How it was forged.

[WinterHold]

No worries MNMP.

I'm not sure I'd consider the Saudis dedicated believers considering how many barbaric sex acts (and then claimed diplomatic immunity for), and well, crime in general, Saudi royalty has committed recently. They treat the people of the Yemen like Allah treated the people of Ad.

I only assume that, because a large portion of people view them as the "Islamic kingdom of today"; and take their acts as a proof on what Islam is.
But actually you're mistaken; Allah annihilated the people of Ad pretty quickly, the saggy army of the Sauds is struggling to win a war against a tribal  militia that doesn't even has an air force & wear flip-flops instead of boots.

But I get your meaning

But I'm not Allah. So I'm not qualified to judge believers. And neither are you. Allah might happen to think that most Saudis are perfectly good believers, but we don't know that. We are not the best of judges, correct?

Quran 95:8 Is not Allah the wisest of judges?

Maybe I will join the al-Saud family in the hellfire or maybe they will end up in Jannah. Or maybe I will be in Jannah whilst the al-Saud family is in the hellfire. It would be a shame if the al-Saud family made to Jannah. But none of us know if that will happen, and to claim otherwise is wrong.

Indeed, that applies to God, being the wisest judge. But you have many other verses that can give you a huge insight on what awaits a certain fella in the afterlife.

A verse like this :

( Sura 5 Verse 32 )   Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

(Sura 17 Verse 33 )   And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden, except by right. And whoever is killed unjustly - We have given his heir authority, but let him not exceed limits in [the matter of] taking life. Indeed, he has been supported [by the law].

Anyhow, we already know that for a person to kill a soul, they actually killed of mankind. That's a huge amount of sins.
Above all, if somebody is forging Islam into a Wahhabi cult to cover up their "massacres" in places like Yemen, it's direct infidelity that lead nowhere but to hell.

My point is, you can pretty much know how God judges from what he "forbids" on you. If a certain sin leads to hell, and yet you keep doing it until you die; then you shall get what was promised : Hell.
The benefit of the doubt is given due to our lack of knowledge in either the person repented or not. And you cannot repent shortly before dying.

The Quran says this in relation to Jinns:

Quran 15:27 And the Jinn race, We had created before, from the fire of a scorching wind.

Also Quran 55:15:
And He created Jinns from fire free of smoke:

So we would expect to see evidence of Jinns because fire is a result of chemical reaction. Fire is not a substance in same way say, Carbon or plastic is. But we do not see evidence of Jinns.

Other meanings are there instead of "smokeless" fire; actually the two sentences that described the Jinns' main components were :
1-Extreamly hot wind (نار السموم)
2-Bright Torch with strong flames- Pure flame with no smoke.

Plasma might be a possibility, just guessing ..but that's "utter guessing".

But I'm sure we'll see them someday, either in this life, or the next.

Edit:
In regard to Satanic Verses incident, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but there are Tafsir that claim that Quran 22:52 was revealed by Allah because Satan tricked people by revealing the verses about the Pagan goddesses. So some well known scholars acknowledge the incident.
http://quranx.com/Tafsirs/22.52

Quran 22:52 Never did We send a messenger or a prophet before thee, but, when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but Allah will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and Allah will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom:

The opinions on this matter (along with the Tafsirs) are based on a Hadith, that's my whole problem against it.

[ReptilianPeon]

Only a really ignorant person would view Saudi as representative of an entire religion (e.g. someone who doesn't know about Shia, Ibadi, Ahmadi etc.). All I'm saying is we don't know if Allah will let anyone from the Saudi establishment into Jannah. Even though the Saudis don't represent everyone, Allah could still accept them into Jannah because they might have done enough to enter (there is no Tafsir provided by Allah unfortunately).

An Ismaili or an Ahmadi would never treat women like the Saudis do. In fact, Ismalis are known to have men and women pray together! It's also true that modern Sufis aren't so regressive either, though in centuries before they did used to be big on the whole Jihad thing, which surprised me. I guess these days the Sufis are too busy smoking Hashish.

