Messages

As salaam Aleikum,

Dear Br. Student,

That was very kind of you to part with such honest sentiments. I believe we shall finally come into common terms on that subject if not agreeing to disagree on some premise, God willing.

Thanks.


Regards,

Athman.

[no better]

Dear Br. Student,

Salaamun Aleikum,


You share as an analogy:


"Suppose someone invited you to his place with great promise and sure enough he perfectly received you and honored and bestowed you with all the gifts, served you (through his servants) the most delicious dishes and exotic drinks you ever imagined and entertained you with all the comforts during your stay and after all done you're asked to leave without meeting the host. Will you still be all satisfied and content? Can you call this a meeting?"

I take it that this is presented in an effort to respond to my previous parting short where I said "I can't unequivocally surmise from the Qur'anic verses that there is no better reward than that, or mention of a particular greatest reward."


Respectfully, I can't connect a conflict between the two views. From a Qur'anic perspective, I find it as a matter of fact that believers shall see Allah in the hereafter, in an understanding shared in my earlier post. In my humble opinion, if it is to be insisted that our great 'desires' have to be satisfied because Allah promises that in Paradise is whatever the soul desires, (43:71) , it still has to be appreciated that this shall be in a nature the details of which we are not aware or informed (56:61). Allah better understands our entire souls hence desires. Thus He rewards the believers in a way He deems appropriate and fit, an analogy of an earthly situation would just sound superfluous considering the Omniscience and Omnipotence of Allah with respect to His rightful power to satisfy 'desires' of His creatures or rewarding accordingly.


If the point is that seeing Allah should be the all-satisfactory and all-content final aspect of the rewarding to believers in Paradise, hence the greatest reward, then where in rank should we place that great victory mentioned by such verses as 9:72 and 5:119, among others, and how should we reach the conclusion that 'seeing' Allah is the greatest reward/victory while that could have been selectively mentioned in 32:17 if such a notable distinction would have been deemed fit any worthy of mention?

If in any case it is the greatest reward for the believers, what is it to those deniers of that Day of "meeting" with Allah (all of mankind, 19:95, 3:9, 3:25) for Judgement given that you rightly deduce from 83:15 that they shall be barred from that 'Blissful joy' while on the other hand implying that the meeting with Allah is necessarily implicative of 'seeing' as quoted below?

"And what is a meeting without seeing? How is it even debatable in the Hereafter?"


While you kindly use 7:143 to support the idea that Moses actually did see Allah, somebody would still use the same verse to prove the contrary. For instance, one would suggest that if the condition for "seeing" Allah was the still standing of the mountain, and that the mountain was ultimately destroyed, then Moses didn't see Allah, for the mountain had not been still. In my humble perspective, that was just a worldly illustration by Allah for Moses and the entire posterity of humanity to show that the Sovereign Presence of Him doesn't fit our earthly world. After all, Moses is said to have repented after the incident. I hope the repentance could 'partly' be attributed to what just transpired as of the great earthly impossible 'desire' by Moses, which amounted to such an incident.


You respectfully share:

"...He manifest Himself (27:8, 28:30) to the fortunate ones who long and strive for it, I've supported it with few Quranic verses (18:110, 29:5, 10:7)..."

Now, if it is to be inferred from 27:8 (from your perspective) that Allah did 'physically' become manifest in that occasion, what could be the actual manifestation? The mountain in 7:143, the blessed spot - from the tree (al buq'atil mubarakati mina shajarah) in 28:30, or which other mentioned physical thing?


Regarding '(18:110, 29:5, 10:7),' the scope of the contexts is clearly comparable to that of 29:23 as I have carefully tried to share earlier as captured below:


"The former is suggestive of those disbelievers denying both signs of God and the possibility of there being a day of Resurrection when all creatures including themselves (mankind) shall be gathered ('...the meeting with Him.')"


You then said:


"Since God remains eternal before or after, according to your interpretation we cannot ever get the joy of meeting Him (Liqa)."


