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 - Athman

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Islamic Duties / Re: Those who believe in God + salat
« on: November 26, 2020, 03:17:48 PM »
Dear Pouyah,

Peace to you,

In my view, basically, I encounter a fundamental distinction of two different aspects of the character of a Muslim or believer in the verses shared. That of being a believer and that preceding belief. See the distinction as highlighted below.

(1). An expected character which is necessary but not independently enough for religious success of a believer (22:78). Hence this specifically applies to a believer

(2). An optional commitment (2:256) not necessary (76:3) but independently enough for the collective success of mankind (103:3). Thus, this applies to people in general

Therefore, while the belief in God and acting righteously is optional, it is enough for success of a person in God’s eyes (2:62) as confirmed also in 5:69 in line with point (2). This is because, with true belief in God comes commitment to what God expects of the believer which is what is highlighted in 2:3-5 since a true believer submits totally as in 2:285 hence point (1) above. However, in the absence of any God revealed scripture for guidance or for the general masses, the fundamental requirement still lies within the scope of belief in God and acting righteously thus point (2).

In summary, it is to be noted that verses 2:1-5 simply describe the character of believers who are receptive to guidance (2:2) hence success (2:5). They believe in the unseen, establish swalaat, give zakat and believe in all revealed scriptures (hence all prophets - making no distinctions among them) as prerequisites to true belief. These are the successful among believers.

On the other hand, verse 2:62 highlights the fundamental requirement to success of a human being with God. Mankind is lost unless he establishes belief and act righteously exercising justice and patience (103:1-3). When he establishes belief, verses 2:1-5 do apply in presence of a God revealed scripture. Otherwise, his fate is accounted for with respect to verse 103:3.

I hope that helps.


General Discussions / Re: Prophet Abraham asked to sacrifice his son?
« on: August 09, 2020, 05:53:15 PM »
Dear Wakas,

As salaam alaikum,

With a view to briefly attempt responding to what appears to be your main arguments against the general position that takes 'dhibh' to mean 'sacrifice/ slaughter,' see my short responses below to your contentions 3 to 9 in blue as requested in the link shared [1] as a minimum.

You contend:

"3) The future particle "sa" occurs over 100 times in Quran. Can you provide one example of usage which matches how you claim it is used here, i.e. what comes after particle "sa" refers to an ongoing future activity that occurs prior to what came before particle "sa"?
Let me clarify, here is structure of the Arabic: ABC <future particle sa> XYZ
My view is XYZ occurs in the future, i.e. after ABC.Your view is XYZ occurs prior to ABC or XYZ occurs until ABC takes place.

In my view, I don’t find the need to raise concerns over the particle ‘sa’ nor consider such an analogy which I respectfully find incongruent. The particle ‘sa’ simply asserts the ‘sabr’ which Prophet Ibrahim’s (pbuh) son (pbuh) promises to exercise ‘once’ met with the ‘dhibh.’ Relative to the time he was uttering that speech, the expected ‘dhibh' and in fact the attempted one in 37:103 was ‘yet to be actioned’ hence a ‘future’ (sa) incident. So was the ‘sabr’ he promises to endure which is contextually linked to the assumed ‘amr’ from God - ‘dhibh.’ Hence, I find the illustration “ABC <future particle sa> XYZ” in this case without warrant.

"4) can you provide a Classical Arabic dictionary reference which states the meaning of the verb TaLLa can mean what you take it to mean and can be done in a gentle/soft/willing manner? i.e. without force.
Reason: the primary meaning of this definition is to throw down / make one prostrate / hold down / wrestle them down etc but Quran states both submitted so the action was willingly, i.e. no force needed.

It is the same verse 37:103 which uses both terms ‘aslama’ and ‘watallahu’ hence I don’t see your contention as raised against those who posit the meaning of ‘aslama’ to be 'a submissive decision' to the ‘dhibh.’ Rather, you appear to contend with the Qur’an itself as to why it suggests ‘submissiveness’ by using the term ‘aslama’ then use a seemingly ‘coercive’ term ‘watallahu.’  Would you kindly please clarify.

"5) can you provide an example elsewhere in Quran in which God rewards us/someone for what they were about to do but did not do.
Reason: stating "like thus We reward..." [37:105, 110] implies an exemplar, if so, where are the other examples, or where such a principle is mentioned.

From my perspective, I would not pronounce it a clear cut ‘did not do’ instance especially from the point of view of God who holds accountable the intentions at heart (2:225) and focuses on the ‘taqwa’ in such intentions/ acts (22:37). In this case, the act was intended for God and in fact understood as a command from Him. It is also to be noted that it is God Himself who intervened the attempted ‘dhibh’ and thus hypothetically, if not for His intervention, the act would have been carried out. Thus, the ‘taqwa’ in intention of ‘dhibh’ for Him and in fact presumably from Him, had to reach Him as always does (22:37). Similarly, ‘monasticism’ (ruhbaniyyah) invented for God was rewarded (ajrahum) to those who were true ‘believers’ (amanu) - 57:27. As an ultimatum, it was finally the intent that was arguably rewarded for those 'believers' among them as a fundamental principle in 2:225. The actual ‘monasticism’ in its due observance was not achieved and yet believers among them were rewarded. Rather, the ‘intent’ and effort to do so mattered (regardless if the actual 'monasticism' was achieved) as did in the case of Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) in 37:103 as regards the sacrifice. It should however be noted that the 'monasticism' was not done as a command nor an assumed command from God but simply in the spirit of pleasing God - and voluntarily.

"6) can you provide another example in Quran wherein it states someone did X (e.g. perfect verb) but what is meant is they intended to do X.
Reason: you take "...when they both had submitted..." in 37:103 as submitted in intention only (i.e. not actually done the slaughter). Similar case with "...Surely you have believed/confirmed..." in 37:105, i.e. technically he hasn't confirmed it yet, i.e. it is intention only.
Note: perfect verbs are used thousands of times in Quran.

