEW MEANINGS for Arabic words which were never understood by ANYONE remotely familiar with Arabic is a baseless assertion and surpasses the thresholds of incredulity..."

To see an example of what he means, is Dr. Qamuruzaman's aastana website. Check it out. According to them, Malaika are the elite, Zina does not mean adultery, Nisa means weak, etc. etc.

General Discussions / Re: Quran followers put on notice!
« on: May 17, 2014, 11:29:40 PM »
Salam Dear Brother.

Thanks for a proper response. I have been inundated with emails (which are copied to me) for many months. This seems to be a never ending discussion between Quran Centrics and Hadith/Sunnah followers.

In the beginning it were the usual questions on "Where do we find details of Salat and Hajj" if we reject Hadith. Lately, the discussion has been raised a notch above, over the possibility of Quran comprehension without hadith/Sunnah/tareekh.

I have tried to respond to the best of my ability but I felt it needed a much better scholarly response. Therefore, I translated the often acrimonious debates from Urdu to English and started inviting responses from my Quran Centric friends.

I did this too because I found no one was taking on the Hadith/Sunnah crowd and replying directly to their questions but responding by either raising new questions or by evasive replies with the result that they end up by being challenged repeatedly and accused of knowing the obvious (that the Quran is need of hadith to be explained) but too proud to admit thereby inviting "Allahs wrath".

If you don't mind, can I share your response, without your email address?

Thanks and Jazak Allah.

General Discussions / Quran followers put on notice!
« on: May 17, 2014, 03:23:06 PM »
Following questions to followers of Quran alone have been raised by those who follow Hadith and Sunnah:

1. 9:36 BEHOLD, the number of months, in the sight of God, is twelve months, [laid down] in God's decree on the day when He created the heavens and the earth; [and] out of these, four are sacred: this is the ever-true law [of God]. Do not, then, sin against yourselves with regard to these [months]. And fight against those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God, all together-just as they fight against you, [O believers,] all together -and know that God is with those who are conscious of Him.

In the next verse, it is stated that intercalation is refusal to acknowledge the truth:

2. 9:37 The intercalation [of months] is but one more instance of [their] refusal to acknowledge the truth- [a means] by which those who are bent on denying the truth are led astray. They declare this [intercalation] to be permissible in one year and forbidden in [another] year, in order to conform [outwardly] to the number of months which God has hallowed: and thus they make allowable what God has forbidden. Goodly seems unto them the evil of their own doings, since God does not grace with His guidance people who refuse to acknowledge the truth.

Questions to those who reject Hadith:

- Where does the Quran gives the names of all the months in the proper order?
- What are the names of these months in the Quran?
- Which four are sacred months, so that their sanctity should be observed?
- How can we tell that till today, nobody has changed the order of these months and it is the correct one?

3. 59:05 Whatever [of their] palm trees you may have cut down, [O believers,] or left standing on their roots, was [done] by God’s leave, and in order that He might confound the iniquitous.

 - What is this incident? Which Palm trees are being discussed and why, give us the details
 - Some were cut down some not? Where can we find more details about them?

4. 5:03 Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me shall be your religion. As for him, however, who is driven [to what is forbidden] by dire necessity and not by an inclination to sinning -behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.

- What day was this? Was it the birthday of the Messenger of Allah? Was this when he died? Or was it some other day?
 - Those who died before this Day, were they following complete Islam or an incomplete Islam?
 - What other Deens was Islam preferred over? Because it is stated that it has been preferred/approve/chosen but it has not been declared that Islam is the only Deen. Give details from the Quran.

5. 48:15 As soon as you [O believers] are about to set forth on a war that promises booty, those who stayed behind [aforetime] will surely say, “Allow us to go with you” - [thus showing that] they would like to alter the Word of God. Say: “By no means shall you go with us: God has declared aforetime [to whom all spoils shall belong].” Thereupon they will [surely] answer, “Nay, but you begrudge us [our share of booty]!” Nay, they can grasp but so little of the truth!

