Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
90% of muslims don't want israel destroyed? Or aren't happy about 9/11? Your fake muslim is showing again. You obviously know nothing about muslims. Why do you pretend?
The difference between us is that my positions are backed up by factual information, while yours are supported only by your preconceived notions.Your fake muslim is showing again. You obviously know nothing about muslims.
Why do you troll?Why do you pretend?
Are you calling the wahhabies kaffirs?Consensus has obviously not been attained.
Certainly far more consensus than with the mutz.
That doesn't matter. Consensus with the Wahhabi heretics has not been attained, and will not be as long as there are brothers and sisters who hold true to the words of the Qur'an.
Are you calling the wahhabies kaffirs?Certainly far more consensus than with the mutz.
That doesn't matter. Consensus with the Wahhabi heretics has not been attained, and will not be as long as there are brothers and sisters who hold true to the words of the Qur'an.
You would of course be incorrect in your implication .Are you calling the wahhabies kaffirs?That doesn't matter. Consensus with the Wahhabi heretics has not been attained, and will not be as long as there are brothers and sisters who hold true to the words of the Qur'an.
No, I won't call anybody who claims to be a Muslim a kafir, regardless of how incorrect or backward their beliefs seem to be. I implied that Wahhabism is not Qur'anic Islam - that it is a deviant and heretical sect of Islam. Why?
In the opinion of an uneducated twit, perhaps, but there aren't any of those here, are there?You would of course be incorrect in your implication .
Wahhabism is based on the un-Islamic actions and teachings of Ibn al-Wahhab, a heretic of the highest order.Wahhabism is merely fundamental scriptural Islam that follows the sunna of the "prophet' as prescribed in the Quran and the sunna as the Quran suggests.
"Wahhabi" is derogatory; they do not use that term to describe themselves. Your sources, however, are mostly Wahhabi.Never the less
I do not go to wahhabi .com for any information.
There are not billions of Wahhabis. There are not even billions of Muslims.Never the lessI would suggest this is not the correct place for you to straighten out the path of these billions of misunderstanders who disagree with you.
I dont speak for wahhabis I just offer an alternative view of Islam than the one you and the dozens of followers of your minor cult posture.In the opinion of an uneducated twit, perhaps, but there aren't any of those here, are there?You would of course be incorrect in your implication .
Wahhabism is based on the un-Islamic actions and teachings of Ibn al-Wahhab, a heretic of the highest order.Wahhabism is merely fundamental scriptural Islam that follows the sunna of the "prophet' as prescribed in the Quran and the sunna as the Quran suggests.
See my post and the linked articles here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-middle-east-general/71167-saudis-order-40-lashes-for-elderly-woman-for-mingling-2.html#post1095192
"Wahhabi" is derogatory; they do not use that term to describe themselves. Your sources, however, are mostly Wahhabi.Never the less
I do not go to wahhabi .com for any information.
There are not billions of Wahhabis. There are not even billions of Muslims.Never the lessI would suggest this is not the correct place for you to straighten out the path of these billions of misunderstanders who disagree with you.
By linking to their opinions and injunctions, you implicitly support them and their warped message.I dont speak for wahhabis
We, the People of Unity and Justice, aren't alone in our recognition of Wahhab and his ilk as heretics. The sources I linked to in that post of mine were both non-Mu'tazili. Furthermore, we are not a cult.I just offer an alternative view of Islam than the one you and the dozens of followers of your minor cult posture.
Perhaps your problem is with Islam itself.You should read the information in the post I linked to. The Wahhabi's false beliefs and oppression of their brother Muslims qualify them as heretics of the highest order.
That makes no sense. My problem is with the Wahhabis for deviating from true Islam while falsely accusing others of doing just that.Perhaps your problem is with Islam itself.
You've discovered that it's one you can't win. Good - you're making progress.We will not enterian the debate between mainstream Islam and qiyas and the mutz cult.
I just have no interest in petty squabbles between traditional Islam and a defunct cult.You've discovered that it's one you can't win. Good - you're making progress.
I just have no interest in petty squabbles between traditional Islam and a defunct cult.You've discovered that it's one you can't win. Good - you're making progress.
Traditional scriptural Islam uses the Quran and sunna which is what I use as a tool to reveal a widely held interpretation of Islam.e. My problem is with the Wahhabis for deviating from true Islam while falsely accusing others of doing just that.
By linking to their opinions and injunctions, you implicitly support them and their warped message.I dont speak for wahhabis
We, the People of Unity and Justice, aren't alone in our recognition of Wahhab and his ilk as heretics. The sources I linked to in that post of mine were both non-Mu'tazili. Furthermore, we are not a cult.I just offer an alternative view of Islam than the one you and the dozens of followers of your minor cult posture.
You should read the information in the post I linked to. The Wahhabi's false beliefs and oppression of their brother Muslims qualify them as heretics of the highest order.
The tension between Mu'tazili Islam and Wahhabi Islam is more pronounced than most sectarian differences, because the former represents the extreme of rationality and the latter the extremes of irrationality and injustice. I've gotten along fine with the overwhelming majority of Sunnis, Shi'ia, Ahmadis, and Sufis I've met.The splintering of Islam is amazing.