I don't think this is what has been the premise underlying Br Hamzeh's arguments nor mine. In fact "seeing" Allah is what has been asserted in my arguments above, but only in the context of re-creation in the Hereafter and explicitly by believers in Paradise. "Meeting" Allah is guaranteed for all (3:9) 17:72 doesn't imply that the disbelievers of the Day of Judgement shall not be gathered to Him
(Liqaihi) on that Day (for Judgement) just because they don't believe in it. Notwithstanding the nuance that could be derived from the use of either of  "...Liqa, Ra'a, Nazar, Basar and Idrak." as you suggest, the context in which it is used is what would essentially remain key in underpinning an underlying nuance, as Br. Hamzeh clearly intimated above.


You finally concluded:

"Did we blindly nodded Qaalu Bala then and would remain blind now and deprived forever?"


I would just kindly advise you to verify your assertions, and accord others' arguments sincere deserved considerations, before summing up your view. I think that's an unwarranted and clearly unnecessary contention to part with.



I hope you shall consider my views In sha Allah.




Regards,


Athman.

[incline]

Waaleikum Salaam,

Thanks a lot Br. Hamzeh for the input. The possibilities advanced sound plausible.

As a particular piece to be considered, I concur with your point here:

"I personally also ponder at times that not seeing The Most Glorious is such a great sign as this world is not deserving of His Great Presence. However with all the miracles and signs around us, God's presence is felt by way of faith and emotions, Alhamdulila."

Dear Br. Student,

Firstly, may I kindly include an accidental omission in my above shared opinion, as captured in the course of this response below. The citation should have been 75:22-23.

Given that Br. Hamzeh has tried to respond to your queries above, I won't add something into that as I personally feel that it suffices. On a different note, your question below would also have been well addressed by the following verse as cited by Br. Hamzeh just before the quote.

"Has Quran explicitly denied vision in this world?"

Vision perceives Him not, but He perceives [all] vision; and He is the Subtle, the Acquainted.(Qur'an, Al-An'am 6:103)

About your statement, "If we can see Him in the hereafter (as you seems to incline and align with Christianity and Sunni belief on the subject)..." I disagree with your bracketed premise, and in particular, what I have put into bold. That's an interpolation of my humble perspective as shared above. Moreover, the Sunni belief doesn't necessarily equate to the Christianity as you may agree. While the common Sunni viewpoint is that of seeing Allah in Paradise, as far as this subject is concerned, and allegedly occasioned to be on every Friday of the Days of Hereafter [1], from the popular viewpoint of mainstream Christianity, God already did manifest as Jesus, the God incarnate, and that nothing of His Sovereignty limits Him to do so or do anything if He so wills, at any point in time.

Nonetheless, as similarly shared by Br. Hamzeh, my take on the subject is just in an effort to reconcile the various Qur'anic verses that suggest such a possibility of "seeing" Allah by believers in Jannah. To reiterate my point in this, I again put it as follows:

"Nevertheless, with the subject of final re-creation of creatures by Allah as in 75:3 and 21:4 or 29:20 and 34:7 among other references, it sounds plausible that 75:22-23 supporting it with 83:18-24 and against 83:15-16 is sometimes used to support the idea that believers shall see Allah in Paradise."

After all, I shared the above with a request for the opinions of others on the same, in an effort to stay with the Qur'anic take on the same.

You kindly share:

"I'm sure you'll not disagree there's no Hasana better and pleasing than the joy of seeing our unsurpassingly Beautiful and unimaginable Creator!"

Albeit agreeing with you that the favor of "seeing" Allah by believers could immensely be a great privilege amongst believers in Paradise, as in 54:54-55 and 75:22-23, I can't unequivocally surmise from the Qur'anic verses that there is no better reward than that, or mention of a particular greatest reward. After all, 5:119 and 9:72, among other verses, also both mention of great victory.

Hope that clarifies my point.

Anyway thanks for sharing your views.


Regards,

Athman.


References:

[1] https://islamqa.info/en/210252

[everything]

Salaamun Aleikum,

Dear Br. Student,

With the traditional view aside, picking from the discussion above, if Al-'Ankabut 29:23 and Al-Isra 17:72 you quoted above are placed in their immediate contexts, nothing clearly implicative of "visual seeing" of Allah can be attributed to them.

The former is suggestive of those disbelievers denying both signs of God and the possibility of there being a day of Resurrection when all creatures including themselves (mankind) shall be gathered ('...the meeting with Him.')

