1696
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
1697
Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Multiple Marriages in Islam
« on: November 24, 2011, 10:22:50 AM »
Salamun Alaikum.
This verse is not instructing men to marry one wife nor is it instructing men to marry multiple wives. A situation has been captured in which men are informed that if they feel they cannot do justice with multiple marriages, then it is better for them to marry one wife. There is a difference.
Human's can never be perfect in justice (perfection is a trait of God) and God recognises that in verse 4:129 in the context of marriages. However, God does not take away the right to try if one is within a marriage with more than one wife.
As with regards the phrase, 'twos and threes and fours' (Arabic: mathna wathulatha waruba'a) please see the following article.
MARRYING FOUR WIVES IN ISLAM
http://quransmessage.com/articles/four%20wives%20FM3.htm
I hope this helps.
Joseph.
This verse is not instructing men to marry one wife nor is it instructing men to marry multiple wives. A situation has been captured in which men are informed that if they feel they cannot do justice with multiple marriages, then it is better for them to marry one wife. There is a difference.
Human's can never be perfect in justice (perfection is a trait of God) and God recognises that in verse 4:129 in the context of marriages. However, God does not take away the right to try if one is within a marriage with more than one wife.
As with regards the phrase, 'twos and threes and fours' (Arabic: mathna wathulatha waruba'a) please see the following article.
MARRYING FOUR WIVES IN ISLAM
http://quransmessage.com/articles/four%20wives%20FM3.htm
I hope this helps.
Joseph.
1698
General Discussions / Re: Feuding Christians and Jews
« on: November 24, 2011, 09:15:48 AM »
Salamun Alaikum Saleh.
The People of the Book were to be judged by their own scriptures. The directives have been clearly mentioned in the Quran, but unfortunately they are not accepted in popular Muslim thought.
005.043
"But why do they come to you for decision, when they have (their own) Torah before them? therein is the (plain) command of God; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not People of Faith"
I do not agree with the popular position that all the previous laws have been abandoned for the People of the Book and replaced by the laws of the Quran which they must follow. I find no support for this assertion in the Quran. The Quranic 'laws' are for 'Mu'mins' (believers).
In fact, if they don't follow their laws, the Quran calls them 'Kaffir'. Please read verses 5:43-45 yourself.
Here is an article which should elucidate my opinion, God willing.
PEOPLE OF THE BOOK (JEWS & CHRISTIANS)
http://quransmessage.com/articles/people%20of%20the%20book%20FM3.htm
I hope this helps,
Joseph.
UPDATE BY QM FORUM MODERATOR
12th March 2013
This thread is now closed and a direct link to this post is now available at the dedicated Q&A page.
http://quransmessage.com/articles/q&as%20FM3.htm
Thanks.
The People of the Book were to be judged by their own scriptures. The directives have been clearly mentioned in the Quran, but unfortunately they are not accepted in popular Muslim thought.
005.043
"But why do they come to you for decision, when they have (their own) Torah before them? therein is the (plain) command of God; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not People of Faith"
I do not agree with the popular position that all the previous laws have been abandoned for the People of the Book and replaced by the laws of the Quran which they must follow. I find no support for this assertion in the Quran. The Quranic 'laws' are for 'Mu'mins' (believers).
In fact, if they don't follow their laws, the Quran calls them 'Kaffir'. Please read verses 5:43-45 yourself.
Here is an article which should elucidate my opinion, God willing.
PEOPLE OF THE BOOK (JEWS & CHRISTIANS)
http://quransmessage.com/articles/people%20of%20the%20book%20FM3.htm
I hope this helps,
Joseph.
UPDATE BY QM FORUM MODERATOR
12th March 2013
This thread is now closed and a direct link to this post is now available at the dedicated Q&A page.
http://quransmessage.com/articles/q&as%20FM3.htm
Thanks.
1699
Discussions / Re: Status of Sunna (as distinct from Hadith)
« on: November 23, 2011, 10:46:41 PM »Also, did you know that the Hanafi jurists (one of the 4 schools) originally allowed one to say Salah in any language, gradually this ruling was forgotten..
Peace brother Antediluvian
Thank you for your response.
You are absolutely correct with your above statement.
I cited this as an example in one of the articles I wrote dealing with prayer. I'll reproduce the excerpt below which I cited. I have been rather surprised over the course of some discussions, even with the traditional clergy, that this point is not so well known.
Please find below the citation along with the article in which I made use of it.
"...It was Abu Hanifah (b. about 81 A.H.) who started a new and more serious controversy by his declaration that it was permissible to recite the Qur'an in Persian in prayer, whether the reader knew Arabic or not. His followers extended this permission to Turkish, Hindi, Syriac, Hebrew and other languages of the non-Arabs.18 To interpret the Qur'an in its own language, or in any other, was from the days of the Prophet up to the days of Abu Hanifah generally allowed and widely practiced. This is a safe inference not only from the injunction of the Qur'an itself,19 but also from the increasing number of non-Arabs, with different racial and linguistic backgrounds, who embraced Islam.20
Abu Hanifah's Persian origin cannot alone be the explanation of his daring opinion. It seems that genuine religious concern and practical considerations combined to shape his opinions. Let us not overlook the fact that he did not pronounce on the translation of the Qur'an as a whole; he merely tried to solve an obvious difficulty of non-Arab believers who were required to recite in prayer certain short chapters or verses only.21 Unfortunately Abu Hanifah's opinion on this matter, and indeed on other matters, is known only through the gloss of his followers.22 But neither of his two chief disciples, Abu Yusuf and ash-Shaibani, went as far as their master whose licence was unconditional.23 They both made the permission to recite the translated Qur'an in prayer conditional on the inability to recite it in Arabic.24 Since prayer was communion with God - so the Hanafi argument goes - it was lawful either through God's Word for those able to recite it in the original, or through the translated meaning for those unable to do so, since "obligation is according to ability."25"
Notes:
