Jump to content

Ummi of Ummah

Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Ummi of Ummah

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Sufi Islam

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

647 profile views
  1. Could The Quran Have Been Corrupted?

    Yet you replied, how [edited] If Sura of Wilaya and Nurayn is contradicting and false, how do you explain what is said in 56:77-80: "Indeed, it is a noble Qur'an. In a Register well-protected; none touch it except the purified. [it is] a revelation from the Lord of the worlds." (Sahih International translation)? Whatever argument you are going to use, I am going to use the same. We have no "official Quran," we only have a canonical Quran known as the Uthmanic Quran canonized by the same man whom had made the Uthmanic Quran, whom may that be? That's right! Uthman... if you hadn't already realized. I don't believe Ali is a literal deity, as for the latter part; you have just made a Takfir against 1.400 billion Muslims... including Muhammad. No, orientalists claim that Muhammad made a mistake and was misled by some "imperfect" verses, known as the Satanic verses. I claim that Surat At-Tawbah was a forgery by a now-anonymous author(s), including those authors were Khuzaima ibn Thabit. It fooled Uthman and he canonized it in his flawed standardization of the Quran. This is the mistake of Uthman and sins of Khuzaima ibn Thabit. I already have published some. I was referring to the Shi'i belief that mere humans like Muhammad are flawless and infallible, which are divine attributes to God. Likewise, I am not accusing you of shirk, why do you do the same against me? I have made it clear plenty of times, that I do not regard Ali as a God. All the Hadith that I mentioned as substantiated: “I am the Sign of the All-Powerful. I am the Gnosis of the Mysteries. I am the Threshold of Thresholds. I am the companion of the radiance of the divine Majesty. I am the First and the Last, the Manifest and the Hidden. I am the Face of God. I am the mirror of God, the supreme Pen.” - Imām ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib In the book Kashf al‑Ghummah, it has been narrated from Abdullah ibn Umar that: "I heard someone ask the Prophet of Allah, `With what voice did Allah, the Glorified and High, speak to you in on the night of the Me'raj?" The Prophet replied, "My Lord spoke to me with the voice of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib and said, `O' Ahmad! I am an Entity that is not like anything else. I can not be compared to anything else and I know all the secrets of your heart. With the exception of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib , you have no other close friend. Thus, I speak to you with the voice of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib so that your heart will be at ease.'" And I recall a Hadith where it is being said looking at Ali ibn Abi Talib's face is equal to Bidah. I was doing nothing but what Muhammad did, we honored Ali by representing him as a divine, however we do not claim he is a divine, he is simply the manifestation of God. If this is shirk, Islam is shirk, Muhammad did something shirk. My beliefs are substantiated with Sunnah, where does Muhammad say he was infallible again? That's right! Nowhere. “I had witnessed that war with my uncle and shot a few arrows therein. How I wish I had never done so!” (Ibn Sa’d’s Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir) Keep in mind, I do identify myself as a Muslim, albeit not a follower of any of those sects of yours, I am a Sufi Lahori-Ahmadi. However, you were the only rational being here logically defending your position, with sufficient reasoning. This make a lot more sense than earlier in my understanding of "contradiction," however I am resonated with this opinion of mine that it's a forgery, this comes from still a variety of reasons apologetic comments cannot change, for example "the Uzair scandal," "the Sword Verse," no one had the last verses either other than one man, we all know in historical documents, this is an insufficent number. But thank you for your submission, I shall ask you if I ever need help.
  2. Could The Quran Have Been Corrupted?

