Print Page | Close Window

At Your Service, Oh Mohammad

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Discription: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23892
Printed Date: 24 November 2014 at 12:15pm


Topic: At Your Service, Oh Mohammad
Posted By: Ron Webb
Subject: At Your Service, Oh Mohammad
Date Posted: 17 September 2012 at 4:46pm

One Voice with Crowds, Sayyed Nasrallah: At Your Service, Oh Mohammad

...
For the whole world to hear, His eminence asked the crowd to repeat his words after him:

 "O Messenger of Allah, my blood, family, wealth and everything I was given by God are sacrifices to your dignity, veneration and honor. Let the whole world hear these words, O Prophet, we die for you, my soul and my blood are at your service. Allah is a witness to what we say, the blood of our martyrs, the wounds of our injured, our demolished homes all witness, we will sacrifice everything for your sake O Prophet."

  http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=68840&frid=23&seccatid=14&cid=23&fromval=1 - http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=68840&frid=23&seccatid=14&cid=23&fromval=1  

 

How can this not be shirk?
 


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.



Replies:
Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 18 September 2012 at 11:30am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

One Voice with Crowds, Sayyed Nasrallah: At Your Service, Oh Mohammad


...For the whole world to hear, His eminence asked the crowd to repeat his words after him:


 "O Messenger of Allah, my blood, family, wealth and everything I was given by God are sacrifices to your dignity, veneration and honor. Let the whole world hear these words, O Prophet, we die for you, my soul and my blood are at your service. Allah is a witness to what we say, the blood of our martyrs, the wounds of our injured, our demolished homes all witness, we will sacrifice everything for your sake O Prophet."


  http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=68840&frid=23&seccatid=14&cid=23&fromval=1 - How can this not be shirk?

 


Indeed it is shirk. There is a muslim sect known as the 'Sufi' who pray to saints, Mohammed (pbuh) and dead people.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 19 September 2012 at 1:42pm
agreed,
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: nothing
Date Posted: 20 September 2012 at 7:24pm
Those were just statement, not an action. Words by right is prelude of action. If this words considered Shirk therefore the people who have acted upon it too fall even greater. So it is up to the eye of the beholder.

In my opinion all of them, statements and actions are not Shirk per se just over zealous reaction.


Posted By: Ghazzali
Date Posted: 24 September 2012 at 6:01pm
May peace be on the guided ones.
"Narrated By Abu Huraira : I said to the Prophet "May my parents be sacrificed for you!" (Bukhari vol.1, book 12, hadith 711)
There are many hadiths like this where many sahabas (may Allah be pleased with them) uttered this statement. Firstly, it's a cultural thing among arabs. They make this statement to show respect to someone. Secondly, sacrificing life or family or wealth for Rasul Allah (pbuh) is ultimately sacrificing for Allah. It is Allah's command to be at Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) 's service So, it is not shirk.

Allah knows best.


-------------
The world is a dangerous place to live in, not because of the bad people, but because of the good people who does not do anything about it.


Posted By: Usmani
Date Posted: 25 September 2012 at 3:18am
Condition od Faith
 
It is reported that the Messenger of God (PBUH) said, “None of you truly believe until I have become more beloved to him than his father, his children and all of humankind.(Sahih Muslim)
 
In another hadith it is narrated, “We were with the Prophet and he took the hand of ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab. ‘Umar said to Him, “O Messenger of God, you are dearer to me than everything except my own self.” The Prophet said, “No, by Him in Whose Hand my soul is, (you will not have complete faith) until I am dearer to you than your own self.” Then ‘Umar said to him, “By God, it is now that you are dearer to me than my own self.” The Prophet said, “Now, O ‘Umar.”


-------------
Engage your self in good deeds,otherswise yours nafs will engage you in bad deeds


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 25 September 2012 at 4:41pm

Originally posted by nothing

Those were just statement, not an action.

It was obviously a prayer, addressed to Muhammad.  That's not shirk?

Originally posted by Ghazzali

"Narrated By Abu Huraira : I said to the Prophet "May my parents be sacrificed for you!" (Bukhari vol.1, book 12, hadith 711)

There is a world of difference between sacrificing oneself (but not volunteering one's parents -- that is twisted!Disapprove) to protect the life of one's Prophet and commander, versus sacrficing oneself for someone already dead.

Firstly, it's a cultural thing among arabs. They make this statement to show respect to someone.

You mean they are being insincere?

Secondly, sacrificing life or family or wealth for Rasul Allah (pbuh) is ultimately sacrificing for Allah.

Only if you see Muhammad as a partner to Allah.  As I keep reminding Muslims, Muhammad (peace be upon him) is dead.  He can no longer be offended, and does not need protection.

It is Allah's command to be at Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) 's service So, it is not shirk.

While he was alive may have been true, but common sense should tell you that one cannot provide service to a dead man.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: truthnowcome
Date Posted: 25 September 2012 at 9:52pm
<>

Mr. Ron Web, Br. Ghazzali is correct, attack on Muhammad (S) integrity is attack on Allah’s Deen (Islam) that is why Nasrullah says: “are for your [Muhammad (s)] dignity, veneration and honor”. He is defending Allah’s Deen (Islam) by scarifies every thing that Allah (S) give him to defend Muhammad’s (S) integrity and not Muhammad (S); they knew he is dead. The Prophet (S) said: “If you obey me you already Obey Allah (S)” In other words, he leave a message (Islam...God’s laws) to live by and in following it is following him because he was an exemplar of Islam; His wife describe him as the walking Qur’an. Nasrallah and others knew of the campaign the Masons are waging against Islam so that their call.

TNC



-------------
LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL...NO MORE LIES!


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 26 September 2012 at 4:38pm

TNC, you're really just illustrating my point.  An attack on Muhammad (oh sorry, Muhammad's integritySmile) is an attack on Allah's Deen, and is defended with the same often deadly fervour, often with deadly consequences.  Sacrifices for Muhammad are in reality sacrifices for Allah.  Obedience to Muhammad is obedience to Allah, and the words of Muhammad have the same kind of authority as the words of Allah.  And now, apparently even prayer to Muhammad is excused somehow, presumably as a proxy appeal to Allah.

Honestly, I don't see any practical difference between (many) Muslims' relationship with Muhammad and their relationship with Allah.  You may claim that you're not actually worshipping Muhammad, but you behave in every way exactly as if you were.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Ghazzali
Date Posted: 26 September 2012 at 7:09pm
May peace be on the guided ones. Mr. Ron, it seems you are hell bent on proving that Hassan Nasrallah has done shirk. What exactly has he done to you?

Mr. Ron, what constitutes shirk is under the jurisdiction of Quran and Hadith. If it is not shirk according to Sharia, it is not. Full stop. It does not have to suit your "common sense", or your understanding of Sharia.

Originally posted by Ron Webb

It was obviously a prayer, addressed to Muhammad.  That's not shirk?

No, it does not constitute a prayer according to Sharia.


Originally posted by Ron Webb

There is a world of difference between sacrificing oneself (but not volunteering one's parents -- that is twisted!Disapprove) to protect the life of one's Prophet and commander, versus sacrficing oneself for someone already dead.

Dignity, veneration and honor were the words used by Hassan Nasrallah. He never said he wants to protect the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). He would sacrifice to protect his dignity, veneration and honor. As a humanist who does not believe in life after death, you personally might not have any respect for a dead man, but as muslims, we always have respect for dead people, more so for Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Originally posted by Ron Webb

You mean they are being insincere?

Do you mean to disrespect Arab culture?


Originally posted by Ron Webb

Only if you see Muhammad as a partner to Allah.  As I keep reminding Muslims, Muhammad (peace be upon him) is dead.  He can no longer be offended, and does not need protection.

All the time you are interpreting Sharia through humanism. According to Sharia, obeying Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is not partnering to Allah. Full stop.

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) does not need anything from any human being. Allah is enough for him. We are just performing our responsibility, for our benefit. And for your information, Prophets and martyrs remain alive in their graves.

Originally posted by Ron Webb

While he was alive may have been true, but common sense should tell you that one cannot provide service to a dead man.

Common sense should tell you that a man might be dead, but his commands might not be. If your dad told you, "Son, after I die, never rape a woman", then even after his death, his command remains.

I guess it just bares open the hypocrisy of humanists. What a nice name they found out for themselves. Humanists! Ha ha, as if they are only ones who love humans. And all the love vanishes to thin air the moment a human being dies. It becomes a piece of garbage. And they still call themselves humanists.



-------------
The world is a dangerous place to live in, not because of the bad people, but because of the good people who does not do anything about it.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 26 September 2012 at 8:12pm

Originally posted by Ghazzali

Dignity, veneration and honor were the words used by Hassan Nasrallah. He never said he wants to protect the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). He would sacrifice to protect his dignity, veneration and honor. As a humanist who does not believe in life after death, you personally might not have any respect for a dead man, but as muslims, we always have respect for dead people, more so for Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

I can have respect for the memory of a dead man; but yes, I value life more than death.  I would never sacrifice a human life (my own or anyone else's) for the sake of a dead man.

All the time you are interpreting Sharia through humanism. According to Sharia, obeying Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is not partnering to Allah. Full stop.

So what do you think it would mean to make Muhammad a partner of Allah?  If you believed that, would you live your life any differently?  Would you pray differently?  Would you obey Muhammad any differently?  Would your understanding of Sharia be any different?