18 Cf. Nasafi, Kanz ad-Daqa'iq (Dehli, 1309), I, 53.
19 Cf. Surah V, 71 : "O Messenger, deliver that which has been sent down to thee from thy Lord." Cf. Surah XVI, 46, 60.
20 Cf. contemporary practice of teachers of the Qur'an to the Berbers in Morocco, a practice which has been handed down from generation to generation since early times: the meaning is first explained in local dialect, and then the Arabic text is taught. Memorizing the Arabic is not required before the meaning has been explained. Majallat al-Azhar, VII, No.3, 192.
21 It is related that al-Habib al-'Ajami, an associate of al-Hasan al-Basri (b. 21 A.H.) used to recite the Qur'an in Persian in prayer "owing to speech difficulty in Arabic":
22 In the fiqh books, chiefly under the subject of prayer (see next note), but not as a rule in other works. Thus bab as-salat in al-Khawarizmi, Jami' Masanid al-Imam al-A'zam (Hyderabad, 1332), I, 293 ff. prescribes the recital of the Fatihah in prayer, but contains nothing about the permission to recite it in Persian or other languages.
23 Some of Abu Hanifah's followers even said that he approved reading something of the Torah, the Gospel or the Psalms in prayer provided the reader was certain it was not corrupted (muharraf). See al-Kashani, Bada'i' as-Sana'i (Cairo, 1327) I, 113. [1]
REFERENCE
[1] TIBAWI. A.L, The Muslim World Volume 52, Issue 1, pages 4-16, January 1962, Citation * Paper read at the XXVth International Congress of Orientalists on Friday 12th August, 1960, in the University of Moscow.
ARTICLE IN WHICH THE CITATION APPEARS
DO WE HAVE TO PRAY IN ARABIC?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/do%20we%20have%20to%20pray%20in%20arabic%20FM3.htm
1700
General Discussions / Re: Visions of the Future
« on: November 23, 2011, 09:52:22 AM »
Salamun Alaikum Chadiga,
If Prophetic dreams were always true, then why would Prophet Abraham have to consult his son about his dream if he knew that any dream that he received was without question true? (37:102).
Future events can be shown to Prophets such as the examples shown with regards Prophet Joseph (12:4) and Prophet Muhammad (48:27). Sometimes Prophet's themselves only realise the true meaning of their dreams much later in life (12:100)
But visions of the future are not just restricted to the Prophet or believers. The King in Prophet Joseph's story was shown a dream which represented a future event (12:43) as were those in the prison with Prophet Joseph (12:36).
Sometimes dreams are strong representations of a future event but aren't always represented accurately in a dream (for many reasons). An example is noted in verse 8:43 (...showed in your dream as few and if He had shown them to you as many surely you would have lost courage ...)
I hope this helps, God willing.
Joseph.
If Prophetic dreams were always true, then why would Prophet Abraham have to consult his son about his dream if he knew that any dream that he received was without question true? (37:102).
Future events can be shown to Prophets such as the examples shown with regards Prophet Joseph (12:4) and Prophet Muhammad (48:27). Sometimes Prophet's themselves only realise the true meaning of their dreams much later in life (12:100)
But visions of the future are not just restricted to the Prophet or believers. The King in Prophet Joseph's story was shown a dream which represented a future event (12:43) as were those in the prison with Prophet Joseph (12:36).
Sometimes dreams are strong representations of a future event but aren't always represented accurately in a dream (for many reasons). An example is noted in verse 8:43 (...showed in your dream as few and if He had shown them to you as many surely you would have lost courage ...)
I hope this helps, God willing.
Joseph.
1701
General Discussions / Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
« on: November 23, 2011, 05:47:50 AM »Peace Bro Joseph,
Thank you very much for the explaination, actually i overlooked 5:97.
Further to
a. 03:97 - ......whoever enters it attains Tranquility.
b. 53:1-4 - By the Mount; By a Book inscribed; in a parchment unfolded; By the much Frequented House.
c. 95:1-3 - By the Fig; And the Mount of Sinai; An this City of Tranquility.
Does the House, Mount and City, the intricacies of the Quranic System which shows the 1st bless location?
My humble opinion. You are the expert. Correct me if i am wrong.
Salam Bro
Salamun Alaikum brother Saleh,
Thanks for your comments and questions.
I don't profess to be an expert in anything. I am a simple humble servant of God who has submitted his cause to study His word and live life by it, God willing. I like anyone can be right or wrong and what I posit are merely my arguments.
I am open to a better argument if it is cogent and a better position to the one I may currently hold.