- Which Word of Allah gets altered by those seeking permission to go with the believers?
- What is the reason this verse was revealed? What kind of lesson in Deen is in it for us?

The questioner puts all those who follow Quran alone by saying:

 "...If you cannot give us the details, then admit you need to refer to hadith to find them. If you cannot reply to them then Let these question be an “Itmam e Hujjat” for you on the Day of Judgement

General Discussions / Re: Do not take the disbelievers as allies ?
« on: April 06, 2014, 03:58:00 PM »
Please understand the context of these verses to fully comprehend them. We need to remember what kind of overt and covert hostility the budding Muslim community was facing 1400 years ago. As a general rule:

[60:08] As for such [of the unbelievers] as do not fight against you on account of [your] faith, and neither drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity: for, verily, God loves those who act equitably.

Prophets and Messengers / Is there a better explanation?
« on: March 04, 2014, 01:46:48 AM »
Dear All, Salam. A question has been asked at another forum. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks.

Who were the first prophet and messenger of the Meccans? According to the Qur'an Muhammad was sent to a people who had had no 'warners' before him (cf. 28.46, 32.03, 34.44) that could either be interpreted as the Meccans or the Arabs in general.

But the last one would posit a problem cause we have several examples from the Qur'an itself that there were other prophets and/or messengers sent to Arab tribes (cf. Shoaib, Saleh, Hud). So are we to understand that it's only refering to the Meccans? Here we encounter yet a problem cause the Meccans did indeed recieve a prophet and messenger, Ishmael (cf. 19.54). He was the first prophet and messenger of the Meccans. So is there a discrepancy here?

It could be argued that Ishmael was no warner, but this has to be dismissed as every messenger and prophet implicitly also was a warner (cf. 6.48, 18.56, 67.8-9). It could be argued that there's a severe span of time between Ishmael (or Shoaib, Saleh and Hud) and Muhammad that when Muhammad begins his mission it is instigated infront a whole new people. But this in fact would imply to every people of the earth. There were Christians and Jews in Mecca (and spread out on the Arabian Peninsula) at the time of Muhammad, so the Arabs (or the Meccans) was in no different situation as the other people in the known world. Especially verse 34.44 becomes interesting: "But We had not given them Books which they could study, nor sent messengers to them before thee as Warners (trsl: Y. Ali). We are told that they received no books and were not sent any messengers before Muhammad. Surely the part about books is refering to all times and this implies that the part about messengers a doing likewise, but as we have already seen Ishmael had already been at Mecca and is regarded as a prophet and a messenger (!).

This is furthermore stipulated by the verses 36.3-6 "Thou art indeed one of the apostles, On a Straight Way. It is a Revelation sent down by (Him), the Exalted in Might, Most Merciful. In order that thou mayest admonish a people, whose fathers had received no admonition, and who therefore remain heedless (of the Signs of God). ". The fathers of the people had recieved no admonition, ie. no warning before. Thereby rejecting the Christians and Jews living among the Arabs and the Meccans and rejecting that Ishmael already had been a prophet of the Meccans (and Shoaib, Saleh and Hud of other Arab tribes).

Muhammad is furthermore according to the Qur'an said to be the messenger of all men, ie. the whole world. It doesn't seem necessary to point out the fact that this is not what the above verses a refering to. In that case it's still obviously a contradiction to other parts of the Qur'an since there was peoples among all men who had received books, and messenger, prophets and hence warners.

Is it a contradiction or is there a natural explanation for this, to me, seemingly discrepancy.
What do you say?

