Messages

526

General Discussions / Re: Never stand in it

« on: September 30, 2012, 03:23:35 AM »

Salaam Orange,

In addition to the above reply, you may find this of help:

9:107 And those who take* (to themselves) a maSJD (for) harming and concealment/rejection and division between the believers and preparing/observing** for whoever battled/warred God and His messenger from before. And they will swear "not we wish except the good", and God bears witness that indeed they are liars.
9:108 Do not observe/maintain/stand in it ever. A maSJD founded on God-consciousness from the first day/period is more worthy/truer that you maintain/stand/observe in it; in it (are) men who love to purify themselves. And God loves those who purify.
9:109 Is one who founded his building/structure (bunyan) on protection/forethought/conciousness from/of God and His approval better, or one who founded his building on the edge of a cliff about to crumble, so it crumbled with him into the fire of Hell? And God does not guide the wrongdoing people.
9:110 Their building/structure (bunyan) which they built will not cease to be a doubt in their hearts except/until that cut to pieces their hearts. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.
*verb form 8, reflexive.
** is a verbal noun, indicating the act of doing as well as the noun itself, thus the meaning can also include "as a preparation/observation"

The verse discusses those concealing themselves under the guise of being good-doers so they can harm/divide believers, spy and help enemies etc. Some related evidence of this understanding, see 58:16, 63:2, 16:92, 16:94.
    The word "bunyan" does not necessarily mean a physical building here, see 16:26 in which it is commonly taken as a metaphor. It seems to be about the works of an individual, as not everyone can build a mosque. No physical structure will crumble with the disbeliever in the fire of Hell but it is the structure of polytheism/rejection/wrongdoing/etc that will ultimately crumble with him in the fire of Hell. In other words, this usage could be a metaphor, similar to 16:26.
    M. Asad notes: "In verses 109-110, the reference to "the building which they have built" is, obviously, widened beyond the preceding allusion to houses of worship, and allegorically circumscribes here all the "works" and the behaviour of men."
    There is possibly an issue if we take 9:108 to mean "do not stand in it (i.e. Mosque) ever", because how are believers meant to differentiate Mosques and actually do this, if in 9:107 it implies believers could be duped by such people? Traditionalists explain the context as referring to a rival Mosque being built. Does this mean such a Mosque could NEVER be stood in by a believer? The point being that by using "ever" seems very absolute. If it is not delimited in some way, it could seem impractical/unusual. We could reason that once such a Mosque was not used for this, e.g. run by believers, then believers could stand/observe in it. For example, if "maSJD" meant "time of SJD" then by definition, it would be delimited.
    It may be interesting to note that in 18:21 a maSJD seems sufficiently distinct from a bunyan, yet in 9:107-110 IF they (maSJD and bunyan) are taken as the same thing/reference, as is traditionally understood, they seem interchangeable here. Thus, one might expect one side in 18:21 to clarify what kind of building is being proposed by the other side, as they may well have meant a mosque, but this is not addressed.

From: http://www.mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-quran.html

527

General Discussions / Re: Why should we face towards the Kaaba(mecca) while praying ?

« on: September 30, 2012, 03:21:56 AM »

salaam Saba, all,

I am personally in general quite fed up of people highlighting in their opinion 'problems' with 'traditional understandings' yet what they offer in return is often more of a mess than the traditional understanding and does less to reconcile quranic verses with major gaping holes!

I agree. Personally, if I do write about an alternative, a key aim would be to have it make more sense than what I was critiquing. And of course having it make sense within the Arabic language etc.  However, always proposing an alternative is not a requirement to engage in such discussion. My method can be read here:
http://www.quran434.com/study-method.html

In the article I am writing (part 3 of my series on SuJuD, about 'al masjid al haram') I will offer an alternative that fits better in my view.