Respectfully, I find the comparison between perfect verbs of 37:103 and 37:105 to be made without warrant. In context, I find it odd that one expects the 'aslama' in 37:103 to be translated as 'submitted in the sense of having carried out the sacrifice' while the next phrase 'and he laid his forehead down' depicts an act that precedes the actual 'slaughter' action. In line with your view, it becomes superfluous that after the 'slaughter' (aslama) strangely followed by such an act to 'lay ones forehead down' ready for the sacrifice (again) that God confirms the same act at that point in time (qad swadaqta). It even worsens when He intervenes for 'fidya' while the 'sacrifice has already been carried out' (aslama).

"7)  preposition "li" occurs over 2000 times in Quran. Please provide clear examples of it meaning "upon" as you take it to mean in 37:103 (i.e. upon his forehead)."

The 'li' in 'lil jabeen' (37:103) takes the function of the particle 'ala' that is 'on/ upon' as it does in 'lil adhqani' (17:109).

"...laid him prostrate (watallahu) upon his forehead (lil jabeen)" [Qur'an, As-Swaffat 37:103]

"And they fall (wayakhirruna) upon their chins (lil adhqani) weeping..." [Qur'an, Al-Isra 17:109]

"8.) please explain why Quran describes the sacrifice/dhibhin in 37:107 as great/mighty/azeem?"

In my view, I don't consider the term 'dhibh' in 37:107 to refer to an alternative one in ransom. However, with such an understanding of an alternative ransom, it can simply be argued that given such a great 'evident trial' (balaul mubeen) that the 'ransom' (fidya) that replaces it is spiritually held in greatness (adhwim) regardless of its material value.

"9) If you consider killing of an innocent child an evil act and you consider God was simply testing Abraham but was always going to stop him before he actually did it, is there any other example similar to this in Quran (i.e. God commanding or condoning an evil act)? "

Respectfully, I would personally not refer to it as an act of God simply 'condoning an evil act' per se. Rather, I would relate to the fact that exercised volition among humans is a great virtue that is however under God's control. It is ultimately Him who determines the point at which to intervene. See the example of Prophet Yusuf (pbuh) in 12:23-24 where God intervenes at the verge of Prophet Yusuf (pbuh) being given into his master's seductive wife (12:24).

I hope that gives some perspective God willing.



[1]. Follow up to: Does The Quran say God told Abraham to sacrifice his son?

General Discussions / Re: Prophet Abraham asked to sacrifice his son?
« on: August 09, 2020, 05:03:19 PM »
Dear inay321,

As salaam alaikum,

Let me take this opportunity to first remind you that it is significantly of paramount importance to understand someone's or an article's position from their widest context of evidence shared. You have to respectfully consider all the threads shared and the arguments raised for you to comment/ contend any point - to pick and choose a point and draw contentions over it without considering its remit and in the long run confusing it with the wider position shared is in my opinion, unwarranted.

Kindly allow me to expound on this as I respond to your comments in purple below:

You shared:

"The context of any verse should not be taken from just that one verse, but from all the relevant Quranic input about the subject at hand."

I do concur. However, before consulting other verses from other Qur'anic narratives for any further clarification/ context, I would assert drawing a possible understanding of a verse(s) from its surrounding verses foremost to an extent possible - it may or may not be conclusive of course.

"But also from other verses that shed light on the same subject. If we shut the door and seek the truth from only one verse and those around it, we would be depriving ourselves of the more complete truth, which is often completed in other verses."

In the main, this is very correct. However, in my opinion, with all due respect, this is not a rule. I would for instance not find the need to consult other narratives related to one under study if that one under study is self-satisfying in whatever it intends to impart as a message. Other verses would only be consulted for a wider context and a wider message.

"To conclude that the son in the dream (37:102) must be Isaac because Abraham prayed for a righteous son (37:100) and only Isaac is described as righteous in verses from 100 to 112 is to shut our eyes of other Quranic verses that complete the meaning and give a complete picture."

As far as your previous sentiment is concerned, your contention was against Br. Joseph's position on the 'righteous' child in 37:100 to which I respectfully shared what appears to be his reasons for positing such a viewpoint. However, this is different from what you are now arguing which is against the whole article on the position of who was 'the son in the dream (37:102)" If this is what you intend to argue against, I think you need to respond to all the arguments raised in Br. Joseph's article and the other related threads against the traditional position of Prophet Ismaeel (pbuh) being the 'near sacrifice' son, especially those in [2] as he himself notes:

"For me to accept any viable alternative from a Quran's perspective (and not be unduly influenced by Ahadith or a Biblical perspective), I would need to be satisfied with cogent responses for the above contentions." [2]

My response was only in the context of the term 'righteous' (swaliheen) in 37:100 and even so, I also acknowledged the traditional position on this as a valid one on its own. See the last paragraph on my previous response.

"Ishmael is described as righteous in the Quran (21:85-86).
When we take all verses in consideration we can see that it is wrong to insist that the son in the dream could only be Isaac.

Respectfully, a position has been argued for, not merely an act of 'insisting.' As Br. Joseph rightly pointed out:

"So this is not a matter that I humbly feel we should 'resolve', but to feel content to state our position with citation of the best evidence we possibly can." [1]

Therefore, no one is trying to 'resolve' such a long debated matter. However, a position has to be taken especially where cogent citation of evidence has been made. Arguments and counter-arguments have to be addressed if one is to attack a particular position.

"We would know that it could also be Ishmael because he was also righteous, and so would also be a fulfilment of Abraham's prayer in 37:100 for a righteous son.
The truth is what matters, and the truth does not have to be given in one verse only or in one Sura.

As far as my analysis of relevant verses is concerned, I don't dispute that. However, you have respectfully missed my point and the article's main argument.