Common sense should tell you that a man might be dead, but his commands might not be. If your dad told you, "Son, after I die, never rape a woman", then even after his death, his command remains.

I don't need my dad to tell me not to rape, and neither do you.  You can find such basic principles of natural justice in the Quran, and I can derive them from my faith in the inherent worth of humanity.  But try to think of a command that a father might give his son, which is not a matter of natural law, but would still apply a thousand years later.  You can't, can you?  There is no such thing.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Ghazzali
Date Posted: 27 September 2012 at 7:26pm
May peace be on the guided ones.

Originally posted by Ron Webb

So what do you think it would mean to make Muhammad a partner of Allah?  If you believed that, would you live your life any differently?  Would you pray differently?  Would you obey Muhammad any differently?  Would your understanding of Sharia be any different?


This topic is about whether Hassan Nasrallah has done shirk. If you want to discuss about the effect of making Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) a partner to Allah, start another topic, and we can discuss it there. Please don't put all eggs in one basket.

Originally posted by Ron Webb

I don't need my dad to tell me not to rape, and neither do you.  You can find such basic principles of natural justice in the Quran, and I can derive them from my faith in the inherent worth of humanity.  But try to think of a command that a father might give his son, which is not a matter of natural law, but would still apply a thousand years later.  You can't, can you?  There is no such thing.


The example itself has drawn your attention more than the reason for which it was used. Concentrate on the reason Mr. Ron, not the example. A man might die, his ideas don't necessarily. A leader might die, but his teachings don't have to. These ideas and teachings can be applied for thousands of years. Confucius told that the elderly should be respected. It still holds true, and it will hold true as long as there are elderly people in any society.




-------------
The world is a dangerous place to live in, not because of the bad people, but because of the good people who does not do anything about it.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 27 September 2012 at 8:11pm

Originally posted by Ghazzali

This topic is about whether Hassan Nasrallah has done shirk. If you want to discuss about the effect of making Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) a partner to Allah, start another topic, and we can discuss it there. Please don't put all eggs in one basket.

Quite right, the topic is whether Nasrallah has done shirk, i.e. whether he is treating Muhammad as a partner to Allah.  You say he has not.  I am asking how you can tell.  It certainly looks to me exactly like the kind of prayer one would offer to a partner of Allah, and not to any mortal man.  If he had treated Muhammad as a partner to Allah, then what might he have said or done differently?

The example itself has drawn your attention more than the reason for which it was used. Concentrate on the reason Mr. Ron, not the example. A man might die, his ideas don't necessarily. A leader might die, but his teachings don't have to. These ideas and teachings can be applied for thousands of years. Confucius told that the elderly should be respected. It still holds true, and it will hold true as long as there are elderly people in any society.

I am indeed concentrating on the reason.  The reason that we respect our elders is not because Confucius said it, but because anyone who ponders how best to meet the needs of humanity will conclude that the elderly should be respected.  If Confucius had taught that grass is green, then grass would continue to be green for thousands of years -- not because Confucius commanded it, but because it is universally and objectively true. 

Some of the things Confucius taught are still true today, but a great many of them were relevant only to his time and place in history.  One should not blindly follow his teachings without evaluating whether they still make sense in contemporary society.  Same with Muhammad.  His hadith and sunna were never intended to be preserved for a thousand years; indeed, Muhammad himself commanded that they should not be written down.  Only the Quran was intended to be recorded for eternity, and only the Quran was accurately preserved by Allah's protection.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Ghazzali
Date Posted: 28 September 2012 at 1:56pm
May peace be on the guided ones. Thank you Mr. Ron for your response.

Originally posted by Ron Webb

If he had treated Muhammad as a partner to Allah, then what might he have said or done differently?


1. He would have drawn a picture of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and hung it in every mosque in Lebanon.

2. He would have made sculptures of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and installed them in every major intersection in Beirut.

3. He would have made idols of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) and would have prostrated before it five times a day.

4. He would have issued a fatwa that Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) is the second son of God, after Jesus (peace be upon him).

Originally posted by Ron Webb

I am indeed concentrating on the reason.


You say that, and again you start talking about Confucius. It's not about Confucius. It's not about the father or the son. The point I am trying to make is that everything is not over for a dead man. A dead man can still have a lasting effect on human civilization. This is what we are debating about. By always reminding muslims that Muhammad(pbuh) is dead, Muhammad(pbuh) is dead, you are trying to say that he has lost his relevance to muslims. But I'm saying that he is as much relevant to us now as he was when he was alive. Because Qur'an is to be interpreted the way Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) interpreted it, since his interpretation is the only one approved by Allah.

Originally posted by Ron Webb

One should not blindly follow his teachings without evaluating whether they still make sense in contemporary society.  Same with Muhammad


That's a philsophical debate which is not relevant to this topic, and so you have to start another topic to discuss about it: Is a bad thing always a bad thing, or does it change with time?

Originally posted by Ron Webb

His hadith and sunna were never intended to be preserved for a thousand years; indeed, Muhammad himself commanded that they should not be written down.


It's a religious issue which has been solved long ago, and you have to start another topic in order to know the background of hadith preservation.

I guess this is the stage where I have to say I respectfully disagree with you Mr. Ron, and it's time to move on. I have put forth my arguments as best as I can, and I stand by them. Whether you agree or not, is your right.  I have full respect for the views you hold. It's time to close this topic.



-------------
The world is a dangerous place to live in, not because of the bad people, but because of the good people who does not do anything about it.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 29 September 2012 at 7:32am

Originally posted by Ghazzali

Originally posted by Ron Webb

If he had treated Muhammad as a partner to Allah, then what might he have said or done differently?

1. He would have drawn a picture of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and hung it in every mosque in Lebanon.
2. He would have made sculptures of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and installed them in every major intersection in Beirut.
3. He would have made idols of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) and would have prostrated before it five times a day.
4. He would have issued a fatwa that Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) is the second son of God, after Jesus (peace be upon him).

Thank you, that is a helpful answer.

The first three examples are much the same, in that they all involve artistic representations of Muhammad.  Of course, nothing in the Quran says you can't have a picture of Muhammad.  The Quran only says you can't have idols, which by definition are representations of gods.  If that's your reason to forbid pictures of Muhammad, then you have already committed shirk, with or without the actual picture.  (It's ironic that Nasrallah has no problem with putting http://www.nationalgeographicstock.com/ngsimages/explore/explorecomp.jsf?xsys=SE&id=1162687 - his own picture all over Lebanon.  I wonder why that isn't considered shirk.  Or maybe it is, I don't know.)

The fourth is essentially a verbal declaration of the divinity of Muhammad.  Pretty straightforward.

So from your examples, it seems that there are essentially two ways to commit shirk: to create a physical depiction of Muhammad, or to actually say that Muhammad is a partner to Allah.

Okay, suppose that a Muslim said the following: "O Confucius, my blood, family, wealth and everything I was given by God are sacrifices to your dignity, veneration and honor. Let the whole world hear these words, O Confucius, we die for you, my soul and my blood are at your service. Allah is a witness to what we say, the blood of our martyrs, the wounds of our injured, our demolished homes all witness, we will sacrifice everything for your sake O Confucius."

Let's further suppose that he has no pictures or statues of Confucius in his house, and is careful never to say that Confucius is a god.  Nonetheless, surely you would consider the prayer itself to be shirk.  So why is it not shirk to say the same about Muhammad?

You say that, and again you start talking about Confucius. It's not about Confucius. It's not about the father or the son. The point I am trying to make is that everything is not over for a dead man. A dead man can still have a lasting effect on human civilization. This is what we are debating about. By always reminding muslims that Muhammad(pbuh) is dead, Muhammad(pbuh) is dead, you are trying to say that he has lost his relevance to muslims.

Obviously Muhammad has had a lasting effect on civilization, but I'm saying he has lost his relevance as a teacher and as a leader.  Teachers need to interpret the subject matter for a particular audience or apply it to a particular situation, and be available to answer questions from their students.  Leaders need to show how to respond to current events and adapt a strategy as events progress.  Muhammad can do none of those things.  All we have is his words and deeds, frozen on a printed page.  It is a sequel to the Quran, i.e. a "partner" to the Quran written by a different author.  IMHO it is shirk.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 29 September 2012 at 3:47pm
It is possible that Nasrallah in emotions went a bit too far, or these words are misquoted or mistranslated?

""O Messenger of Allah, my blood, family, wealth and everything I was given by God are sacrifices to your dignity, veneration and honor. Let the whole world hear these words, O Prophet, we die for you, my soul and my blood are at your service. Allah is a witness to what we say, the blood of our martyrs, the wounds of our injured, our demolished homes all witness, we will sacrifice everything for your sake O Prophet."
Addressing the Prophet (pbuh) as if he is listening is not right and that's the impression I get when I read:
"O Prophet" . He seem to address the prophet, and I guess that's where I see wrong. It reminds me of our Shia brothers who call upon Ali(RA) as if he can hear them.
Just my thoughts, we human can make mistakes, and if someone with knowledge can correct us, it is appreciated.
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 29 September 2012 at 8:15pm

Originally posted by honeto

Addressing the Prophet (pbuh) as if he is listening is not right and that's the impression I get when I read:
"O Prophet" . He seem to address the prophet, and I guess that's where I see wrong. It reminds me of our Shia brothers who call upon Ali(RA) as if he can hear them.

