How does a person perform Islam? (heaven, revelation, famous, Europe)

[mahasn sawresho]

Originally Posted by Woodrow LI

I have found no hindrance of performing Islam where I live.

There is no real conflict between Islam and democracy. Democracy is rule by the majority. If a Democracy was composed of Majority Muslims the Democracy would require for it to be an Islamic Nation.

OK
You say that majority rule
If a majority said the same-sex marriage legal
Does Islam accept this law
-------
You contradict yourself
Aiatr to Islam in the majority rule
But he admits in one law is only the Koran
All Islamic movements in the past, present, seeking to impose the law of God on earth
I believe that Islam is a democratic country and destroy the torpedo

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by Woodrow LI

I understand you will disagree with me. Perhaps you believe the Qur'an was sent to teach Islam?

The Qur'an is the reasons for Islam, not the method of how.

The Quran is a book with the Main Message of Allah with doctrinal principles supported sufficiently by SOME stories, examples, illustrations, parables, analogies.

Point is Allah did not go about feeding fishes to believers, rather Allah has delivered a message that 'teaches one how to fish' but not in full details on how to prepare, cook and eat the fishes caught.

Your method of "how to perform Islam" is secondary, it is merely "how to prepare, cook and eat the fishes caught" as in the above analogy.

What is critical with the Quran is analogical the principles of 'how to fish'.
It is not practical for Allah to put in all the details [too voluminous] to cater for various changing conditions and circumstances.

That is why we have various exposition of the principles in details [by Prophets, messengers, scholars] to cater to the lay believers on how to apply the principles to their individual conditions and circumstances.
BUT the main point is these detailed expositions [from the Ahadith and Madhab] cannot be taken as having any divine authority from Allah.

What is WRONGLY claimed and insisted upon by Ahadith-Muslims is ALL that are in the Ahadith [supposedly authenticated] are directly from Allah via whatever Muhammad had done and said. Thus whatever is from the Ahadith must be complied with 100% because Allah said so as done [so claimed] by Muhammad!
This cannot be, because Muhammad as a human being is fallible and vulnerable to sins.
The control is thus whatever is in the Ahadith can only be Islamic [with Allah's authority] if it comply within the SCOPE of the Quran.

The concept of having perfected Islam, does not mean it is contained in the Qur'an. We are also required to follow the word's of Muhammad(saws) who is the teacher on how to perform Islam

You do not seem to trust what Allah had delivered?

5:3. [O ye Muslims] ... This day have I [Allah] Perfected your religion [deenakum] for you [Muslims] and completed My favour unto you [Muslims], and have chosen for you [Muslims] as religion [deenan] AL-ISLAM. [al-islama deenan] Whoso is forced by hunger, not by will, to sin: (for him) lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

In 5:3 Allah specifically state ISLAM your religion is perfected and completed via the Quran through Muhammad.
perfected and completed are self-explanatory.
It mean you cannot look elsewhere for Allah's authority.
A Muslim may refer to expositions and explanations of the verses of the Quran, but these expositions and explanations [Ahadiths and Madhab] cannot be taken as having any divine authority, i.e. "do it because Allah said so!"

As long as what Muhammad said is in accordance to the Quran, then it is Islamic [with Allah's authority in accordance to the Quran] but one cannot accept everything just because it was done and said by Muhammad as a divine decree.

The "Message of the Qur'an" is very simple. "There is only one God(swt) who has no equals, partners nor progeny. Only He is to be worshiped" The Qur'an reiterates that many times and gives example of what happens to those who fail to do so and examples what can be gained by doing so. It also tells of the trials Muslims will face and how to overcome them. It is also a guide as to how we can live life in the most productive manner.

It is not the Message but "THE MESSAGE," i.e. 100% of it.
The 100% of THE MESSAGE, completed and perfected [5:3] is in the Quran.

While compliance with the Qur'an is an essential requirement of Islam, that in itself is not the performance of Islam.

100% compliance must be followed by 100% in practice and in action in terms of principle.