    That's a red herring and poisoning the well fallacy, also a certain form of ad hominem, you do not refute the article, but instead make a cop-out to avoid arguing by making irrelevant remarks against me. What if a non-Muslim just interested to convert asks you this question? Are you just going to say "that's because you're a non-Muslim and Satan whispers at your heart trying to prevent you from converting, just say the shahada, follow the typical Muslim life and you will be indoctrinated enough to these questions magically dissappear," guess what, I have been indoctrinated, I have also been rationalized - these questions are there still as a rational Muslim. (BTW, that thread is absurdly misunderstood, haven't you realized I'm a mystic?) Allah did protect the Quran, have you seen the other 113 chapters been corrupted? No! However, Kalifat Uthman was just a mere human being, he was not "God-inspired," he was not infallible, he made some mistakes and corrupted the Quran, that would be equal to if I included a false chapter in the Quran, that doesn't mean Allah has made a bad job. What about the Bible and Gospels? Are you saying Allah did a bad job there too? Of course not. I don't believe Muhammad was a perfect God, I believe him to be a mere human, so mistakes are to be expected. But I'm not claiming Muhammad corrupted the Quran, this could be anyone else. I scribed the article, but the idea of this thread was taking from someone else. Sorry, Muhammad. Praise be to you! Peace and blessings be on you! True, he is denying what he sees and claims them to be wrong without a single of rationale reasoning. That is an example of a blind, dogmatic believer. Is he seriously saying there is a Son of God named Uzair when there is clearly not? That alone is enough to prove an innaccuracy and accepted by the science community, it's that much of a scientific fact! Let alone for an atheist, his reply would have been absurd and humiliating. I am a brother and yes, I do critically examine my religion so I know I'm on the right path, this requires logic and reasonable faith. With these empirical inaccuracies, I can't dismiss them with dogma, I must conclude with a logical saying; if one do this same thing to Quran as we do to Hadith, we find out this chapter is the only one that doesn't trace to Muhammad, peace be upon him. Also, it's easy for the Shias, but how can the Sunnis accept the last verses of this chapter if the one who had them was a Shia? Does this mean you must dismiss them? This is a critical thinking for whoever Sunni is around here.
  3. Hello, I want to share this comment on the infallibility of the Quran, keep in mind I am not the claimant, I am only the apostle sharing you the message here. WIthout further ado, I will start by saying that "Bismillah" before every Surah works as a citation. In the name of Allah means the message has come from him. This way angel and the Prophet do not take credit for what they are reciting. Just think about writing papers. Every time we use someone else's idea we put their source in either bibliography or reference section of the paper. And the sentence that has been paraphrased is usually accompanied by in text citation. If we take what you say as true, this means Surat At-Tawbah was not written by God, but instead by a human (either Muhammad or a corruption made later on by some Arabian poet or poets), if you think about it, this makes a lot of sense. Surat At-Tawbah is the only Sura with flaws, inhumane intolerance and human-characteristics impossible for God. This "Sura" is probably made as a response to Surat Al-Baqarah's challenge to unbelievers about producing a Sura alike to the Quran if one should believe that Quran is not divine, Surat At-Tawbah is a perfect example of this!' Firstly, it doesn't mention Bismillah, meaning it was not a God revelation. If it was going to be divine, it being spoken by an angel is the farthest we can go, and it seems unlikely. This also could have been a fabrication made by Muhammad, but this seems unlikely too. The only plausible is for it to have been a fabrication made by another person and claimed it in the name of Quran, when it was clearly not. Secondly, it has historical and religious inaccuracies, for example it mentions a character named "Uzair" that the Jews worshiped as the "Son of God," now, anyone with a little amount of Judaic knowledge would know that there exist no such concept as a "Son of God" in Judaism. Surat At-Tawbah was probably written by a human being unaware of this fact and therefore it mentions Uzair, who is equal to no one in Judaic scriptures, this was probably written by an Arabian poet trying to compete with Muhammad and made these mistakes. Thirdly, we also know that Surat At-Tawbah is relentlessly violent; hence "the Sword Verse," this verse might have been what the Arabian poet whom had fabricated this chapter considered the Muslims will do to the polytheistic pagans, which makes a lot of sense if you realize that this is not a God revelation. Fourthly, this chapter is containing contradictions, such as: "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error." (Surat Al-Baqarah 2:256) "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger [Muhammad], nor acknowledge the religion of truth [islam], from among the people of the book [Jews and Christians] until they pay the Jezia [special taxes paid by the Jews and Christians who do not want to denounce their religion] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Surat Al-Tawbah 9:29) And lastly, we also have historical evidence that suggests this chapter may not be God-revealed after all, this comes from the fact whilst they were compiling the Quran, they were unable to find the last verses of this chapter.It was here where they were asked by the Shi'i Khuzaima ibn Thabit about the last verses, the fact that this chapter was all over the place shows that this was probably from an Arabian poet. The companions were compiling the Quran, it was not clear to them if Sura At-Tawbah was its own separate Sura or not, this seems strange that they couldn't even remember it when it was almost the last chapter in Quran, their hearing must have been much more fresher than that. It all makes sense that At-Tawbah was not a true God revelation, but a corruption, Muhammad or any other mere human being imitating the Quran, this fooled many and made them accept this chapter as an actual divine chapter, but with greater examination, we find out it's not an actual Qu'ranic Sura for a variety of reasons, both historically and religiously, these are some few testable and demonstrated facts that only take a desperate denial due to dogmatic reasons, there is no rational reason to believe this chapter is actually a Sura from the Quran. Peace.
  4. Interesting Q&a

    I would say a new interpretation of religion must take action, however one do not new to change the religion. There are many myths and legends in Islamic dogma, such as the popular albeit scientific contradicting belief that there once existed giants, and such myths and legends must perish and the religion should become more Gnostic and compatible to science, in spite many Muslims doesn't want to admit this, if one is a rational human being and not follower of a dogmatic blind faith, he must base the Quran on science and not science based on the Quran.
  5. Who Did The Children Of Adam Marry?