Addressing a prayer to the Prophet is certainly the most glaring issue, but isn't there a similar problem with the whole idea of "serving" Muhammad?  I thought the duty of all Muslims is to serve Allah and only Allah.  Some might argue that to serve Muhammad is indirectly to serve Allah, but the same argument could be made that a prayer to Muhammad is indirectly a prayer to Allah.  Allah does not want or need intermediaries or "partners", whether for prayer or allegiance.  Certainly if the goal of all Muslims is to emulate Muhammad, then one could hardly imagine Muhammad praying to himself or pledging allegiance to himself.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: truthnowcome
Date Posted: 29 September 2012 at 9:33pm
Originally posted by honeto

It is possible that Nasrallah in emotions went a bit too far, or these words are misquoted or mistranslated?

""O Messenger of Allah, my blood, family, wealth and everything I was given by God are sacrifices to your dignity, veneration and honor. Let the whole world hear these words, O Prophet, we die for you, my soul and my blood are at your service. Allah is a witness to what we say, the blood of our martyrs, the wounds of our injured, our demolished homes all witness, we will sacrifice everything for your sake O Prophet."
Addressing the Prophet (pbuh) as if he is listening is not right and that's the impression I get when I read:
"O Prophet" . He seem to address the prophet, and I guess that's where I see wrong. It reminds me of our Shia brothers who call upon Ali(RA) as if he can hear them.
Just my thoughts, we human can make mistakes, and if someone with knowledge can correct us, it is appreciated.
Hasan

Salaam Br. This is not a mistake; Nasrullah know what the Masons is up to, he know that the only way to destroy Islam is to destroy the prophet"s integrity. You dont know the hadith to the effect: "Allah will not remove Islam by removing the books rather by removing the scholars." If you destroy their integrity no one will listen to them and follow them.

Br. zainool



-------------
LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL...NO MORE LIES!


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 02 October 2012 at 2:50pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by honeto

Addressing the Prophet (pbuh) as if he is listening is not right and that's the impression I get when I read: "O Prophet" . He seem to address the prophet, and I guess that's where I see wrong. It reminds me of our Shia brothers who call upon Ali(RA) as if he can hear them.


Addressing a prayer to the Prophet is certainly the most glaring issue, but isn't there a similar problem with the whole idea of "serving" Muhammad?  I thought the duty of all Muslims is to serve Allah and only Allah.  Some might argue that to serve Muhammad is indirectly to serve Allah, but the same argument could be made that a prayer to Muhammad is indirectly a prayer to Allah.  Allah does not want or need intermediaries or "partners", whether for prayer or allegiance.  Certainly if the goal of all Muslims is to emulate Muhammad, then one could hardly imagine Muhammad praying to himself or pledging allegiance to himself.



Ron,
now that's mixing things up. There is a difference, if someone is praying to any prophet, or a saint or any person directly or indirectly, it is haram or forbidden in Islam.
Obeying the prophets is of course not the same. Obeying the prophet is like obeying the law, the authority. The prophets were the authority, the law installed by God on earth.
Kneeling down, bowing down, kissing, praying and asking for something in front of a man made statue or a God made creature is forbidden in Islam and Muslims do not do that.
By following Newton's law of motion or gravity, no one is worshiping Newton, while according to your argument they are!
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 02 October 2012 at 7:02pm

Originally posted by honeto

Obeying the prophets is of course not the same. Obeying the prophet is like obeying the law, the authority. The prophets were the authority, the law installed by God on earth.

Obeying the prophet is like obeying the law only if the prophet is (or is like) the law.  But only Allah is the law, and there is no other like Him.  To believe otherwise is shirk.

P.S.: On the other hand, if you mean secular law, I agree completely.  IMHO Muhammad was a human, secular leader.  Like all such leaders, his authority did not extend beyond his lifetime.
 
By following Newton's law of motion or gravity, no one is worshiping Newton, while according to your argument they are!

According to my argument, Newton was merely the "messenger" for the law of gravity.  The universe obeys the law of gravity, not the law of Newton.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: truthnowcome
Date Posted: 03 October 2012 at 12:07am
<>

Br. Hasan, I thing we have already explained the Islamic position on what is shirk; what you are doing now is giving Ron WEBB a plat form for what he is here for.

 

   Let me explain what is going on if you didn’t recognize it yet. The Masons is preparing an all out attack on ISLAM. They already got all their Military in position for this event. If you notice they already launch of poster in the subway, and the cartoon and now the movie; the reason for that is before they launch an all out attack they first defame Islam so when we cry for the world to help no one will listen to us. Next, the turn Salafies against Shia to help them achieve their goal in wining with less booth on the ground like they did in Afghanistan and Iraq, what is important to know is both Sunny ans Shia is going down; they are preparing a mass murdering. Do you notice on the news the “SARS” VIRUS APPEARS IN SAUDI? COINCIDENT? NO! When the would have launch the war on Iran most likely they will release an airborne strain of the SARS in Saudi and blame it on “MUTATION OF THE VIRUS” WHICH WOULD BE AN ALL OUT WAR ON ISLAM; TRUST ME BROTHER, THESE PEOPLE ARE SATAN WORSHIPER. ROM WEBB IS A MOUTH PEACE FOR THEM (I MEAN NO OFFEND TO HIM).

 

Br. Zainool



-------------
LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL...NO MORE LIES!


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 03 October 2012 at 4:28am
LOLLOL  Thank you, Br. Zainool.  That's the funniest post I've read in years! (And I mean no offense to you.Wink)

-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: m.sumair
Date Posted: 03 October 2012 at 10:30am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

"messenger" for the law of
gravity. The universe obeys the
law of gravity, not the law of
Newton.


Messenger is the right word, Ron. The Universe obeys the Laws of God. Everybody, everybody except humans are bound to obey the Law of God. Humans do have choice, either to obey or disobey Him, but obeying God is best for you, if you know it. Humans have weak memories, he constantly forgets of what he was told, he requires consistent written materials that can refresh his memories about obeying God.

So, Messengers were sent on the earth to remind the Law to the people, but as it is with human, he is so weak, he requires interpretation and explainations to understand the Law. So the Messengers took up the task as they had best understanding of Laws as a human being, they interprete the Laws and it was decided that, this will be followed until next next Messenger arrives.

So, we obey the Laws of Allah by understanding those Laws interprete by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). He was the Last (and Final) Messenger of Allah and we obey the Laws of Allah which are describe in detail by Prophet.

Our Love and Passion for Muhammad (PBUH) is very imense. You see, you can't obey the Laws unless you utmostly respect and love those who bring the Law to you, who make it understand to you. Therefore We have utmost respect for Prophet (though we are weak in practices) and we get imensely hurt and emtionally distrubed when we hear/see such things in the name of Prophet.
....I'm quite sure you are not paralelling the Laws of God with the man-made Laws.

And by-the-way what you have asked in your original post, it is not a Shrik..and it has been explained to you in a quite detail up here.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 03 October 2012 at 2:37pm




[/QUOTE]

Br. Zainool,
I know there are people out there that have a different purpose of life than us. We cannot be like them, and they cannot be like us unless God wills.
Still God tells us to discuss with them in an excellent way with logic and reasoning and the truth that God Almighty has sent.
We hope to meet our Lord on day, they deny that and they would like us to follow them, at least that is their intention. We believe it is our and their intentions and actions that will matter in the hereafter, they don't believe that. When they realize it, it will be too late to fix, they will be in great loss, unless they seek guidance now!
Jazakallah brother,
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 03 October 2012 at 2:42pm
Assalamu alaika Ronn.
 
You are correct. It is lack of understanding the role of Muhammad that leads to all this nonsense we see. Yes Muhammad is dead as echoed by Abubakar. But he is still alive for he is still our administrator and guide, but dead among his followers.
 
Friendship


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 03 October 2012 at 2:52pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by honeto

Obeying the prophets is of course not the same. Obeying the prophet is like obeying the law, the authority. The prophets were the authority, the law installed by God on earth.


Obeying the prophet is like obeying the law only if the prophet is (or is like) the law.  But only Allah is the law, and there is no other like Him.  To believe otherwise is shirk.


P.S.: On the other hand, if you mean secular law, I agree completely.  IMHO Muhammad was a human, secular leader.  Like all such leaders, his authority did not extend beyond his lifetime.

 

By following Newton's law of motion or gravity, no one is worshiping Newton, while according to your argument they are!

According to my argument, Newton was merely the "messenger" for the law of gravity.  The universe obeys the law of gravity, not the law of Newton.



Ron,
I am not sure if you are serious about this, you give me impression that you are not.
Of course the laws are from God. Ten commandments of 'Moses' are not actually his, they were given to him by God. He is gone but every follower of the OT still live by them. And by following those commands you are telling me that those people are worshiping Moses? Are you out of your mind?
"There is none worthy of worship, but One and only God" is a command that God renewed with humanity. Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was the one who delivered that command to mankind last time. You are telling me to following that command is to worship the propehet? Are you out of your mind, or you are just repeating it for no reason but to make an argument?
Have some sense Ron.