"Are you saying the truth does not matter unless it is mentioned in Sura 37?
Are you serious? So what if it is another Sura?

There is no need to get emotional dear fellow member. You don't have to deal with my 'seriousness' nor that of Br. Joseph, you have to respectfully respond to the contentions raised.

"What matters is that the prayer of Abraham for a righteous son does not have to be Isaac because Ishmael was also righteous, so his prayer was answered in Ishamel as well as Isaac ...
why does all the details have to be all in one Sura?

My position as regards 'righteousness' of Prophet Ismaeel (pbuh) in relation to the traditional position has already been stated in my previous response. Nevertheless, I have not mentioned anything along the lines of 'all the details have to be all in one Sura.' My contention and that of the article would be, why should we ignore the 'narrative scope' of verses 37:100-113 if they are self-evident and consult other Qur'anic narratives regardless if they are related?
"The following verse confirms that Ishmael was also a prophet and not only Isaac:
[19:54] And mention in the Book Ishmael. He was true to his promise, and he was a prophet messenger.

This is respectfully digressing in my opinion. The article and I have not argued against Ismaeel's (pbuh) prophethood.
"And the next verse is quite important in confirming the order of birth of Abraham's 2 sons.
God granted Abraham his son Ishmael first, then came Isaac, i.e. Ishmael was the first son
[14:39] Praise be to God for granting me, despite my old age, Ishmael and Isaac. My Lord is the Hearer of prayers.
If Isaac came first, Abraham would have said "Isaac and Ishmael":

As far as Br. Joseph's position which you have been contending with is concerned on this, he has also stated:

"In fact the Quran confirms Prophet Ishmael as Prophet Abraham's first born such as in verse 14:39." [3]

However, I trust that you will both find Br. Wakas' comment above (Jazakallah brother) on this useful and to have been an apt reminder on your choice and use of words.
"Are you also going to say these pieces of information do not matter because we are looking only at Sura 37?"

See my previous response. Though a case can be argued for, it is respectfully still not unequivocal proof nor conclusive.

"It is Ishmael .... the words in 37:112 are a new subject - after God told us about the dream of Abraham with Ishmael , God then tells us a New event in 37:112 , which was the coming of Isaac.


My concern has been, with respect, with your argument on the Qur'anic use of the term 'righteous' (swaliheen) and your unwarranted criticism of Br. Joseph's position on that matter - which has a specific remit of the 'narrative scope' underpinned by a host of arguments raised from within the same 'narrative scope.' I hope that you will kindly first appreciate this.

"the first word in 37:112 is ''AND'' WE GAVE HIM THE NEWS ..... the word AND means and a new event."

I don't entirely dispute this. However, it is also still inconclusive. With regards Br. Joseph's position, see his view cited below which you may consider responding to:

"The 'wa' (and) conjunction in my opinion does not separate the narratives with a view to deal with two separate personalities which runs as one theme from 37:100 to 37:113. The 'wa' (and) in my view only separates the time periods.

Before the 'wa' (and), the narrative was focused on Prophet Abraham's test and after the 'wa' (and), his original prayer in 37:100 was answered in 37:112.

The link is strong. The original prayer was for a 'saliheen' (righteous son) in 37:100. In 37:112 we note the conclusion of that prayer. This connection in my humble view, transcends the 'wa' (and) conjunction particle.
" [4]

"God does not repeat the same truth in the narration in adjacent verses - if the son in 37:101 was the same son in 37:112 , God would need to repeat it."

Why is this restriction imposed? I respectfully know of no such rule nor would I necessarily rule out a position which argues for that in such a Qur'anic narrative scope. However, I still find the traditional position of  verses 37:100-101 referring to Prophet Ismaeel (pbuh) and verse 37:112 to Prophet Ishaq (pbuh) valid in its own accord.

I hope that clarifies my position.



[1]. Qur'an 11:71 Isaac and Ishmael

[2]. The Sacrificial Son of Abraham - Ishmael or Isaac?

[3]. Ibid

[4]. Ibid

General Discussions / Re: Prophet Abraham asked to sacrifice his son?
« on: August 06, 2020, 02:40:44 PM »
Dear inay321,

Wa alaikum as-salaam,

Despite it being a direct address to Br. Joseph, I hope this response is acceptable.

From what I can gather from Br. Joseph’s article that you have cited, I don’t think that he argued against Prophet Ismaeel (pbuh) not being described as ‘of the righteous.’ In my understanding, what is being argued for is the “'narrative scope' of the same Surah of the Quran[1] that is, chapter 37.

You noted: “"one of the righteous" in the narration in Sura 37, that is tre, it is Isaac who is given this description.” Now, I think this was the remit of Br. Joseph’s sentiment on this specific matter. He argues the flow of the narrative and what culminates into what (37:112) can be argued as fulfillment and answer to Prophet Ibrahim’s (pbuh) original prayer (37:100).

In another thread, Br. Joseph argues: “Before the 'wa' (and), the narrative was focused on Prophet Abraham's test and after the 'wa' (and), his original prayer in 37:100 was answered in 37:112.

The link is strong. The original prayer was for a 'saliheen' (righteous son) in 37:100. In 37:112 we note the conclusion of that prayer. This connection in my humble view, transcends the 'wa' (and) conjunction particle.

In the article, Br. Joseph ultimately summarizes his view in that verses 37:100ff focus on Prophet Isaac (pbuh) with his father Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) and that there’s no focus on Prophet Ismaeel (pbuh) in the whole narrative.