However, since it might be a week or two till I finish it, God Willing, I can post what I have written on the "change of qiblah" verses, for people to ponder over if they wish:

Abbreviations:
AMAH = al masjid al haram
AQ = al quran

The following is a list of the problems regarding this traditional explanation:

1) It is entirely an interpretation based on external sources (i.e. traditions). The terms "kaabah", "mecca", "AMAH", "turn your wajh/face/consideration", "masjid" etc are NEVER discussed elsewhere in AQ involving a specific physical direction, nor is an example given of anyone performing salat in a particular direction. Some cite 4:102 but please see part 1 of this series for its analysis.

2) The word "qiblah" does not clearly mean "prayer direction" in any AQ occurrence, nor does the root QBL in any form.

3) All traditional commentators translate the only other occurrence of the specifc noun "qiblah" (apart from these verses) in 10:87 as "oratories / places of worship" not "prayer direction". The likely reason is that to do so would make little sense as 10:87 says "...and make your houses a qiblah...". Further, they turn it into a plural here, whilst elsewhere it is singular.

4) In addition to 2:142, the following verses also clearly imply turning to a specific direction is irrelevant, e.g. 2:115 says "for God is the east and the west so wherever you turn so there is God's wajh/presence/consideration...", 2:177 "...it is not righteousness that you turn your wujuh/faces/considerations towards/qibala the east and the west...". Note the similar words used "turn/walla", "wherever/ayna", "wajh/face/consideration", and these messages (the only ones of their kind) are only found in chapter 2, and the only times verb form 2 of "turn" is used in chapter 2 are 2:115, 2:142-150, 2:177. Some commentators explain this away by saying there was no prayer direction initially, and later this was abrogated, and so on. However, note that in terms of sequence, this same message is given prior to AND after the "change of qiblah" verses. Interestingly, some traditional commentators accept that any direction is not special, and the only thing that makes it special is God having imposed it, no other reason.

5) The verses do not say turn in the direction of the "Kaabah", but AMAH. One may ask then, what does one do once inside AMAH or next to it.

6) The verses do not say turn your wajh DURING salat, this is an inserted interpretation. In fact, it explicitly says "wherever you are" / "wherever thou start or come forth", implying no limitation, and if so, this would make it impossible to face one direction all the time.

7) Technically, it is impossible to face an object on a spheroid (i.e. earth) if you are a long distance away from it. One actually faces a random point in space, and even if one were to draw a line on the earth's surface in a direction towards the intended object being even one degree off can result in being many miles away from the object. Thus, it is actually near impossible to do, unless in close proximity to the object, so if one wishes to take this interpretation, one must accept facing one direction is symbolic only.

8 ) Note how 2:141 clearly implies the past is the past, but according to the traditional understanding the verses which follow are about resuming the qiblah of Abraham et al. Seems a mixed message.

9) The reason given for the apparent change in qiblah is "not will be for the people against you debate", and "that I may complete My favour upon you and so that you may be guided". The traditional commentators try to explain these away using traditions, see Al Jalalayn (altafsir.com), ibn Kathir (qtafsir.com), Asad (quranix.net). Interestingly, traditional Islamic history shows that their relations with the Jewish tribes of Medina only worsened after this point - potentially contradicting the reasoning offered in AQ.

10) 2:145 says "...nor will they follow each other's qiblah..." - a much missed point is the fact that the traditional understanding of "qiblah" as "prayer direction" requires the people of the book to have a minimum of TWO different "qiblah" or "prayer directions" in order to make sense logically, i.e. Jews pray one direction, Christians pray another. I did not find a commentator who explained this away. It is possible they did not realise this. However, there is apparently some evidence to suggest early Christians prayed facing east, and Jews faced Jerusalem, thus satisfying the two-minimum criteria. To me the context of this suggests people can have many qiblah, even their own individual qiblah, i.e. more than two.

11) If these verses were revealed in Medina, as alleged, then the direction of Jerusalem from there is clearly north-west, not west.

12) If facing the cuboid called "Kaabah" pleased the messenger, as implied in 2:144, then it should be noted it was full of idols at the time, as even accepted in traditional sources. They allege that since it was the first house dedicated to worship, built by Abraham, this was more important than the fact it was filled with idols and a pagan symbol, hence "pleased".