You responded above: "The universe obeys the law of gravity, not the law of Newton." Right, but when someone studies and applies that law (Newton's law)in everyday science, according to you they are worshiping Newton. That's what you are saying.
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 03 October 2012 at 5:05pm

Originally posted by honeto

I am not sure if you are serious about this, you give me impression that you are not.

I am serious, but I don't think you understand me.  I'm talking about the hadith, not the Quran.

Of course the laws are from God. Ten commandments of 'Moses' are not actually his, they were given to him by God. He is gone but every follower of the OT still live by them. And by following those commands you are telling me that those people are worshiping Moses? Are you out of your mind?

Of course the Quran is from God (or at least that is the claim).  So were the Ten Commandments (again, allegedly).  But the hadith are the words of Muhammad, not God.  Allah said many times that the Quran is the best http://www.progressive-muslim.org/quran-and-fake-hadith.htm - Hadith , and the only one you need.  It should not have a "partner" text of human words and deeds, compiled by other humans.  Even Muhammad himself instructed his scribes not to write down his own words.

Really, this is so obvious I have a hard time understanding why so few Muslims see it.  Muhammad says, "don't write any of this down" -- and the scribes dutifully write, "And Muhammad said, 'don't write this down.'"  It's like a silly joke.

You responded above: "The universe obeys the law of gravity, not the law of Newton." Right, but when someone studies and applies that law (Newton's law)in everyday science, according to you they are worshiping Newton. That's what you are saying.

No, I'm saying it's as if Newton's students had said to themselves, "This Newton guy is so smart about science that I'm going to mimic everything he ever says and does in his entire life" -- from his clothing choices to his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynophobia - cynophobia to how he goes to the bathroom, for heaven's sake! It's Wacko!



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Usmani
Date Posted: 06 October 2012 at 11:34pm

Four blind people went to visit zoo. They move around all over the zoo and guide was telling them that how all the animals’ looks like. These all animals were inside the security fence. At end of the visit, guide took all of the four blind persons near to the elephant and told them (blind persons) that this is elephant and since elephant is not inside the fence, you all got the chance to touch him as well. They all made use of this opportunity.

Once these blind persons went home, they were discussing about their trip of zoo with each other. One who touches the leg of elephant, telling that entire elephant is like straight thin stick. The other blind person who touches the head of elephant said no, you are wrong, elephant is like a huge foodball.The third blind person who touches tail of the elephant he was not convince with other two person’s statements and so the forth one as well. Only a person who has the eyes can correctly answer that how an elephant look like because he is able to see the complete elephant.

People who are not Muslim and not just that but for years of their study and discussions they are not able to recognize their creator and does not have command over the Quran and Sunnah, if they thought that Muslims are not correctly following their religion and they are wrong on some places than they are doing the same mistake as the four blinds are doing in above story.

Usmani



-------------
Engage your self in good deeds,otherswise yours nafs will engage you in bad deeds


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 07 October 2012 at 4:12am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

But the hadith are the words of Muhammad, not God.  Allah said many times that the Quran is the best http://www.progressive-muslim.org/quran-and-fake-hadith.htm - Hadith , and the only one you need.  It should not have a "partner" text of human words and deeds, compiled by other humans.  Even Muhammad himself instructed his scribes not to write down his own words.

Really, this is so obvious I have a hard time understanding why so few Muslims see it.  Muhammad says, "don't write any of this down" -- and the scribes dutifully write, "And Muhammad said, 'don't write this down.'"  It's like a silly joke.



As'alaamu Alaikkum Mr. Ron

Yes, you are right when you say that Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) said not to write down anything of what he says. However, it seems that he changed his mind because of the following hadith. As you probably know the Hadiths are not in any chronological order and from an uninitiated eye it does seem to have contradictions. Without these Hadiths the Muslims wouldn't know how to pray or what to say on prayers, they wouldn't know how to perform ablution and they wouldn't have known the meaning to many Qur'anic verses. You'd probably think that all of this is from his own whims and desires but the truth is that Archangel Gabriel (AS) was in constant contact with the Prophet (pbuh) and it was indeed Archangel Gabriel (AS) who showed Muhammed (pbuh) everything.

For your information I used to be a doubter of Hadiths too until I started reading them. In my honest opinion, what is contained therein, a normal human being cannot possibly produce these works and explain what has been achieved by the Prophet (pbuh). Have you read them at all?

Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-'As:
I used to write everything which I heard from the Apostle of Allah (). I intended (by it) to memorise it. The Quraysh prohibited me saying: Do you write everything that you hear from him while the Apostle of Allah () is a human being: he speaks in anger and pleasure? So I stopped writing, and mentioned it to the Apostle of Allah (). He signalled with his finger to him mouth and said: Write, by Him in Whose hand my soul lies, only right comes out from it.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 07 October 2012 at 8:30am

Originally posted by Abu Loren

Yes, you are right when you say that Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) said not to write down anything of what he says. However, it seems that he changed his mind because of the following hadith.

Ah, "he changed his mind."  So the things that Muhammad said are changeable and not intended to apply for all time.  Thank you for illustrating my point.

As you probably know the Hadiths are not in any chronological order and from an uninitiated eye it does seem to have contradictions.

Not "seem" to have contradictions.  They do have contradictions, and lots of them.  You just mentioned one.  I won't belabour the point, but I'm sure you know it's true.

Without these Hadiths the Muslims wouldn't know how to pray or what to say on prayers, they wouldn't know how to perform ablution and they wouldn't have known the meaning to many Qur'anic verses.

If Allah didn't tell you how to pray or what to say, perhaps that is because He doesn't care how you pray or what you say, as long as you are sincere.  In fact, perhaps He'd rather that you decide for yourself.  When you express your love for your wife, does she have to tell you what to say or how to say it?

Same goes for ablution.  Honestly, if you're a grown-up man or woman and you can't figure out for yourself how to wash your hands and face without detailed instructions, then something is seriously wrong.  As for various obscure Quranic verses, perhaps they were meant to be obscure and open to interpretation.  We should not expect to know everything, should we?

You'd probably think that all of this is from his own whims and desires but the truth is that Archangel Gabriel (AS) was in constant contact with the Prophet (pbuh) and it was indeed Archangel Gabriel (AS) who showed Muhammed (pbuh) everything.

Or so it says in the hadith, right? Wink

For your information I used to be a doubter of Hadiths too until I started reading them. In my honest opinion, what is contained therein, a normal human being cannot possibly produce these works and explain what has been achieved by the Prophet (pbuh). Have you read them at all?

I have read enough of them to see that they are contradictory, unreliable and frankly unworthy to be considered holy scripture.  (Do we really need to know how Muhammad urinated?  Seriously??)



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 07 October 2012 at 11:29am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

[/QUOTE]

Ah, "he changed his mind." So the things that Muhammad said are changeable and not intended to apply for all time. Thank you for illustrating my point.

I haven't changed my mind because I've never said they did not contain contradictions. In it's defence I would say that these are collected by different people and some could have been mistaken or the Prophet (pbuh) said different things to different people. He himself said that he was only a human being.

The things he said are not changeable because if one uses one's logic then you can discern what is right and what is wrong. As you are an atheist and an unbeliever you wouldn't understand the points I'm trying to make.

If Allah didn't tell you how to pray or what to say, perhaps that is because He doesn't care how you pray or what you say, as long as you are sincere. In fact, perhaps He'd rather that you decide for yourself. When you express your love for your wife, does she have to tell you what to say or how to say it?



He does care how we pray or what we say because He says in the Holy Qur'an that there is an excellent example in the Prophet (pbuh). The Holy Qur'an does not go into the nitty gritty details of these things because the Holy Qur'an is succint and to the point. The whole reason Archangel Gabriel (AS) used to visit the Prophet (pbuh) is just exactly to teach him these things. I don't know if you aware but many of the du'a or supplication that we make are mostly taken from the Holy Qur'an itself.

Ablution is a ritual and Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala wants all of his believers to be ritualistic. Look at what the Children of Israel had to go through, the priests for example had to go through meticulous processes before prayer and sacrifice. If you just do it anyhow then it is not from God, is it?

I have read enough of them to see that they are contradictory, unreliable and frankly unworthy to be considered holy scripture. (Do we really need to know how Muhammad urinated? Seriously??)



I love debating with atheists because of their arrogance and the way they think they know more than God. I'm not just talking about you as individual but atheists as a whole. We don't need to know how he urinated but we do need to know that after he has urinated that he performed ablution before prayer. I don't how well you know the Hadiths but there is one where he went to relieve himself and the people asked him why he did not perform ablution and he replied that Our Lord only wants him to perform ablution before prayer, otherwise we would perform ablution every single time we to to the bath room.

You probably don't understand the point but The Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah of the prophet go together hand in hand. All muslims try to emulate the Prophet (pbuh) because he left us the best example of how we should live. Even God Almighty tells us that in the prophet (pbuh) is the best example for the believers to follow.

Wouldn't it be a glorious day when people like you, Caringheart, bunter, Kish et all begin to understand the message and take the Shahada?


Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 07 October 2012 at 12:01pm
Assalamu alaikum.