5:32 Only applies to the "children of Israel". It even says, "Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever". So that verse does not apply to either of us.

17:33 What does the verse mean by "unjustly"? I think that all the Egyptian children that died during the time of Moses and victims of the flood of Noah were all killed "unjustly". How do we eliminate the subjectivity of the interpretation of the word "unjustly"?

My point with the Djinn is that I am not religious because none of the religions have succeeded in convincing me. I used to watch lots of inter religious debates (e.g. Bible VS Quran), and both sides had convincing arguments against the other side so I eventually decided that they must be both wrong. I accepted that people refuse to see the flaws in the book they are arguing for. Not to mention, the story of Noah's flood is ridiculous in both the Bible and the Quran. Take this Iyah for example:

11:42 So the Ark floated with them on the waves (towering) like mountains, and Noah called out to his son, who had separated himself (from the rest): "O my son! embark with us, and be not with the unbelievers!"

Both books are focused on this tiny area of the world, despite the claim made by Quran 10:47, a particularly ironic Iyah:
10:47 To every people (was sent) a messenger: when their messenger comes (before them), the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged.

Where are these messengers? Some, in particular the Ahmadis, claim that Buddha was a prophet yet I see no positive evidence for this. But this only one person. Did Allah send a prophet to the people of the Americas? I don't think so. Where was Allah when the Aztecs were enslaving people and offering them as tributes to their sun deity because they were afraid the sun wouldn't rise the next day if they didn't?

I think we have to accept the fact that prophets were not sent to all people. The verse is silly because there is no record of such things. The Chinese never spoke about such prophets. Neither did the Indians. Or the Japanese. Or the Inca. The list goes on.

But then we find out Allah is leading people astray (thus taking away their free will):
14:4 We sent not a messenger except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them. Now Allah leaves straying those whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases: and He is Exalted in power, full of Wisdom.

[WinterHold]

Only a really ignorant person would view Saudi as representative of an entire religion (e.g. someone who doesn't know about Shia, Ibadi, Ahmadi etc.). All I'm saying is we don't know if Allah will let anyone from the Saudi establishment into Jannah. Even though the Saudis don't represent everyone, Allah could still accept them into Jannah because they might have done enough to enter (there is no Tafsir provided by Allah unfortunately).

Committing "Sherk" or in English "worshiping a another God with God", is considered the act that shall be never forgiven by God unless the person repents :
( Sura 4 Verse 48 )   Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. And he who associates others with Allah has certainly fabricated a tremendous sin.

The Saudi royal family just did that..Wahhabism is all about "obeying" the king & the royal family, even if they "forged" what God said. That's literally "appointing them in a Godly rank".

One example, is banks which give loans with interest. It's forbidden in this verse; actually not just forbidden, but God declares war against those who deal with it :
( Sura 2 278 )   O you who have believed, fear Allah and give up what remains [due to you] of interest, if you should be believers.
( Sura 2 279 )   And if you do not, then be informed of a war [against you] from Allah and His Messenger. But if you repent, you may have your principal - [thus] you do no wrong, nor are you wronged.

Saudies made that "allowed"..and force their citizens not to talk about it (you can hit jail if you even discussed the matter ; get tortured too).

That's a highway to hell..we didn't even discuss the rest of their actions..
association..that's their sin. And the God they engulfed with Allah is the two headed freak : "the royal family-Wahhabies".

An Ismaili or an Ahmadi would never treat women like the Saudis do. In fact, Ismalis are known to have men and women pray together! It's also true that modern Sufis aren't so regressive either, though in centuries before they did used to be big on the whole Jihad thing, which surprised me. I guess these days the Sufis are too busy smoking Hashish.

In terms of extremism, nobody beat wahhabies.
Yes, other sects don't follow the same "Hadith volumes" as the Sunnies, that's why things which are forbidden to the Sunnies  become allowed.

