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 - Wakas

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 34
Al Quran can be tested/verified in many ways. Here are a few things to ponder:

When you buy a self-assembly piece of furniture (e.g. from Ikea) and it comes with instructions, how can you verify the accuracy/truthfulness of those instructions?

Bring a chapter like it? e.g. 10:37-38

Some more [ur=]examples[/url]:
21:10, 30:30, 41:53, 51:20-21  - its information and teachings should map to our reality (within our psyche, experience and to the furthest horizons). All signs, internal and external can point to the truth of it and act as a verification mechanism.
29:20, 3:137, 3:190-191, 45:3-4 - knowledge of archaeology/biology/physics/history/sciences/philosophy etc will all help to better understand it.

Blind faith? I don't think so:
6:75-79, 21:57-67, 36:78-79, 21:22, 23:91, 2:258, 12:26-27, 22:5-6, 2:260 - promotes logical thinking.
2:269, 8:22 - strong affinity towards use of wisdom and reason.
49:6, 45:24, 6:116, 53:28, 2:111, 21:24 - disapproves of conjecture/guesswork and promotes examination of evidence.

General Discussions / Re: How To Refute This Article on Hadith?
« on: November 02, 2019, 04:45:51 PM »
Hate to put you out, but can you refute every point in the article?

I only refuted the conclusion you seemingly drew from it.

General Discussions / Re: How To Refute This Article on Hadith?
« on: October 31, 2019, 08:56:11 AM »
Is Zihar mentioned in classical arabic dictionaries/works that did not take it from hadith?

I don't know as I've never looked into that.

It seems the article is claiming that it was only in the hadith...

They say "hadith literature defines zihar as". They never explicitly say it's only mentioned in hadith and not classical arabic dictionaries/works (i.e. non-hadith).

"..and they specify a dictionary which has taken it from the hadith.

Can you provide a quote from the article?

General Discussions / Re: How To Refute This Article on Hadith?
« on: October 30, 2019, 10:56:13 PM »
If you read the article they mention examples.

They mentioned one example (zihar) and never said it wasn't discussed in Classical Arabic dictionaries/works (i.e. non-Hadith source).


General Discussions / Re: How To Refute This Article on Hadith?
« on: October 29, 2019, 09:22:19 PM »
If I understand correctly the article is claiming that hadith defines words in the QUran that do not have a definition anywhere else.

Do they give some specific examples?

And do they clearly say these words are not mentioned in classical arabic dictionaries/works?

Women / Re: Surah Al-Nur 31.Verse
« on: October 26, 2019, 03:27:40 PM »
We can also use indirect evidence from the verse itself, see here.

From the above verse it can be deduced that for the purposes of women's dress code two types of beauty are described:

1) What is apparent (this can be revealed in public)
2) What is hidden (this type must be covered in public, but could be revealed by a striking of feet or walk/stride which is revealing)

Such a striking of feet or walk could only reveal a limited number of parts of the body, e.g. the private parts, buttocks, thighs, breasts, hips, thus any part not revealed by such an action should not be considered part of hidden beauty and therefore part of apparent beauty. Of course, this means such things as face, hair, hands, feet etc would not clearly fall into the category of beauty that is meant to be hidden. Furthermore, the verse clearly brackets what beauty it is referring to by saying "...the child who has not yet understood the composition of women" implying it is relating to what is specific to a woman (i.e. what is different between man and woman) nothing else.
This understanding would also fit with The Quran's instruction on the body parts that are to be cleansed during daily ablution (hands, arms, face, head and feet), see 5:6, 4:43.

General Discussions / Re: Prophet Abraham asked to sacrifice his son?
« on: October 17, 2019, 08:50:58 AM »
peace brother Hamzeh,

Thank you for your considered reply. I note however you made no attempt to answer any of the questions cited in the list.

why does God call out to him "O' Abraham, Surely you have believed/confirmed the vision...." when yet Abraham still has not departed or separated from his son at this point.

What is the significance of this?