The latter, if read in line with the verse before it talking about the calling forth of every people (by Allah) with their record, and the "right-hand" bearers, on the Day of Judgement, those "blind" in this world promised that same blindness and being more astray in the hereafter would inferably be those deniers of Allah's signs who are described as having had about to tempt the Prophet into inventions attributing them to Allah. Blindness in the spiritual sense.

Nevertheless, with the subject of final re-creation of creatures by Allah as in 75:3 and 21:4 or 29:20 and 34:7 among other references, it sounds plausible that 75:22 supporting it with 83:18-24 and against 83:15-16 is sometimes used to support the idea that believers shall see Allah in Paradise.

That is, believers shall surely see Allah in the hereafter, in Jannah, in their new form after re-creation which nobody among the creations knows for sure the nature of that form.


Dear respected members,

Understanding the above in its right contexts, that is to say, Allah shall re-create human beings, in a form that the believers, out of His Mercy, shall be capacitated with power to "see" Him, the nature and/of the sense of "seeing" also being unperceived and unknown to us.

Could this be a correct view?

Otherwise, is it that mankind shall never see God, being an Uncreated supernatural deity that encompasses everything?

Any contribution shall highly be appreciated.


Regards,

Athman.

Salaam,

Thanks for the response Br. Joseph. It really helps.

In particular, I would sincerely concur with the general sentiment(s) and advice you respectfully parted as quoted below.

"One of the beauties of the Quran is the intentional dearth of information it presents to the reader whilst remaining relevant to its immediate audience to whom the context was particularly applicable."

"Therefore, it is quite possible that whilst some narratives can be dismissed as improbable, others presented by the secondary sources could have truth to them remaining cautious as accepting them as indisputable truth - 'filter' and 'discernment' remaining key."

"...what is important for believers is any wisdom that can be immediately extracted without the need to elicit finer details of the event, if intentionally not shared by the Quran."


Regards,

Athman.

[they]

Salaam Br. Hamzeh,

"I would personally at times advise to dismiss an opinion or a narrative when the you feel something about the overall message is incorrect and goes against the verses of the Quran."

Thanks for the advice.

Notwithstanding the above parted advice, I also agree with the sentiment of yours that the Hadith (in fact both of them) could be refuted from various angles consulting qur'anic relevant themes, the overarching qur'anic spirit and the qur'anic portrayal of the Prophet's general character especially as regards the incident surrounding the two women amidst the prophet's presence.

I appreciate your thoughts on the verse with an understanding that the abhorrence that one would have on the idea of eating a deceased brother's flesh is symbolically likened to that of negative assumption, backbiting and spying, hence should be avoided.

As regards my citation of the references used by some traditionalists above, it is just in an honest bid to present what they proffer as supporting evidence of their underlying understanding, as they would sincerely expect one to when quoting them. Sure, when the overall message seems not sensible or is in contrary to the spirit of the Qur'an, I would not pursue such fanciful propositions, nor would any sincere student of the Qur'an be expected to as you may agree. My point in that was just to show how the symbolic nature of the verse as understood by some of the traditionalists is a times overlooked by some other group amongst the traditionalists. Otherwise, my main concern was what you have rightfully addressed thereafter.

Anyway, thanks for your input Br. Hamzeh. That sounds in harmony with the overall message of the context and the whole narrative.


Regards,

Athman.

[generally]

Dear Br. Joseph,

As salaam Aleikum,

With an effort to understand the theme of what is referred to by what is mentioned as "cleansing by rain" of the Muslim army in Quran 8:11, I took notice of various views progressed from the traditional understanding.
The commonest one being the following quoted:

"In the Battle of Uhud the Muslims passed through a similar experience as in 3:154. On both occasions, when prevalent conditions should have produced intense fear and panic among them, God filled their hearts with such peace and tranquility that they were overpowered with drowsiness.

