Topics

1

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Prophet's Wives

« on: July 23, 2017, 11:57:04 AM »

Salam,

This is for Brother Joseph Islam. I was going through "Aggressive Mistranslations to Enslave Women," and you said the root for "and stay in your homes" is q-r-r. It's actually waqar, w-q-r, from "dignity," and Lane's Lexicon proves this. Lane's Lexicon cites W-Q-R as the correct root, and imperative is "wa qirna fi buyutikunna"--it should be read with a kasra not a fatha. Proof:

http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000214.pdf

Go to the 3rd column at the top. It says clearly in Arabic, "wa QIRNA fi buyutikunna," for the root w-q-r. You have the wrong root word in your article. The correct imperative form of q-r-r is "aqrarna" and early jurists including Tabari noted this.

So you're right, the translation should read "and sit with dignity/graveness/uprightness in your homes" rather than restrictively rendering it as "stay in your homes and never leave," BUT your root verb was incorrect. Lane's clearly shows that the root is in fact from waqar, dignity.

2

General Discussions / Musa and Khidr

« on: July 21, 2017, 12:43:18 AM »

Salaam,

In 18:80 (part of the Moses-wise man story), Khidr is said to have killed a child because he 'suspected' the child might grow up to overburden his parents with disbelief. This is despite the fact that Quran 5:32 prohibits taking a soul except as a punishment for murder or corruption on Earth. 18:65 says Khidr was gifted with mercy and wisdom, but I think Moses was right to ask why he killed the child. If the child was killed then, he would have had no chance to repent later.

Is there an alternate understanding of the story? If not, is there a way to reconcile the contradiction?

The Quran only allows punishment for proven crimes, and even then there is a concession of mercy, depending on whether the perpetrator repents. Killing the child despite this would be a clear violation, even if Khidr allegedly had knowledge of the Unseen.

3

General Discussions / 33:33 Consonant Outline

« on: July 11, 2017, 09:19:18 AM »

Salam,

The part of verse 33:33 rendered as "remain in your homes" transliterates to "wa qarna fi buyutikinna," but early copies of the Quran had only consonant outlines without any diacritical marks. So if you drop the fatha and replace it with a kasra, it could read "wa QIRNA fi buyutikinna."

I've read somewhere that "qarna" has a different meaning than "qirna;" both come from root Q-R-R (to remain fixed, settle peacefully) but "qirna" would be better rendered as to "behave with dignity." Do qarna and qirna have different meanings? Both terms could fit based on the consonant outline. And apparently the command form of "qarna" should actually be "aqrarna," which is a different spelling than the Quran uses. So would "qirna," with a kasra, fit better here?

If the word is indeed qarna, what would it signify, other than remaining peacefully in one place? (I've seen the Aggressive Mistranslations article, I just want to know what it would signify for the Prophet's wives.)

Also, the next clause reads "and do not make a dazzling display like they did in the Times of Ignorance." From what I can tell, "dazzling display"--tabarruj--refers to excessive extravagance, provocative displays of adornment, things like that. Is there any other mention of tabarruj in a similar context, and is there any other place where tabarruj-like customs of pre-Islamic Arabs are mentioned?

4

General Discussions / Public vs. Private Sin in an Islamic State

« on: March 27, 2017, 09:43:39 AM »

Salam everyone. So I was wondering what your opinions are, from a Quranic point of view, on the following issues:

1. I believe the Islamic conception of human rights is derived from the idea of khilafah on earth. All rights humans are entitled to would stem from this, such as the right to free agency of belief (assuming one is not harming others) and the right to education. From this, it seems that in an Islamic state, acts that harm others would be federally punishable whereas private sins would not be.

For example in the case of adultery, punishment only occurs if 4 witnesses are obtained. Adultery is a private sin and normally doesn't have witnesses, so if 4 witnesses are actually found, it indicates that the sin was publicized and affects society as a whole. Therefore it is punishable by state authorities.

Would things like drinking alcohol in private be punishable by the state according to this reasoning? (i.e. it's possible that drinking in private wouldn't warrant punishment unless the individual goes drunk driving and runs over someone, thus harming them and incurring consequences)

2. Someone recently brought up the idea that in an Islamic state, public proselytizing of other religions (Christianity, atheism) would be banned. This is based on the premise that since an Islamic state is built on the fundamentals of Islam, publicly promoting other beliefs/falsehoods (even peacefully) constitutes "chaos" and should be met with punishments/fines.

I believe this is invalid because freedom of religious expression is protected in the Quran as long as one refrains from attempting to forcefully convert others. So public proselytizing would not be banned unless it is violent.