Analogy:
The basic human principle that 'ALL humans must eat to ensure survival' need to specify exactly what one must eat, how to eat, when to eat, and all the details involved in getting food into the stomach.
In this example, there is no imperative that one must eat 3 times a day [as most people do]. One can eat 5 times a day, 10 times a day, ONCE a day, or once in 2 days, etc. This the 'WHEN' of the principle.
There is the 'WHAT' and 'HOW' of the principle 'ALL humans must eat to ensure survival' which can be very complex and details depending on various factors.

Just as the above main principle, there are also core and main principles [with some examples] in the Quran which are sufficient to a believers to be the best Muslim.
Just as the above analogy, there is no need for a Muslim to follow the detailed 'When' 'What and 'How' of the main principle.

Some believers may want detailed instructions to guide them to ensure the principles are followed, BUT these detailed instructions [Ahadith and Madhabs' guide] CANNOT be claimed to have divine rights, i.e. Do this because God said so. The only basis for this divine authority is from the Quran only.

I agree that is a bit difficult to understand. But it does not mean that all Muslims are not equal, it means we will be rewarded and punished in accordance to our deeds. One is either Muslim or not Muslim no levels of Muslimness implied

It is not difficult to understand. There are many other verses in the Quran that explain how Muslims are graded by rank, degrees and grades as a Muslim on Judgment Day.
Basically all Muslims are equal at the basic level. All Muslims who had submitted to Allah and entered into a covenant with Allah enjoy equal basic rights and are entitled to basic entitlements.

Wrong. In order to know how to perform Islam, one must know what Muhammad(saws) taught.

Note this OP;
33:62 The Specific Sunnah of Muhammad is not Sunnah of Allah
re not all sunnah of Muhammad are sunnah of Allah.
The critical principle here is, IF whatever what Muhammad said or done is to be acceptable of having any divine authority, it must imperatively be within the scope of the Quran.
E.g. the covering of hair if ordered by Muhammad cannot carry any divine authority because such an order was never intended nor it is within the scope of the Quran. The same principle applies to all other hadiths.

One can be the most knowledgeable Qur'an Scholar and never know how to be a Muslim. There probably have been and continue to be non-Muslims better versed in the Qur'an than most Muslim and they have no concept on how to perform Islam

True there is a big difference between knowing and doing [practiced].
But the only way to be a Muslim is to know what are the principles in the Quran and comply [in mind and practiced] with those principles.
A non-Muslim can comply [without reading the Quran] with the majority of the practices and principles in the Quran [submit to God, pray many times a day, do charity, do righteous acts, etc. ], but s/he cannot be a Muslim unless s/he comply with the critical key principles, i.e. submit to Allah, believe Muhammad is the messenger, and the Last Day.


This is the purpose for Sharia. It behooves an individual to follow the instructions of the 4 madhabs (Sharia) until one has sufficient knowledge to make an informed choice on their own.

A novice chef follows the advice of a Master chef until he achieves the ability to create acceptable cuisine on his own[/quote]Nope.
What is most basic to be a Muslim is for a person to get a Quran, read it, understand the MESSAGE and apply, comply to core key main principle and the associated principles stated therein.
Your chef analogy is not effective.

Note my analogy 'ALL humans must eat to ensure survival.'
What is most critical is the imperative principle must be complied with while the subsidiary principles need not be strictly followed by everyone. 2:286 do you best is sufficient to avoid going to Hell.

[mahasn sawresho]

Originally Posted by Continuum

It is not the Message but "THE MESSAGE," i.e. 100% of it.
The 100% of THE MESSAGE, completed and perfected [5:3] is in the Quran.

100% compliance must be followed by 100% in practice and in action in terms of principle.

Analogy:
The basic human principle that 'ALL humans must eat to ensure survival' need to specify exactly what one must eat, how to eat, when to eat, and all the details involved in getting food into the stomach.
In this example, there is no imperative that one must eat 3 times a day [as most people do]. One can eat 5 times a day, 10 times a day, ONCE a day, or once in 2 days, etc. This the 'WHEN' of the principle.
There is the 'WHAT' and 'HOW' of the principle 'ALL humans must eat to ensure survival' which can be very complex and details depending on various factors.

.

I think that this benefit is unknown friend
And to Wardha and was ordered Lord ruled res judicata
وان منكم لواردها وكان امر ربك حكما مقضيا
And scholars are trying to camouflage this text
He maturity visit hell
Visit successful

[Khalif]

Originally Posted by Continuum

Islam per Quran do not respect the basic rights and other moral rights of ALL citizens.