In this way and given the discussions above, the whole narrative captured in (37.100 - 113) would be with regards Prophet Isaac, (pbuh) the son that Prophet Abraham (pbuh) saw in a dream to be sacrificed.[2]

Thus, from such an approach, it is strongly argued that the prayer in 37:100 for ‘one of the righteous’ child is answered in 37:112 where such ‘one of the righteous’ is confirmed and more so, one who is a prophet - in this case Prophet Isaac (pbuh). Nonetheless, even if we consider the fact that Prophet Ismaeel (pbuh) is mentioned as ‘one of the righteous’ in 21:85-86 which undoubtedly he is, he still can’t be the ‘one of the righteous’ mentioned in 37:112 because the verse identifies such ‘one of the righteous’ (pbuh) to be Isaac (37:112).

On the other hand, I still find the popular Muslim view of Prophet Ismaeel (pbuh) being the ‘clement’ (haleem) child in 37:101 but still the same ‘righteous’ (swaliheen) one asked for in 37:100 to be a valid position on its own. Afterall, from such an approach, verses 21:85-86 do confirm the child prayed for in 37:100 (‘one of the righteous’) in this case Ismaeel (pbuh), to actually be ‘one of the righteous’ (21:86). This is different from saying that those who hold the ‘narrative scope’ of verses 37:100-112 to focus on Prophet Isaac (pbuh) do claim that Prophet Ismaeel (pbuh) is not described as ‘one of the righteous.’

I hope that clarifies.



[1]. Qur'an 11:71 Isaac and Ishmael


[3]. The Sacrificial Son of Abraham - Ishmael or Isaac?

Dear Beyond Tradition,

Wa alaikumus salaam,

Before Br. Joseph or other members can possibly have an input into the matter in question, may I please shortly expand further on part of my response above.

I do understand your concerns brother. However, I would rather allow my humble opinion to be formed from a wider guiding Qur’anic perspective rather than speculating on the actual reason as to any befallen calamity. As I have put it above, ‘it is an opportunity to take stock and redress the balance whatever scope that would cover in the widest context possible as to addressing the situation.

By this, I mean to emphasize that; so that we can aptly partake in the utmost efforts in addressing the situation, while all possible medical and scientific/ empirical approaches may be taken and exhausted against the ravaging outbreak, at best, the other potential reasons we can surmise as to the cause of such an outbreak are to equally be fully exploited. Now, if this can be understood in perspective of such reasons advanced by scripture as those discussed by Br. Joseph in his article shared above, then I think one would best understand the scope of my opinion.

To start with, no one can with certainty point out the real reason why the ‘outbreak’ has stormed worldwide or why it has had provenance at some locale in the world (China in this case) specifically in 2020. However, medical practitioners can still verify and monitor the process if not the source of the ‘virus be it from consumed food or wherever else. Avenues can be set forth and methods be devised to avoid unnecessary further spread while still exerting more efforts in possibly realizing binding remedies. While the channel for contracting infections may involve habits outlawed in Islam, it may still be one indulged by humans and therefore, reactive measures can still be advanced against whatever repercussions.

On the other hand, while the above is being undertaken, the other potential reasons for such an outbreak can be exploited taking steps towards addressing them. If it is about mending our ways, people will have to post-track their ways and react accordingly where viable. If it is about further wisdom intended, we might exploit that and pay heed to the farthest our capacity can. If part of or all of us are being tested or our resolve is being checked, as believers amongst the very global community, we must show our steadfastness to our covenant with God (4:135). We should also consider us being checked of our willingness and capacity to join hands as global community in combating a pandemic unanimously despite the social, political or religious divides. While others succumb to death in the process, we must also consider the possibility of the survivors being sharpened of their spiritual levels as the goodness in them is being ascertained.

All this is to show the fallibility in us humans as we exercise our capacity to discern and act accordingly keeping into perspective all potential and possible reasons to be exploited. Though we can’t wholly be sure of the exact divine reason for whatever is taking place, we still can extract the readily available wisdom and use the scriptural guidance as pertaining to such devastating decrees. It is in such efforts to pay heed, act, react and seek His guidance on any matter arising that any befallen calamity can be overcome.

Therefore, I don’t personally find it a matter of ascertaining the exact reason why ‘COVID-19’ began specifically in China or why it has spread to the whole world specifically during this year. I rather see it as a global responsibility for us to scientifically exhaust all preventive measures against the pandemic, take caution on whatever causal habits we partake, mend our ways where we went off-track, and more so turn/ submit to God while we spread the word in call to the same.

Hopefully that somehow helps.


Dear Beyond Tradition,

Wa alaikumus salam,

Adversities, sickness, distress, illness, misfortunes, natural calamities, etc. are all part and parcel of the grand scheme of God in the wider plan of things and thus, He knows of and decrees each of them (64:11). They are therefore bound to transpire for quite several reasons as deemed fit from the Almighty (2:155-156). See an article below by Br. Joseph where he quite aptly highlights some of the reasons advanced by the Qur’an as to the nature of such decrees [1].

In the same line, with regards to an emergent situation as with the issue of ‘Corona Virus’ you have brought attention to, I find the following remarks by Br. Joseph to be quite relevant:

At times, we must take heed from our adversity and consider whether we have strayed in our ways, whether our spiritual consciousness lacks vigour or whether we have become arrogant in the land and our affairs. It is an opportunity to take stock and redress the balance. In other circumstances, we must accept that our resolve is being tested, we are being kept out of harm's way or that we have been selected as a source of trial for others so that they may take heed, mend their ways or assist. Trials are also used a means to separate good from evil and as an enabler of spiritual purification.[2]

NOTE: The black italics in the citation above are my own and have no bearing whatsoever to the original text but to emphasize my areas of concern to the subject question

In the main, while such afflictions may be meant to warn, fortify the resolve of, test, or impart some other wider wisdom to a given people, others may as well serve as an earning of what people have put forth by their own hands/ themselves - ‘faman nafsika’ (4:79). Therefore, while the possibility of the current outbreak of 'COVID-19' in China being as a result of a people’s eating habits or whatever mass wayward behavior stands (4:79), the other reasons as to the nature of such an outbreak cannot all be ruled out.