In response to your questions:
(a) Yes
(b) Possible - Not definitive, may or may not be the case. However, I think you mean 52:4, baiti ma'mur (instead of 53:1-4). Also 52:4 may be unrelated to 52:1-3. All Quranic oaths aren't always related.
(c) Possible - As above, 95:3 may or may not be related to 95:1-2. But 'balad ameen' is most definitely a reference to the Prophet's city by virtue of the demonstrative pronoun 'hadha' (this). However, this does not mean it is related to 'Bakkah'.
Just because two cities have been referenced as 'secure' (ameen), where one finds 'aman', separated by over 1000 + years (3:97) and (95:3), does not necessarily make them the same city.
Please note the dialogue. By virtue of 3:99, it can be argued that it was the ‘People of the book' specifically that were a cause for hindrance / obstruction (tasudduna), possibly to a location mentioned in 3:96-97 (Bakkah), not the 'Mushrikeen' or Pagans. There seems to be some tension here whereby the new Arabian Muslims seem to be hindered from going to a particular place or being obstructed which seems to be connected to the People of the Book specifically.
This supports the assertion that Bakkah and Makkah were separate locations.
It seems probable, that this tension was also a contributory factor as to why the ancient rites were 're-instituted' at Makkah (as argued in section 8 of my article noted above), a place that was familiar to both the Prophet and the converted Pagans of Arabia.
I hope this helps.
Joseph.
1702
Discussions / Re: Status of Sunna (as distinct from Hadith)
« on: November 23, 2011, 03:25:18 AM »
Dear Antediluvian,
Salamun Alaikum.
My humble efforts to study God's scriptures may have left me with a more nuanced position as compared to others who you may be implying by citing the term 'Quran-aloners'.
Albeit this is a general observation and not a criticism against you personally, I feel such an epithet against anyone who attempts to uphold the veracity and judgment of God's scriptures is not only crude, but equally crass.
When understanding the traditions of an ancient people that have sought best practice (their Sunna) in light of the Quran, we need to exercise 'hikmah'. Not reject it, but ardently understand it. After all, the Quran references itself as huda (2:2 - guidance), a furqan (25:1 - criterion of right and wrong) and a 'meezan' (42:17 - a balance, weighing tool). This I have comprehensively mentioned in other articles which is a sentiment I trust you will concur with.
As far as your pointed question is concerned, and in particular reference to a certain 'Sunna' (practice) being 'binding', I find this unsupportable from the Quran. The Quran does not in my view make any practice of a people 'binding'. It only makes 'binding' its own instructions which as far as the Prophet and his contemporaries were concerned, took into account the immediate audience, their societal norms, practices and beliefs.
If the Prophet was alive today, it can be convincingly argued that any revelation to him would have first taken into account his immediate societal settings and dealt with any immediate difficulties with respect to his ministry in his own context.
With respect, and as one being well aware of Javed Ghamidi's position, it is to be proven that the Quran 'authorises' as religious decree, a certain Sunna of a people. I contest that there is no such authorisation in the Quran. Whereas brother Ghamidi may be comfortable in 'binding' certain practices and what 'may' and 'may not' constitute Sunna, these are with respect, his own assertions. Others may find this a subjective approach and not wholly cogent in light of the Quran.
However, I do agree with brother Javed who if I understand correctly, does separate 'religious' practices (Sunna) with those of the Prophet's 'personal practices'. This is in my humble view and in light of the Quran, absolutely correct.
Indeed certain religious practices such as prayer find immediate sanction in the Quran. Now a Sunna supporting this religious instruction may present a guide as to how the earliest Muslims thought best to practice this religious instruction of prayer, such as prayer in Arabic, where to put one's hands etc, but the Quran did not seek to define such a specific ritual.
The details of 'form' and 'utterance' (content) are absent in the Quran. This does not sanction a 'sunna' but allows for 'fluidity'. So whether one binds their hands on their navel, chest or neither, is not instructive.
By binding a prayer, for example in 'Arabic' who has no understanding of the Arabic language is in contradiction of so many verses, not least of the implied 'instruction' not to approach prayer - hatta ta 'lamu ma taqulun (until you know what you are saying) 4:43. Albeit it can be argued that 'sukara' can capture any state in which a mind is not in mental equilibrium, the implied instruction that one must know what they are saying is present.
Here it can be argued that the 'hikma' behind such silence as not to prescribe 'content' or in a particular language allowed for the recognition of God's complete creation which He created with varying languages (30:22).
Sunna needs to be understood in light of the Quran. Nothing is binding in my view apart from the direct instructions in the Quran. However, 'religious sunna' should also not be ignored and fully appreciated in so much as to at least understand how the earliest communities best understood the Quran's commandments and sought to implement them.
The noble prophet applied an inspired revelation to him which carried many timeless edicts to his immediate time specific context. We need to understand this with 'hikmah' (wisdom). This point I humbly feel, is sometimes overlooked by some Muslim theologians.
The Quran remains final judge for believers (6:114).
I hope this helps.
Joseph.
Salamun Alaikum.
My humble efforts to study God's scriptures may have left me with a more nuanced position as compared to others who you may be implying by citing the term 'Quran-aloners'.
Albeit this is a general observation and not a criticism against you personally, I feel such an epithet against anyone who attempts to uphold the veracity and judgment of God's scriptures is not only crude, but equally crass.
