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 ... 33
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.

General Discussions / Re: Understanding 73:2, 73:20
« on: September 02, 2019, 04:33:15 PM »
peace Student,

Re: 1) for the mumineen, yes. For verse translations see my articles. I am not aware of any verse contrary to this position.

2) this is elucidated in my salat article. Have you read it?

3) I'm not sure what you mean, but I do not take salat to mean prayer.

4) I already provided you with an accurate translation of 17:78-79. Since you did not dispute anything in it, can I assume you agree with the following quote:
"Thus, the idea of "the tahajjud prayer" is not possible unless one considers it as a reading (also see 73:20)."
If so, it will likely make understanding 73:20 easier.

"the tahajjud prayer" is a myth (predicated on an inaccurate translation).

General Discussions / Re: Understanding 73:2, 73:20
« on: August 31, 2019, 06:38:37 PM »
Sometimes trying to reconcile traditional interpretations may not work because they can't be reconciled. In any case, here is the thread where I posted a more accurate translation of 17:78-79

General Discussions / Re: Understanding 73:2, 73:20
« on: August 30, 2019, 05:49:01 PM »
the word salat does appear in 73:20


As a starting point it is important to have an accurate translation of the verses: [source]

Establish the salat at the setting of the sun to the darkness of the night; and the reading (of) dawn; indeed, the reading (of) dawn is witnessed. [17:78]
And from the night so remain awake with it additionally for yourself, perhaps your Lord will raise you (to) a status praiseworthy. [17:79]

The "with it" (Arabic: bi hi) refers to a preceding masculine noun, and thus can ONLY refer to "reading" (Arabic: quran). Note that "salat" is a feminine noun. Thus, the idea of "the tahajjud prayer" is not possible unless one considers it as a reading (also see 73:20).

General Discussions / Re: Arafat?
« on: August 28, 2019, 10:13:39 PM »
To my knowledge this is accurate: [source]

Not is on you blame to seek bounty from your Lord, so when you proceeded from familiarisations/recognitions** then remember God in the presence of the inviolable place of perception/markers/practices*** and remember Him as He has guided you; for you were straying before that.

** 'arafaat (pl. of 'arafat, masculine 'araf, being a version of 'aarif, the active form of 'arafa and/or 'arfun, the informational noun of 'arafa) can mean 'familiarizations, approbations, recognitions.' See 49:13 for example.
*** Arabic: "al mash'aar al haram" literally means: the inviolable place of awareness/perception/knowledge and/or where "sha3air" are found/practiced, and most likely refers to the locality. The form "maf3al" (same as "mashAAr") is most commonly used to denote place in AQ, see end of this article. It may be interesting to note the difference in form between "masjid" and "mash'aar", which also suggests a possible difference in meaning.

General Discussions / Re: Assafwah wa almarwah?
« on: August 16, 2019, 07:54:36 AM »
Did i understand it right? You think the safa and the marwah is a place where the people can receive the meat or eat the cooked offer?

Yes but there is not much to go on.

General Discussions / Re: Assafwah wa almarwah?
« on: August 09, 2019, 10:17:51 PM »

2:158 Indeed, the safa1 and the marwah2 are from the markers/tokens (sha3air)3 of God, so whoever did HaJJ 4 (at/of) the shelter/house5 or enlivened/visited6 there is no blame/error on him that he go amongst by/at them both7 and whoever volunteered good/better8 then God is Appreciative, Knowing.