13) IF the cuboid called "Kaabah" was also the qiblah of Abraham, as agreed upon by traditionalists, then it should be noted prophets Moses and Jesus (who came after Abraham) were NEVER recorded, in any source, as visiting it nor facing it during prayer. This would be extremely unusual. Thus, the explanation sometimes given is that Jerusalem was the legitimate qiblah for Moses/Jesus, and then the original qiblah (i.e. cuboid called Kaabah) was restored with the final revelation, i.e. Quran. This requires us to believe for some reason God changed it, then restored it, and now seemingly assigns blame to the people of the book for not accepting this change. Can we really blame them for not changing, as this explanation is tantamount to God being the source of confusion, which is unacceptable in my view. Further, it is implied in 2:146 that some of the people of the kitab/book know that this change is the truth, implying in their own scriptures somewhere this qiblah is mentioned or that their qiblah will be superseded by a future messenger etc - if so, where is this information? Perhaps further research needs to be done in this area.

14) AMAH as a building likely did not exist at the time, as admitted by traditional sources, and refers to the area/site (see Encyclopaedia of Quran, volume 3, p77). How this was delineated is anyone's guess. Please note some commentators regard AMAH as Mecca in some verses, e.g. 9:28.

15) As is clear from the last part of 2:144, the only requirement for knowing the true "qiblah" is to be given the decree/scripture from our Lord. There is no requirement to have a compass or to consult a geographical map to know the true "qiblah" from our Lord.

16) IF the Jerusalem qiblah was appointed by God, then indirectly implies the messenger was dissatisfied with such a qiblah when 2:144 says "...We see thy face/consideration shifting in the sky..." and "...that will please thee...", i.e. was the messenger dissatisfied with a command from God?

17) The use of masculine suffix pronoun "hu/it" in these verses is somewhat problematic, as IF "it" refers to AMAH as a physical building then it seems odd (e.g. they recognise it/AMAH as they recognise their sons). Tafsir Al Jalalayn states the "it" in 2:146 refers to Muhammad, Ibn Kathir says it could be Muhammad or Kaabah but unfortunately for him the latter is a feminine noun so it cannot be that. Perhaps Ibn Kathir meant AMAH. Some translators imply the "it" refers to the qiblah but again, this is a feminine noun (see the use of feminine "ha/it" in 2:143 for confirmation of this). For me, the variance is telling. It should be strongly noted that in AQ Abraham is never said to have built AMAH, nor is it explicitly mentioned in his presence, thus for the people of the writ/decree to link this to Abraham and recognise AMAH as the truth is somewhat difficult.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to state with certainty what the masculine pronoun "hu" refers to, but in my humble opinion, the flow and logic of the verses suggest it=AMAH, especially considering the usage of "it is the truth from your Lord" in 2:144, 2:147 and 2:149.

18) 2:145 would imply that if the messenger were to follow their qiblah after these revelations then he would be a wrongdoer and following their desires, yet he was apparently following it previously. Is there a precedent for this in AQ, i.e. doing X is allowed then a future revelation clearly changes doing X to desires/wrongdoing? Not to my knowledge.

19) The expression "turn + wajh", is used in 6:79 and rendered as "I shall turn my face to the One who created the heavens and the earth..." but explained as "making his religion and works sincere" (e.g. Ibn Kathir), likely because this was prior to the alleged building of the cuboid called "Kaaba", thus to render it as a physical direction when such a place did not exist would be problematic for Traditionalists, yet they take this same phrase to mean physical directional command here. Also see "wajh" in 'Verbal Idioms of Quran' by Mustansir Mir. This shows that this phrase does have a link to mindset/sincerity/intention/approach/etc even in traditional sources. The phrase is also used in 28:22 (albeit "turn" is verb form 5 not 2) and likely denotes an actual physical turning of one's face, but uses the Arabic word "tilq'aa" for "towards" not "shatra (in the direction)" like these verses. Perhaps "til'qaa" is more appropriate for a physical turning towards, also see 7:47.  It is somewhat peculiar "shatra" is used, rather than the more common "ila/to" for example, IF it did mean a physical face turning towards/to something.
As a side note, also recall how in part 2 it was shown the phrase "aqim wajh" had no link to a physical face or directional command.