When understanding the traditions of an ancient people that have sought best practice (their Sunna) in light of the Quran, we need to exercise 'hikmah'. Not reject it, but ardently understand it. After all, the Quran references itself as huda (2:2 - guidance), a furqan (25:1 - criterion of right and wrong) and a 'meezan' (42:17 - a balance, weighing tool). This I have comprehensively mentioned in other articles which is a sentiment I trust you will concur with.
As far as your pointed question is concerned, and in particular reference to a certain 'Sunna' (practice) being 'binding', I find this unsupportable from the Quran. The Quran does not in my view make any practice of a people 'binding'. It only makes 'binding' its own instructions which as far as the Prophet and his contemporaries were concerned, took into account the immediate audience, their societal norms, practices and beliefs.
If the Prophet was alive today, it can be convincingly argued that any revelation to him would have first taken into account his immediate societal settings and dealt with any immediate difficulties with respect to his ministry in his own context.
With respect, and as one being well aware of Javed Ghamidi's position, it is to be proven that the Quran 'authorises' as religious decree, a certain Sunna of a people. I contest that there is no such authorisation in the Quran. Whereas brother Ghamidi may be comfortable in 'binding' certain practices and what 'may' and 'may not' constitute Sunna, these are with respect, his own assertions. Others may find this a subjective approach and not wholly cogent in light of the Quran.
However, I do agree with brother Javed who if I understand correctly, does separate 'religious' practices (Sunna) with those of the Prophet's 'personal practices'. This is in my humble view and in light of the Quran, absolutely correct.
Indeed certain religious practices such as prayer find immediate sanction in the Quran. Now a Sunna supporting this religious instruction may present a guide as to how the earliest Muslims thought best to practice this religious instruction of prayer, such as prayer in Arabic, where to put one's hands etc, but the Quran did not seek to define such a specific ritual.
The details of 'form' and 'utterance' (content) are absent in the Quran. This does not sanction a 'sunna' but allows for 'fluidity'. So whether one binds their hands on their navel, chest or neither, is not instructive.
By binding a prayer, for example in 'Arabic' who has no understanding of the Arabic language is in contradiction of so many verses, not least of the implied 'instruction' not to approach prayer - hatta ta 'lamu ma taqulun (until you know what you are saying) 4:43. Albeit it can be argued that 'sukara' can capture any state in which a mind is not in mental equilibrium, the implied instruction that one must know what they are saying is present.
Here it can be argued that the 'hikma' behind such silence as not to prescribe 'content' or in a particular language allowed for the recognition of God's complete creation which He created with varying languages (30:22).
Sunna needs to be understood in light of the Quran. Nothing is binding in my view apart from the direct instructions in the Quran. However, 'religious sunna' should also not be ignored and fully appreciated in so much as to at least understand how the earliest communities best understood the Quran's commandments and sought to implement them.
The noble prophet applied an inspired revelation to him which carried many timeless edicts to his immediate time specific context. We need to understand this with 'hikmah' (wisdom). This point I humbly feel, is sometimes overlooked by some Muslim theologians.
The Quran remains final judge for believers (6:114).
I hope this helps.
Joseph.
1703
Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Aggressive (Mis)Translations
« on: November 23, 2011, 01:18:39 AM »
Walaikum salaam
The Arabic word 'Qarna' is formed from the triliteral root Q-R-R (Not Q-R-R-N)
The 'N' that you refer to not part of the verb. It is a pronoun which refers to a subject.
Please see illustration attached.
The QARRA (form 1) in verse 33:33 is an imperative verb (instructive) and has the same nuanced meaning as in 19:26 when it was said to Mary "So eat and drink and be 'Qari-i'" (Be comforted / cooled, consoled, refreshed etc).
The triliteral root Qaf-Ra-Ra means to remain quiet, be steadfast, be firm, refresh, be stable, affirm, agree, settle, last. Qarar - stability, a fixed or secure place, depository, place ahead
With respect, I think you may have missed the grammatical construction of the term which includes the verb but also a separate pronoun. However, I hope the above clarifies this.
I hope this helps.
Joseph.
The Arabic word 'Qarna' is formed from the triliteral root Q-R-R (Not Q-R-R-N)
The 'N' that you refer to not part of the verb. It is a pronoun which refers to a subject.
Please see illustration attached.
The QARRA (form 1) in verse 33:33 is an imperative verb (instructive) and has the same nuanced meaning as in 19:26 when it was said to Mary "So eat and drink and be 'Qari-i'" (Be comforted / cooled, consoled, refreshed etc).
The triliteral root Qaf-Ra-Ra means to remain quiet, be steadfast, be firm, refresh, be stable, affirm, agree, settle, last. Qarar - stability, a fixed or secure place, depository, place ahead
With respect, I think you may have missed the grammatical construction of the term which includes the verb but also a separate pronoun. However, I hope the above clarifies this.
I hope this helps.
Joseph.
1704
General Discussions / Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
« on: November 22, 2011, 01:12:51 PM »BY MEMBER: Wazir1961
Conclusions:
If we see all these verses in big picture, it becomes clear that Prophet Ibrahim PBUH and Prophet Ismail PBUH built the Kabah in Makkah and declared it as a Qibla for mankind. Later on, people of the Book changed their center of devotion (Qibla) to Jerusalem.