The rain refers to the heavy downpour on the night preceding the Battle of Badr. It helped the Muslims in three ways. First, it provided them with an abundant water supply which they quickly stored in large reservoirs. Second, rain compacted the loose sand in the upper part of the valley where the Muslims had pitched their tents. This helped the Muslims plant their feet firmly and facilitated their movement. Third, where the Quraysh army was stationed in the lower part of the valley, the ground turned marshy.
The defilement caused by Satan which occurs in the verse refers to the fear and panic which initially, afflicted the Muslims." [1]

A view held by most traditionalists in my area concerning the verse is an idea that the verse stands to confirm that generally, rainwater cleanses one of evil spirits/shaitan whispers hence magic spell/witchcraft effect, an idea which can greatly be termed moot from the context of the verses.

Another common interesting proposition is that Allah caused the whole army into a sleep in which they dreamt lustfully about sex to a point of waking up ritually impure as a result hence the rain cleansed them from the Janaba (ritual impurity) status.

Would you please give your opinion on how you understand the verse in question as quoted below.

[Remember] when He overwhelmed you with drowsiness [giving] security from Him and sent down upon you from the sky, rain by which to purify you and remove from you the evil [suggestions] of Satan and to make steadfast your hearts and plant firmly thereby your feet. (Qur'an, Al-Anfaal 8:11)


Regards,

Athman.

Reference:
[1] http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=8&verse=11

[eat the flesh of his brother when dead]

Salaamun Aleikum,

This refers to the Qur'anic verse quoted below:

"O you who have believed, avoid much [negative] assumption. Indeed, some assumption is sin. And do not spy or backbite each other. Would one of you like to 'eat the flesh of his brother when dead?' You would detest it. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is accepting of repentance and Merciful." (Qur'an, Al-Hujurat 49:12)


The traditional understanding on the verse connects the highlighted part with the backbiting of one's brother in faith, mentioned just before it, in a "symbolic" sense. However, much is sometimes advanced beyond the symbolic aspect of it and fanciful stands taken backed by some Secondary Sources material. The "eating of one's brother's flesh" is taken literal.
The following references are made in such a case:

"Ubaid, the freed slave of the Prophet, reported that someone came to the Prophet and showed the Prophet two women who were fasting and said that they were dying of thirst.  The Prophet turned away silently refusing to give permission for them to break their fast.  So, the man begged him again, mentioning that the women were on the verge of death.  The Prophet then said, bring them to me and bring along a bowl.  When they turned to him, he turned to one and told her to vomit in the bowl. She complied, spitting up a mixture of vomit, blood, pus and pieces of flesh which half-filled the bowl.  He then turned to the other and had her do the same.  After the bowl was filled, he said, 'Verily these two have fasted from what Allah has made halal for them and broken their fast from what Allah has made haram.  They spent their fast eating the flesh of others.' Ahmad"

Abdullah ibn Mas'ud reported: We were sitting with the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, when a man stood to leave. Another man spoke badly about him after he left, so the Prophet said, "Pick your teeth." The man said, "O Messenger of Allah, why should I pick my teeth when I have not eaten meat?" The Prophet said, "You have eaten the flesh of your brother."
Source: al-Mu'jam al-Kabīr 9951
Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Haythami


Traditionally, in the first Hadith, the nullification of the fast is understood to be as a result of "eating the flesh of others" which amounts from backbiting referred to as "what Allah has made haram" in the foregoing Hadith, obviously inferring from 49:12 above with the prohibition "...do not spy or backbite each other..." and as allegedly remarked by the prophet in the second Hadith, supposedly accentuated by the fanciful nature of the contents of the sputum described in the foregoing (first) Hadith.

Now coming to my point of concern, from the context of the verses, could there be a variant advanced understanding of the phrase "eat the flesh of his brother when dead" in 49:12 or is it just an allegorical stylistic device? Otherwise, what could be the symbolic representation of the phrase?

Any Quranic based opinion would be respectfully appreciated Insha Allah.


Regards,

Athman.

Dear Br. miracle114,

As salaam Alaikum,

Apologies for my late response to your comment and request. I'm not sure if I clearly grasp the focus of your sentiment. 

I think (if I'm not wrong) that you are suggesting if I could reference some Qur'anic verses in which Allah is "glorified" and "praised."

In my humble opinion, many references can quickly be made with just a moment perusal over almost even any two to three folio of the Qur'anic text. For instance, whole of chapter 112 and the commonest 2:255, also 19:35.