20) IF it was a reference to turning towards another direction in prayer, then to me, it seems odd that in 2:142 it states the foolish (al sufahau) will ask "what has turned them from..." when this seems like a reasonable question to ask. Think about it, if you were there as an observer, and a group prayed towards X then Y for about 18 months (as the traditional story goes) then back to X again, wouldn't you ask "why" also? If so, you are of the foolish ones according to the traditional understanding.

It is fairly thorough. Feel free to share your thoughts on it.

528

Islamic Duties / Re: Why wudu?

« on: September 30, 2012, 03:00:40 AM »

w/salaam,

Thanks for the info, but I'm not sure I'd agree with "Quran says...." the part below.

Quran says keep your homes clean and your clothes clean when in mosques. 

If you are referring to 7:29, 7:31, then please see: http://www.mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-quran.html

529

General Discussions / Re: Why should we face towards the Kaaba(mecca) while praying ?

« on: September 29, 2012, 11:42:20 PM »

Salaam Adil,

You ask a good question.

In my opinion, the traditional understanding of the "change in qiblah" verses is riddled with problems.

I am currently writing an article on it. I will link to it here in due course.

530

Islamic Duties / Re: Why wudu?

« on: September 29, 2012, 11:29:19 PM »

salaam,

Generally speaking:

if one is going to be in the presence of others, then it is best to be clean.

when one is clean one feels more fresh, perhaps concentrate better.

cleansing oneself with water etc is good hygeine practice.

recommending cleaning by water places an emphasis of being close to a water supply, access etc.

purifying with clean soil can and likely does reduce germ-load on hands etc (try it yourself, put ketchup on your hands, go to the beach and rub them in sand - after, do you have less ketchup on your hands?)

following a routine in preparation for something can lead to priming/tuning the mind for that task.

etc
etc.

531

General Discussions / Re: Why testimony of one men is equal to that of 2 womens?

« on: September 20, 2012, 03:05:07 AM »

Also see:
http://misconceptions-about-islam.com/two-female-witnesses-one-male.htm

532

Discussions / Interesting documentary on the origins of Islam

« on: September 14, 2012, 07:38:55 AM »

See: https://vimeo.com/49317210

I thought it was good overall, but he seemed to mislead in some claims, e.g. he seemed to imply there is no mention of Muhammad anywhere except on coins ~60 years after his alleged death. But see part 1 in this rebuttal: http://www.iera.org.uk/press_29aug2012.html
Also there is a good explanation for that since Quran is a strictly monotheistic book and it is likely the earliest adherents to the faith understood this and gave no elevation of prophet Muhammad. Interestingly, Holland states that all we pretty much know about the earliest conquering Arabs arriving in Jerusalem is that they believed in one God, called themselves "believers", and had an instructor (or instruction?). This is pretty much the theory as discussed in Fred Donner's book "Muhammad and the believers at the origins of islam", which I recommend reading.

533

General Discussions / Re: Questions about Makkah or Bakkah article

« on: September 07, 2012, 09:50:57 PM »

Peace Joseph,

Thanks for the reply.

Re: 1)
Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying no animals are sacrificed at al kaabah. I dont think this can explicitly be shown either way, but my point was the offering does go there, this is clear. What happens after that one can discuss options.

Re: 2)
I agree that it cannot be conclusively shown al safa and al marwa are "ancient Abrahamic rites", but my point was the same wording and context of HaJJ is used. One can say they are not "ancient Abrahamic rites" but it wouldn't be based on anything solid.

Re: 3)
I assume therefore you take TWF to mean circumbambulate in some verses and not in others? If so, that is fine, but I was just clarifying as it doesn't come across as that in your article.