Dear brother Wazir,
I am not sure I concur with your statement above from the analysis of the Quranic verses you have provided.
I have a humble rebuttal to this position. Please see the following article.
PROPHET ABRAHAM'S (pbuh) ORIGINAL SANCTUARY - AT MAKKAH (MECCA) OR BAKKAH (BACA)?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/makkah%20bakkah%20FM3.htm
Regards,
Joseph.
1705
Islamic Duties / Re: Is prayer prescribed?
« on: November 22, 2011, 12:17:21 PM »
Peace brother Fadhly,
I am not sure whether I completely follow nor concur with the point that you are trying to drive with the selective interpretations you are using. I don't think you can deny the interpretation that I have also advanced. I'm not sure I fully understand or can reconcile your interpretation with the all the relevant Quranic verses.
Either way, thank you for your opinion.
Joseph.
I am not sure whether I completely follow nor concur with the point that you are trying to drive with the selective interpretations you are using. I don't think you can deny the interpretation that I have also advanced. I'm not sure I fully understand or can reconcile your interpretation with the all the relevant Quranic verses.
Either way, thank you for your opinion.
Joseph.
1706
Discussions / Lambasting the Bible
« on: November 22, 2011, 06:28:52 AM »
LAMBASTING THE BIBLE
Peace to you all.
It is unfortunate that as a possible result of the approach of many well known Muslim polemics over the recent decades that the Bible today is regarded with very little respect amongst many Muslims. This is despite the Quran's favourable attitude towards it as God's scriptures whilst recognising its alterations or concealment in certain areas. This polemic approach has normally consisted in highlighting the Bible's alleged discrepancies and narratives which provide internal difficulties, including some of graphical content. This particular focus is usually advanced at the expense of the overarching message of the Bible or allowing the Bible to be understood properly from its historical context.
The thought that the Bible is 'corrupted' or that 'truth cannot be discerned from it' normally stems from a misunderstanding on the part of many Muslims who may not be familiar with Biblical contents or its history (There are indeed many Christians and Jews who are also not familiar with their own scriptures and its history). Meaningful discussions in this area are becoming better imparted in Muslim-Christian dialogue. However, much of these dialogues are still normally systemic in that they attempt merely to prove the fallibility 'of the other side' as opposed to look for common grounds and a truer understanding of the differences and appreciation between them.
'BETWEEN HIS HANDS' OR 'BEFORE IT' (MA BAYNA YADAYHI)
http://quransmessage.com/articles/between%20hands%20or%20before%20it%20FM3.htm
The above article asserts the following:
- Alterations of the Biblical text is acknowledged by the Quran but this is not tantamount to wholesale corruption of the Bible
- The Quran confirms the truth of the previous scriptures and passes over other areas
- The Quran remains a guard over the previous scriptures
- The Quran recognises the Torah that was co-existent at the time of the Prophet
The Quran recognises aspects of the truth that was with the Jews and Christians at the time of Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) revelation in the late 6th and early 7th century Arabia. It confirms aspects of Biblical thought, expects a contingent of its audience to be familiar with its contents and clearly differs from certain theological interpretations that have resulted and have been 'read' into the text.
It maintains that it is a guard over the previous scriptures with the crucial term 'Muhayminan' being utilised which carries the meaning of both guard and also something which discerns the truth.
016.125
"Invite to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and discuss with them in ways that are best. Indeed, your Lord knows best, who have strayed from His path, and who receive guidance"
Regards,
Joseph
Peace to you all.
It is unfortunate that as a possible result of the approach of many well known Muslim polemics over the recent decades that the Bible today is regarded with very little respect amongst many Muslims. This is despite the Quran's favourable attitude towards it as God's scriptures whilst recognising its alterations or concealment in certain areas. This polemic approach has normally consisted in highlighting the Bible's alleged discrepancies and narratives which provide internal difficulties, including some of graphical content. This particular focus is usually advanced at the expense of the overarching message of the Bible or allowing the Bible to be understood properly from its historical context.
The thought that the Bible is 'corrupted' or that 'truth cannot be discerned from it' normally stems from a misunderstanding on the part of many Muslims who may not be familiar with Biblical contents or its history (There are indeed many Christians and Jews who are also not familiar with their own scriptures and its history). Meaningful discussions in this area are becoming better imparted in Muslim-Christian dialogue. However, much of these dialogues are still normally systemic in that they attempt merely to prove the fallibility 'of the other side' as opposed to look for common grounds and a truer understanding of the differences and appreciation between them.
'BETWEEN HIS HANDS' OR 'BEFORE IT' (MA BAYNA YADAYHI)
http://quransmessage.com/articles/between%20hands%20or%20before%20it%20FM3.htm
The above article asserts the following:
- Alterations of the Biblical text is acknowledged by the Quran but this is not tantamount to wholesale corruption of the Bible
- The Quran confirms the truth of the previous scriptures and passes over other areas
- The Quran remains a guard over the previous scriptures
- The Quran recognises the Torah that was co-existent at the time of the Prophet
The Quran recognises aspects of the truth that was with the Jews and Christians at the time of Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) revelation in the late 6th and early 7th century Arabia. It confirms aspects of Biblical thought, expects a contingent of its audience to be familiar with its contents and clearly differs from certain theological interpretations that have resulted and have been 'read' into the text.