Non-Muslims have no business interfering in our internal disputes. If you assist one group against another unrightfully, the second will perceive oppression on your part and retaliate accordingly."It's me against my brother"
"It's me and my brother against our cousin"
"It's me and my brother and my cousin against the stranger"
The west watches Islam fighting each other and don't feel threatened. But the moment the infidel gets entangled, suddenly all these splinter groups merge into one.
And we need to wake up to the very real danger.
Traditional scriptural Islam uses the Quran and sunna which is what I use as a tool to reveal a widely held interpretation of Islam.e. My problem is with the Wahhabis for deviating from true Islam while falsely accusing others of doing just that.
It carries intellectual force by using the example of the "prophet" and the Quran to reveal Islam fully.
The Quran contains no contradictions.
An example of the abrogation:
There is no such thing as abrogation in the Qur'an. The Qur'an itself makes this clear in 4:82 - "Will they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy." Moreover, two of the three suwar I cited, al-Baqara and al-Anfal, were revealed in Madinah, after hostilities had already commenced between the Muslims and the persecuting Quraish. Al-Baqara in particular contains most of the Qur'an's guidance pertaining to dealing with enemies. The only verse I cited that was revealed in Makkah was one of the last revealed in that city, after the Quraish had been actively persecuting the Muslims there for some time. If any of the verses I referred to are "superceded" as you suggest, please show me the verses that supposedly take precedence over them. In 1936, Muslim leader and scholar Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote the following on the subject of abrogation:
That certain verses of the Qur'an are abrogated by others is now an exploded theory. The two passages on which it was supposed to rest, refer, really, to the abrogation, not of the Qur'an but of the previous revelations whose place the Holy Book had taken. The first verse is contained in the sixteenth chapter (al-Nahl) - a Makkah revelation - and runs thus: "And when We change a message for a message, - and Allah knows best what He reveals - they say: Thou art only a forger" (16:101). It is a fact that details of the Islamic law were revealed at Madinah and it is in relation to these details that the theory of abrogation has been broached. Therefore, a Makkah revelation would not speak of abrogation. But the reference in the above verse is to the abrogation, not of the Qur'anic verses but of the previous Divine messages or revelations, consequent upon revelation of the Qur'an. The context shows this clearly to be the case, for the opponents are here made to say that the Prophet was a forger. He was so accused by the opponents not because he announced the abrogation of certain verses in the Qur'an but because he claimed that the Qur'an was a divine revelation which had taken the place of previous revelations. They argued that it was not a revelation at all: "Only a mortal teaches him" (16:103). According to them the whole of the Qur'an, and not merely a particular verse of it, was a forgery. The theory of abrogation, therefore, cannot be based on this verse which speaks only of one revelation or one law taking the place of another.
The other verse which is supposed to lend support to the theory runs thus: "Whatever message we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or one like it" (2:106). A reference to the context will show that the Jews or the followers of previous revelations are here addressed. Of these it is said: "they say: We believe in that which was revealed to us; and they deny what is besides that" (2:91). So they were told that if a certain revelation was abrogated, it was only to give place to a better one. And there is mention not only of abrogation but also of something that was forgotten. The words "or cause to be forgotten" cannot refer to the Qur'an at all because no portion of it could be said to have been forgotten so as to require a new revelation in its place. There is no point in supposing that God should make the Prophet forget a verse and then reveal a new one in its place. Why not, if he really had forgotten a verse, remind him of the one forgotten? But even if it is supposed that his memory ever failed in retaining (which really never happened), that verse was quite safely preserved in writing, and the mere failure of memory could not necessitate a new revelation. That the Prophet never forgot what was recited to him is plainly stated in the Qur'an: "We shall make the recite, so thou shalt not forget" (87:6). History also bears out the fact that he never forgot any portion of the Qur'anic revelation. Sometimes the whole of a very long chapter would be revealed to him in one portion, as in the case of the sixth chapter which extends over twenty sections, but he would cause it to be written without delay, and make his companions learn it by heart, and recite it in public prayers, and that without the change of even a letter, notwithstanding the fact that he himself could not read from a written copy, nor did the written copies, as a rule, remain in his possession. It was a miracle indeed that he never forgot any portion of the Qur'an, though other things he might forget, and it is to his forgetfulness in other things that the words except what Allah pleases, in the next verse (87:7), refer. On the other hand, it is a fact that parts of the older revelations had been utterly lost and forgotten, and thus the Qur'an was needed to take the place of that which was abrogated, and that which had been forgotten by the world.
The message of the Qur'an is consistent throughout its entirety. As I said, all of the verses I cited were revealed after the worst of the persecution faced by Muhammad and his followers had begun. Your abrogation argument was proved false quite some time ago.
Guess what? That, like most of your half-baked remarks, is untrue.Guess what? The more recent books are not about peace, love and honor. They are about butchery, lying, and war.
The next-to-last surah to be revealed tells Muslims to respect their alliances with disbelievers. The surah immediately preceding that tells us that if someone kills an innocent person, "it is as though he had killed all men." It also explains that all people who believe and do good, not just Muslims, will be rewarded. So much for "butchery, lying, and war." You don't know anything about Islam or the Qur'an; you merely regurgitate the ridiculous bullshit fed to you by ignorant Islamophobes.
Thats all for today, Good night.