534

General Discussions / Questions about Makkah or Bakkah article

« on: September 07, 2012, 08:15:22 AM »

salaam Joseph,

Re: http://quransmessage.com/articles/makkah%20bakkah%20FM3.htm

I would like clarification on the following please:

1)
You said:

"The Quran makes it clear that sacrifices took place inside the ancient house or at its location.  This is extremely difficult to reconcile with the location of the Kaaba as even today, no sacrifices take place at or around the Kaaba or anywhere within the precincts of the haram. Let us note the verse:
 
022.033
You have advantages in them till a fixed time, then their place of sacrifice (Arabic: Mahilluha) is at (Arabic: ila) the Ancient House (Arabic: Baitul-ateeq).
 
The above verse clearly informs the reader that the place of sacrifice (mahiloha) is at (ila) the house (Bait) ancient (Ateeq). Sacrifice has never been performed at or inside the Kaaba or the Masjid Haram premises. It is performed at Mina.

However:

5:95 ...an offering/gift reaching al kaabah

5:97 God has made al kaabah, (which is) al bayt al haram, a qiyaman for............. the offerings/gifts.......


2)
You said:

Safa and Marwah are never mentioned as an 'ancient Abrahamic rite' within any Quranic context.

However earlier in section 8, when making the case for Abrahamic rites, you quoted 22:32 in which the term "shaAAa-ira Allahi" is used, and this is the same term used in 2:158 for safwa and marwa, also in the context of HaJJ.


3) You translated 2:158 as "....he circumambulates (Arabic: Tawaafa) both of them..."

Do you mean to say going around the hills is meant, not in-between them, as is done today? I'm not even sure if going around them hills is possible today, maybe.


Thanks.

535

Discussions / Debate: Traditional Islam Vs Quran based islam

« on: September 07, 2012, 07:03:54 AM »

salaam all,

I thought members may find this thread helpful (click)

It is very long, and a little jumbled, as multiple threads were joined together, but it raises many good arguments against the problems in Traditional Islamic beliefs and practices.

536

General Discussions / Re: Understanding 111:1 of Quran without using secondary Islamic sources?

« on: August 29, 2012, 06:18:12 AM »

salaam,


"abu lahab" literally means "father (of) flame", i.e. provocateur, a metaphor for the originator of fire/hate/destruction.

Now put this into the verse and re-read it please.

In my view, it is referring to an archetype, as Quran does in many places. It is an excellent play on words, as essentially one will get what they give, i.e. law of requital, and in these verses "abu lahab" ends up in the "lahab/flame" in 111:3. The "wife" (or metaphorically, the accomplice) adds fuel to this fire, and in 111:5 it says "in/on "her" neck will be a rope from twisted fibre", suggesting whoever adds fuel to the fire, their fate is intertwined, with the father of flame. The neck is used in Quran as a symbol to tie one's deeds/fate to, e.g. 17:13.

And lastly, as we all know from Traditional Islamic sources, that "Abu Lahab" was apparently a nicname, yet we are told not to call each other by nicnames in 49:11, so is God using a nicname in 111:1?

The only way out of this possible contradiction is to say "Abu Lahab" is not derogatory, it is complimentary! For example, see Asad's notes:

Muhammad Asad - End Note 1 (111:1)
The real name of this uncle of the Prophet was Abd al-Uzza. He was popularly nicknamed Abu Lahab (lit., "He of the Flame") on account of his beauty, which was most notably expressed in his glowing countenance (Baghawi, on the authority of Muqatil; Zamakhshari and Razi passsim in their comments on the above verse; Fath al-Bari VIII, 599), Since this nickname, or kunyah appears to have been applied to him even before the advent of Islam, there is no reason to suppose that it had a pejorative significance. - The expression "hands" in the above clause is, in accordance with classical Arabic usage, a metonym for "power", alluding to the great influence which Abu Lahab wielded.

I will let readers decide on that aspect.