It maintains that it is a guard over the previous scriptures with the crucial term 'Muhayminan' being utilised which carries the meaning of both guard and also something which discerns the truth.
016.125
"Invite to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and discuss with them in ways that are best. Indeed, your Lord knows best, who have strayed from His path, and who receive guidance"
Regards,
Joseph
1707
Discussions / Re: Corruption of the Biblical 'Periklytos' Which Provides Proof of 'Ahmed' in 61:6
« on: November 22, 2011, 03:48:02 AM »
Salamun Alaikum
I would have to strongly, but with respect, disagree with the conclusion reached built on the assumption "In view of the phonetic closeness of Periklytos and Parakletos it is easy to understand how the translator - or, more probably, a later scribe - confused these two expressions". This is not a view original to our late (and much respected) brother Asad but has been propounded by other Muslims too.
There is no documented evidence in any ancient NT manuscript to my knowledge that such a corruption of the term ever took place. This is purely hypothetical propounded to reach a particular conclusion by Muslims.
With a view to maintain academic honesty, I endeavour to base my opinion (as best I can) on verifiable proof and not 'zan' (assumption).
This actually makes the Muslim position quite desperate and serves little to provide a cogent explanation. The desperation usually ensues by making use of the medieval Gospel of Barnabas which is well known to be disregarded by many scholars as of questionable authenticity.
Context:
The earliest copy of the Bible that we have is in Greek and the earliest extant piece is dated around 125 AD. A fragment exists which is possibly no larger than your credit card at the Rylands library in Manchester, England. On one side it contains a section from verses 31-33 and on the other 37-38 from the 18th chapter of the Gospel of John.
We know of approximately 5700 NT Manuscripts with numerous differences between them. Some are insignificant like accidental spelling errors, scribal errors while others are intentional, some theological. Scholars have a rich source of scriptures to track the changes, which I feel confirm the Quran's assertion that changes have indeed occurred and there are great insights as to why. The area of Biblical scholarship is well advanced, well documented, comprehensive and highly erudite which should deserve appreciation even though it can be critiqued and contested.
Given all the differences known, and have been painstakingly understood (accidental, intentional etc), there is not one shred of evidence in any ancient NT manuscript of which there are numerous that a corruption of the term 'Periklytos' suggested by Muslim doctors ever took place. There simply is no evidence and to any unbiased scholar of the New Testament, this may 'arguably' be a fantastic, desperate claim advanced by Muslims to prove a position.
The Quran teaches believers to verify claims (17:36) and not to rely on 'zan' (6:116). But when it comes to matters such as these, it is unfortunate to note that some Muslims are willing to part with the Quran's commands. There is no verification for this particular claim against the Bible writers and remains purely 'zan'.
Regards,
Joseph.
I would have to strongly, but with respect, disagree with the conclusion reached built on the assumption "In view of the phonetic closeness of Periklytos and Parakletos it is easy to understand how the translator - or, more probably, a later scribe - confused these two expressions". This is not a view original to our late (and much respected) brother Asad but has been propounded by other Muslims too.
There is no documented evidence in any ancient NT manuscript to my knowledge that such a corruption of the term ever took place. This is purely hypothetical propounded to reach a particular conclusion by Muslims.
With a view to maintain academic honesty, I endeavour to base my opinion (as best I can) on verifiable proof and not 'zan' (assumption).
This actually makes the Muslim position quite desperate and serves little to provide a cogent explanation. The desperation usually ensues by making use of the medieval Gospel of Barnabas which is well known to be disregarded by many scholars as of questionable authenticity.
Context:
The earliest copy of the Bible that we have is in Greek and the earliest extant piece is dated around 125 AD. A fragment exists which is possibly no larger than your credit card at the Rylands library in Manchester, England. On one side it contains a section from verses 31-33 and on the other 37-38 from the 18th chapter of the Gospel of John.
We know of approximately 5700 NT Manuscripts with numerous differences between them. Some are insignificant like accidental spelling errors, scribal errors while others are intentional, some theological. Scholars have a rich source of scriptures to track the changes, which I feel confirm the Quran's assertion that changes have indeed occurred and there are great insights as to why. The area of Biblical scholarship is well advanced, well documented, comprehensive and highly erudite which should deserve appreciation even though it can be critiqued and contested.
Given all the differences known, and have been painstakingly understood (accidental, intentional etc), there is not one shred of evidence in any ancient NT manuscript of which there are numerous that a corruption of the term 'Periklytos' suggested by Muslim doctors ever took place. There simply is no evidence and to any unbiased scholar of the New Testament, this may 'arguably' be a fantastic, desperate claim advanced by Muslims to prove a position.
The Quran teaches believers to verify claims (17:36) and not to rely on 'zan' (6:116). But when it comes to matters such as these, it is unfortunate to note that some Muslims are willing to part with the Quran's commands. There is no verification for this particular claim against the Bible writers and remains purely 'zan'.
Regards,
Joseph.
1708
Islamic Duties / Re: Is prayer prescribed?
« on: November 21, 2011, 01:11:49 PM »
Salamun Alaikum Fadhly,
Welcome to the forum :-)
I do concur with you with regards your first post. However I'd like to clarify.
My usage of 'prescribed' in quotations and bold was a direct response at the first question by 'Doc' who made use of the term. I made use of 4:103 only to show that such a prescription was supported by the Quran.