The following may also help Insha Allah (in the form of prayers):
37:180-182,7:23,60:4,21:83,21:87,12:101,2:128,59:10

For prayer purposes, I trust that reference to the following supplications would also prove helpful Insha Allah: 28:24,7:89,18:10,23:97-98,29:30,26:83-89,2:250,66:11,20:25-28

On the other hand, quite succinctly, Br. Joseph has also covered this topic on "prayers" from the Qur'an, as regards both direct and indirect glorification and praising of God, as captured in the following article(s)/thread(s).

http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=485.0

http://quransmessage.com/articles/quranic%20prayers%20FM3.htm


Hopefully that helps God willing.


Regards,

Athman.

Dear all,

Salaamun Aleikum,

Despite the fact that this is a thread in which the last input dates long before, I wish to impart some understanding from the foregoing discussion and seek any possible clarification to the contrary. I hope this is fine with the Moderators.

Notwithstanding all the sincere efforts made to argue for the traditional view, on this thread and some others in this forum pertaining to the subject matter, staying clear from the theological "axe-to-grind" mantra with regards the veneration of the Prophet such that a claim that 80:1-2 couldn't have referred to the Prophet is advanced, in my humble view, I trust that Br. ilker's understanding on the verses and the plot construct of the narrative sounds textually cogent within the context of chapter 80 and not necessarily with comparison to chapter 74.

I find the following conclusion to have contextual support from the text of chapter 80, and I sincerely admit that it's not an understanding one would dismiss.

"My understanding is there were these two men (besides the Prophet pbuh). One of them is the man who frowned and turned away, who considered himself free of need (80:5-6). He was the one our Prophet pbuh was trying to speak. And then the other man, who was blind. The man who was seeking knowledge, who was fearful of Allah (swt), who asked for help (80:8-9)"

Though I agree with Br. Joseph on this "...This is also not atypical for the Quran that switches audience, address and context to support an underlying message," I apparently find it, as from the plot construct of the narrative, more reasonable to argue for the following understanding by Br. ilker:

"This sounds reasonable to me when we think that Allah (swt) used the subject "he" in the first and second ayah and then "anta" in the third."

Any explanation to outrightly argue for the exclusivity of the traditional view shall highly be appreciated.


Regards,

Athman.

Salaam,

This quite clearly sounds plausible, thanks for the same Br. Joseph.

A sound multi-levelled interpretation of "Mahr" capturing the intended nuances.

"...A charitable, sincere gift (saduqatihinna nihlatan) that is ordained / agreed (faridah) and presented to her as her due (ajr)."

I do appreciate Br. Joseph for the clarification.

Regards,

Athman.

Dear Br. Joseph,

Notwithstanding your respectful contribution above, could there be a possible implicated reason as to why the most commonly used term for dowry, in the various references in the Qur'an as given above, "ajra," in this case "ujuurahunna" was avoided for "sadaqatihinna nihlatan," if at all there could be, that is?


Regards,

Athman.

As salaam Aleikum,

Thanks Br. Joseph for the clarification.

"One of the most salient requirements of reading any ancient script, particularly the Quran is not to impose on the text what we would or would not deem to imagine to be correct or appropriate for a particular context. This way, we will inevitably end up limiting (at best) or misconstruing (at worst) the Quran's intended textual interpretation and wrought it to simply accord with our world-views. On the other hand, we should attempt to read the passage as it is and then formulate our views according to the text."

This is very true.

Salaam Br. Hamzeh,

Apart from the wide usage of the term "ajra" for dowry, it's a good observation made by Br. Joseph that "nihla (gift, present)" (plural-"nihaal") in 4:4 renders the word "sadaqa" to have a meaning of dowry, in "this" context. I hope you note this Br. Hamzeh, a crucial point I had failed to note.

Regarding the question imparted on 33:50;
"May I ask you what do you think the privilege was for the prophet over that for the believers as I thought it was referring to dowry?"

I think "khaaliswan laka" would best be translated "...only/purely for you," not "a privilege for thee only," as you respectfully suggest, and the reason for that exclusive offer is given towards the end of the verse as "likaila yakuna 'alaika haraja," that is, "...in order that there will be upon you no discomfort..." I am somehow disinclined to interpret it as "privilege," rather a pre-calculated exception for him to serve some wider purpose as regards the Prophet's mission.

