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.


Messages - wanderer

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 20
61
General Discussions / Re: What was the privilege the Prophet had over the believers in verse 33:50
« on: January 11, 2017, 04:32:00 AM »
Yes, this is how I understand it, and this is also how many other scholars in the past understood it, according to Muhammad Asad
Note 60
The relevant clause reads, literally, "if she offered herself as a gift (in wahabat nafsaha) to the Prophet". Most of the classical commentators take this to mean "without demanding or expecting a dower (mahr)", which, as far as ordinary Muslims are concerned, is an essential item in a marriage agreement (cf. 4:4 and 24, and the corresponding notes; also surah 2 note 224. (From "The Message of the Quran" by Muhammad Asad)
Regards
wanderer

62
General Discussions / Re: What was the privilege the Prophet had over the believers in verse 33:50
« on: January 11, 2017, 01:15:07 AM »
Great question. I would have to say that the only privilege here is like you mentioned, the last line where it was permitted for him to marry a woman who offered herself in marriage without expecting a dower.
Regards
wanderer

63
Discussions / Re: The Criminalization of Islam
« on: January 08, 2017, 09:53:50 AM »
What I'm trying to get at, essentially, is that while I personally do not agree with many aspects of traditional Islam, I don't necessarily share your distaste of it.

64
Discussions / Re: The Criminalization of Islam
« on: January 08, 2017, 09:37:30 AM »
Perhaps 'defend' was a poor choice of words. I simply meany that Quran centric Muslims should try to understand traditional positions, instead of just providing a knee jerk reaction. I don't believe you should support views you find morally reprehensible, and I do not believe in the death penalty for non-treasonous apostasy. You are right, I did a poor job articulating my views on this point.
As to your second paragraph, when I criticize the West, I am not attacking every single Westerner. I am attacking Western philosophy, and the governments who uphold it.
I believe in the establishment of an Islamic polity ruled by the Quran, spanning the entire Muslim world, or 'khilafah'. With respect, I don't understand how you came away with the idea that I support a gulf state interpretation of the Shariah.
Let me know if you need me to clarify
wanderer

65
Discussions / Re: The Criminalization of Islam
« on: January 08, 2017, 05:20:00 AM »
Hi Amira. Thank you for your comment.
Much of this is pertinent to our lives today, but I don't understand your collective condemnation of Western civilization, which is not a monolith. Though plagued with hypocrisy, Western government systems have often been efficient and are not entirely anti-Islamic
I believe that Western civilization is ethically corrupt and morally bankrupt to the highest degree. I believe that the philosophy of Secular Liberalism (with a capital L-- not to be confused with the political left) is dangerous to the world at large. This has nothing to do with 'efficiency'.
In addition, you seem to be trying to argue that everything wrong with today's Islamic world is the fault of the West. While this may be partially true, it's also impossible to absolve Muslims of blame
With respect, this is not my position. I hold the Muslim world very much responsible for settling into a state of intellectual and political mediocrity. I do not aim to passively complain, but rather to provoke active change.
But shouldn't we fix our own problems first before accusing others?
They go hand in hand.
You stated that the "entire range of acceptable Islamic thought" must be defended. But what is acceptable Islamic thought? Who decides what is acceptable?
Excellent point. I probably should have elaborated on this more in my article. I believe that us Quran-centric Muslims should make a greater effort to comprehend the views of other, orthodox Muslims. I do actually consider the example you cited an 'acceptable difference', for instance. But yes, this should probably be thought about more by me. God willing, I'll write about it in the future.
Instead of a blanket condemnation of the West, why don't we see what can be done to help ourselves?
This is exactly what I am trying to do.
Regards
wanderer

66
Discussions / The Criminalization of Islam
« on: January 07, 2017, 02:31:18 AM »
https://divergingthoughtsblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/06/the-criminalization-of-islam/
Enjoy, like, and follow
wanderer