    How do you know it's from them, then? You need to critically examine your backward superstition and stop following dogmatic blind faith.
  6. In Islam, we have many prophets, some of these brought teachings that formed religions. I have for many ages, tried to research all the divine religions according to Islam - I found 7 divine religions (including Islam), this does not mean there are other sets of beliefs, but these are what one can consider for a "religion" rather than an inherited "hearsay faith." In the Quran, it mentions Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and the Sabian faith. The Sabian faith includes two sects, one worship Prophet Yahya ibn Zakariyya and another Prophet Hermes Trismegistus (Prophet Idris in Islam). Zoroastrianism is an offshoot of Hinduism, therefore it's safe to regard Hinduism as a divine religion too and if one regard Dhul-Kifl to be Buddha, it gives room for Buddhism to be another divine religion. This makes seven divine religions of God, including Islam. Peace, Ummi of Ummah.
  7. Who Did The Children Of Adam Marry?

    You people make up some of the most craziest nonsense ever.
  8. Who Did The Children Of Adam Marry?

    Well, likewise - I feel the same for you. But, you're right, I'm not a Muslim, I'm a Mumin. The differences is that a Muslim means Submitter, to whom? It is clear that most Muslims nowadays are full of stupidity, ignorance and prejudice. There is something that changed in Islam, if we refer to history when Islam was once linked to to learning and advancement - I believe that some tenets of the religion was changed, faith was changed into servility to dogma, e.g submission. I am not a backward servile Submitter, nay, I am a man of faith in God and the rest is rational thinking, hence a Mumin, not a blind believer of dogma such as a Muslim. Hadith were written 250 years after the supposed incidents and many of those about Adam is from Abu Hurarira (Lanatu Allahi).
  9. Who Did The Children Of Adam Marry?

    We, Muslims, don't believe in the Adam from Genesis. Adam from Genesis is a Judeo-Chrisitan mythic figure that is never mentioned in the Quran, he is supposed to be the first man, but in Islam there is no first man for the mankind. It is a scientific fact that we evolved and thus, there were no "first man," but numerous of common ancestors that humans originated from. Your idea is Jewish and Kuffar, it is not Islamic. Current science shows it is highly improbable for humans to have developed from a single family due to our current understanding of geneticism. Therefore, the creation myth is a myth from the Jewish Torah, Genesis. It is also known in the Christian Gospels and New Testament. But in the Quran, Adam and Eve are never mentioned, there is mentioned a man named Adam, but it is flawed to think he is the same as the one from the Genesis bible, in the same way to believe Haman is the same from Book of Esther or Salih is the same as Salah from the Jewish Tanakh. In the Quran, he is never mentioned as the First Man, but as the First Prophet. Prophet Adam lived for ca. 6000 years ago. I suggest to inform yourself more on the subject and watch this video, while it is Qadiani and we are not supposed to follow their teachings, but as men of reason we are free to influence from their teachings and take notes from them, that is what advance religion: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xn24zo_faith-matters-adam-as-the-first-man-or-the-first-prophet-english_lifestyle Peace, Ummi of Ummah.
  10. Also read this: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235019257-krishna-and-ali/
  11. Hinduism is not full of shirk, it is a monotheistic divine religion alongside Islam, Christianity, Judaism and many of the other religions. Hinduism is the oldest religion, it is natural that it has been corrupted over the years, but the religion still is part of the People of the Book. Read verses from Hindu scriptures: "Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures." [bhagavad Gita 7:20] The Gita states that people who are materialistic worship demigods i.e. ‘gods’ besides the True God. "He is One only without a second." [Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1] "Of Him there are neither parents nor lord." [svetasvatara Upanishad 6:9] The oldest of all the vedas is Rigveda. It is also the one considered most sacred by the Hindus. [The Rigveda states in Book 1, hymn 164 and verse 46] "Sages (learned Priests) call one God by many names." [Rigveda 1:164:46] Thou art the fire, Thou art the sun, Thou art the air, Thou art the moon, thou art the starry firmament, thou art Brahman Supreme: Thou art the waters — thou, The creator of all Krishna was a prophet of God, he taught monotheism. Also Muhammad isn't mentioned in Hindu scriptures, there is a mention of the Kalki avatar whom the Muslims believe is either Jesus, Muhammad or Mahdi. There is also a Maitreya figure in Buddhism, whom we the Muslims regard as Muhammad to be the promised messiah of the Buddhists. All the other "gods" are legends and statures meant to symbolize the One God... they don't worship them. All Hindus are Monists. Only an ignorant person would say that they are polytheistic and make shirk. Look here for Krishna and Ali: Imam Ali said: "The people of India know me as Kishen (Krishna)."
  12. How Many Prophets Came After Jesus?