This is complicated, but I hope it makes sense. Opinions?

 

5

General Discussions / Addresses

« on: February 11, 2017, 10:02:13 AM »

Hi everyone,

Does anyone know why the Quran changes its addressees so frequently and with no specifications? Verses are often addressed to "you who believe" but continue to address men specifically, like in 4:1 to 4:4. (The address is mankind--naas--at the beginning of 4:1, but then it switches to a male audience--"Marry from the orphans/women"). Other verses switch the addressee almost randomly so that it's hard to tell who is actually being spoken to. Is there a pattern for when this happens or a specific reason why?

6

General Discussions / Application of Sharia

« on: January 30, 2017, 04:56:50 PM »

Salam everyone,

What are your views regarding the Quran's position on separation of church/mosque and state? Although the Quran clearly mandates certain laws regarding divorce, punishment for theft and prostitution, and other crimes, it's not entirely clear exactly whom those verses apply to. The Quran is said to be a guidance for those who believe (2:2), so would said verses apply to Muslims only?

Jordan uses a type of governance where Muslims and Christians have separate courts for civil arbitration. Is this in line with the Quran?

7

Discussions / Things that Need to be Said

« on: January 15, 2017, 08:42:32 AM »

Hi everyone I've made sure I'm not going to regret anything I wrote in the following posts, so I'm linking them:
https://ifoceanswereink.wordpress.com/2017/01/15/going-too-far-in-calling-traditional-islam-oppressive/

This one is different, has to do with poverty:
https://ifoceanswereink.wordpress.com/2017/01/13/children-and-other-heartbreaking-things/

8

General Discussions / Prepositions

« on: November 30, 2016, 10:08:35 AM »

Hi everyone Can anyone (esp. Wakas please) list the definitions of each of these prepositions? They seem to be used differently in every verse. It's confusing.

'ala (this one appears to have about 10 different usages and it's driving me crazy)
min
lil

Thank you in advance. I don't understand Arabic; I just learned to read and write, like most of us.

9

Discussions / On Dishonesty and Reformation

« on: November 28, 2016, 10:38:56 AM »

Wasn't sure where this would go, but I wrote this earlier today, and felt the need to share:

Even a cursory glance at the Islamic world today shows that it is in turmoil. From Saudi Arabia to Indonesia to Syria and Turkey, it is clear that war, false doctrinal beliefs, terror, systematic oppression, and rebellion plague the global league of Muslim-majority countries.

Moderate Muslim leaders insist upon worldwide cooperation and sustained interfaith dialogue. Though born of good intentions, these actions do not address the root of the problem. They simply put a band-aid on a situation that is growing increasingly problematic for the global community. Change comes from the inside. The "Muslim problem" cannot improve if the interpretive monopoly held by Muslim apologists and opponents alike is not eradicated.

Proponents of Islam use the Quran and the hadith, sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, to show that their religion preaches peace. Opponents of Islam use the same sources to insist that it preaches violence and hate.

By ascribing violent interpretations to peaceful verses and twisting the words of the Quran to mirror their ideologies, terrorist groups have radicalized thousands and continue to promote their oppressive regimes.

It is the responsibility of Muslims across the world--both in the Western sphere and especially elsewhere--to study their way of life (deen) for themselves. To examine, scrutinize and analyze the scripture in a language they can understand. To seek the truth, and to vindicate it.

In fact, this is not just a responsibility; it is an urgent need that must be addressed. Muslims comprise a significant percentage of the global population, and there are 1.8 billion of them worldwide. When they misunderstand and misrepresent their religion, worldwide disharmony results. It would be dishonest, indeed evil, to disregard this, and to ignore the need for inner reformation. Islamic thought must be re-examined by once again turning to its original source: the Quran. Only then can the Islamic way of life, and its associated governing system, be implemented in the way that they were originally meant to be.

10

General Discussions / 4:15-4:16

« on: November 24, 2016, 06:34:18 AM »

Hi everyone

I was reading 4:15-16 earlier, and although I've noticed their discrepancy before, I didn't pay much attention to it. However, does anyone know why the punishment for lewdness for a woman is indefinite confinement with no guarantee of release following repentance? 4:16 dictates forgiveness if the 2 men involved repent. Is it because 4:15 may be referring to prostitution, while 4:16 is more similar to one-off adultery?

