The sole duty of the Messenger


Here is a thread on Refuting Quranists and Modernists Page

where they said: “For when the Qur’an makes statements like “nothing but …” they should not be taken in an absolute and literal sense but some common sense should be used in interpreting them.”

And here is my reply:
“Please do not take the following verses out of context. The point I wish to make is the structure of the sentences (in Arabic) :

” NOT (something) EXCEPT (something) “

Like : LA Illaha ILLA Allah ( NOT there is a god EXCEPT Allah)

then read the following :

5:92 And obey God and obey the messenger, and be aware. If you turn away then know that it is the duty of the messenger to deliver clearly (annama (ONLY) AAala (UPON) rasoolina (OUR MESSENGER) albalaghual (THE DELIVERY) mubeen (CLEAR)).

5:99 The messenger is only to deliver (Ma (NOT) AAala (UPON) alrrasooli (THE MESSENGER) illaa (EXCEPT) lbalaghu (THE DELIVERY)). And God knows what you reveal and what you conceal.

24:54 Say: “Obey God, and obey the messenger.” But if they turn away, then he is only responsible for his obligation, and you are responsible for your obligations. And if you obey him, you will be guided. The messenger is only required to deliver clearly. (ma (NOT) AAala (UPON) alrrasooli (THE MESSENGER) illaa (EXCEPT) lbalaghu (THE DELIVERY) almubeena (CLEAR))

16:82 So if they turn away, then you are only required to deliver clearly. (fa-innama (THEN ONLY) AAalayka (UPON YOU) albalaghu (DELIVERY) almubeenu (CLEAR))

29:18 “And if you disbelieve, then nations before you have also disbelieved.” The messenger is only required to deliver clearly. (wama (AND NOT) AAala (UPON) alrrasooli (THE MESSENGER) illa (EXCEPT) albalaghu (THE DELIVERY) almubeenu (CLEAR))

16:35 And those who set up partners said: “If God had wished it, we would not have served anything besides Him; neither us nor our fathers; nor would we have forbidden anything without Him.” Those before them did the exact same thing; so are the messengers required to do anything but deliver with clarity? (fahal (THEN IS THERE) AAala (UPON) alrrusuli (THE MESSENGERS) illa (EXCEPT) albalaghu (THE DELIVERY) almubeenu (CLEAR))

36:17 “And we are only required to give a clear delivery. Wama (AND NOT) AAalayna (UPON US) illa (EXCEPT) albalaghu (THE DELIVERY) almubeenu (CLEAR)”

64:12 Obey God and obey the messenger. And if you turn away, then it is only required of Our messenger to deliver clearly. (fa-innama (THEN ONLY) AAala (UPON) rasoolina (OUR MESSENGER) albalaghu (THE DELIVERY) almubeenu (CLEAR))

So debating about what “Albalaghu alMubeenu is” would be the next step . Don’t forget 33:21 “oswatun hasanatun” Of course from the Quranist perspective the Good Example is believed to be contained in the Quran, not in the Bukhari collection. “

Dividing the Deen, dividing the Ummah and Sects


Here is a thread about Dividing the Deen, dividing the Ummah and Sects on Refuting Quranists and Modernists Page

My reply:
1. It has been narrated on the authority of ‘Arfaja who said: I have heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: Different evils will make their appearance in the near future. Anyone who tries to disrupt the affairs of this Umma while they are united you should strike him with the sword whoever he be. (If remonstrance does not prevail with him and he does not desist from his disruptive activities, he is to be killed.)
[Muslim :: Book 20 : Hadith 4565]

Contradicts this one:
(1) Narrated ‘Abdullah: Allah’s Apostle said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.” (Book #83, Hadith #17)

Because according to the 2nd hadith there are only 3 cases for “shedding blood of a Muslim”

But in any case they both contradict the Quran.

*To kill a person or to spare/save a life?*
See Quran 5:30-5:32

*How can the adulterer marry if they have been killed?*
see Quran 24:3

*No force to believe*
see Quran 10:99

Quranism is not a sect, it’s an approach. Sorry. There are lots of articles about why Quranism is not a sect and what is a sect on the Quranists.net website. If you define a sect as having a differing opinion about something then even the 4 madhabs within Sunni islam would be sects. But they are just differences of opinion. And Sects are only sects because of the mentality of “We are right and you are wrong” . If everybody just agreed that we all believe in 1 God, Allah and we are all doing our genuine best to do what He wants us to do, then we should all get along fine. It’s actually only when ppl start judging others instead of letting ppl just get on with it that there is tension or division. If you actually look into this you will be intrigued. Please let me know if you want the links.

I actually like that people have different opinions, and ponder and think about stuff instead of following blindly. It’s quranic in fact.
17:36 for example talks about checking before you act, 23:68 is a good one too about pondering / reflecting on the words.

Are you saying “dividing the Ummah” is the same as “dividing the deen” ? I think discussing what “dividing the deen” is would be a good one to look at. Do you have a Quran ref for “dividing the ummah?” I was thinking that dividing the deen was when ppl take parts of the scripture to uphold and leave the rest for example narrowing islam down to 5 pillars for example or saying marriage is half the deen and cleanliness is the other half… seems a little simplistic. But again that is just one way of looking at it. As yet I find it very difficult to see how accepting the WHOLE Quran as the sole divine source of islam could be considered a sectarian mindset. In fact I thought accepting the WHOLE Quran was something that unites all muslims whatever their approach, school of thought etc.

Salaam Aleykum

Adding to Mohammad Shaikhs Video on 16/44


Traditionalist Muslims are very fond of using 16/44 claiming that ‘that you make clear’ (litubayyina) shows that we must follow hadith. Mr Shaikh clears up this misconception in his video.  I also suggested in his IIPC group to use 16/64 to answer them.

Adding to Mr Shaikh’s Video on 53/3-4


In this video, Mr Shaikh answers Traditionalists who say that 53/3-4 implies that te Prophet was inspired at all times. He brilliantly uses 6/19 to show that this is clearly not the case. I suggested using 10/15 as well.