We do not know when Abraham was called, i.e. if it was immediately after this goodbye embrace, or shortly after etc. Either way my view works perfectly.

If you insist your argument has merit then the same argument can be said against your view, i.e. no actual slaughter took place.

...the son was said he would bare patience while the command was carried. So the command at this stage if taken as separation was not yet carried out nor did the son need to have patience because no separation was done yet and also the significance of the verse when God has called "O' Abraham" has been totally undermined and given little significance.

Please provide your Quranic evidence for your interpretation of the word in red bold above. Again, if you insist your argument has merit then the same argument can be said against your view, i.e. no actual slaughter had yet been carried out.
Interestingly, in your view the patience seems to refer to the son with his head down waiting patiently for the knife to strike (or whatever the slaughter method would be) - if you think this is befitting then each to their own. In any case the son being patient in your interpretation contradicts your interpretation of being flung down, as you put it. I mention this issue in Q4 in my list.

I am also not sure how you interpreted 3:107. You said "In the Abraham leaving scenario the "great/mighty sacrifice" would refer to the great sacrifice made by leaving his beloved son, making it a self-contained explanation."

What is the exchanged or ransom that was done by God for the operation to Abraham? the verse says "Wafadaynahu bithibhin AAatheemin"- "We ransomed him with a sacrifice great".

Would this make sense to say " we ransomed him(Abraham) with a great separation"?

The son was exchanged/ransomed with a mighty/great sacrifice, which Abraham made by separating from his son. This mighty deed was taken into account by God and he/they were rewarded as a result. It is a self contained explanation because there is absolutely nothing else mentioned in context. I prefer this rather than interpolating a sacrificial animal for example, which is the common understanding.

I also disagree with your view that my understanding somehow undermines other aspects of Quranic narratives. In fact, the opposite argument could be made, it is your view that undermines various aspects.

What I found most interesting about your reply was that your view seems to suffer from the objections you raised about mine. Once an attempt has been made to answer the questions in the list I think it will become obvious which view has the most issues, but as always, each to their own.

General Discussions / Re: Prophet Abraham asked to sacrifice his son?
« on: October 11, 2019, 06:57:17 PM »
I have now updated the article with a list of test questions at the end so people can put their understanding to the test.

Direct link.

Nothing in Quran with respect to that AFAIK.

You might find this interesting: [source] quote:

And finally... there are only two verses in the entire Quran which mentions the word hadith and the Prophet together in the same verse.

1) It tells us what happened when the Prophet told his wives a hadith:

The Prophet had trusted some of his wives with a certain hadith, then one of them spread it, and GOD let him know about it. He then informed his wife of part of the issue, and disregarded part. She said: ‘who informed you of this?’. He said: ‘I was informed by the Knowledgeable, the Expert’. [66:3]
If the two of you repent to GOD, then your hearts have listened. But if you band together against him, then GOD is his ally, and so is Gabriel and the righteous believers. Also, the angels are his helpers. [66:4]
If he divorces you, his Lord will substitute other wives in your place who are better than you; submissive, believers, obedient, repentant, worshipers, pious, either previously married, or virgins. [66:5]

2) It tells us that those with the prophet should not stay and wait around for hadith of his when at his house, clearly showing that God differentiates between the hadith of the prophet and His hadith (as contained in The Quran), i.e. they are unequal and unecessary:

O you who believe, do not enter the prophet's homes except if you are invited to a meal, without you forcing such an invitation. But if you are invited, you may enter. And when you finish eating, you shall leave, without staying to wait for hadith. This used to bother the prophet, and he was shy to tell you. But God does not shy away from the truth. And if you ask his wives for something, ask them from behind a barrier. This is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not for you to harm God's messenger, nor that you should marry his wives after him. This is indeed a gross offence with God. [33:53]

The Quran's answer is The Quran itself.