11

General Discussions / Two Female Witness

« on: November 07, 2016, 03:52:00 AM »

Salam everyone There many possible explanations for the 2 female witnesses rule in financial transactions. Most of them say that during the 7th century, women were generally excluded from financial matters and may have gotten confused when giving testimony in court, or that they had no education, so they couldn't handle financial court cases.

However, I saw this earlier:

"Consider, for example, Qur’anic verse 2:282, which describes the mitigation of a financial dispute by requesting the presence of two male witnesses or otherwise one male and two female witnesses. From this verse, male scholarship concludes that a single man’s testimony is equal to that of two women’s, regardless of whether the dispute in question is the ratification of a contract between a loaner and a debtor as specified in the Qur’an.[3] The Qur’an makes no qualitative equivalence between a male witness and two female witnesses. Furthermore, Q2:282 itself can be read to designate only one of the women as a witness, and the other as a guarantor to “remind” her should she err or become intimidated in the male-dominated jurisdiction of financial transactions, but the second woman is read by male scholarship as a witness nonetheless, and not merely as a supporter, creating an opportunity to read women’s testimony as less accurate or less valuable. This is the popular reading despite the fact that the verse continues to caution, “Let no scribe be harmed, nor any witness. For if you do so, indeed, it is grave disobedience [of God] in you” (Q2:282), which clarifies that the supporting woman’s purpose is to ensure that the female witness is not threatened by the domineering party breaching the contract, and not necessarily that of an official witness. In the context of the Qur’an, if the first woman “forgets” or “errs” it is in the face of potential harm. Additionally, it has been noted by Islamic feminists that the Arabic word for “she errs” or “she forgets” used in the Qur’an is tadilla from the word dalal, (as opposed to nisyan, which is literally forgetfulness); tadilla describes forgetfulness or error of a particular nature: forgetting the right way (of God) when confronted by an external interest, in this case a threat."

Source: https://thefatalfeminist.com/2015/10/28/reverence-the-wombs-that-bore-you-on-unearthing-a-female-legacy-transgressive-to-the-patriarchal-social-order/

*Disclaimer: The girl who wrote the above article holds a lot of...interesting...views, not all of which I agree with. However, many of her interpretations shed light on disputed verses.

12

General Discussions / 4:34 grammar

« on: November 03, 2016, 11:09:54 AM »

Hi everyone, I just saw this article:

http://quransmessage.com/articles/fear%20FM3.htm

There are 2 versions of the word "fear," apparently. Which one is used in 4:34? I can't tell which version it is, as the word is in a different form. The implications of this difference in structure are probably important.

13

General Discussions / Mercy vs Punishment

« on: November 03, 2016, 11:05:18 AM »

Hi everyone, this is a completely random observation but I thought it might be interesting.

007:156
"And ordain for us that which is good, in this life and in the Hereafter: for we have turned unto Thee." He said: "With My punishment I visit whom I will; but My mercy extends to all things (Arabic: warahmati wasi'at kulla shayin) . That (mercy) I shall ordain for those who do right, and practice regular charity, and those who believe in Our signs”

The part that says "With My punishment I visit whom I will, but My mercy extends to all things" is actually supposed to say, "With My punishment I visit whom I will, AND My mercy extends to all things." The word used is "warahmati," which means AND. "But" would be ولكن رحمتي.

It's surprising how much a difference the wording makes. "But" suggests that mercy is contradictory to punishment, while "and" suggests that they follow from each other. Justice is a part of mercy.

Many other verses are also translated this way. Lots of sentences are supposed to be linked with "and" but are translated with "but." I just realized what a difference that makes.

14

General Discussions / Jesus in the Quran

« on: July 15, 2016, 10:16:26 AM »

Assalamu Alaikum everyone

I have a question about the story of Jesus's alleged crucifixion and resurrection. The verse regarding this is normally interpreted as,

(4:157-158) "That they said (in boast), 'We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah'—but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not—nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself."

Does this verse indicate that Jesus (pbuh) was literally raised up? Is there an alternate meaning for the Arabic word used?

Also, are there any Quranic verses that explain the circumstances leading up to Jesus's attempted assassination, or more details about his life?

God bless

15

General Discussions / Jizyah in the Quran

« on: July 11, 2016, 10:52:25 AM »

Assalumu Alaikum brothers and sisters,

I would like to know your opinions on verse 9:29 of the Quran. There are many theories about what the jizyah mentioned in this verse is referring to (for example, a tax, reparation, compensation, etc). Is there any other verse in the Quran that mentions this tax, so that it can be cross-referenced with 9:29?

Is the jizyah a tax for protection from enemies or compensation for past wrongdoing? Any ideas would be appreciated