QM Forum
The Quran => General Discussions => Topic started by: Sardar Miyan on June 16, 2013, 07:06:51 AM
-
Allah's Command about Shoes
------------------------------
Innee ana rabbuka faikhlaAA naAAlayka innaka bialwadi almuqaddasi tuwan
20:12 "Verily I am thy Lord! therefore (in My presence) put off thy SHOES: thou art in the sacred valley Tuwa.
-----------------------------------
Allah's Command to Prophet Moses to remove his shoes in Wadi -e-Tuwa
make all of us know the shoes are not worn in Sacred places where Allah's Zikr/ Salath is performed
But I wonder in Saudi Arabia most of the people like Millitary people
pray Salath wearing shoes but all
over the world Muslims don't allow
Shoes in Masajid. I heard that our prophet used to pray wearing shoes
In the battle field. I just wanted to know if shoe is to be kept away from
sacred places why it was used in
Salat?
-
فَاخْلَعْ نَعْلَيْكَ literally it means ‘take off your shoes’; but Tajul Uroos says that it means ‘wait here’ or stay where you are: like when you tell someone you know to take off his shoes and rest for sometime: Thus the ayat would mean that God told Moses not to be in a hurry, and to sit calmly and listen. Now your travel (that you were roaming in search of the truth) has come to an end, now you will find your destination easily. Qurtubi says that here ikhlaa na’laika means complete your family chores i.e. put them out of your mind: he has said that the Arabs also mean family by the word na’al (shoe).
Regards
Optimist
-
Dear All,
As-salam alaykum
The reason for the verb action is elucidated by the context that 'Indeed you are in the sacred valley of Tuwa'. Therefore, there is a direct linkage with the removal of the shoe and the presence of the Lord in a hallowed valley. So a metaphorical rendition in my academic opinion is unduly forced.
Furthermore, an almost identical expression exists in the Hebrew Old Testament which the Quran confirms which renders any unduly forced metaphorical interpretation in the Arabic language futile.
Exodus 3:5
"Do not come any closer," God said. "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground."
Therefore in my humble opinion, the imperative verb 'ikh'la' has a literal import (as it appears in the Hebrew text) and I would respectfully disagree with the application of Ghulam Ahmed Parwez's interpretation as Optimist has shared as it seems, verbatim [1]
I feel it is good practice and within the spirit of the Quran’s narratives that one removes their shoes when within the confines of places of worship and during ritual commemoration.
Regards,
Joseph.
REFERENCE
[1] PARWEZ. G, Lughat ul-Quran, The Language of Quran, Volume - II, Edited / Translated by: Quranic Education Society, Last Edited 2-6-13, Marked Volume III, page 101 of 360
-
Thanks Bro JAi for sharing. Bro Optimist Please don't quote strange translations on this Forum. Please watch Allama Ghamidi's review on GAPerwaiz's translation particularly of Surah Mamal. Thanks
-
Here is a link of the critique mentioned by bro Sardar of Ghulam Parvez
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=444.msg1382#msg1382
Salaam :) ;D
-
Salaam all,
Firstly, let me state that I have no problem to accept brother Joseph Islam's simple and clear explanation that the instruction was something to do with removal of the shoe in the literal sense.
I was pointing out the possibility of a different explanation since brother Sardar Miyan was obsessed with many questions like if it is necessary to remove our shoes from all sacred places, and he has seen saudi arabia military men pray with shoes, whether they could be doing something wrong, etc.
However, please note, Parwez was making an analysis based on explanations provided in the following works. My post was very clear on this point.
1. Taj-ul-Uroos : which is compiled by Mohibuddin Ibnul Faiz Alsyed Muhammad Murtaza Alhuseni Alwasti Alzubedi Alhanafi who died in 1205 Hijri or 1701A.D. He edited his renowned dictionary in Egypt. It was published in 10 big volumes. The book Parwez was referring to was published by Matba'ul Khairia and the date of publishing written on it was 1306 A.D.
2.Tafsir al-Qurtubi (Arabic: تفسير القرطبي) (Arabic: Al-Jami li-Ahkam al-Qur'an) is a famous Qur'an exegesis (Arabic: tafsir) by the famous classical scholar Al-Qurtubi d.671H.