You may find this Quranic argument interesting:

Islamic Duties / Re: Quranic way of praying? Is it reading the Quran? 17:78?
« on: September 14, 2019, 03:57:29 PM »
peace Sstikstof,

s1c4r1us says "i believe 17:78 has the detail of what prayer is, to read the Quran. It's that simple. It says the Quran at dawn is witnessed, so when we pray, we read the Quran."

In your reply to their post, you seem to cite 20:14 as strong evidence for "salat=prayer" yet the evidence you bring is not strong at all. More accurately, what you present is simply one side of the story (the story you agree with aka confirmation bias).

Anyone can look up the roots you mentioned and see they have a much wider meaning than the ones you presented. We can also check the usage in Quran.

Further, it is rather obvious that reading Quran involves remembering God, thus fulfilling "for my remembrance" mentioned in 20:14. And if there was any doubt, see:

20:113 And it was such that We sent it down an Arabic revelation, and We cited in it the warnings, perhaps they will become aware or it will cause for them a remembrance*

*exact same word as used in 20:14.


For those wishing to study any topic in Quran I recommend trying, as best one can, not to read with pre-conceived notions / bias, and apply a robust/systematic approach.

Women / Re: Prophet Job/Aiyub beating his wife (38:44)
« on: September 04, 2019, 09:32:11 PM »

Re: 1)
i dont consider it credible due to it not fitting the Arabic.

Re: 2)If the masculine preposition "hi" in "bihi" can refer to ahl/people then I guess it is theoretically possible, however it would be an unusual application as it would imply a non-literal rendering of "and take in/with your hand a handful..."

As I said the rendering in my previous post has the following qualities:
"To conclude, the understanding presented here for the story of Job fits the grammar, the Arabic, Classical Arabic meanings, logic, cross-referencing and is a self-contained explanation. "

I personally have not come across an understanding more cogent than the above.

Islamic Duties / Re: Prayer according to the Qur'an
« on: September 03, 2019, 09:32:16 PM »

Your translations are unusual. Are they your own?

For a simple list of what Quran says about salat see here.

Women / Re: Prophet Job/Aiyub beating his wife (38:44)
« on: September 03, 2019, 09:26:32 PM »
peace MaHa,

Are you familiar with the following? [source]

Quote (I recommend using the link above as it is better formatted):

Wa khuth bi yadika dighthan fa idribbihi wala tahnath = And take with your hand a bundle, then strike with it, and do not break your oath

According to traditonal interpretations 38:44 was a symbolic strike by Job/Ayyub (upon his wife) with blades of grass, meaning a light/negligible strike was used.

M. Asad's note
In the words of the Bible (The Book of Job ii, 9), at the time of his seemingly hopeless suffering Job's wife reproached her husband for persevering in his faith: "Dost thou still retain thine integrity? Curse God, and die." According to the classical Qur'an-commentators, Job swore that, if God would restore him to health, he would punish her blasphemy with a hundred stripes. But when he did recover, he bitterly regretted his hasty oath, for he realized that his wife's "blasphemy" had been an outcome of her love and pity for him; and thereupon he was told in a revelation that he could fulfill his vow in a symbolic manner by striking her once with "a bunch of grass containing a hundred blades or more". (Cf. 5:89 - "God will not take you to task for oaths which you may have uttered without thought.")

Ibn Kathir (1301-1372 CE)
Reference: online article taken from this book
In this version, it is implied Job promises to strike his wife a hundred stripes simply for her asking why he doesn't call upon God to remove his affliction. This seems a natural question to ask and at most, perhaps shows lack of steadfastness/patience by her, as note, she does not disbelieve in God, and even acknowledges only God can remove the affliction. Interestingly, Job effectively asks this very thing in 21:83. Also, Job is described as a man of patience/sabr, but seemingly had no patience for his wife in this example. It should be noted that punishment for this type of alleged offence by his wife is nowhere to be found in The Quran, and it could be argued this would actually go against its principles. Lastly, when Job's family is returned to him it is described as a mercy in 21:84 and 38:43, i.e. implying it is a positive, making it even less likely that his wife played a negative role in his situation.