It is unfortunate that majority consider the Qur'an as a mere fairy tale or a book from one possessed without aim direction etc. It's uncountable challenges deafening and silencing the whole world is enough evidence of its source. Allah did not say that one should read the Qur'an and believe in it. He (Allah) undoubtedly says: If you do not believe in it then produce one similar to it or better than it.
You are correct Abu Loren that they think they know better than God despite his negation of that in many verses of the Qur'an. Qur'an is not a book meant for those with low I.Q, deaf dumb and the blind. It is not all that will be questioned about how the physical fails to indicate the sovereignty and God-head of the Lord and G-d of Abraham. How should they not consider for example Qur'an 46:3; "Think you about all that you invoke besides Allah? Show me (Muhammad). What have they have created of the earth? Or have they a share in the creation of the heavens? (Here Allah specifically mentions the heavens without mentioning the earth for it differs from a suspension bridge in that it has no supporting  pillars). Bring me a Book (revealed before me), or some trace of knowledge , if you are truthful."
There is no benefit in going outside the composition of the Qur'an.

Friendship.

 


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 07 October 2012 at 3:15pm

Originally posted by Abu Loren

The things he said are not changeable because if one uses one's logic then you can discern what is right and what is wrong.

But you just gave an example of something that did change.  And there are other contradictory things as well, as you acknowledge.  So given that, how can you trust anything in the hadith?  What if he later changed his mind about an existing hadith, but the changed version never made it into any of the standard collections?

As you are an atheist and an unbeliever you wouldn't understand the points I'm trying to make.

Ad hominems don't help your argument.

He does care how we pray or what we say because He says in the Holy Qur'an that there is an excellent example in the Prophet (pbuh).

Right, it says an excellent example.  It doesn't say the only example or even necessarily the best example.  (On the other hand, it does say that the Quran is the best Hadith, and the only one you need.)
 
There are many excellent examples of love poems, and I suppose if you are unimaginative you could simply recite one of those to your wife; but wouldn't she be more impressed if you recited to her your own poem, perhaps inspired by those "excellent examples" but expressed in your own words?

Ablution is a ritual and Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala wants all of his believers to be ritualistic. Look at what the Children of Israel had to go through, the priests for example had to go through meticulous processes before prayer and sacrifice. If you just do it anyhow then it is not from God, is it?

Where in the Quran does it say that Allah wants his believers to be ritualistic?  Where does it say that your ablution has to be "from God" (whatever that means)? 
 
We don't need to know how he urinated but we do need to know that after he has urinated that he performed ablution before prayer. I don't how well you know the Hadiths but there is one where he went to relieve himself and the people asked him why he did not perform ablution and he replied that Our Lord only wants him to perform ablution before prayer, otherwise we would perform ablution every single time we to to the bath room.
 
IMHO we don't need to know anything about his bathroom habits; but if Muhammad did not wash his hands every single time he went to the bathroom, then please tell me you don't emulate him in that. Shocked


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 08 October 2012 at 12:03am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by Abu Loren

The things he said are not changeable because if one uses one's logic then you can discern what is right and what is wrong.

But you just gave an example of something that did change.  And there are other contradictory things as well, as you acknowledge.  So given that, how can you trust anything in the hadith?  What if he later changed his mind about an existing hadith, but the changed version never made it into any of the standard collections?

As you are an atheist and an unbeliever you wouldn't understand the points I'm trying to make.

Ad hominems don't help your argument.

He does care how we pray or what we say because He says in the Holy Qur'an that there is an excellent example in the Prophet (pbuh).

Right, it says an excellent example.  It doesn't say the only example or even necessarily the best example.  (On the other hand, it does say that the Quran is the best Hadith, and the only one you need.)
 
There are many excellent examples of love poems, and I suppose if you are unimaginative you could simply recite one of those to your wife; but wouldn't she be more impressed if you recited to her your own poem, perhaps inspired by those "excellent examples" but expressed in your own words?

Ablution is a ritual and Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala wants all of his believers to be ritualistic. Look at what the Children of Israel had to go through, the priests for example had to go through meticulous processes before prayer and sacrifice. If you just do it anyhow then it is not from God, is it?

Where in the Quran does it say that Allah wants his believers to be ritualistic?  Where does it say that your ablution has to be "from God" (whatever that means)? 
 
We don't need to know how he urinated but we do need to know that after he has urinated that he performed ablution before prayer. I don't how well you know the Hadiths but there is one where he went to relieve himself and the people asked him why he did not perform ablution and he replied that Our Lord only wants him to perform ablution before prayer, otherwise we would perform ablution every single time we to to the bath room.
 
IMHO we don't need to know anything about his bathroom habits; but if Muhammad did not wash his hands every single time he went to the bathroom, then please tell me you don't emulate him in that. Shocked
 
OK Mr. Ron you win!
 
It looks like nobody can get through to you and we will only go around in cirlces with you standing your ground and me mine. Good luck.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 09 October 2012 at 8:17am
Sahih International

O you who have believed, when you rise to [perform] prayer, wash your faces and your forearms to the elbows and wipe over your heads and wash your feet to the ankles. And if you are in a state of janabah, then purify yourselves. But if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and do not find water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and hands with it. Allah does not intend to make difficulty for you, but He intends to purify you and complete His favor upon you that you may be grateful.
5:6

The above is taken from the Holy Qur'an and reading it an atheist would probably say one can perform ablutions any way they please as the instructions are not specific. However, it was given to the Prophet (pbuh) to explain these things and to show people how it's done. As I've said previously elsewhere, the Holy Bible does not go into the nitty gritty of things as the Archangel Gabreil (AS( taught the Propeht (pbuh) all that he and we needed to know.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 09 October 2012 at 12:37pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by honeto

I am not sure if you are serious about this, you give me impression that you are not.


I am serious, but I don't think you understand me.  I'm talking about the hadith, not the Quran.


Of course the laws are from God. Ten commandments of 'Moses' are not actually his, they were given to him by God. He is gone but every follower of the OT still live by them. And by following those commands you are telling me that those people are worshiping Moses? Are you out of your mind?


Of course the Quran is from God (or at least that is the claim).  So were the Ten Commandments (again, allegedly).  But the hadith are the words of Muhammad, not God.  Allah said many times that the Quran is the best http://www.progressive-muslim.org/quran-and-fake-hadith.htm - Hadith , and the only one you need.  It should not have a "partner" text of human words and deeds, compiled by other humans.  Even Muhammad himself instructed his scribes not to write down his own words.


Really, this is so obvious I have a hard time understanding why so few Muslims see it.  Muhammad says, "don't write any of this down" -- and the scribes dutifully write, "And Muhammad said, 'don't write this down.'"  It's like a silly joke.


You responded above: "The universe obeys the law of gravity, not the law of Newton." Right, but when someone studies and applies that law (Newton's law)in everyday science, according to you they are worshiping Newton. That's what you are saying.


No, I'm saying it's as if Newton's students had said to themselves, "This Newton guy is so smart about science that I'm going to mimic everything he ever says and does in his entire life" -- from his clothing choices to his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynophobia - cynophobia to how he goes to the bathroom, for heaven's sake! It's [IMG]http://www.islamicity.com/forum/smileys/smiley29.gif" height="17" width="17" align="absmiddle" alt="Wacko" />!



Ron,
for a Muslim the Quran is the Word of God, never to be rewritten changed or altered. On the other hand Hadith is word of men about what the prophet did or said. It has to be verified. If a Hadith negates the Quran it cannot be a true Hadith.
Allah says in the Quran about the prophet being an example. Of course the Quran is first. It is like the "Ferdh" and the Hadith is like the Sunnaths and Nawaafil so to speak.
Since Islam is a complete code of life, yes it does matter how prophet lived his life: what the prophet wear was an example, how much and what he ate was an example, how he shared of what he had was an example, how he was to his neighbor was an example, how he treated women was an example, how he treated strangers was an example, how he spoke and talked was an example, how he coped with stress and difficulties was an example. How he behaved in public and private life was an example, how he fulfilled his obligations and duties was an example. How he dealt with enemies, kings, leaders and armies was an example.
How he lived, fulfilled purpose of his life and died was an example.
Let me add word "Excellent" before each time I used the word "example" above.
The Prophet (pbuh) was an excellent Muslim. I, like any Muslim would love to copy that excellent example, only then we can become like him, a good Muslim.
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 09 October 2012 at 5:47pm

Originally posted by honeto

Ron,
for a Muslim the Quran is the Word of God, never to be rewritten changed or altered. On the other hand Hadith is word of men about what the prophet did or said. It has to be verified. If a Hadith negates the Quran it cannot be a true Hadith.

And what if it cannot be verified?  If this information is essential to Islam and obligatory for all Muslims, but it is not found in the Quran, then doesn't that by definition make the Quran incomplete?

Is it not more likely that these things are not essential?  If Allah omitted something, it could not have been by accident.  He must have done so intentionally.  Perhaps He truly doesn't care, or perhaps He appreciates the diversity of our individual choices, or perhaps it is better for us to use our own judgement according to the circumstances.  Whatever the reason, surely it is not for any man, including Muhammad, to add essential elements to Allah's religion.  Only a partner to Allah could have the authority to do that.

The Prophet (pbuh) was an excellent Muslim. I, like any Muslim would love to copy that excellent example, only then we can become like him, a good Muslim.