Islam per Qur'aan certainly respects and actually protects the basic rights and other moral rights of ALL citizens.

[mahasn sawresho]

Originally Posted by Khalif

Islam per Qur'aan certainly respects and actually protects the basic rights and other moral rights of ALL citizens.

What is the concept of the people الذمة

How to respect religions and called on human impure انما المشركون نجس
The religious and racial discrimination is one of the essential attributes of Islam
The term unbeliever is announced at the idea of racial and religious discrimination

[Khalif]

Originally Posted by mahasn sawresho

What is the concept of the people الذمة

How to respect religions and called on human impure انما المشركون نجس
The religious and racial discrimination is one of the essential attributes of Islam
The term unbeliever is announced at the idea of racial and religious discrimination

It was the those Mushrikeen (idol worshipers) who did not respect deen of Islam and persecuted those Muslims in Mecca. They used to go to Ka'aba and worship their idols without cleaning themselves first. They were impure because they were dirty, not having done any wash or wudu. They had discriminated against Muslims.

The term unbeliever is used for those who did not believe the Qur'aan and were hell bent on destroying it, and all the Muslims with it.

You should be ashamed of the dirty work they had done 1400 years ago. They used to dance around the Ka.aba naked and dirty (never having washed first for days). They also used to bury their newly born baby daughters. The very first Muslim they had killed was a woman.

By the way, do you have any contribution to make towards the OP or are you here only to disrupt the discussion?

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by Khalif

It was the those Mushrikeen (idol worshipers) who did not respect deen of Islam and persecuted those Muslims in Mecca. They used to go to Ka'aba and worship their idols without cleaning themselves first. They were impure because they were dirty, not having done any wash or wudu. They had discriminated against Muslims.

The term unbeliever is used for those who did not believe the Qur'aan and were hell bent on destroying it, and all the Muslims with it.

You should be ashamed of the dirty work they had done 1400 years ago. They used to dance around the Ka.aba naked and dirty (never having washed first for days). They also used to bury their newly born baby daughters. The very first Muslim they had killed was a woman.

You are not in touch with reality and the above is bad logic and rationale.

Here is the logical sequence;

1. Those Meccan idol worshiping idols for thousands of years up to 710AD without issue and were living in harmony with Jews, Christians and all other religions within Mecca.

2. Around 710 AD Muhammad at 40 years old suffered a certain mental issues and have had experiences of altered states of consciousness that drove him to perceive himself as an agent of God. Note there are many people who had such experiences which are well researched and recognized today in the psychiatric community. Examples are those of Paul of Damascus, Jesus - possibly, and others. With such mental issues, whatever is expressed by these people are always questionable.

3. Muhammad think that whatever is not aligned with his specific thoughts [questionable], i.e. worshiping idols is false and wrong. From a spiritual perspective, unless morally wrong, no humans can have the right to decide who is right or wrong in the spiritual practices of others. There are pros and cons to the wide range of spiritual practices from idol to monotheistic worshiping. What is optimal will depend on the spiritual inclinations of the individual and groups.

4. After Muhammad have experienced the altered states of consciousness, his preaching was aggressive and antagonistic which insulted the existing religion of the Meccan. It is obvious the matters of religion is a VERY sensitive one and believers are very offended if others insult their religion. Despite much warnings Muhammad [with arrogance] continued to insult the religions of the Meccans. It is only natural in such a situation, the Meccans will feel insulted, provoked and SOME will definitely retaliated.

But the main point here is; it was Muhammad who started the tit-for-tat that ended up with full blown violence and Muhammad eventually won purely based on physical-martial power and not spiritual superiority.
If Muhammad was preached indiscreetly and peacefully, and if his religion was really superior and effectiveff, it would have expanded naturally and harmoniously.

6. At that time the Meccans has the rights to the Temple [Kaaba] they have built themselves to suit their spiritual needs.

7. By right, if Muhammad were to start his own religion, Muhammad should have built his own Kaaba or big Mosque. However Muhammad took the easy and cheaper way out by hijacking, destroying and stealing the Kaaba of others and conveniently made the Kaaba his own. This is morally wrong from the humanity perspective. What moral right has Muhammad to steal the Kaaba of others instead of building his own?