However, you are correct to suggest 'prescribed' as a correct rendition of the verb 'kutiba' (as in kutiba alaikum 2:180 - prescribed for you). I would also understand this to be formed from the verb 'Kataba' as the ground form (form I) in the perfect state and passive voice.
You are also correct to suggest 'prescription' as a correct rendition of 'kitaban / kitabun' as in 4:103 or 8:68 which I understand to be formed from the noun masculine 'Kitab'.
With regards 17:78, I think the discussion centres on the interpretation of whether to understand the sun's decline (Duluk-e-Shams) as that from the zenith (After noonday) or as a decline as in at sunset.
Classical authorities pick up the discussions very well and also give variant meanings to the root word D-L-K one of which is a reference to sunset.
I am not sure whether I would accept the proposition that one prays (salaat) continuously from the Zenith, all throughout the day and till the darkness of the night.
That is of course unless one wants to argue as do those that align themselves to Dr. Shabbir's school of thought that salaat is not prayer and is a Divine system. (A debate which has been well exhausted and to which I have contributed and contested on other forums)
But as I can't ascertain that from your post, I'll reserve judgment completely.
Thank you for your post and valued contribution.
Joseph.
Welcome to the forum :-)
I do concur with you with regards your first post. However I'd like to clarify.
My usage of 'prescribed' in quotations and bold was a direct response at the first question by 'Doc' who made use of the term. I made use of 4:103 only to show that such a prescription was supported by the Quran.
However, you are correct to suggest 'prescribed' as a correct rendition of the verb 'kutiba' (as in kutiba alaikum 2:180 - prescribed for you). I would also understand this to be formed from the verb 'Kataba' as the ground form (form I) in the perfect state and passive voice.
You are also correct to suggest 'prescription' as a correct rendition of 'kitaban / kitabun' as in 4:103 or 8:68 which I understand to be formed from the noun masculine 'Kitab'.
With regards 17:78, I think the discussion centres on the interpretation of whether to understand the sun's decline (Duluk-e-Shams) as that from the zenith (After noonday) or as a decline as in at sunset.
Classical authorities pick up the discussions very well and also give variant meanings to the root word D-L-K one of which is a reference to sunset.
I am not sure whether I would accept the proposition that one prays (salaat) continuously from the Zenith, all throughout the day and till the darkness of the night.
That is of course unless one wants to argue as do those that align themselves to Dr. Shabbir's school of thought that salaat is not prayer and is a Divine system. (A debate which has been well exhausted and to which I have contributed and contested on other forums)
But as I can't ascertain that from your post, I'll reserve judgment completely.
Thank you for your post and valued contribution.
Joseph.
1709
General Discussions / Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
« on: November 20, 2011, 12:52:46 PM »
Dear brother Saleh,
Salamun Alaikum
Thank you for your comments.
Please let me clarify my position further which I have argued for in my articles:
In my opinion:
(a) The original sanctuary built by Prophet Abraham (ancient house) was at Bakkah not Makkah. These are two different locations [1]
(b) The Ka'aba is associated with the Sacred Mosque (Masjid al-Haram) and is in Makkah. [2]
However, I have also argued in section (-8-) of my article [1] below that:
The Ka'aba was made a place of monotheistic worship and ancient Abrahamic rites as explained in detail by the Quran were reinstituted at the Ka'aba (Makkah today). So the Hajj today at Makkah is correct and supported by the Quran in my personal opinion. Of course, there are practices that have been introduced and added to the Hajj today which I find no support for in the Quran. However, I have discussed those comprehensively in my Hajj related article [3] and with connected articles.
To answer your last question, I believe 95:3 and 'hada' (this) 'balad' (city) is a reference to Makkah similar to 90:1-2. 'Tur' has never been described as a city in the Quran (balad). 'Tur' has been described as a Holy valley (bil-wadil-muqadas - 79:16) consisting of a 'blessed' area (buqati mubaraka - 28:30) and not a city (balad).
I hope that this clarifies my personal humble opinion.
Your brother in faith,
Joseph
[1] PROPHET ABRAHAM'S (pbuh) ORIGINAL SANCTUARY - AT MAKKAH (MECCA) OR BAKKAH (BACA)?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/makkah%20bakkah%20FM3.htm
[2] IS MAKKAH THE ORIGINAL LOCATION FOR THE MASJID AL-HARAM?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/original%20sanctuary%20FM3.htm
[3] THE HAJJ ACCORDING TO THE QURAN
http://quransmessage.com/articles/hajj%20FM3.htm
Connected articles:
(a) The 'Lost' Months of Hajj
(b) Kissing the Black Stone - Veneration or an Idolatrous Practice?
(c) The Seven Circuits of the Ka'aba
(d) Zam Zam Water
Salamun Alaikum
Thank you for your comments.
Please let me clarify my position further which I have argued for in my articles:
In my opinion:
(a) The original sanctuary built by Prophet Abraham (ancient house) was at Bakkah not Makkah. These are two different locations [1]
(b) The Ka'aba is associated with the Sacred Mosque (Masjid al-Haram) and is in Makkah. [2]
However, I have also argued in section (-8-) of my article [1] below that:
The Ka'aba was made a place of monotheistic worship and ancient Abrahamic rites as explained in detail by the Quran were reinstituted at the Ka'aba (Makkah today). So the Hajj today at Makkah is correct and supported by the Quran in my personal opinion. Of course, there are practices that have been introduced and added to the Hajj today which I find no support for in the Quran. However, I have discussed those comprehensively in my Hajj related article [3] and with connected articles.