Tafsir Al-Qurtubi (1214-1273 CE)
Reference: Vol. 15, p. 212 of this book
In this version, it is said during the ailment of Job, his wife used to beg for him and Satan told her a word of disbelief to say and she told her husband Job, so he became angry with her and took an oath to strike her one hundred lashes, so God ordered Job to fulfil his oath by striking her with the bundle of thin grass.

Tafsir Al-Jalalayn (authors: 1459 & 1505 CE)
In this version, it contradicts the above two accounts, and says it was when she was late in coming to him once. This seems an overly harsh punishment to administer for such an incident, and does not befit the character of Job as described in The Quran.

Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas (authors: 687 & 1414 CE)
In this version, it says it was because she said something that displeased God, hence the punishment. It should be noted strongly, that punishment for allegedly saying something that displeases God is completely unheard of in The Quran, even though there are many examples in it of people ridiculing the prophets, God and The Quran. Therefore, this seems highly unlikely.

It should be noted that NONE of the above contradicting authors cite any Traditional narrations/ahadith to give weight to their interpretations. This could be because no such Traditional narrations/ahadith exist for this verse, and if they do not, then it is unclear where exactly these stories originated from. It is possible they were an embellishment or simply made up to explain the verse. This can be further confirmed by the Biblical account where there is no mention of this incident. It should also be noted that even though The Quran mentions Job briefly (4:163, 6:84, 21:83, 38:41-44), some aspects of his story are not mentioned in the Biblical version and vice versa.

The traditional interpretation is also problematic for another significant reason: if true, it would be the only example of an oath being expiated by way of symbolic gesture in The Quran. In 5:89 and 2:224-225 it clearly states that God will not hold us to account for thoughtless words in our oaths, or those not intended by the heart. And provides us ways to redeem if we break earnest/sincere oaths, e.g. by charity, abstinence/fasting.
Some commentators have used the traditional story of Job to rationalise the interpretation of "beat lightly" in 4:34 even though the circumstances are entirely different.

So, is there an alternative translation and understanding of 38:44? Since DRB and "dighthan (~bundle/handful)" have multiple meanings, there are several possibilities according to Classical Arabic dictionaries, however, upon closer examination of the story of Job in The Quran, the most probable answer is actually contained therein:

And Job when he called unto his Lord: "I have been afflicted with harm, and you are the most merciful of the merciful." [21:83]
So We responded to him, and We removed what was with him of the harm, and We brought him his family and like thereof with them as a mercy from Us and a reminder to those who serve. [21:84]

And recall Our servant Job, when he called upon his Lord: "The serpent/cobra* has afflicted/touched me with distress/difficulty and suffering/punishment." [38:41]
"Strike with your foot, this is a cool spring to wash with and drink." [38:42]
And We granted his family to him and like thereof with them as a mercy from Us; and a reminder for those who possess intelligence. [38:43]
"And take with your hand a handful, then put forth / fling with it**, and do not incline towards falsehood***". We found him patient. What an excellent servant! Indeed, he was oft returning. [38:44]
*Arabic: shaytan, root: Shiin-Tay-Nun, English: satan.
** Arabic: bihi (with it). "hi" refers to a masculine and the closest preceding masculine is the cool spring. Interestingly, "Dighthan" can also mean "wash without cleansing" as well as "handful", thus likely refers to rubbing/washing with the spring water. 38:44 is connected to previous context by "waw/and" and likely refers to the washing mentioned in 38:42, giving a perfect self-contained explanation. Also possible, but lesser likely, is that DRB could also mean "fashion or put a cover", i.e. a dressing or pressure bandage, with a handful of something.
***When researching the word "tahnath" (Root: Ha-Nun-Thaa) in Classical Arabic dictionaries, as this form of the word is only used once in The Quran, a common meaning was "incline towards falsehood", "say what is untrue", hence Maulana Ali's rendering for example: "And take in thy hand few worldly goods and earn goodness (i.e. traffic) therewith and incline not to falsehood".