Modern washrooms have facilities far beyond anything Muhammad could have imagined.  Even hand soap was probably unknown to him.  He cleaned himself with three stones, not because stones are superior to toilet paper, but because toilet paper did not exist at the time.  Ditto for indoor plumbing and bidets and hand sanitizer and deodorant and pH-balanced shampoo and electric toothbrushes and fluoride toothpaste and dental floss.

The Prophet may have been an excellent example for his time; but beyond a general appreciation of the importance of cleanliness and hygiene (as the Quran implies), why on earth would anyone follow his example today?  Frankly, if Abu Loren is right that Muhammad did not wash his hands after every trip to the bathroom, then IMHO he is a very poor example by modern standards.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 10 October 2012 at 2:43am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Frankly, if Abu Loren is right that Muhammad did not wash his hands after every trip to the bathroom, then IMHO he is a very poor example by modern standards.


How dare you twist my words and use it against me?

I said the Prophet (pbuh) did not perform ablution every time he went to the toilet, where did I say that he did not wash his hands?

Do you know the difference between ablution and washing one's hands?

Frankly, I am getting tired of people debating without any knowledge. It seems very clear now that people here, non muslims, are just expressing their worthless opinions.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 10 October 2012 at 3:01pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by honeto

Ron, for a Muslim the Quran is the Word of God, never to be rewritten changed or altered. On the other hand Hadith is word of men about what the prophet did or said. It has to be verified. If a Hadith negates the Quran it cannot be a true Hadith.


And what if it cannot be verified?  If this information is essential to Islam and obligatory for all Muslims, but it is not found in the Quran, then doesn't that by definition make the Quran incomplete?


Is it not more likely that these things are not essential?  If Allah omitted something, it could not have been by accident.  He must have done so intentionally.  Perhaps He truly doesn't care, or perhaps He appreciates the diversity of our individual choices, or perhaps it is better for us to use our own judgement according to the circumstances.  Whatever the reason, surely it is not for any man, including Muhammad, to add essential elements to Allah's religion.  Only a partner to Allah could have the authority to do that.


The Prophet (pbuh) was an excellent Muslim. I, like any Muslim would love to copy that excellent example, only then we can become like him, a good Muslim.


Modern washrooms have facilities far beyond anything Muhammad could have imagined.  Even hand soap was probably unknown to him.  He cleaned himself with three stones, not because stones are superior to toilet paper, but because toilet paper did not exist at the time.  Ditto for indoor plumbing and bidets and hand sanitizer and deodorant and pH-balanced shampoo and electric toothbrushes and fluoride toothpaste and dental floss.


The Prophet may have been an excellent example for his time; but beyond a general appreciation of the importance of cleanliness and hygiene (as the Quran implies), why on earth would anyone follow his example today?  Frankly, if Abu Loren is right that Muhammad did not wash his hands after every trip to the bathroom, then IMHO he is a very poor example by modern standards.

Ron,
I must warn you that you better not add to what I or anyone writes in our replies to you pretending that's what we are saying. It is rude, and disrespectful not to mention it exposes your ill intentions.
Of course if something cannot be verified or something we are not sure of, Allah says in the Quran to leave it, not do it. For example if a Muslim does not know whether Lobster is Halal to eat or not, based on what I mentioned above, it will be safe to not eat it until the knowledge can prove that is Halal. This is just an example.
The Quran is complete, the prophet is a complete prophet, which means he helps us to understand what it means to be "mutaki" or a good Muslim.
We have given you and will continue to give you more and more examples, that's our job. You understand them or they pass over your head, that will not affect us but only you, thank God for that.
The Laws, for example here in the US are written in form of books. Why do we need judges, lawyers and experts in the legal system? Do you question why there are these people needed while we already have the law?
If, according to you the Quran, or in this case the book of law has everything in it no further explaining needed, why do we need these highly educated and learned men and women explaining, defending, cross examining, questioning the understanding of what the law in the book means and how it applies!
Why not a driver or a plumber or a doctor, or a pilot can just directly apply that law from the book? Why we need the Judges, lawyers and so on?

Somehow you claim to know information about the prophet that I am not aware of like the three stone you claimed he cleaned himself with. Did you pick up those stone and put them in you pocket so you still have their count?
Disgusting and disrespectful, you are really getting low Mr. Ron.
With all those modern facilities you are filthier than any Muslim of that time. Modern bathroom may have facilities better than before, but people like you still come out with filth on your body. Thank God that a Muslim, and like I said prophet was an Excellent Muslim, washed after going to the bathroom, wile you just wipe, basically painting a thin layer of filth, poop to be exact over your bottom. You do not see it, but that dos not mean its not there, but you say you feel clean.
Trust me, I used to do that (wipe, not wash)in my days of ignorance, but thank God, now if I don't wash I feel unclean, and cannot offer my Salath until wash that filth off. For you its clean, for a Muslim it is filthy.
let me ask you: You do not wipe with a paper if poop touched your hand, or do you? Why would you do that to your bottom. It is still part of your body, unless you think it is not part of your body? And a Muslim's body is not clean until it is washed, free of that thin layer of poop that you feel proud of having, and in arrogance saying you are cleaner than a Muslim. How ignorant we get when we learn four words and have some devices in our hands and pockets. You want to wait to really learn when God will take back from you all of those faculties, one by one just like He gave them to you one by one?
If I, following Mohammed (pbuh) am physically cleaner than you in these modern times while I am an ordinary Muslim, to compare that to someone who I follow, who was an excellent example in every aspect is like showing a candle light to the sun, you cannot even out shine that candle, an ordinary Muslim.   Truly, he was a great "Excellent" example, as I only do my salath five times a day, he used to do a lot of extra salaths, and you know the washing and cleaning that is required to offer Salath he used to go through..! You cannot even come closer because you may know what is clean, but you do not have the essence and meaning of what it really is. You think wiping was clean. Do some research and you will find out washing is better, and Islam teaches washing, the prophet told that in fact fourteen centuries ago.
Hasan



Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 10 October 2012 at 6:38pm

Oh my, I certainly seem to have touched a nerve here. Embarrassed I do apologize to all for having inadvertently caused offense, but the facts are the facts.


Originally posted by Abu Loren

How dare you twist my words and use it against me?

I said the Prophet (pbuh) did not perform ablution every time he went to the toilet, where did I say that he did not wash his hands?
Do you know the difference between ablution and washing one's hands?

I did not intend to twist your words.  If you had used the word "wudu", I would have understood that you were referring to the Islamic ritual; but the English word "ablution" is just a fancy word meaning to wash or rinse one's body, so from my point of view there really is no difference.  And just for the record, the hadith in question makes it clear that Muhammad saw no need to use water (to wash himself ritually or otherwise) after urinating:
"Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) urinated and Umar was standing behind him with a jug of water. He said: What is this, Umar? He replied: Water for you to perform ablution with. He said: I have not been commanded to perform ablution every time I urinate. If I were to do so, it would become a sunnah."
 
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/abudawud/001-sat.php - Sunan Abu-Dawud , Book 1, Number 0042.

 
Originally posted by honeto

The Laws, for example here in the US are written in form of books. Why do we need judges, lawyers and experts in the legal system? Do you question why there are these people needed while we already have the law?

Judges are needed to settle disputes between litigants.  Other legal experts are useful in answering legal questions and explaining how the law might apply in particular contexts.  In both cases, the interaction, with the litigants or with the questioners, is an essential element to their function.  The plaintiff states his case, the defendent gives his rebuttal, and the judge decides whose argument shall prevail; or the client describes his situation, poses a particular question, and the legal expert offers his opinion as to the legal aspects.  This cannot happen after the judges and/or legal experts are dead.

If, according to you the Quran, or in this case the book of law has everything in it no further explaining needed, why do we need these highly educated and learned men and women explaining, defending, cross examining, questioning the understanding of what the law in the book means and how it applies!

Indeed, there is value in imams and priests and clerics of all kinds who can answer questions and help interpret scripture for the lay person.  However, again the interaction is the crucial element that makes them valuable.  You can't ask Muhammad a question; and even if you could, his answer cannot take into account your particular circumstances.

Somehow you claim to know information about the prophet that I am not aware of like the three stone you claimed he cleaned himself with. Did you pick up those stone and put them in you pocket so you still have their count?
Disgusting and disrespectful, you are really getting low Mr. Ron.

Disgusting, I agree, and unworthy to appear in a holy scripture, but there it is:
"Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: When any of you goes to relieve himself, he should take with him three stones to cleans himself, for they will be enough for him."
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/abudawud/001-sat.php - Sunan Abu-Dawud , Book 1, Number 0040.  (See also http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/004-sbt.php - Sahih Bukhari , Book 4, Numbers 157, 158, 162 and many others.)

let me ask you: You do not wipe with a paper if poop touched your hand, or do you? Why would you do that to your bottom. It is still part of your body, unless you think it is not part of your body?

Well, let's not get too graphic here -- but my hands need to be clean because they touch all sorts of things that you also touch, and that is how disease spreads.  My "bottom" touches nothing that you also touch, so it does not need to be as clean.  Mind you, you will be comforted to know that when I am at home or whenever I have the opportunity, I do indeed wash the appropriate body parts after every use.