Here is a link of the critique mentioned by bro Sardar of Ghulam Parvez
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=444.msg1382#msg1382
Salaam :) ;D
Just for your information, Dr. Shabbir from ourbeacon forum posted on Monday, 22 April 2013, 8:34 am the following.
Ghamidi Saheb occasionally calls me to encourage our efforts. Answering a question, he said, "My criticism on Parwez Saheb Marhoom was ill-conceived until I understood him better."
I do not know if Dr. Shabbir is telling a lie. And also, I want to state clearly my view that Parwez could be wrong sometimes. He himself never claimed he is infallible.
However, brother Sardar or you can post the criticism of Ghamidi for the sake of English knowing readers here, it would be good that everyone can read and understand what are his points actually. At the same time, I hope you will agree with me that Ghamidi is not GOD to assume that his criticism has to be accepted as something infallible.
Salaam :)
-
Dear brother Optimist.
As-salam alaykum
This is a very refreshing statement of yours.
I want to state clearly my view that Parwez could be wrong sometimes
With regards the specific comment you have shared below in blue, please see my email exchange with Dr. Khalid Zaheer who is the Vice-President of Al-Mawrid [1] which is an institution of which Javed Ahmad Ghamidi is founder-president [2]. I believe you will find this of interest as I have already sought clarification on behalf of some other readers.
Ghamidi Saheb occasionally calls me to encourage our efforts. Answering a question, he said, "My criticism on Parwez Saheb Marhoom was ill-conceived until I understood him better."
QUESTION:
From: Joseph A. Islam
Sent: 25 April 2013 15:56
To: Khalid Zaheer
Subject: A Clarification Request
Dear brother Khalid,
May peace be with you.
Is it possible whether you can shed any light on the content of the following post please which has been shared with me by a few discerning readers.
http://www.ourbeacon.com/cgi-bin/bbs60x/webbbs_config.pl/page/1/md/read/id/314123119188406
In particular, I am interested in brother Javed’s alleged sentiment captured by the statement “My criticism on Parwez Saheb Marhoom was ill-conceived until I understood him better”.
If you could obtain clarification / context from brother Javed, this would be even better.
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated for myself and some of my interested readers.
As always, with utmost respect.
Joseph.
RESPONSE:
From: Khalid Zaheer
Sent: 26 April 2013 06:22
To: Joseph A. Islam
Subject: Re: A Clarification Request
Salam
Just talked to him. He says he hasn't changed his understanding about Pervez Sahib. What he might have said to Dr Shabbir is that had I done done it today my style of presentation would have been different. He believes that we should focus more on positive presentation of what we understand is correct rather than to indulge in unnecessary negative polemic. However, his understanding that Pervez Sahib's approach towards understanding the Qur'an is flawed is the very same as before.
He also mentioned that there are two types of differences: basic and secondary. The basic differences can be on two counts: How one understands the Qur'an & Sunnah and places Hadith in their context while understanding Islam and what kind of overall approach to Islam emerges from it. If someone agrees with him on these two counts, the secondary differences don't matter nor can they be eliminated.
Pervez sahib differs with him in the first count and as a natural consequence on the second one as well.
I hope I have described what he said correctly.
Khalid Zaheer
REFERENCES
[1] Al-Mawrid
http://www.al-mawrid.org/pages/research_detail.php?research_id=11
[2] Al-Marwid
http://www.al-mawrid.org/pages/research_detail.php?research_id=5
-
Salam All Incidently I happen to Email Almawrid about Ghamidis expression that he is sad about GAPerwaiz's critical. Bro Hashmi gave me Email reply as below. --Reply:
Assalaam o alaykum
Thank you for the email. We believe that Mr Ghamidi has not been unrealistic in his critical analysis of the viewpoint of the said school. His view is not directed at the personality but the approach. It is a pure academic issue. I believe that the source you have in this regard needs to be checked. What is the source of your source? Please share and help and oblige.
--
Tariq Mahmood Hashmi
Associate Editor (English)
Al-Mawrid
A Foundation for Islamic Research and Education
Moblie: 0333-4430507
Question:
Assalm,Recently while quoting wisdom of Allama Javed Ghamidi DR Shabbir Ahmed Saheb writes on Ourbeacon Forum that Allma Javed Ghamidi has expressed regrets on his unrealistic criticism of Allama GAPerwaiz done several years ago.I just wanted to know if this statement is correct.Thanks
-
It seems like Mr. Shabbir Ahmad is not a reliable source of information !!! Saba
-
Salam Sister Saba,I posted my blog on this Forum about Unusual Translation of Dr Shabbir about Juma prayers but nobody commented.Kindly go through Thanks. I also sent an Email to Allama Ghamidi to please take time to go through Dr Shabbirs translation & write as he Translated Surah Namal just as GAPerwaiz did.