In view of this therefore, with the current status of affairs, for both the individual and the society, the afflicted and the non-afflicted, whether in China or not, I would sincerely and whole-heartedly reiterate Br. Joseph’s sentiment that ‘it is an opportunity to take stock and redress the balance’ whatever scope that would cover in the widest context possible as to addressing the situation.

Hopefully that slightly helps.



[2]. Ibid

Dear Beyond Tradition,

Wa alaikumus salaam,

Kindly find an opinion of mine to a related thread below. See if it assists and kindly do revert for any related additional concerns.

What is a fatwa and does the Quran support it?

Hopefully that helps insha Allah.


General Discussions / Re: What is a "grave" in the Quran?
« on: January 09, 2020, 02:16:30 AM »
Dear Beyond Tradition,

Salaamun alaikum,

Respectfully, if duly considered within the ambit of my response, there's no doubt whatsoever as to the primary signification of the term 'qabr' from my perspective. I have clearly indicated this in the response of mine above to 'Labotomize94'. In my humble view, I also respectfully find no warrant of an exit door to embracing the traditional belief of grave punishment. This is regardless of whether a 'qabr' is taken to mean a 'physical' or 'non-physical' grave.

As noted in my response above, Qur'anic verse 9:84 attests to the Qur'anic and primary meaning of 'qabr' as a 'physical grave' where the Prophet (pbuh) is advised not to stand by (wala taqum) the grave  of (qabrihi) a confirmed disbeliever nor pray for them after their death. To underscore such a primary rendition, it is noted in 80:21 where it is shown that God made man not to be thrown 'to the beasts' when dead but ordered/ permitted that he be buried into the ground (fa aqbarahu). This is again ratified in 5:31 where God sent a raven to demonstrate to a lad how to respectfully fare well his dead brother.

'Maqabir' on the hand is a plural for 'maqbr'/ 'maqbratun' which refers to a 'cemetery' or literally 'a place of graves.' In 102:2, I find it used in the spirit of a reminder so that one does not get blindly carried away by the ups and downs of the pursuit for worldly treasures till death suddenly overtakes them or one of them hence taken to the place of graves (maqabir) on this earth. I see this a reminder just in the same manner as the verses 23:99-100 are.

However, verses 102:6-7 are rather narrated in context of the Day of Judgment/ Justice where the inmates of Hell shall be questioned about the Bliss (102:8). It is noted that they will see the Inferno (al-Jaheem) with the seeing of certainty (102:7). This is also confirmed in 56:94-95. This shall strictly happen on the Day of Justice (yaum ad-Din) as noted in 82:14-15. Further, reference 82:18-19 expands on the nature of the Day.


"Here what  is the best meaning of ‘qubir’ ?"

Most definitely, 'maqabir' in 102:2 is 'a place of graves - physical.'

"Is it after the death ?"

Of course it is.

"Or, when after the graved or burried?"

It is actually till one is buried or sent to the graveyard/ cemetery (maqabir).

"How you explain the word ‘Immediately you will know after the die’ or burried ?"

Respectfully, the verses do not claim so. Rather, while verses 102:1-2 are narrated in the sense of a general warning against obsession with worldly pursuits lest death suddenly snatches away ones breath, reference 102:6-8 advances on what follows after when they are resurrected on the Day of Judgment.

"Is there any arabic word in any verse where God telling explicitly about the physical grave in no connection with resurrection?"

Sure. See verse 9:84 as mentioned earlier.

Hopefully that helps and clarifies my position God willing.


General Discussions / Re: What is a "grave" in the Quran?
« on: December 27, 2019, 08:31:02 PM »
Dear Labotomize94,


To start with, it is a well-established fact from the Qur'an that in whichever form they may have been (17:49-51), the 'dead' shall be 'resurrected' back to their Lord upon a 'call' from Him (17:52) most probably in the form of a 'single scream' (36:53) via a 'sur' (36:51) delegated to arguably a 'caller' (54:6-8) messenger angel from among those responsible that Day (69:17). It is in the response to such an awakening by part of those awakened as captured in the next verse 36:52 that the nature of where they have been is cursorily generally hinted - a 'resting/ sleeping place' (marqad). This is arguably not necessarily a 'physical grave' for all deceased. In my humble opinion, it is in this sense that the 'ajdaathi' in 36:51 should be understood. This does not however mean that 'jadath' (plural: ajdaath) does not mean 'physical grave' nor should it necessarily be translated as 'sleeping place.' The context is key. It is also interesting to note that when the Qur'an employs the term 'ajdaath,' those awakened (humans) from their 'sleeping/ resting places' are portrayed to immediately rush towards a startling call (54:7, 70:43). The call is thereafter shown to be that of a just recompense (36:53-54, 99:6-8).

On one hand, we note the term 'qabr' (plural: qubuur) as being commonly used to explicitly refer to a 'physical grave.' See 9:84 as well as 22:7. When 'qabr' (grave) is used in connection to resurrection of the dead, the Qur'an refers to the deceased as 'those in the graves' - 'man/ maa fil qubuur' (22:7, 100:9). It is interesting to note that it is those who are generally in the 'graves' - qubuur (as now perceived) that the Qur'an mentions to be brought forth that Day from their 'dead' state and not necessarily from their graves. Thus, in such a context referring to resurrection in connection with the term 'qubuur,' the Qur'an is interested with the 'dead' and not the 'graves' in which they are.