1 - root: Sad-Fa-Waw. See Project Root List to read about possible meanings for given roots in this article.
2 - root: Miim-Ra-Waw.
3 - root: Shiin-Ayn-Ra. The root meanings and Quran usage suggest the word describes things/tokens/symbols/markers/practices (usually to do with sustenance/benefit) that have a deeper significance, i.e. help make us aware of something (e.g. God and His beneficience). Honouring such "sha3air" can indicate "taqwa" (forethoughtfulness/conscientiousness/piety) of the hearts, and can provide opportunity to be thankful and/or magnify God for what He has guided you - see 5:2, 22:32, 22:36-37.
4 - root: Ha-Jim-Jim. Note the perfect/past tense implies one could have done "HaJJ" but not necessarily encountered "safa" and "marwah" yet, meaning they are not compulsory aspects of "HaJJ" (or "umrah") but are accessible secondary to it. Also if they were an intrinsic part of "al HaJJ" then there would be no need to state "there is no blame on him that he should go about/amongst them". This is further reinforced by the imperfect tense "ttawwaf" which follows. As a side note, some Traditional commentators also mention this point.
5 - root: Ba-Ya-Ta. It principally means to reach the night or spend the night in and "bayt" is that place. It can be used for any structure that is utilised for such a purpose. Thus, "bayt" is closer to shelter as the conceptual meaning and within that meaning is the house. In this context it refers to the locality/region/area, wherein "al hajj" is being held, and is thus acting as a shelter/house for the people. This will be further discussed later.
6 - root: Ayn-Miim-Ra. Also perfect/past tense.
7 - root: Tay-Waw-Fa. Note it says "ttawwaf bi" which is the exact same phrase in 22:29 (involving the ancient/noble shelter/house / "al bayt al 3tiq") which most commentators take to mean "circuit" but they do not take it to mean "circuit" here. Some may argue that since there are two objects here, going to and fro is the implied meaning here rather than "circuit".
8 - the phrase "whoever volunteered good/better" is likely related to what came before, i.e. "no blame on him that he go about them". Interestingly, if it is taken as "whoever volunteered better", as I feel the implication is, then this can only mean: better than "going about/amongst safa and marwah". The obvious question then is: what is better?

2:158 clearly indicates there is a difference between HaJJ and i'tamara/visited (commonly translated as "umrah").

The additional information we have extracted about "safa" and "marwah" is as follows, which may help narrow down the possible meanings:
1) other occurrences of "sha3air of God" refer to provision of sustenance/food by means of the animals, thus they could be related to that
2) they are accessible to those who did HaJJ or visited the house/shelter, but are secondary to it
3) it is possible some might mistakenly assign blame if one goes about them or one going about them could think they are doing something negative/wrong
4) it may be possible to volunteer better than going amongst them

When we look at CAD "al safa" can refer to the animals which give much milk (said of she-camel/sheep/goat), and "al marwah" can refer to a stone where a cooking fire is started or on which an animal is slaughtered. If we opt for these meanings then the one going about them in 2:158 would be consuming food, not providing it. If so, this makes it easy to understand why this could be thought of as a negative, i.e. someone at this location could take advantage of such offerings/availability and consume aplenty without giving in return. This would also help explain why it says "whoever volunteered better" because providing food is better than consuming it, and this may tie in with verses such as 2:196 which discusses giving an offering/gift (e.g. an animal to be used for food provision). This is also the case for one who did HaJJ because even though doing HaJJ involves providing food for others, one could still consume more than they gave.
If we do choose this meaning, then we may need to consider why animals of milking are not discussed under the ordinary food to give/feed others with for one undertaking the HaJJ and this may be because it is more difficult for one to do, as the timing needs to be right for a female animal to give milk, e.g. shortly after them giving birth. Giving an animal for slaughter is much easier.
There are other possibilities for these words from CAD, e.g. "al safa" can mean "the palm tree heavy with fruit", "al marwah" can mean "a type of fragrant tree".

A plausible interpretation of "no blame on him that he go about them" is that this phrase is often used in AQ to discuss an exception/modification to the recommendation/rule/principle (e.g. 2:229, 2:282, 4:101, 4:102, 24:29, 24:58, 24:60), thus could refer to an exception, e.g. regarding slaughtering of animals on a stone (as this may be misconstrued as a throwback to idolatrous practice, see 5:3), or "marwah" can mean a stone from which blades are made even though there is no hunting or fighting in this period, or sightseeing of unique/stone landmarks at such a location could be mistaken for their veneration. Volunteering good/better in this case would be to help out at the event rather than sightseeing perhaps.

There seems to be insufficient evidence, as per Quran, to definitively deduce the meaning of "safa" and "marwah", however we should bear in mind that whatever they are the implication is that they are not critical/compulsory aspects for one who did "HaJJ" or visited.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 33