8. So the main point here is;

It was Muhammad who started the tit-for-tat that ended up with full blown violence and Muhammad eventually won purely based on physical-martial power and not spiritual superiority.
If Muhammad had preached indiscreetly and peacefully [the morally right way], and if his religion was really superior and effective, it would have expanded naturally and harmoniously.

The term unbeliever is used for those who did not believe the Qur'aan and were hell bent on destroying it, and all the Muslims with it.

Your views is based on false rationale.
If Muhammad had not started the tit-for-tat, then the Meccans would not have been insulted, provoked and retaliated.

It was the those Mushrikeen (idol worshipers) who did not respect deen of Islam and persecuted those Muslims in Mecca. They used to go to Ka'aba and worship their idols without cleaning themselves first. They were impure because they were dirty, not having done any wash or wudu. They had discriminated against Muslims.

You should be ashamed of the dirty work they had done 1400 years ago. They used to dance around the Ka.aba naked and dirty (never having washed first for days). They also used to bury their newly born baby daughters. The very first Muslim they had killed was a woman.

This is bad logic and rationale.

The used of "they" without qualification of 'SOME' is a demonization of 'all' Meccan to justify your own basis the evils and violence.

At best not all but perhaps SOME Meccans may have followed certain religion that necessitate nakedness.
Note the following Naked Sadhus in India. They have been worshiping and dancing to their god for thousands of years without any serious issues.



Muslims then and at present has no basis to condemn ALL Meccans as naked believers going round the Kaaba during the 710 AD and prior. I personally do not agree with these naked practices especially in our modern era but my criticisms do not give me the moral right to destroy their temples are force them to stop in a violent and aggressive manner.

As for female infanticide this is a common problem all over the world in the past. This is a general human problem and not a critical issue of any religion which the main purpose is salvation. At present it is the natural progress of universal human morality that is preventing female infanticide not religious rulings.

The moral problem from humanity's perspective is Muhammad had experienced altered states of consciousness with an aggressive basis.
He preached aggressively and provoked the Meccans [religion being a very sensitive matter].
Based on martial might and aggression Muhammad overpowered the martially weaker Meccans - this is purely bullying by the one who started the provocations. Then Muhammad hijacked, destroyed parts and stole the Kaaba for himself instead of building his own. Can any one counter the above moral wrongs?

[Woodrow LI]

Originally Posted by Continuum

You are not in touch with reality and the above is bad logic and rationale.

Here is the logical sequence;

1. Those Meccan idol worshiping idols for thousands of years up to 710AD without issue and were living in harmony with Jews, Christians and all other religions within Mecca.

2. Around 710 AD Muhammad at 40 years old suffered a certain mental issues and have had experiences of altered states of consciousness that drove him to perceive himself as an agent of God. Note there are many people who had such experiences which are well researched and recognized today in the psychiatric community. Examples are those of Paul of Damascus, Jesus - possibly, and others. With such mental issues, whatever is expressed by these people are always questionable.

3. Muhammad think that whatever is not aligned with his specific thoughts [questionable], i.e. worshiping idols is false and wrong. From a spiritual perspective, unless morally wrong, no humans can have the right to decide who is right or wrong in the spiritual practices of others. There are pros and cons to the wide range of spiritual practices from idol to monotheistic worshiping. What is optimal will depend on the spiritual inclinations of the individual and groups.

4. After Muhammad have experienced the altered states of consciousness, his preaching was aggressive and antagonistic which insulted the existing religion of the Meccan. It is obvious the matters of religion is a VERY sensitive one and believers are very offended if others insult their religion. Despite much warnings Muhammad [with arrogance] continued to insult the religions of the Meccans. It is only natural in such a situation, the Meccans will feel insulted, provoked and SOME will definitely retaliated.

But the main point here is; it was Muhammad who started the tit-for-tat that ended up with full blown violence and Muhammad eventually won purely based on physical-martial power and not spiritual superiority.
If Muhammad was preached indiscreetly and peacefully, and if his religion was really superior and effectiveff, it would have expanded naturally and harmoniously.

6. At that time the Meccans has the rights to the Temple [Kaaba] they have built themselves to suit their spiritual needs.