-
Salaam bro Sardar,
I think you might not have got a response as some readers simply can't be asked to spend time on Mr Shabbir's translations as they have little respect for his work or some of interpretations. They might feel they have more pressing issues to deal with. I do think that people like Allama Ghamidi have better things to do then to spend time on unusual translations of Mr. Shabbir...... Just my two cents. Saba
-
Thank you sister for your realistic comments comments
-
As-salam alaykum
Wa'alaikumussalam
This is a very refreshing statement of yours.
I want to state clearly my view that Parwez could be wrong sometimes
I have never ever supported Parwez unless the points he makes appeal to my reason. I am answerable to Allah, not to Parwez or anyone in the world.
With regards the specific comment you have shared below in blue, please see my email exchange with Dr. Khalid Zaheer who is the Vice-President of Al-Mawrid which is an institution of which Javed Ahmad Ghamidi is founder-president. I believe you will find this of interest as I have already sought clarification on behalf of some other readers.
Intersting! You had sought clarification for the same statement I quoted!! This is different than what Dr. Shabbir had posted and hence confusing!. Anyhow, it is not a concern for me whether he said "had I done done it today my style of presentation would have been different" or "My criticism on Parwez Saheb Marhoom was ill-conceived until I understood him better." Nobody knows what will be Ghamidi's style of presentation after another 10 years!! By making such a strong attack against Parwez earlier, Ghamidi closed the possibility of even retracting from his comments ever! He went beyond intellectual criticism, and reached somewhat a level of personal attack on Parwez which is not befitting for a true scholar to do so. May be this is what he is apologizing at the moment. Anyhow, as you will admit, Ghamidi's criticism of Parwez can not be the criteria to judge what is wrong and what is right.
Regards,
Optimist
-
It seems like Mr. Shabbir Ahmad is not a reliable source of information !!! Saba
In this case, it seems not very reliable.
-
He went beyond intellectual criticism, and reached somewhat a level of personal attack on Parwez which is not befitting for a true scholar to do so. May be this is what he is apologizing at the moment. Anyhow, as you will admit, Ghamidi's criticism of Parwez can not be the criteria to judge what is wrong and what is right.
Regards,
Optimist
I disagree. See the video with an honest mind and heart and note that Ghamidi Saab's critique is very strong and convincing and it is mainly academic. He is not a criteria as you say, but if someone's criticism is convincing, it is convincing! period. I don't mean any disrespect to anyone, but I wouldn't expect a supporter of a particular ideology or scholar to entertain constructive criticism very well anyway.
This is as true for the traditionalist followers as it is for the qur'anist followers or anyone else from any other religion or thinking.
Readers who can understand Urdu will be able to see for themselves the nature of the criticism. I mainly found it a criticism of an academic nature not personal and pretty on the mark.
Here is the link once again anyway for those that understand Urdu. Saba
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=444.msg1382#msg1382
-
It seems like Mr. Shabbir Ahmad is not a reliable source of information !!! Saba
In this case, it seems not very reliable.
I don't find Mr. Shabbir reliable in lots of ways, not just in this case. Take a look at this below
http://quransmessage.com/expose/dr-shabbir-razi%20FM3.htm
A proper scholar would retract his statement when shown the errors of their way. I have come to know that some people have tried to contact him about this, but apart from petty, ridiculous excuses, he has not provided anything to address this. Oh no! he won't budge. It beats me why people follow certain people blindly. Saba
-
note that Ghamidi Saab's critique is very strong and convincing and it is mainly academic.
Ghamidi said Parwez knowledge and understanding in Arabic was poor. This is an arrogant remark not befitting for a scholar. Don't worry, even in the communication received by Joseph Islam (ignore Dr. Shabbir), it is said "What he might have said to Dr Shabbir is that had I done done it today my style of presentation would have been different". Most probably he later realised the knowledge of Parwez in Arabic (may be). It is not required to state ""Ghamidi Saab's critique is very strong and convincing" when he himself is 'apologetic' about his approach earlier. Ask Ghamidi Saab to make a fresh video first and post it. Actually he should take necessary action to delete the video first if he feels his approach was not fully correct.
