Responses to Critics – responding to Sheikh Feiz

Sheikh Feiz’s video, called ”The Quranists – The Importance of The Path of Rasulullah”  has invited some reactions from the Quranist community. Although Sheikh Feiz received a mixture of ad-hominem attacks and disapproval on his original Youtube video comments, the points Sheikh Feiz makes in his attack on Quranists in his video are  addressed and discussed methodically in these well-evidenced rebuttals. This 3 part video responding to Sheikh Feiz’s claims on the Quranists Network TV Channel (QNet TV) leaves no stone unturned. This blog post is another refutation of SheikhFeiz’s allegations.

Is Following the Quran Shirk?

My man Charles always asked the most thought provoking questions on Quranology. Today he asked the question in the title in Quranology.

Reply to the QF’ist, Mr Jinn – Part 3

Jinn: I will disagree to the claim that I do not have an objective definition of a Muslim: The Qur’an defines what a Muslim believes many times over in various verses, a few of which I quoted. To paraphrase, a Muslim is a person who believes in God, His Revelations, His Messengers, makes no distinction between said Messengers, and believes in the Last Day. This is the core definition of a Muslim which is repeated over and over in the Qur’an.

My comment: Very sadly, this is the trademark of the Quranist Fundamentalist (QF’ists). You believe you have the objective truth yet in this case, on the very definition of ‘muslim’ in the Quran, you have failed. It’s repeated ‘over and over’…really? Where?

The Quran says: The a3raab  say, “We have believed.” Say, “You have not  believed; but say , ‘We have submitted,’ for faith has not yet entered your hearts.

A muslim in the Quranic sense is an attribute of one’s actions and expressions (see 3/20 – aslamtu WAJHIYA lillah) . It can even be faked (hence why we have the hypocrites).

So Mr Jinn, I implore you, get off your high horse. You don’t have an objective understanding. You even misread 5/48 claiming it has previous scriptures in it. I am in the same boat as you actually. I am subjective reader of the text. The difference is, I acknowledge my subjectivity while you think you own the text. You are no different from Traditionalist Fundamentalists, sorry to say.