7. By right, if Muhammad were to start his own religion, Muhammad should have built his own Kaaba or big Mosque. However Muhammad took the easy and cheaper way out by hijacking, destroying and stealing the Kaaba of others and conveniently made the Kaaba his own. This is morally wrong from the humanity perspective. What moral right has Muhammad to steal the Kaaba of others instead of building his own?

8. So the main point here is;

It was Muhammad who started the tit-for-tat that ended up with full blown violence and Muhammad eventually won purely based on physical-martial power and not spiritual superiority.
If Muhammad had preached indiscreetly and peacefully [the morally right way], and if his religion was really superior and effective, it would have expanded naturally and harmoniously.

Your views is based on false rationale.
If Muhammad had not started the tit-for-tat, then the Meccans would not have been insulted, provoked and retaliated.

This is bad logic and rationale.

The used of "they" without qualification of 'SOME' is a demonization of 'all' Meccan to justify your own basis the evils and violence.

At best not all but perhaps SOME Meccans may have followed certain religion that necessitate nakedness.
Note the following Naked Sadhus in India. They have been worshiping and dancing to their god for thousands of years without any serious issues.



Muslims then and at present has no basis to condemn ALL Meccans as naked belihe Time Muhammad(saws)evers going round the Kaaba during the 710 AD and prior. I personally do not agree with these naked practices especially in our modern era but my criticisms do not give me the moral right to destroy their temples are force them to stop in a violent and aggressive manner.

As for female infanticide this is a commo problem all over the world in the past. This is a general human problem and not a critical issue of any religion which the main purpose is salvation. At present it is the natural progress of universal human morality that is preventing female infanticide not religious rulings.

The moral problem from humanity's perspective is Muhammad had experienced altered states of consciousness with an aggressive basis.
He preached aggressively and provoked the Meccans [religion being a very sensitive matter].
Based on martial might and aggression Muhammad overpowered the martially weaker Meccans - this is purely bullying by the one who started the provocations. Then Muhammad hijacked, destroyed parts and stole the Kaaba for himself instead of building his own. Can any one counter the above moral wrongs?

The idol worshipers in Mecca were new comers. The Kaaba was originally a Jewish temple, then a Christian Church shortly before or after the birth of Muhammad(saws) the idol worshipers took it over. Most of them were not even residents of Mecca, but came to Mecca to buy or sell goods. At the time of Muhammad(saws) Mecca was nearly 100% Jewish with periodic arrivals of temporary pagan Merchants.

[Khalif]

Originally Posted by Woodrow LI

The idol worshipers in Mecca were new comers. The Kaaba was originally a Jewish temple, then a Christian Church shortly before or after the birth of Muhammad(saws) the idol worshipers took it over. Most of them were not even residents of Mecca, but came to Mecca to buy or sell goods. At the time of Muhammad(saws) Mecca was nearly 100% Jewish with periodic arrivals of temporary pagan Merchants.

Continuum won't know this.

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by Woodrow LI

The idol worshipers in Mecca were new comers. The Kaaba was originally a Jewish temple, then a Christian Church shortly before or after the birth of Muhammad(saws) the idol worshipers took it over. Most of them were not even residents of Mecca, but came to Mecca to buy or sell goods. At the time of Muhammad(saws) Mecca was nearly 100% Jewish with periodic arrivals of temporary pagan Merchants.

Originally Posted by Khalif

Continuum won't know this.

I am aware there are many claims to how the Kaaba first appear. It depends on who is writing the point, thus the bias.

But the point is during the time of Muhammad;s life, he was surely aware for 40 years the Kaaba was used by the Meccans of various religions by the locals and the other visitors. There was also money to be made by those who manage the Kaaba then.

The moral problem from humanity's perspective is Muhammad had experienced altered states of consciousness with an aggressive basis.
He preached aggressively and provoked the Meccans [religion being a very sensitive matter].
Based on martial might and aggression Muhammad overpowered the martially weaker Meccans - this is purely bullying by the one who started the provocations. Then Muhammad hijacked, destroyed parts and stole the Kaaba for himself instead of building his own. Can any one counter the above moral wrongs?

The other point is Khalif portrayed the wrong picture to suit his views by implying "ALL" the Meccans were dancing naked around the Kaaba.