Here is a comment posted by someone for the video.
Islam Quran 6 months ago
Whoever says G A Parwez dont know arabic, is ignorant about who G A Parwez was and about his work,
-
I don't find Mr. Shabbir reliable in lots of ways, not just in this case. Take a look at this below
This I have read earlier. Thank you brother Joseph Islam for your effort to make people know the real facts. I know also couple of other examples (in his quran translation) where he seems deliberately twisting meanings to promote certain strange views. But I do not think he is completely unreliable in all circumstances. I have noticed couple of verses he has explained in QXP, comparatively - according to me - in a better way than Parwez and other Quran translators.
-
Thanks Bro JAi for sharing. Bro Optimist Please don't quote strange translations on this Forum. Please watch Allama Ghamidi's review on GAPerwaiz's translation particularly of Surah Mamal. Thanks
Peace!
Dear Sardar,
Like most of the readers here, I feel that the verbal direct literal meaning is sufficient here, however, I do not feel that the explanation from Parwez is 'strange' as you seem to have projected. What I felt strange is your suggestion not to quote such "strange" explanations. For me the explanation given is just "interesting" only, and I politely do not want to understand the issue in an allegorical way. According to me, the message was simple and very plain.
Having said so, I want to state, actually, the allegorical way of explaining facts is no strange to Quran. We all know, Allah conveys certain facts - through the medium of Dream - using certain symbols, signs, metaphor and allegory. For example, the king who saw the dream, in the story of Yousuf, “seven lean cows devouring seven fat cows” had a divine hidden meaning of; “Ye shall sow seven years as usual, but that which ye reap, leave it in the ear, all save a little which ye eat. Then after that will come seven hard years which will devour all that ye have prepared for them, save a little of that which ye have stored. (12:47-48)
Similarly, "I see myself (in a dream) carrying bread on my head, and birds are eating"(12:36) had the meaning of “getting crucified so that the birds will eat from his head” (12:41).
Therefore, there is always a "possibility" that Allah may convey certain facts through allegories. I agree the issue here is “Dream”, but, according to me, the subject matter is the same, i.e., Allah “communicates” certain facts through the medium of dream using "allegories". I will say that, both extreme views are not good. We should respect both literal and allegorical views considering the element of “possibility” for both views. I cannot agree with those who insist to interpret something as allegorical and also those who insist to interpret as literal. However, we should use our logic and reason to understand if something could be an allegory, with an attitude to tolerate both views. Especially things like Solomon listening to an ant’s speech and an ant "recognizing" and "identifying" Solomon, understanding facts and behaving like a human being, I prefer to keep open the “possibility” of Allah informing us certain facts based on allegory, especially in the light of the verses mentioned above, and at the same time open to positively recognize the views of others who want to understand it in a literal sense.
Regards, Islamist
-
Thanks for sharing. Have gone through Allama Ghamidi's critiquing on GA Perwaiz's translation which is available on this Forum? Pl go through & find out. Thanks
-
Thanks for sharing. Have gone through Allama Ghamidi's critiquing on GA Perwaiz's translation which is available on this Forum? Pl go through & find out. Thanks
Why should I listen to someone criticizing someone when I do not agree on taking extreme views? I prefer a middle path -unlike you- and I want to evaluate things, case by case, with an open mind to tolerate both views. And to make a point clear, I may have an opinion something is allegory based on my logic and understanding, but I do not want to impose my view on others and to criticise others for taking a different view. For example, I sincerely think there is possibility of allegory in the description of Solomon’s communication with an Ant. It is my personal view only, and it is not Parwez who explained it as an allegory for the first time, however, as I said, I respect the view of others who want to understand it in a literal sense though the reasoning for such an explanation I came across so far not really convincing for me. If anyone can give me a satisfactory logical reasoning to prove that an ant can “think” like a human being and deliver ‘thoughts’ through “speech” similar like human being, and that it had known Solomon earlier so as to “recognize” and “identify” him, and it had the “knowledge” of Solomon’s mission, I can agree on a literal understanding. Just imagine, if there was such thing like real ants ‘communicating’ with Solomon he would have spent a difficult time entire his life “to save” all ants on his way. Even while typing this message I can notice an ant on the wall and it is really scary for me to think that it knows me and understand what type of person I am, like my neighbors in the other flat!! We should have a realistic approach. The Quran is full of wisdom. I do not like an argument on this topic. That’s it and this is my final post here.