5:32 Only applies to the "children of Israel". It even says, "Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever". So that verse does not apply to either of us.

We must believe in what was descended to them too :

( Sura 2 Verse 285 )   The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, and [so have] the believers. All of them have believed in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers, [saying], "We make no distinction between any of His messengers." And they say, "We hear and we obey. [We seek] Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the [final] destination."

So what was written on them, is written on me too; I make no distinction between any of the Prophets after all..

17:33 What does the verse mean by "unjustly"? I think that all the Egyptian children that died during the time of Moses and victims of the flood of Noah were all killed "unjustly". How do we eliminate the subjectivity of the interpretation of the word "unjustly"?

"Unjustly" is being killed without killing anybody yourself; or in any case different than "self-defense".
About the flood, God kills us all after all even if we didn't kill anybody (death; for natural causes; that's God taking us away).. The case of God annihilating lifeforms for a certain reason, is different from a human "killing others".

My point with the Djinn is that I am not religious because none of the religions have succeeded in convincing me. I used to watch lots of inter religious debates (e.g. Bible VS Quran), and both sides had convincing arguments against the other side so I eventually decided that they must be both wrong. I accepted that people refuse to see the flaws in the book they are arguing for. Not to mention, the story of Noah's flood is ridiculous in both the Bible and the Quran. Take this Iyah for example:

11:42 So the Ark floated with them on the waves (towering) like mountains, and Noah called out to his son, who had separated himself (from the rest): "O my son! embark with us, and be not with the unbelievers!"

Both books are focused on this tiny area of the world, despite the claim made by Quran 10:47, a particularly ironic Iyah:
10:47 To every people (was sent) a messenger: when their messenger comes (before them), the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged.

The story of Noah took place in a time where humans were under one nation; check this verse :

( Sura 2 Verse 213 )   Mankind was nation; then Allah sent the prophets as bringers of good tidings and warners and sent down with them the Scripture in truth to judge between the people concerning that in which they differed. And none differed over the Scripture except those who were given it - after the clear proofs came to them - out of injustice animosity among themselves. And Allah guided those who believed to the truth concerning that over which they had differed, by His permission. And Allah guides whom He wills to a straight path.

Not a tiny area of the world..that was the WHOLE world. Noah was the first Prophet after all.

About the Prophets; if they weren't sent to use, you wouldnt've seen religion in the first place. My personal belief is that all religions we see today which are believed by huge populations, started by real Prophets, and with time got forged & twisted, with the Prophets turned into "Gods" the followers of the religion worship.

In every religion it's the same story : the supreme holy blood & his God lutanists.

Where are these messengers? Some, in particular the Ahmadis, claim that Buddha was a prophet yet I see no positive evidence for this. But this only one person. Did Allah send a prophet to the people of the Americas? I don't think so. Where was Allah when the Aztecs were enslaving people and offering them as tributes to their sun deity because they were afraid the sun wouldn't rise the next day if they didn't?

I think we have to accept the fact that prophets were not sent to all people. The verse is silly because there is no record of such things. The Chinese never spoke about such prophets. Neither did the Indians. Or the Japanese. Or the Inca. The list goes on.

But then we find out Allah is leading people astray (thus taking away their free will):
14:4 We sent not a messenger except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them. Now Allah leaves straying those whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases: and He is Exalted in power, full of Wisdom.

The European invasion was the mayan's doom. The punishment. They were annihilated in front of the whole world. But of course; we'll never forget the dirty hand of the "tool" that did that to them..anyhow, their forged religion is no more.

As I told you above : yes. Somebody was sent to them; and they took his teachings and forged them, just like Christians did, and just like MUSLIMS DO TODAY.
To India and China, the Prophets can be as ancient as Hinduism itself ; the records of the world left many things shrouded in mystery.