Regards,

Athman.

Dear Br. Joseph,

As salaam Aleikum,

Thanks for the reply. My question was just in an effort to stay consistent regarding "haraam." Otherwise, I agree with the article you referenced above.

To get it clear, is it restrictively the word form "haraam," having consistently been used suffixedly to "Masjid/Bayt" throughout the Qur'an, which has to be understood to be making a reference to the Arabian sanctuary and that any other form of the root verb "harrama"(in this case "Muharrami") has to be understood from other clear references and its context, or, is it that the form "Muharrami" is not of the same root letters as those of "haraam?"


To respectfully quote, you suggested the following:

"... The term 'haram' means to forbid, prevent, to make unlawful, deprive, inviolable, to be refused something or to involve some contention or wrangling. This definition is certainly consistent with many Quranic narratives where the sanctuary at Makkah became a contention between the disbelievers and the Muslims, the latter at times being forbidden from its environs."

This clearly makes sense. Now, with the other quote below, is it right to posit that the precinct referenced in 14:37 could have some similar associated sort of initial wrangling over it, or rather had been subjected to some initial inviolability? Otherwise, what could be the correct understanding of the precinct referenced in 14:37 being Sacred/Muharrami?

"...I would not necessarily link the verb 'Harrama' - muharram (to make sacred, holy, forbidden) to the noun 'haram' (plural - hurum), the latter - which throughout the Quran appears to be tied to the Arabian sanctuary."

Regards,

Athman.

Salaamun Aleikum Br. Hamzeh,

Albeit the address made to Br. Joseph, I would like to have a kind contribution God willing.


I think I agree with your understanding of verse 4:4 for "sadaqatihinna" not to be referring to "dowry." A close observation would find the Qur'an use the term "ajra" for "dowry," in its appropriate word construct capturing numbers and predicate. (4:24, 4:25, 5:5, 33:50, 60:10)


In my humble opinion, "Sadaqatihinna" on the other hand, from "sadaqa," in "this" context could refer to those "charity dues" those women in context of the verse may have/be received/receiving, that is, eligibly having had fallen to a group amongst the categories stipulated in 9:60.


4:3 provides a proviso to the marriage(s) with the "yatama nnisaai," i.e, that of fear to maintain justice between them. This clearly suggests of "some" prior means to maintain justice, be it probably by way of an "orphanage" (if we are to suggestively assume) or any other decent possible way. In my humble opinion, maintaining justice was possible and verse 4:3 was only reinforcing the idea through its stated alternative, if justice were still to be on the compromise.


It can aptly be followed through the verses that the treatise advanced is that of dealing with orphans and establishing justice amongst the "yatama nnisaai" as you have rightly intimated, the responsibility of handling wealth ("amwaalukum") in situ. I also agree with the gleaning idea you put forward that "yatama nnisaai" is to appropriately and "contextually" be translated as orphaned, widowed/mature women with a view to stay consistent with 4:3 which acknowledges marriage with them (hence not "under(age/maturity)").


However, am also inclined to a no warrant of restricting the interpretation to only that, bearing in mind that 4:5-6 outlines the responsibility of testing the "yatima" for maturity before handing them their due belongings.


With that "yatama nnisaai"issue apart - no marital ties in discussion, on the other hand, I see no problem with receiving a portion of Mahr (dowry) by the one who gave it if an agreement had passed and the due "obligatory" dowry already offered.


"min baadil fariidhwat" in 4:24 clearly captures that which may be mutually agreed upon by the couple "after/beyond that which has been obligatory", obviously from previously agreed upon amount/due.


That which was agreed upon (dowry) has to be given first, then anything beyond/after that agreed upon mutually between the two, can possibly ensue with no blame/error. This would, in my observation, from as many as among possible ideas, not exclude the possibility of the woman remitting part of her dowry (already given) to the man.


I trust Br.Joseph shall clarify further or give a better rendering to those verses in question Insha Allah.


Hopefully that helps.

Allah knows best.


Regards,

Athman.