-
Shalom / Peace Islamist and everyone
On the point made about literal over allegorical on the stories of ants and animals talking etc, there is a great discussion between bro Joseph and Jawaid. I think Jawaid follows Dr. Shabbir of ourbeacon and some of Ghulam Parwez's line of thinking so he obv i think takes a more allegorical view. However I think bro Jawaid's views are more extreme in some ways that he rejects ritual namaaz, the need to do dua etc etc.
http://www.salaatforum.com/index.php?mode=thread&id=328#p335
However, I thought id provide the link. Its a good debate re the allegorical over literal understanding of this incident ... I think we can't sit on the fence on this one.. what I mean is we can't say its both. It is either one or the other but depends on which side has the greater evidence.
However I do think bro Joseph raises some very strong points esp. on his linguistic analysis and what the Qur'an actually says as opposed to what is commonly understood when thinking about these stories in general.
In the end I am thinking, its about which side has the stronger evidence or case which is more convincing ......>
Sorry for talking about a matter unrelated to the main topic. If this discussion continues, it might be an idea to create a new thread for it.
-
Peace!
Thanks Duster for sharing an interesting discussion! I had posted I do not want to get involved in any argument on this. However, after reading your post and going through the link I thought a point is needed to be clarified. So let me make a final posting.
According to me, the issue is NOT whether an ant can “speak”, but the issue is whether ants have the capacity to identify, recognize, perceive things like a human being, whether it had the ability to recognize Solomon, who was most probably at the least a mile away, to have sufficient time for all ants to find "safe place" in their ‘dwellings’ and most importantly, the possibility of any ant having advance knowledge of who was Solomon, his character, his mission, etc. Scientific references to show an ant can "speak" cannot help here.
Here is wiki notes about ant’s eye sight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant#cite_note-39
Compared to vertebrates, most ants have poor-to-mediocre eyesight and a few subterranean species are completely blind. Some ants such as Australia's bulldog ant, however, have excellent vision and are capable of discriminating the distance and size of objects moving nearly a metre away*
*Eriksson, E. Sture (1985). "Attack behaviour and distance perception in the Australian bulldog ant Myrmecia nigriceps". J. Exp. Biol. 119: 115–131.
Here is some interesting notes about an ant's ability to "THINK" and "ANALYSE" facts. I am sure many others can post many more intersting facts.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061018094651.htm
Professor Tom Collett from the University of Sussex's Centre for Neuroscience, explained: "To show that ants use visual memory to navigate we trained ants to find food 10cm from a cylinder. We then doubled the size of the cylinder and the ants searched for the food at 20cm away where the retinal size of the landmark was the same. "To analyse the ants' powers of recall an ambiguous a situation was set up. Ants were trained to search for food between two cylinders of different sizes and then tested with the training cylinders replaced by two cylinders of the same size. Would ants know which cylinder is which? They were only able to search in the predicted place when a patterned background was introduced as a retrieval cue
I read at one place the method used by Ants to gather food.
By following pheromone trails created by other ants from the colony, foraging ants can gather and store food efficiently. A scout ant first leaves the nest in search of food, and wanders somewhat randomly until it discovers something edible. It will then consume some of the food and return to the nest in a straight, direct line. It seems these scout ants can observe and recall visual cues that enable them to navigate quickly back to the nest. Along the return route, the scout ant leaves a trail of pheromones, special scents that will guide her nestmates to the food. The foraging ants then follow her path, each one adding more scent to the trail to reinforce it for others. The workers will continue walking back and forth along the line until the food source is depleted
If an ant, in the story of Solomon, could make an announcement to all ants in a valley to take shelter in their homes without being crushed by solomon and his army, and we should assume here Solomon and all ants in the valley instantaneously head this announcement, why ants have to follow the above complicated process for a simple thing of gathering food?
Anyhow, in verse 2:26 Allah states the possibility of using simile even that of a mosquito to convey certain facts. Therefore illustrations using ant to convey certain facts is a clear possibility. The important question is, why should we insist that there is no question of Allah using an allegory using an ant? What is the need to take an extreme position? Why we can not approach the issue with a flexible mind?
Regards, Islamist