On the other hand, even if we admit the meaning of 'jadath' as being a 'physical grave,' I don't think there can be much of any conflict within the Qur'anic perspective. If such a meaning is admitted, verse 100:9 will as a result be interpreted in reference to an event post-recreation of the Universe (21:104). Therefore, on that Day (100:101), just in the same manner to obtain (100:10) 'that which is in the hearts' of arguably those humans recreated anew (17:49) shall 'that which is in the graves' from the newly recreated Earth (21:104) be scattered/ dispersed (100:9). The reason being; God will have inspired it to (99:4-5). To briefly put it clear, if one is to argue against the Qur'an portraying the 'dead' being resurrected by God from another newly recreated 'earth,' they have to similarly argue against God obtaining 'previous contents' of human 'hearts' (swudoor) from the newly recreated humans. In response, God asserts that He would have inspired that earth to do so (99:4-5).

In summary therefore, from my humble perspective, it doesn't matter whether the Qur'an mentions a physical or non-physical grave when it talks of resurrection of the dead. In my opinion, the term 'ajdaathi' in 36:51 is used to denote 'non-physical' graves otherwise as 'sleeping/ dead states.' It is not necessary that the 'graves/ sleeping states' in 36:51 be understood as 'physical' ones. Rather, the context dictates the opposite (36:52).

Hopefully that helps insha Allah.


Dear Labotomize94,

Salaamun 'alaikum,

In my opinion, I think it all narrows down to priorities in matters of truth. In my humble submission, a distinction has to be made between what is to be taken as a matter of fact together with the source with which one attains certainty of the same and matters of opinions together with sources that can be ranked in accordance to their epistemic value/ academic function. History as a tool cannot be considered a source that guarantees certainty or indisputable truth. On the other hand, to consider a given human source as a source of indisputable truth, perfect and certain is as precarious as denying that human is errant.

As for the question of historians citing hadeeth as a historical source, this does not in any way raise its epistemic value over the fence into the realm of certainty. It just remains that way – literally a historical source with some academic value. We should also not ignore the much scholarship that criticizes it – arguably with a valid footing. In fact, most importantly, we should check it against the very central source (Qur’an) that it allegedly seeks to support. Strangely though, as you may agree, it has no religious authority nor the subordinacy it is allegedly claimed to have to the Qur’an.

Therefore, in my view, while one may want to consider the hadeeth as a historical source, one should as well not turn a blind eye to the warranted scholarly criticism levied against it. For matters not confirmed by the Qur’an which it allegedly purports to support, I personally find it religiously dangerous upholding them as indisputable truths. They may well be but unless one brings with them indisputable proof corroborating the same, for me, I would consider withholding/ suspending judgment as to accepting them as matters of fact a justified alternative. Thus, as a believer, I find it safer to take hadeeth claims as generally simple possibilities and not historical truths especially when the position argued for is that of religious import and not merely academic.

Hopefully that is relevant.

And God knows best.


Dear Labotomize94,

As salaam alaikum,

In my opinion, I rather find the premise that is laid down as an axiom at the outset one that renders the two verses and probably many more others contradictory. In the context of the Qur'an as a recitation/ narration, I would find the restrictive linguistic imposition on the usages of the two particles unwarranted. In that respect, I would have a difficulty in objectively determining the 'shortness' or 'lengthiness' of the period in question. As an example, in 23:13, by the same principle, I would find the use of thumma contradictory if we consider that the diploid cell - fertilized egg (nutfah) takes at least 3 to 4 days (short period according to me) before it gets to the uterus for implantation. I would rather find 'longer' (relative to that of nutfah) the periods during which the 'mudhwghan' is formed into bones ('idhwam) then bones clothed with flesh (lahm) and into a fully grown infant (thwiflan), ranging from weeks to months. The particle used here is however 'fa' rather than thumma. Now with 22:5, the same periods are described in sequence but employing the particle thumma.

In contrary, to clarify on this, I would argue for an occasional interchangeability of 'fa' and 'thumma' in some contexts.

With regards the particle 'fa' in relation to 'thumma,' Lane notes in his Lexicon in page 2321 of Volume 6:

 "_and it is said to occur
sometimes in the sense of 'thumma,' (Mughnee, K, *
TA, *) denoting conjunction in an absolute manner,
with delay; (TA;) as in the saying [in the Kur
xxiii. 14]  Thumma khalaqna an-nutfata 'alaqatan fakhalaqna al-'alaqata mudhwghatan fakhalaqna al-mudhwghata 'idhwaman fakasawna al-'idhwama lahman  [Then
we made the sperm a lump of clotted blood, then
we made the lump of clotted blood a bit of flesh,
then we made the bit of flesh bones, then we
clothed the bones with flesh
]: (Mughnee, I,

From the several functions of the particle thumma, in the capacity of a conjunction, Lane notes in Volume 1 page 351 of his Lexicon:

"... [meaning Then, i. e., afterward, or afterwards,] a
particle, (M, K,) or conjunction, (Zj, T, S, Msb,
Mughnee,) denoting order (Zj, T, S, M, Msb,
Mughnee) and a delay, (S, Msb,) or having three
properties, namely, that of virtually associating
in the same case [the latter of the two members
which it conjoins with the former of them], and
denoting order and denoting a delay; but respecting all of these there is a difference of opinions.
(Mughnee, K. *)

In relation to the particle 'fa' it is then noted:

"_The Koofees allow its being used in the
manner of 'fa' and 'wa' so as that the aor. immediately
following it after a conditional verb may be mansoob: and Ibn-Malik allows its being thus used
so as that the aor. immediately following it after
the expression of a desire that the thing shall not
be done may be marfooa and mejzoom and mansoob.  (Mughnee.)

Therefore, the particles thumma and fa can a times be used interchangeably despite any inherent nuance that each may represent. I therefore personally find it unjustified to limit the scope of employment of any of them in relation to another and in fact of no use to consequently use that as a normative against any text of the Qur'an.

Hopefully that helps God willing.

And Allah knows best.