67
General Discussions / Re: Can someone please refute this scientific "error"?
« on: December 25, 2016, 01:47:00 AM »
As I already established, just because the moon is "within" the layers, does not mean it is in the middle. Considering the expansiveness of the universe, it is highly likely in the lowest layer with the stars. And if the moon is only within the lowest layer, it makes perfect sense that that is the one we are able to see. I honestly can't think of a way in which we are able to see 'all' of the heavens.
Regards
wanderer

68
General Discussions / Re: Can someone please refute this scientific "error"?
« on: December 24, 2016, 01:54:11 AM »
I've always interpreted "heavens" in the context of these verses to refer to the sky, in particular that of it visible to the naked eye. I believe that "heavens" in the verses you just cited refers to a broad concept. For example, if someone says, Look at the sky, do they mean look at literally the ENTIRE sky? No. Same thing here.
Regards
wanderer

69
General Discussions / Re: Can someone please refute this scientific "error"?
« on: December 23, 2016, 11:07:43 PM »
I'm a little pressed for time at the moment and will answer later. However, in the meantime, please read this: http://quransmessage.com/articles/are%20there%20seven%20heavens%20or%20several%20heavens%20FM3.htm
Regards
wanderer

70
General Discussions / Re: Can someone please refute this scientific "error"?
« on: December 23, 2016, 09:28:44 PM »
I do not see any contradiction here:
Moon- is in one of the heavens
Stars- in the lowest heaven
It is entirely possible (even likely, considering the size of the universe) they are in the same heaven. (Please point it out if I am not getting something here).
While I cannot speak for the accuracy of the particular phrase used here, I have grave reservations about using Shabbir Ahmed's interpolation as a source.
Regards
wanderer

71
General Discussions / Re: Can someone please refute this scientific "error"?
« on: December 23, 2016, 08:33:26 PM »
Another thing to keep in mind when looking at these rebuttals of the Quran through science, is what the target audience believed at the time. For example, do people really think that Arabs thought the sun set in a pool of mud? How stupid were they?? Getting back to this, looking at the night sky, the moon is far brighter than the stars, and so appears closer. This interpretation you posit therefore does not make sense even if the Quran was man-made.
Regards
wanderer

72
General Discussions / Re: Can someone please refute this scientific "error"?
« on: December 23, 2016, 08:24:56 PM »
"The wording of the Qur’an is certainly less than scientific in this instance and suggesting wrong notions even though it is sufficiently vague to not make it a clear error. It does, however, throw substantial doubt on the claim that God made the Qur’an scientifically as a proof of its divine origin"

I simply cannot state this enough, the Quran is NOT a scientific document. Any attempt to argue this will not only fail, but backfire upon you. The phrasing is "unscientific" because it's not meant to tell humanity the location of the moon and stars. Please, do not attempt to argue the Quran's divinity by using "scientific miracles".
Regards
wanderer

73
General Discussions / Re: Can someone please refute this scientific "error"?
« on: December 23, 2016, 08:11:11 PM »
"However, the Qur’an specifically assigns the stars to a lower or even the lowest heaven, while it states the relationship of the moon to the totality of the seven heavens is that it is “in them” (fehinna). This gives the impression that the moon is at least as far away as the stars if not further."



How? The Quran furnishes no information about the size if each heaven. The universe, as you know, is absolutely massive. Therefore, it is entirely plausible that the moon and stars are merely in one "layer" of the heavens. As you pointed out, the Quran does not give the location of the moon within the seven heavens, so this is really just reading ideas into the text that aren't there.
Regards
wanderer

74
General Discussions / Re: God Inheriting the earth
« on: December 23, 2016, 05:37:47 AM »
Here is a good site to use that may help clear up confusion around differences in translations:
http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=3&verse=180#(3:180:1)
Hope that helps
wanderer

75
Discussions / Re: What to do about our brothers and sisters in Aleppo ?
« on: December 21, 2016, 07:51:42 AM »
If any form of criticism is now considered an"ad hominan" attack now, then count me in
Regards
wanderer

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 20