General Discussions / Re: Demand for Sharia Law
« on: February 12, 2014, 04:07:45 PM »
Sharing a recent article in the news in Pakistan:

Subject: Here's a brief scenario of implementing Shariah Law in Pakistan

Lt.Col. Moin Rauf of the Pakistan Army writes brilliantly about issues pertaining to Pakistan. I wish we had politicians like him. These are two articles that he sent to me. Please read both to realise what some of the brainless people are trying to do to that nation. If they do implement what they are trying to do, Syria will look like a picnic compared to what will happen in Pakistan.

Here's a brief scenario aof implementing Shariah Law in Pakistan

Since the Taliban are pushing for Shariah Law and our Prime Minister is thinking over their demands, here's a short summary of the Shariah Law in Pakistan and some of it's Implications

1) There are 72 Official Muslim Sects in Pakistan and one Forced Non-Muslim (Ahmadiyyas). The Question is among these 73 sects which interpretation of Shariah law would be imposed?

2) According to mainstream Islamic Scholars, the Punishment of Apostacy (Conversion from Muslim to Kufar) is death. Since every other sect of Islam considers the other as Kafir, that means that every Pakistani citizen would be liable to be killed in the eyes of the other Pakistani. In Pakistan, only 7% of Muslims believe Ahmadis to be Muslims, and surprisingly only 50% believe Shias to be Muslims. Therefore, all other people think that these sects are doing Kufar, and their punishment would be death under Shariah Law.

3) Under Shariah Law followed by mainstream Muslims, the punishment for theft is the severing of the hand. In Pakistan, only 0.9% of the population pays tax, which indirectly means that 99.1% of Pakistanis are tax evaders in one way or the other, and since tax evasion is a form of theft against the government, Pakistan should get ready to chop the hands of 99.1% of the population.


4) According to the chief of Jamat-e-Islami and a large percentage of Muslims, the only way a raped woman can convict her murderers is by producing 4 witnesses who witnessed the crime. Thus, when Shariah would be imposed in Pakistan, unless a woman would have 4 witnesses which is probably only possible if she gets raped in a market, else she should remain quiet.


5) According to Taliban's interpretation of Shariah law, any woman who is not covered from head till toe to be given lashes for the crime of spreading vulgarity. Our request to the proponents of such kind of a Shariah Law is to kindly take a walk in Liberty Market in Lahore, Centaurus in Islamabad, and Clifton in Karachi.. With most of the women lashed and dying out of pain, and the male to female ratio probably going down, men in Pakistan would be forced to indulge in homosexuality.

6) Since the punishment of blasphemy of the Prophet (S.A.W) is death according to mainsteam Islam, and apart from 1.4 Billion Muslims, all other 5.6 Billion Humans consider the Prophet as untruthful and wrong, therefore it would be obligatory upon us to wipe out all such Non-Muslims from the face of the Earth. What greater blasphemy could there be than considering the Prophet as a liar? Therefore the Shariah compliant state of Pakistan would utilize it's arsenal of more than 130 nuclear bombs and leave only the lovers of Prophet (S.A.W) behind.

In 1946, Maulana Azad gave an interview to Shorish Kashmiri, the famous editor of weekly CHATAAN, an influential Lahore weekly of that period. Enclosed is an English translation of it which shows the great vision and fore-sight the Maulana possessed. His prognosis is proving accurate today.

Should we have heeded such brilliant Muslim leaders at that time more closely?

Abul Kalam Azad:

Muslims must realise that they are bearers of a universal message. They are not a racial or regional grouping in whose territory others cannot enter. Strictly speaking, Muslims in India are not one community; they are divided among many well-entrenched sects. You can unite them by arousing their anti-Hindu sentiment but you cannot unite them in the name of Islam. To them Islam means undiluted loyalty to their own sect. Apart from Wahhabi, Sunni and Shia there are innumerable groups who owe allegiance to different saints and divines. Small issues like raising hands during the prayer and saying Amen loudly have created disputes that defy solution. The Ulema have used the instrument of takfeer [fatwas declaring someone as infidel] liberally. Earlier, they used to take Islam to the disbelievers; now they take away Islam from the believers. Islamic history is full of instances of how good and pious Muslims were branded kafirs. Prophets alone had the capability to cope with these mindboggling situations. Even they had to pass through times of afflictions and trials. The fact is that when reason and intelligence are abandoned and attitudes become fossilised then the job of the reformer becomes very difficult.
But today the situation is worse than ever. Muslims have become firm in their communalism; they prefer politics to religion and follow their worldly ambitions as commands of religion. History bears testimony to the fact that in every age we ridiculed those who pursued the good with consistency, snuffed out the brilliant examples of sacrifice and tore the flags of selfless service. Who are we, the ordinary mortals; even high ranking Prophets were not spared by these custodians of traditions and customs. -- Maulana Abul Kalam Azad in an interview to journalist Shorish Kashmiri for a Lahore based Urdu magazine, Chattan, in April 1946.

This invaluable document has been resurrected and translated by India's ex union minister Arif Mohammad Khan for a Magazine.

General Discussions / Re: Demand for Sharia Law
« on: February 11, 2014, 05:39:43 AM »
Dear Daniel, just wanted to clear that at least for myself not all history is to be trashed!

If, for instance The Charter of Medina does not contains material that violates the spirit of the Quran, it could possibly be true!

I would, with respect , go by what Jesus preached and not what Paul came up with!

No offence !!

Daniel, so you suggest Paul was only delivering what the Ummah at that point decided through consultation.  Those who decided to do away with The Law then believed that they did all that under the influence of  Holy Spirit.

Was Paul's role always that of a spokes person for the joint declarations of the Ummah or did he introduce certain new interpretation of teachings of Jesus on his own initiative? A quick look at Wikipedia shows:

"Pauline Christianity is the Christianity associated with the beliefs and doctrines espoused by Paul the Apostle through his writings. Orthodox Christianity relies heavily on these teachings and considers them to be amplifications and explanations of the teachings of Jesus. Others, as detailed below, perceive in Paul's writings, teachings that are different from the original teachings of Jesus documented in the canonical gospels, early Acts and the rest of the New Testament, such as the Epistle of James. Proponents of the perceived, distinctive Pauline form of Christianity, include Marcion of Sinope, the 2nd century theologian and excommunicated heresiarch, who asserted that Paul was the only apostle who had rightly understood the new message of salvation as delivered by Jesus Christ.."

My point of the discussion is that after the departure of Jesus, many changes took place in the community including the introduction of the concept of trinity, and abandoning of Law which to this day, majority of Christians do not follow. They have their reasons in theology and now I understand why.

Salam Daniel

You wrote:

".... And yes, I believe the heritage of Christian and Jewish sources were vitally important for Muhammad. In fact this is central to the Islamic faith, the pillars of faith are Hebrew! Muhammad valued this, and corrected the Christians when they departed from its origins..."

We don't find any term by "Pillars of faith" in the Quran and you are probably referring to a hadith. Quran, being continuation of Allah sending revelations to mankind covers a lot of common ground between Muslims, Jews and Christians. It makes it a point to point to correct a few aberrations that crept in over time in what the people of the book believed. Muhammad  was, as Allah's Nabi  representing what was revealed to him and not "making corrections" on his own initiative.

Any version of history that we read pertaining to the life and times of Muhammad can be checked against the Quran, The Criterion. 

Thanks anyways!

Dear Br Daniel

You mention Paul introducing certain changes in Christianity to make it acceptable to new converts and to increase it's appeal.

Can we then not assume that he violated the commands of Jesus and rationalized his way into theology? Many people suggest that Christianity that exists today should be called Pauline Christianity and only based on selective application of what Jesus preached, taught and practiced.

We find a similar approach with Ahmedi Muslims who, through reinterpretation of Quranic verses and hadith reports justify the "reformation" of Islam through a Nabi after Muhammad named Mirza Ghulam Qadiani.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13