    Prophet Mani and Khalid ibn Sinan were prophets after Jesus and before Muhammad. Hud and Salih came after Jesus too!
  13. Dhikr To Prophets

    I have noticed many Sufi Muslims, and even non-Sufi Muslims like Sunnis and Shia, are starting to make Dhikr to our beloved Prophets of God. It is a form of meditation and is growing steadily popular. The idea behind the practice is simple and goes like this: You need to have a mat, you can use your prayer mat, if you need a pillow for your head, you are allowed to do that. You need to lie down, your back to the ground, and then close your eyes - you must use scent. And if you have a vacuum cleaner or hair dryer, it is recommended to turn it on and listen to the noise - it will help your concentrate better at your meditation and Dhikr to our prophets, peace be upon them. You need to cover yourself with a blanket, only your feet, not your body. And then, when you listening to the noise, try to remove all memories in your mind, to not think of anything else but your Dhikr to the prophets. And then you say this: I will show you an audio from the many Muslims doing this: http://vocaroo.com/i/s0L7ye2RPV69 The Dhikr takes 2 hours and is very popular. What do you think about the Dhikr to Our Prophets, do you do it yourself? Many Muslims are doing it, even Shi'ites from my experiences.
  14. Prophets

    The most interesting, in my opinion, is Shuaib - who was he? Do we have pre-Islamic sources about him? Where did he supposedly live? Any archeological findings? There is virtually nothing about him, there have been association with Jethro, but that identification is wrong. Maybe he was an allegory representing ancient prophets or religious teachers in general rather than being any definable historic figure. Who is Uzair? We don't know any man in Jewish faith venerated as a Son of God. And then there is Idris... if we can identify him as both Enoch, Hermes Trismegistus, Osiris, Elijah, Buddha, Mercury, Esdras and perhaps many more, then it's safe to say this figure is a literary fiction. He is created perhaps as analogy for the Quran maybe to illustrate Elijah, as the most likely. Or he was Hermes Trismegistus. Enoch, Osiris, Mercury are all out of the question, since they are mythical figures. Esdras was most likely not a prophet and Buddha is identified, more commonly, with Dhul-Kifl. I don't know the historicity for Hermes, it falls between it being him or it being Elias. We all know who Dhul-Kifl (Buddha), Luqman (Aesop), Salih, Hud are, both whom to identify them as and their position in historical context. Dhul-Qarnayn was a literary figure. Khidr was a hermit in Moses' time. My only problems and where I have a hard time is Shuaib, Uzair and Idris. I would like to hear some opinions here on these three.
  15. Prophets

    Me too, it makes sense. Buddha taught peace and monotheism, but his teachings have been corrupted. I read this article for some time ago: And we also have Imam Mirza Tahir Ahmad of the sect of our brothers, he argues in his book: I think in the Buddhist scriptures, Buddha also prophesies another Prophet that will be the last buddha of the linage of Dhul-Kifl, he will restore all the ancient teachings of Buddha that has been lost over time. Many Muslims have equated this figure, known as Maitreya, with Muhammad: this is due to the fact that Muhammad's mission was to restore the ancient lost and corrupted teachings, as well as due to the fact Muhammad's epithet is known as Mercy for The Worlds is the same as the etymology for Maitreya. Therefore, Muhammad is Maitreya. Muhammad is a buddha and Gotama is a Prophet. Peace be upon them all. Also read this (it's in Arabic): http://arabic.cnn.com/middleeast/2014/12/30/swidan-budah-faebook-blog The Buddha, during Seljuk times, was referred to by al-Shahrastani and al-Biruni, both prominent Muslims, as a Prophet too. The significance of this kind of praise is hard to underestimate. The Buddhists have been accepting this and try to link Islam with Buddhism, 14th Dalai Lama is an example of this. http://archives.dailynews.lk/2005/05/23/fea56.htm Also, I think that Luqman and Aesop link is very interesting... only Allah, the Great, the Best knows. Khizr isn't mentioned in the Quran by name, he is only mentioned as "Servant of Ours." I don't know for sure about the rest, only God knows best. I think he is dead, how do you know he is still alive? Does it say in Quran? Water of Life is from Israilliyat, be careful!