About 14:4. In Arabic, it's " And " instead of " Now ". It changes the meaning a lot..in other words; God didn't reveal it in a different tongue so he send people astray. People go astray because of the sins they do.

[ReptilianPeon]

Okay , first of all, Wahaabism is not about obeying the Saudi royal family. It just so happens that al-Saud family worked with Abdul Wahaab. I have never heard of them viewing the monarch as a god/worshiping (thus committing sin). Saudi is a monarchy, like the U.K. but even in the reasonable U.K. going against the monarch is treason. Defying the Saudi royal family has nothing to do with religion, and all to do with nationalism.

Although I can imagine the Saudis, as lots of nations throughout history have done, will use religion to their advantage. It's like how during election times, priests, imams, bishops, etc. might try and use the influence to get people to vote a certain way with sermons. Like how you have pro-Brotherhood imams masking their voices heard during recent Egyptian elections (e.g. this article about the fight over Mosques in Egypt).

Qatar sees itself as a Wahaabi country as well, if I recall correctly. Would Qataris swear allegiance to the al-Saud family? Qatar has its own royal family. Maybe Qatar is a Saudi/United States puppet.

By some accounts Saudi has spent over US$100 billion doing Dawah. Book I need to buy: The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia by David Commins. Landing on the moon used less money than the amount Saudi is estimated to have spent on Dawah (moon landing cost breakdown). And yet people like Yusuf Estes have the audacity to claim Guide Us TV (as an example) is not funded by Saudi!  I wish I had a shoe to throw at Yusuf Estes. Saudi even plants textbooks in the schools of children in other countries.

The way I see things, Salafis are Wahaabis that refuse to acknowledge Abdul Wahaab because they are pretty much the same. Wahaabism is the branch of the religion endorsed by Qatar too so it's not just official in Saudi. You can argue that countries like Qatar are Saudi and/or United States puppets but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

If Salafis have got the time of the Salaf down to a tee, as they say, then I'd have hated to be ruled by the Salaf. I think Salafism is disgusting and it's just another word for "Wahaabism". In the same way that "Kafala system" is a dressing up of the word "slavery". Salafists don't want to admit how much they agree with Abdul Wahaab.

In term of "extremism", I'm not fond of the word. We get into the realms of the "no true Scotsman fallacy". If we were maybe to claim that nobody is as strict as the Wahaabis then I would be more inclined to agree. Either way, Salafis are just as bad.

So in regard to Quran 17:33 you are saying to me that all killing of another human is wrong unless that person actually wants to be killed (e.g. turning off life support machine)? But Quran 64:11 says this:
No kind of calamity can occur, except by the leave of Allah: and if any one believes in Allah, (Allah) guides his heart (aright): for Allah knows all things.

So the pain would only happen if Allah allowed it to happen. And Quran 81:29 makes it sound as though I have no free will whatsoever:
81:29 But ye shall not will except as Allah wills,- the Cherisher of the Worlds.

And, of course, the reason I still haven't uttered the Shahada yet is because of Quran 63:3 which says this:
63:3 That is because they believed, then they rejected Faith: So a seal was set on their hearts: therefore they understand not.

Actually, I don't think there is consensus on Noah being the first prophet. Adam is considered a prophet by the majority of believers, therefore he would be the first prophet. Regardless, I think most of the prophets are fictional people or people based on people that existed that the Israelites wanted to copy (e.g. Noah). The story of Noah is stolen from the Epic of Gilgamesh from the time when the Jews were in exile in Babylon.

Good starting point: Relationship of the Epic of Gilgamesh with the Hebrew Bible. The author of the Quran came along and further muddied the waters by combing Bible stories with Gnosticism. (e.g. Syriac Infancy Gospel)

Actually, the Mayans died out before the Europeans, and it's still a mystery why. The Europeans were the doom of the Aztecs not Mayans. All of the tribes that hated the Aztecs (every one of their neighbours basically) united with the Europeans against them.