"shaytan" is not often translated as serpent/cobra, but it is a well known Classical Arabic meaning. In the entire Quran, there are 88 occurrences of shaytan (loosely translated as 'opposing force' be it from oneself or elsewhere), but only two occurrences in which shaytan is the one doing the afflicting/touching (Root: Miim-Siin-Siin), and they are 38:41 and 2:275. In both occurrences, the meaning of shaytan strongly points to serpent/cobra:

Those who consume usury, they do not stand but as one might stand whom the serpent/cobra confounded* from its touch. That is because they have said: "Trade is the same as usury." While God has made trade lawful, and He has forbidden usury. Whoever has received understanding from His Lord and ceases, then he will be forgiven for what was before this and his case will be with God. But whoever returns, then they are the people of the Fire, in it they will abide eternally. [2:275]

i.e. their footing/position/mentality/reasoning is weak, in disorder, corrupted, they cannot think/speak sensibly etc.
*root: Kha-Ba-Tay, also has a meaning of "touch with a hurt so as to corrupt/disorder and render one insane".

Further, 38:41 is the only occurrence where shaytan is the cause of either distress/difficulty (Nun-Sad-Ba) and/or suffering/punishment (Ayn-Thal-Ba), implying this is a unique usage. If we also couple this with knowledge of the usual methodology applied by shaytan which is false promises, deceit, temptation, delusion etc we can see that 38:41 and 2:275 are different, i.e. shaytan is applying a different methodology here, so the obvious question is to ask why? The evidence points to because in these two occurrences it means serpent/cobra. The Quran also uses this meaning for shaytan in 37:64-65 ("It is a tree that grows in the midst of Hell. Its sheaths are like the heads of serpents/cobras").

However, the strongest evidence is the perfect sense it makes within the context of 38:41-44, and what Job was asked to do, all of which are commonly recommended after a snake bite:

1) wash - i.e. the wound and/or oneself, which helps calm oneself, lessen risk of infection and possibly reduce any symptoms of fever.
2) drink water - this may help slow down heart rate, rehydrate from exhaustion or lost fluids, help calm oneself, and possibly increase rate of venom washout from the body.
3) wash the wound with handfuls of water, or apply a pressure bandage to prevent venom spread or dressing to prevent infection.
4) do not incline towards falsehood - a snakebite victim may often become delusional or not think clearly afterwards, hence this advice. This is also shown by 2:275.

However, the last point may also mean "do not fail in your oath/duty" after recovered, because Job was likely travelling in the land when this happened to him, probably spreading God's message, thus God is effectively telling him to not be deterred from continuing in this once recovered.
Also, the words "patient" and "oft-returning" at the end of the verse do suggest a recovery period, and are thus appropriate for the context of a snakebite.

Another interesting discovery is that even in the story of Job in The Bible, "satan" is referenced as inflicting a physical harm, Chapter 2:7 " So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot even unto his crown." After this part, his friends came to him, and implies he was in pain/grief and in a recovery period and did not speak (perhaps on purpose, i.e. "do not incline towards falsehood"), after which he showed signs of despair, like giving up, but eventually his condition was restored, and became blessed again. Quite often, The Quran corrects myths, the story of Job is perhaps just another example.

To conclude, the understanding presented here for the story of Job fits the grammar, the Arabic, Classical Arabic meanings, logic, cross-referencing and is a self-contained explanation.

General Discussions / Re: Understanding 73:2, 73:20
« on: September 03, 2019, 09:23:09 PM »
peace Student,

When I asked have you read my salat article I was not referring to the one you referenced. In the one you referenced I clearly state the following:

Important note: whilst my view is that The Quran does not state 5 salat daily (read my view on salat here), that does not mean I consider it wrong for a mumin/believer to uphold 5. It does not matter to me what a fellow brother/sister does when it comes to their personal relationship with God. My only issue arises when claims are made, such as "Quran states 5".

I have highlighted it in red for you.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 34