And lastly, even if it was referring to one specific person, it is unnecessary to determine who this person is, it adds nothing critically important.

537

General Discussions / Re: Surah fatiha (The opening) , different translation of last verse by MAS Abdel Haleem ?

« on: August 22, 2012, 04:10:36 AM »

AFAIK the arabic literally says: "path of those You have bestowed/favoured on them not those who received anger on them and not those who go astray"

l-maghḍūbi is genitive masculine passive participle, meaning they received the action expressed in the verb. The question arises: received anger from where/whom/what?

538

Islamic Duties / Re: Illustration on Marriage contract

« on: August 17, 2012, 01:23:40 AM »

Additional information, the divorce procedure according to The Quran:

'cooling-off' period for those who swear away from their wives sexually, limited to 4 months [2:226]*

after this 4 month 'cooling-off' period, the options are: revert to normal relations or divorce/talaq [2:227]

post-divorce interim/waiting period is 3 menstruation periods or 3 months, if pregnant it is until they deliver, if widowed it is 4 months and 10 days [2:228, 2:234, 65:4]

if no sex has taken place after marriage, then no interim period is required after divorce/talaq [33:49]. Compensation may be due however if dower was agreed upon [2:237]

during post-divorce interim period, wife remains in the same house, and is compensated by way of maintenance during this period in the same living standard as the husband, each according to their means [2:236, 2:241, 65:1, 65:6-7]**

divorce is automatically retracted if sex between the couple takes place during the interim period [inference from 2:226, 33:49, 65:1]***

if couple reconciles, then divorce/talaq may be retracted twice during interim-period. If divorced a third time it is final unless she marries another then they divorce, only then can original partners re-marry. If the couple fear they will not maintain God's bounds, then wife may give some dowry back to release herself [2:229-230]

if couple still wishes to follow through with the divorce/talaq after the end of the interim period and undergo final separation, then two witnesses are required to complete the process [65:2]

exceptions exist, in certain situations [60:10-11]

the onus is upon the person in the wrong to rectify the situation or initiate divorce/release, and it is an obligation upon the contract-breaking party to compensate the other [2:229, 2:237, 4:19, 4:128-129, 33:28, 60:10-11]

As a side note, the last point is also mentioned in traditional Islamic law and sources, see M.Asad's note on 2:229. This system would also protect the male if he were to marry a female who only did so for his money or the marital gift then she wished to end the marriage later, because since the contract-breaking party compensates the other partner, she would have to do so accordingly. Similarly, this would protect the female if she were to marry a male who only did so for lustful reasons then wished to end the marriage later, as he would then have to compensate her.

*Also possibly provides a time limit due to a practice of the time in which husbands did not have sex with their wives but also did not divorce them, see 58:1-4, 33:4; i.e. leaving them in a state between marriage and divorce. Similar to what is implied by 4:129.

**And the same goes for the lesser situation of 'cooling-off' period. Obviously, the wife would not be removed from the home for the lesser serious 'cooling-off' period then brought back just for the post-divorce interim period.

***Inference from 2:226 is that resumption of sexual relations is equated to reconciliation, thus no initiation of divorce. Hence, same proviso for post-divorce interim period, i.e. sex = reconciliation.

539

General Discussions / Re: Was the flood on Noah's people global or local ?

« on: August 14, 2012, 07:06:41 AM »

w/salaam,

In addition:

I checked this in the past. If memory serves me correctly, the word in question is "ard" and it can mean earth or ground/land, context will determine which. The word itself does not specify the extent of land/ground however.

540

General Discussions / Re: On translations of the Quran

« on: August 14, 2012, 05:14:36 AM »

w/salaam,

All translations are imperfect. The key is to use a sound method (e.g. here) when studying translations and use the quality tools/resources out there, e.g. see www.StudyQuran.org

Having said that, my personal favourite is Muhammad Asad's, mainly because he strives to remain true to the spirit of Quran and applies logic throughout. In my view, it does have many errors however.

With regard to taqwa, this is a decent article.