Elsewhere I have to settle for toilet paper, but that is still better than stones.  And I always wash my hands afterwards, with soap (which Muhammad apparently did not use); or where even soap is unavailable, I normally carry a small bottle of hand sanitizer. So yes, I believe I am cleaner than any eighth century Muslim -- not meaning any disrespect for Muhammad or his contemporaries, who did the best they could with the resources available to them.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 11 October 2012 at 1:53am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Oh my, I certainly seem to have touched a nerve here. 



You have been touching a nerve with all of your comments here. Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) may be a nobody to you but to more than a billion people he is SOMEBODY. You have been trying to defame him and insult him subtly with your comments. However, I respect your position as an atheist and I admire you for admitting that fact.

To even mention washing with soap when soap was unavailable in the deserts of Arabia around cAD600's tells me that you are an evil and vindictive person. I don't know with whom you are trying to score points against.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 11 October 2012 at 4:38am

It s not defamation to point out that Muhammad was human, and fallible, not above criticism and not a demi-god to whom it is appropriate to pray, as Nasrallah clearly did.

If soap had been available in the 600s then Muhammad would undoubtedly have used it, and it would have been part of wudu.  In 2012 it should be part of any hand-washing regimen.  IMHO Allah did not mention the details of wudu in the Quran because He expected Muslims to use some common sense and wash their hands properly, using whatever facilities are available at the time -- not just to slavishly follow what Muhammad did.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 11 October 2012 at 5:27am
Originally posted by Ron Webb


If soap had been available in the 600s then Muhammad would undoubtedly have used it, and it would have been part of wudu.  In 2012 it should be part of any hand-washing regimen.  IMHO Allah did not mention the details of wudu in the Quran because He expected Muslims to use some common sense and wash their hands properly, using whatever facilities are available at the time -- not just to slavishly follow what Muhammad did.



Of course you know everything and you can read God's mind. Good.

Now are you implying that Muslims do not wash their hands with soap?


Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 11 October 2012 at 8:04am
Assalamu alaika Abu Loren.

It is better you leave Ronn alone. I am sure one day he will understand Islam and forget about his baseless and rootless ideology. He cannot surpass the Quraysh in denying and insulting Muhammad. Anyway, he does not know that Moses was accused of having a hydrocoel or scrotal inguinal hernia by his people!
Indeed Muhammad showed them how to use stone after defaecation to clean themselves in the absence of water. There is no record that was ever done by any of the Sahabas. This is in preference to using animal dung and bone for this is used by animals. Muhammad has extended his preventive measures in spread of communicable diseases, but yet this is regarded as primitive.
As for washing hands, Muhammad said, 'One must wash his hands on waking up from sleep because he does not know what the hand touched while on sleep.' We wash hands five times minimum. This is enough.

Friendship.




Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 11 October 2012 at 5:06pm

Originally posted by Abu Loren

Now are you implying that Muslims do not wash their hands with soap?

No, I'm implying that Muhammad is no longer an "excellent example" of how to wash one's hands.  But I think most Muslims already know this.  They just won't admit it.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 12 October 2012 at 12:24am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by Abu Loren

Now are you implying that Muslims do not wash their hands with soap?


No, I'm implying that Muhammad is no longer an "excellent example" of how to wash one's hands.  But I think most Muslims already know this.  They just won't admit it.



I see then you won't need your sanitation bottle that you carry with you when you are burning in hell.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 12 October 2012 at 6:21am
Originally posted by Abu Loren


I see then you won't need your sanitation bottle that you carry with you when you are burning in hell.
 
Allah knows who will burn in Hell.  You may question Ron's motives and intention, however, certainly I hope he achieves the best in this life and the next.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 12 October 2012 at 6:30am
Originally posted by abuayisha

Originally posted by Abu Loren


I see then you won't need your sanitation bottle that you carry with you when you are burning in hell.
 
Allah knows who will burn in Hell.  You may question Ron's motives and intention, however, certainly I hope he achieves the best in this life and the next.


Indeed Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala will judge all of us, however, it is very clear from the Holy Qur'an that non believers are going to hell. No doubt about it, unless they sincerely and whole heartedly repent.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 12 October 2012 at 7:13am
This religion is one of compassion and mercy, and certainly you are aware of hadith where glad tidings of paradise were given for kindness to animals. ("...and argue with them in a way that is best....")  Allah bless you Abu Loren.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 15 October 2012 at 2:23pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Oh my, I certainly seem to have touched a nerve here. Embarrassed

Originally posted by Abu Loren

How dare you twist my words and use it against me?


I said the Prophet (pbuh) did not perform ablution every time he went to the toilet, where did I say that he did not wash his hands?

Do you know the difference between ablution and washing one's hands?

I did not intend to twist your words.  If you had used the word "wudu", I would have understood that you were referring to the Islamic ritual; but the English word "ablution" is just a fancy word meaning to wash or rinse one's body, so from my point of view there really is no difference.  And just for the record, the hadith in question makes it clear that Muhammad saw no need to use water (to wash himself ritually or otherwise) after urinating:"Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) urinated and Umar was standing behind him with a jug of water. He said: What is this, Umar? He replied: Water for you to perform ablution with. He said: I have not been commanded to perform ablution every time I urinate. If I were to do so, it would become a sunnah."  http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/abudawud/001-sat.php - , Book 1, Number 0042.


 

Originally posted by honeto

The Laws, for example here in the US are written in form of books. Why do we need judges, lawyers and experts in the legal system? Do you question why there are these people needed while we already have the law?

Judges are needed to settle disputes between litigants.  Other legal experts are useful in answering legal questions and explaining how the law might apply in particular contexts.  In both cases, the interaction, with the litigants or with the questioners, is an essential element to their function.  The plaintiff states his case, the defendent gives his rebuttal, and the judge decides whose argument shall prevail; or the client describes his situation, poses a particular question, and the legal expert offers his opinion as to the legal aspects.  This cannot happen after the judges and/or legal experts are dead.


If, according to you the Quran, or in this case the book of law has everything in it no further explaining needed, why do we need these highly educated and learned men and women explaining, defending, cross examining, questioning the understanding of what the law in the book means and how it applies!


Indeed, there is value in imams and priests and clerics of all kinds who can answer questions and help interpret scripture for the lay person.  However, again the interaction is the crucial element that makes them valuable.  You can't ask Muhammad a question; and even if you could, his answer cannot take into account your particular circumstances.


Somehow you claim to know information about the prophet that I am not aware of like the three stone you claimed he cleaned himself with. Did you pick up those stone and put them in you pocket so you still have their count? Disgusting and disrespectful, you are really getting low Mr. Ron.


Disgusting, I agree, and unworthy to appear in a holy scripture, but there it is:"Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: When any of you goes to relieve himself, he should take with him three stones to cleans himself, for they will be enough for him." http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/abudawud/001-sat.php - , Book 1, Number 0040.  (See also http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/004-sbt.php - , Book 4, Numbers 157, 158, 162 and many others.)


let me ask you: You do not wipe with a paper if poop touched your hand, or do you? Why would you do that to your bottom. It is still part of your body, unless you think it is not part of your body?


Well, let's not get too graphic here -- but my hands need to be clean because they touch all sorts of things that you also touch, and that is how disease spreads.  My "bottom" touches nothing that you also touch, so it does not need to be as clean.  Mind you, you will be comforted to know that when I am at home or whenever I have the opportunity, I do indeed wash the appropriate body parts after every use.

Elsewhere I have to settle for toilet paper, but that is still better than stones.  And I always wash my hands afterwards, with soap (which Muhammad apparently did not use); or where even soap is unavailable, I normally carry a small bottle of hand sanitizer. So yes, I believe I am cleaner than any eighth century Muslim -- not meaning any disrespect for Muhammad or his contemporaries, who did the best they could with the resources available to them.


Ron,
I think you missed the point:
Those who made the constitution and many of the laws we follow are dead now. We still follow them, and in case we need interpretation or explanation we have experts who know and believe in them.
The Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) brought us laws, he is not with us but those laws are. Knowledgeable and educated experts can help us in light of those laws and their guidelines when we have a question or explanation or for something that is new to us. Like the constitution and the laws, their makers have long gone, but we have judges,lawyers and experts doing the explaining and interpreting where necessary.

You wrote in reply to me:
"Disgusting, I agree, and unworthy to appear in a holy scripture, but there it is:
"Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: When any of you goes to relieve himself, he should take with him three stones to cleans himself, for they will be enough for him." Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 1, Number 0040. (See also Sahih Bukhari, Book 4, Numbers 157, 158, 162 and many others.)

First, Islam is a complete way of life, and that is a proof of that. No issue that affects a person's daily life is missed, yes even cleaning after one's self.
Second, you fail to understand that there is a difference between the Holy Quran which is directly from God, and Hadith which is word of men.
Also people who refuse to accept Quran, how would Hadith will make any difference for them? So they take both as a mockery. Allah will deal with them Justly one day. So the Hadith is for those who follow Quran, and it will make sense to them. People who do not believe in the Quran take Hadith for a sport. Allah will one day deal with them Justly as well.
This issue of washing or cleaning after going to the bathroom is very clear. If you have first looked in the Quran, you would have realized the answer and not needed to quote that Hadith, the purpose of which was if a situation is not addressed in the Quran, you look for it in the Hadith.
As I said before, you think by using a paper you are cleaner than a fellow Muslim, you are mistaken. You are even filthier than a Muslim fourteen hundred years ago. And I will explain to you how.
Fourteen hundred year ago Muslims were washing after going to the bathroom as they were commanded in the Quran, what you missed and others are pointing out to you is if there is no water available what do you do to keep cleaner.
5:6 (Y. Ali) O ye who believe! when ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands (and arms) to the elbows; Rub your heads (with water); and (wash) your feet to the ankles. If ye are in a state of ceremonial impurity, bathe your whole body. But if ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands, Allah doth not wish to place you in a difficulty, but to make you clean, and to complete his favour to you, that ye may be grateful.