Dear 'toufiq95,'


Firstly, with no intention of attributing this to any individual, it has been a general observation of mine that it is those who define 'angels' (malaika) as 'laws in nature' that would necessarily find ways to redefine or interpret explicit and clear scriptural references to 'angels' (malaika) into 'empirical,' 'scientific,' or 'commonly held' understandings. In my opinion, such an approach is flawed especially considering the wider Qur'anic theology built upon the belief in such 'beings' (35:1). I suppose that this is not the case with you.

With that said, kindly find  some relevant comments below from my humble perspective.

'Lam-Qaf-Ya' being the root of the relevant form V derivatives in 50:17 has various meanings with an underlying connotation of 'meeting/ causing to come closer, in touch or together.' In this case (form V), it is primarily used to basically mean 'to receive' (talaqqa). See verse 2:37.

From the above, the phrase 'idh yatalaqqa al-mutalaqqiyani 'anil yamini wa 'anish-shimali qa'idun' literally translates to 'as the two receivers receive, seated to the right and to the left.' Simply, this can be easily reconciled with the noble recorder angels (kiraman katibin) who guard ones in recording of deeds (82:10-11).

With regards to reconciliation of the preceding verse 50:16 with the reference 'the two aiming at meeting each other' in 50:17 with respect to 'whispers' of ones 'innermost self' or else ones 'intentions/ actions,' I would argue that verse 43:80 puts the perspective clear. As per 43:80, it is indeed messenger (rusulan) - angels (22:75) that do record people's 'secrets' and 'conspiracies' arguably also from their inner selves.

"Or do they think that We hear not their secrets and their private conversations? Yes, and Our messengers are with them recording." [Qur'an, Az-Zukhruf 43:80]

Therefore, if the secrecy and conspiracy in man's doings is witnessed and recorded down by 'messenger' angels (43:80), it is obvious that man's innermost whispers as alluded to in 50:16 are as well witnessed and recorded (50:18) by the same messenger angels (43:80), in this case 'the two receivers' (al-mutalaqqiyani) 'positioned' (qa'idun) to 'the right' (al-yamini) and to 'the left' (ash-shimali) - 50:17. The 'receiving/ perceiving' (yatalaqqa) of the 'whispers' (tuwaswisu) from the 'inner self' (nafsuhu) of human beings (al-insana) by the 'two receiver angels' (mutalaqqiyani) being in a similar manner as that 'receiving/ perceiving' (fatalaqqa) of the 'inspirational words' (kalimatin) by Adam (pbuh) in 2:37.

It has to be noted that the 'receiving' (talaqqa) by angels (malaika) is not limited only to that of 'uttered words' (qawlin) by the 'kiraman katibin' (82:10-11) but is also applicable to other areas like that of 'receiving' (watatalaqqahum) of believers into Eternal Bliss (21:103) as well as arguably disbelievers into Hell by respective messenger angels. See 66:6.

In my opinion, the 'positioning' (qa'idun) to the right (al-yamini) and to the left (ash-shimali) is better understood as an elucidation to the literal reference 'the two receivers' (al-mutalaqqiyani). To me, the references 'saiqun' (driver) and 'shahidun' (witness) in 50:21 sound more of 'beings' than 'personalities/ faculties' of beings. Read in tandem with 39:70-75, the driver (saiqun) in 50:21 who accompanies (qarinuhu, 50:23) and drives (wasiqa, 39:71) one to their destiny resort that Day is better understood as from among the angels in charge on the Day of judgment (39:75). See 74:30.

Furthermore, the 'drive' (masaqu) in this case (50:21) can well be understood as that of 'transition' of place (transportation) rather than that of 'influence/ enforcement' into action. See (7:57, 35:9) as well as 39:71. As for the 'witness' (shahidun) in this case (for the disbeliever), this might as well be a 'company' (qarinuhu, 50:27) whom one is coupled with when their case is closed (43:36-38). This is actually what is confirmed by that said 'company' in 50:27 as part of their 'witnessing' (shahidun).

Consequently, in my view, I would not necessarily understand those 'two receivers' to the 'right' and to the 'left' in 50:17 as implying 'two conflicting forces' in which case 'instinctive urges' against 'intuitive faculty/ reason' nor should they necessarily correspondingly be related to the 'driver' and 'witness' in 50:21. Rather, I read 50:16-18 as a unit block of verses that together point to a pair of angels who are in charge of noting down each and every utterance/ deed that a person does.

Hopefully that is acceptable of an interpretation God willing.

And Allah knows best.


Islamic Duties / Re: "Wasiyah" distribution in one's lifetime?
« on: December 11, 2019, 12:18:34 AM »
Dear Student,

Wa 'alaikumus salaam,

With respect to your issue of concern, in addition to the respectful inputs as go above parting with deep insights into the subject and given the Qur’anic position with regards to the obligated responsibility of prescribing a ‘wasiyah' amongst believers, may I also share a humble opinion from my view.

Firstly, in as much as one would suggest a contingent option to a given divine religious prescription/ delegation, it must be maintained that such a fallible alternative has neither theoretically nor practically been divinely sanctioned explicitly and that there’s no religious solid grounds to justify it in preference over the recommended one. With all due respect, to use fallible and contingent justifications such as ‘...fear of alteration (2:181) & settlement of court battles b/w siblings, rancor, severance of relationships etc (2:182)…’ is to inherently assume that the divine delegation did not take that into consideration or at least overlooked its potential impact. Either way, this has to be proven. Furthermore, problems such as ‘…rancor, severance of relationships etc…’ remain contingent to the situation regardless.