To answer your last question, I believe 95:3 and 'hada' (this) 'balad' (city) is a reference to Makkah similar to 90:1-2. 'Tur' has never been described as a city in the Quran (balad). 'Tur' has been described as a Holy valley (bil-wadil-muqadas - 79:16) consisting of a 'blessed' area (buqati mubaraka - 28:30) and not a city (balad).
I hope that this clarifies my personal humble opinion.
Your brother in faith,
Joseph
[1] PROPHET ABRAHAM'S (pbuh) ORIGINAL SANCTUARY - AT MAKKAH (MECCA) OR BAKKAH (BACA)?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/makkah%20bakkah%20FM3.htm
[2] IS MAKKAH THE ORIGINAL LOCATION FOR THE MASJID AL-HARAM?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/original%20sanctuary%20FM3.htm
[3] THE HAJJ ACCORDING TO THE QURAN
http://quransmessage.com/articles/hajj%20FM3.htm
Connected articles:
(a) The 'Lost' Months of Hajj
(b) Kissing the Black Stone - Veneration or an Idolatrous Practice?
(c) The Seven Circuits of the Ka'aba
(d) Zam Zam Water
1710
Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Do verses 98:6 and 2:62 conflict? Second - a question of plurality
« on: November 20, 2011, 12:30:54 AM »
Salamun Alaikum.
Verse 2:62 refers to those that follow their religions in truth and those who judge by their scriptures faithfully and do not transgress.
005.077
"Say: "O people of the Book! do not exceed in your religion the bounds (of what is proper), trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by, who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the even way."
Examples of transgressions are noted in 5:72-3 and 4:171
There are also those from the People of the Book that do follow their religions in truth.
003.199
"And there are, certainly, among the People of the Book (Arabic: Ahli-l-kitabi), those who believe in God, in the revelation to you, and in the revelation to them, bowing in humility to God: They will not sell the Signs of God for a miserable gain! For them is a reward with their Lord, and God is swift in account"
This is clearly a two-tier system where plurality is recognised in this context. The people who believe in the final revelation are still being referred to as the People of the Book (Ahli-l-kitabi). At no place in the Quran are followers of the previous scriptures instructed to abandon their laws or their scriptures with a view to follow the Quran.
028.052-53
"Those to whom We sent the Book before this, they do believe in this (revelation). And when it is recited to them, they say: "We believe in it, for it is the Truth from our Lord: indeed we have been Muslims from before this""
Verse 98:6 refers to 'disbelievers' (kuffar) from among (min) the People of the Book and among the Polytheists. The preposition 'min' (harfe jar) clearly denotes some not all. These are those 'disbelievers' that do not follow their scriptures in truth despite having a messenger making things clear (98:1-5).
Once a particular truth has been clearly manifested to a soul which leaves them with no reason to deny it and they still reject it, it is then in accordance with the consistent theme of the Quran that one enters the state of 'disbelief' (Kufr).
UNDERSTANDING 'KUFR' (DISBELIEF) FROM A QURANIC PERSPECTIVE
http://quransmessage.com/articles/understanding%20kufr%20FM3.htm
I hope this helps, God willing.
Joseph.
Verse 2:62 refers to those that follow their religions in truth and those who judge by their scriptures faithfully and do not transgress.
005.077
"Say: "O people of the Book! do not exceed in your religion the bounds (of what is proper), trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by, who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the even way."
Examples of transgressions are noted in 5:72-3 and 4:171
There are also those from the People of the Book that do follow their religions in truth.
003.199
"And there are, certainly, among the People of the Book (Arabic: Ahli-l-kitabi), those who believe in God, in the revelation to you, and in the revelation to them, bowing in humility to God: They will not sell the Signs of God for a miserable gain! For them is a reward with their Lord, and God is swift in account"
This is clearly a two-tier system where plurality is recognised in this context. The people who believe in the final revelation are still being referred to as the People of the Book (Ahli-l-kitabi). At no place in the Quran are followers of the previous scriptures instructed to abandon their laws or their scriptures with a view to follow the Quran.
028.052-53
"Those to whom We sent the Book before this, they do believe in this (revelation). And when it is recited to them, they say: "We believe in it, for it is the Truth from our Lord: indeed we have been Muslims from before this""
Verse 98:6 refers to 'disbelievers' (kuffar) from among (min) the People of the Book and among the Polytheists. The preposition 'min' (harfe jar) clearly denotes some not all. These are those 'disbelievers' that do not follow their scriptures in truth despite having a messenger making things clear (98:1-5).
Once a particular truth has been clearly manifested to a soul which leaves them with no reason to deny it and they still reject it, it is then in accordance with the consistent theme of the Quran that one enters the state of 'disbelief' (Kufr).
UNDERSTANDING 'KUFR' (DISBELIEF) FROM A QURANIC PERSPECTIVE
http://quransmessage.com/articles/understanding%20kufr%20FM3.htm
I hope this helps, God willing.
Joseph.