A Muslim today or fourteen hundred years ago washes after going to the bathroom simply to follow a command of God (see quote above) and is cleaner than someone like you who like many wipe with a disposable paper thinks is clean, but in fact you simply spread the poop over wider part of your body thinking if you cannot see it, it is gone. Science tells us that washing is cleaner. You needed science to prove that to you fourteen hundered years after God told us that in His book (quote above).
As for the hand wash, are you kidding me, if washing after bathroom is important, you think washing hand will be left. You gotta be kidding or you rally are arrogent.
Every time, and that's ar least five times a day, a Muslim prepares for Salath he/she do Whudu, and the very first step in that prescribed ritual washing is the washing of the hands.
Since I can remember, my parents even though not practicing Muslims had told me to wash my hands before eating, something I do not see here in the US in 21st century.
Of course, it is a good practice.
Allah wants us to be clean, it is true that a lot of Muslims in poorer country where they have left the Islamic practices are not as clean as Allah wants them to be. But that is the matter of practice, those who believe and practice their belief are in fact cleaner than anyone else even in poverty.
The Quran 2:222".... He (Allah)loves those who keep themselves pure and clean." When you can get to the essence of what Allah means clean and accomplish it you get to be 'clean and pure'.

Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 15 October 2012 at 6:30pm

Originally posted by honeto

Those who made the constitution and many of the laws we follow are dead now. We still follow them, and in case we need interpretation or explanation we have experts who know and believe in them.

We -- or rather you (I'm Canadian) -- don't follow the Constitution because Jefferson and Adams said so.  You follow it because it continues to have the broad support of the American people, but it is not cast in stone.  On the contrary, it has been amended twenty-seven times since it was enacted a bit more than two centuries ago.  After fourteen centuries, how much more amendment might be needed for the hadith?

The Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) brought us laws, he is not with us but those laws are. Knowledgeable and educated experts can help us in light of those laws and their guidelines when we have a question or explanation or for something that is new to us. Like the constitution and the laws, their makers have long gone, but we have judges,lawyers and experts doing the explaining and interpreting where necessary.

As I said, living experts can be helpful, but they are less so after they die, and the longer they remain dead the less relevant their opinions become.

First, Islam is a complete way of life, and that is a proof of that. No issue that affects a person's daily life is missed, yes even cleaning after one's self.

I'd be interested in the Quran's discussion of cell phone etiquette. Wink

Second, you fail to understand that there is a difference between the Holy Quran which is directly from God, and Hadith which is word of men.

On the contrary, that is the whole reason for this discussion!  See below.

Also people who refuse to accept Quran, how would Hadith will make any difference for them? So they take both as a mockery.

As I've said many times, although I do not personally believe in the Quran, I can certainly defend it as a worthy example of holy scripture.  I cannot say the same for the hadith.  Much of the criticism and hatred (and yes, ridicule) of Islam is due to the hadith.  Much of the intolerance and extremism among Muslims also seems to stem from the hadith.  IMHO Islam would be a much better religion if Muslims would abide only by the words of God and not "partner" them with the words of men.

Fourteen hundred year ago Muslims were washing after going to the bathroom as they were commanded in the Quran, ...

Where exactly is it commanded to wash your hands after going to the bathroom?  The Quran quote you offered (5:6) is about washing your hands before prayer, not necessarily after every trip to the bathroom.  We already have a hadith ( http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/abudawud/001-sat.php - Sunan Abu-Dawud , Book 1, Number 0042) which shows that Muhammad did not regard handwashing as compulsory after urinating.

... what you missed and others are pointing out to you is if there is no water available what do you do to keep cleaner.

I use a gel-based hand sanitizer.  You really think that rubbing your hands in "clean sand" ( http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/articles/2012/Digging_in_beach_sand.html - whatever that is ) or dirt (Shocked) is going to make them cleaner?



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 16 October 2012 at 2:15am
I've finally realised that it's not worth engaging with this Ron Webb character. He twists everything we say to suit his atheist and scientific belief and he will lead the believers away from the Straight Path.
 
He is stealthily making fun of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) and Islam as a whole.
 
My advise for everybody is to just ignore him.


Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 16 October 2012 at 3:22am
Assalamu alaika Abu Loren.

Indeed you are right to ignore Ronn Webb as I did earlier. But let him realize that he is created to understand Allah and enter paradise. Science and art have never failed to prove the existence of the Supreme Being the G-d of Abraham who rescued the Children of Israel from bondage in Egypt. I have discussed with the rabbis and they explained to me that the reason behind the subjugation of the Children of Israel by the Egyptians was as a result of their then deviation from the Torah or the Islam of Jacob.
We have a lot to learn from the life history of the Children of Israel. This is the standard set by Allah. We shall perpetually remain in disquiet and uncertainty fear and recession if we do not turn to the G-d of Abraham and Moses.  This is what Muhammad emphasized and taught mankind. Let the likes of Ronn Webb stop reading the Qur'an and revert to reading the history of Muhammad and compare it with the world before him.
The population of humanists, agnostics atheists is small and cannot influence peace and stability in the world. But we have given enough examples for us to be listened and made ambassadors of peace. All interfaith dialogue has failed because none of the Muslim participants is the head of the Caliph. Allah says in Qur'an 24:40;

ومن لم يجعل الله له نورا فما له من نور 

Meaning: Let mankind examine his history from Adam to Jesus son of Maryam honestly and carefully. Were there a time mankind got salvation without the Decree/Command and Law of Allah through a prophet or messenger he raised from that folk? The meaning of light applying the concept of secularism means removal of unemployment, recession depression, Taliban, al-Qaeda, the manufacture of lethal weapons for mass destruction and all the stings and pains dislike by the soul. Ronn and their likes with understand the literal translation: And he for whom Allah has not appointed light, for him there is no light. My question is: before Allah created the light, what was the status of the world? Let us listen to the experts and put into practice their current translation of the Qur'an. We have to start afresh and leave distortions. This is the precise teaching  of Muhammad Rasulullah.

Friendship on behalf of Muhammad Rasulullah.

 



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 16 October 2012 at 9:33am
I agree, the answers are there, yet he is just finding ways to look other ways because he wants to mislead himself (a sign of disbelief) and mislead others with him (role of Satan).
He refuses to use common sense, and he ignore facts just so he can keep on going, assuming that somehow he has the edge. Who is he bluffing?
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Usmani
Date Posted: 16 October 2012 at 11:12am

He is here for years, instead for getting light of Islam from here on islamicity, he is getting more towards darkness.Hidaya comes from God Almighty alone and when any body talks bad about someone to whom God loves too much how can he will get the light. See what Allah says in Quran to the companion of Prophet (peace and mercy of Allah upon Him)

 

O you who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), nor speak aloud to him in talk as you speak aloud to one another, lest your deeds should be rendered fruitless while you perceive not.(  سورة الحجرات  , Al-Hujraat, Chapter http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=49&translator=5 - #49 , Verse http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=49&translator=5#2 - #2 )

 

Prophet (peace and mercy of Allah upon Him) is no longer here but Allah is, being a partcipant here we are putting our self in a great danger while he is saying all kind of nonsence about Him.He is blind but we are not.



-------------
Engage your self in good deeds,otherswise yours nafs will engage you in bad deeds


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 16 October 2012 at 11:56am
Originally posted by Usmani

He is here for years, instead for getting light of Islam from here on islamicity, he is getting more towards darkness.


Yes indeed it's amazing how an atheist lasted four years on this forum. The powers that be must be very lenient. :)


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 16 October 2012 at 5:17pm

Originally posted by Abu Loren

I've finally realised that it's not worth engaging with this Ron Webb character. He twists everything we say to suit his atheist and scientific belief and he will lead the believers away from the Straight Path.

That's actually pretty funny.  If I wanted to suit my "atheist and scientific belief" I would reject both the hadith and the Quran.  Instead, for the purposes of discussion I am setting aside my atheism, and assuming that the fundamental premises of Islam are true, i.e. that Muhammad was truly the Prophet of God, through whom the Quran was revealed.

With that assumption, the Quran itself makes it clear that it alone is the "Straight Path": complete and perfect, neither requiring nor accepting a "partner" text compiled by men.
 
He is stealthily making fun of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) and Islam as a whole.

Not at all; but if that were my goal, I would simply quote the http://biblical-islam.blogspot.ca/2010/11/ikhwan-series-4-some-ridiculous-bukhari.html - hadiths themselves .
 

My advise for everybody is to just ignore him.

Yup, just run away.

"We place shields around their minds, to prevent them from understanding it, and deafness in their ears. And when you preach your Lord, using the Quran alone, they run away in aversion." http://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/quran/misinterpreted_verses/manipulation_of_17:46_%28P1383%29.html - Quran, 17:46


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.



Print Page | Close Window