In my view, the Qur’anic prescription towards the matter proffers an ideal avenue to the testator through which they prescribe a manner in which their ‘legacies’ are to be shared post-death as appropriate. In this context, it also inherently assumes an ideal Islamic family setup as well as an ideal ‘executive’ system under which fallible 'trustees' are to faithfully deliberate the same amongst and to fallible believing Muslims. Any inconsistency or potential inconvenience to heirs remain exactly fallible i.e, subject to human fallible character (testator, witnesses, executives, heirs, etc) and not the divine infallible delegation (wasiyah idea) itself - with respect to its time aspect whatsoever. Nevertheless, some human shortcomings are also recognized and ways to curb them suggested (5:106-108) even in other dealings (2:282-284). Even so, in the context of whatever potential uncertainties, we have to humbly submit our endeavours into the remit of our abled capacities (64:16).

It must however be pointed out that in the divine delegation, even the human function has been provided for where one is given chance to determine the respective shares as deemed appropriate by the testator - with no potential compromise (ghayra mudhwarin). Thus, in my opinion, to argue for the human function in determining the appropriacy of the time aspect for ‘wasiyah’ execution (where it has not been given despite it being provided for at another level) would be akin to providing for human intervention of the divine prescription. This is before even looking into its impact with other aspects such as other prerequisites to the 'inheritance' distribution i.e, debts (4:12).

Hopefully that also slightly gives some perspective into the subject God willing.

And Allah knows best.


General Discussions / Re: Translation error?
« on: October 27, 2019, 01:41:57 AM »
Dear Areebuddin


In addition to what has been hitherto shared, I would like to present a brief overview of the interpretation of 18:27 and why I would theologically and syntactically push for the majority translation.

From my humble perspective, to corroborate the majority translation of verse 18:27 over Rashad Khalifah's rendition, I would argue (1) the syntactical flow of the verse - with respect to the pronoun 'hi' (him/ it) as well as (2) the meaning of 'multahada' and its Qur'anic usage.

(1). In my view, the pronoun 'hi' in 'likalimaatihi (in His word) refers back to the immediate preceding noun 'rabbika' (your Lord) as well as the subsequent 'hi' in 'duunihi' (apart from him/ it). From its flow, it is clear that the verse takes a bearing to centralize the theme of its injunction on God. Thus, I find no syntactical reason to append the reference of the second 'hi' to its immediate preceding noun 'kalimat' in 'likalimaatihi' but rather, it continues the original syntactical reference to 'rabbika.'

(2). 'multahada' is a noun from the Form VIII verb form of the root 'LAM-HA-DAL.' See the citation below.

"...lahad, INF. lahd, dig a niche in an older tomb and bury the dead in it, bury; lean towards; II. INF. talhid, id.; —IV. INF. ilhad, id.; swerve from the right way, from faith, become a heretic; —VIII. INF. iltihad, lean to." [1]

Basically, it would refer to 'that which one would 'incline/ lean/ resort/ take recourse/ turn aside to.' In religious terms, and for matters of faith, this would apply to God as well as it would for His word - Qur'an. See the following citation from Lane's lexicon as regards the term.

"...A place to which one has recourse for
refuge, protection, concealment, covert, or lodging; a place of refuge; an asylum: (S, Msb, K :  )
so called because one turns aside to it. (S.)
" [2]

Thus, from a theological perspective, the 'multahada' referred to by the second pronoun 'hi' in 18:27 could as well be God's word (kalimatihi) as it is God Himself. However, the Qur'an does not only define the context in which the 'multahada' in 18:27 is used by the preceding verse 18:26 (ma lahum min duunihi min waliyyin) to refer to God Himself but also confirms it in 72:22 where the same term 'multahada' is used specifically for God. 'walan ajida min duunihi multahada' - 'and I will not find besides Him any refuge/ protection (multahada)' (72:22) would be hammering the  preceding remark 'innii lan yujiirani mina Allahi ahadun' - 'I, no one can protect me (yujiira) from God.'

Therefore, in view of the above observations, I find the following English translation to best generally literally capture the Arabic of the Qur'anic verse 18:27. Thus, I would in this case respectfully find Rashad Khalifah's rendition somewhat wanting.

"And convey what has been revealed to you of the Book (of) your Lord. None can change His Words and never will you find besides Him a refuge." [Qur'an, Al-Kahf 18:27]

Hopefully that helps. And God knows best.



. F. STEINGASS, Ph.D., The Student's Arabic-English Dictionary 1884; London Crosby Lockwood and Son, Pp 911-912
[2]. LANE. E.W, Edward Lanes Lexicon, Williams and Norgate 1863; Librairie du Liban Beirut-Lebanon 1968, Volume 7, Page 2654

Dear Student,

Peace to you,

Sorry for my late attention. I will briefly respond to what appears to me to be your concerns. I have been quite busy with some other commitments elsewhere. I will give some more elaboration some other time where possible and where necessary.

You respectfully noted:

…when al-Jabal apears (in 7:171) the word nataqna (shook) is used (not ra'fana (raised) as in 2:63, 93 & 4:151). Given Quran's precision word choice are these two different events, perhaps?

Possibly yes. However, in my opinion, to assert such a possibility, it must strongly and cogently be proven the case and not contextually the obvious position of those passages relating to an event at a particular point in time. I would not bet accuracy of a whole event that is contextually portrayed in both the Quranic passages upon a difference in a single word used especially when others do relate.

I quote:

However, the al particle is absent when it was used with Saina/Sineen. Aren't these two different then?

I do admit that the reference of ‘thwur’ in both 23:20 and 95:2 is different from its reference in the other verses with respect to its morphological aspect owing to the definite article ‘al.’ However, I would respectfully not take that as a cue to distinguishing between terms rather distinguishing between two morphological usages of the same root word.

With regards to functionality, it can be argued that in 23:20 and 95:2, ‘thwur’ has been indefinitely employed to generally refer to a well-known typical mountain (95:2) from which sprout out certain trees (23:20) while in the other verses, it has been used definitely by virtue of the article ‘al’ to relate to a particular such-like mountain associated with a particular event in the past specifically associated with the particular community under address - People of the Book (2:53, 65; 7:169-170).

Hopefully that shortly helps.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10