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 5 ... 10
General Discussions / Re: Revenge and evil for evil
« on: August 20, 2019, 01:28:43 AM »
Dear miracle114,

As salaam alaikum,

In the main, I find the understanding you seem to have extracted from the verses to be correct in my humble opinion. From my perspective, I think it is clear from those verses that the Qur'an encourages a particular approach criteria to 'injustice' or 'evil' imparted on an individual. From 42:40, three points are noteworthy:

(1). With all other conditions constant, revenge is something that is allowed in the case of an action acted against one

(2). It is more preferable and a times beneficial, in fact even rewardable with God if a better approach is resorted to. This would entail forgiving/ pardoning or even a reconciliation, if not any better approach - consequently averting the 'evil/ bad' by otherwise 'good.'

(3). What is not expected of an individual during such an action acted upon them is 'injustice.' This can for instance be enacted when one retaliates against those who are not the actual perpetrators of the mistreatment against them.

To emphasize on the above, verse 42:41 underscores point (1) while 42:42 supports the idea in (3). Further, verse 42:43 ratifies point (2) above while an earlier verse 42:39 relates back to point (1).

From a wider overarching Qur’anic theme, the Qur'an recommends such an approach underpinned by the criteria above especially in emphasis to point (2) where possible and warranted. See verse 41:34 as quoted below.

And not equal are the good deed and the bad. Repel by that which is better; and thereupon the one whom between you and him is enmity [will become] as though he was a devoted friend.” (Qur’an, Fussilat 41:34)

To resonate this even further, the Qur’an relates to a consistent series of instructions that focus on the said approach. The following are some of the verses to the effect:
And those who are patient, seeking the countenance of their Lord, and establish prayer and spend from what We have provided for them secretly and publicly and prevent evil with good - those will have the good consequence of [this] home” (Qur’an, Ar-Ra’d 13:22)

Repel evil by what is better. We are aware of what they describe.” (Qur’an, Al-Mu’minun 23:96)

As in 13:22, and relating to what is referred to in 42:40 (fa ajruhuu 'ala llahi), verse 28:54 attests to a double reward to those who avert an 'evil' with a 'good' gesture.

Those will be given their reward twice for what they patiently endured and [because] they avert evil through good, and from what We have provided them they spend.” (Qur’an, Al-Qasas 28:54)

Hopefully that helps in some way God willing.                                                                                                   


Dear Br. Wakas,

Peace to you too,

Kindly see my responses to your italicized comments below.

To clarify, the preposition "fee" occurs many times in Quran (well over a thousand)

I sincerely do find your ‘clarification’ here to rather be redundant. This is in fact what was firstly noted in my introductory address to the said particle above, “...the Arabic particle ‘fi’ as used in the Qur’an many a times...

 “...and you cited one wherein...

My address to the said particle still stands as can be viewed above and one has the chance to see if your claim stands true to what is noted in my response. think it means "on" (20:71)...

It is one thing one to ‘think’ exclusively on their own about something and another for one to argue citing a supporting reference [1] which in turn references earlier lexicographers that attest to different usages of a particle including the particular one under contention. Kindly see the link cited.

Of course there may be more as I do not expect you (or others) to study every occurrence.

You are right. After all, it is the arguments presented in defense of a particular understanding that matter in this case and not an exhaustive list.

"it could still mean X despite the issues you raise"

I respect your prerogative to extract whatever understanding you happen to from my response, which could of course not necessarily be what I actually claimed. However, I trust that my replies were clear and specific to your claimed ‘issues,’ and more importantly relevant.

 “(I never said it couldn't)

This is rather a patently dismissive remark especially as contrasted to the fact that the alleged ‘issues’ have been re-cited by you in at least 3 threads on this forum and arguably whenever the traditional understanding of 48:29 is presented, or when a related topic ensues. Such reiterations would have been redundant in the first place if you do admit that the traditional understanding stands 'in its own respect.' In fact, even this response of mine would have been unnecessary.

...and you never pointed out any clear errors or logical fallacies etc...

I would not find it necessary to cite such ‘issues’ if my intention was basically to respond to your claimed ‘issues’ which I did. The key areas of your alleged contentions have been addressed and the inadequacy of your expectations pointed out of which I collectively find to be ‘academically wanting.’ is yours with regard to what is "academically wanting".

I think it can easily be proven otherwise via an apt response/ rebuttal to the comments made if one sincerely deems such a remark disagreeable.

As I've said many times I prefer evidence on the table so it can be weighed, so thanks for presenting yours.

Though I acknowledge your general sentiment here, it must be remembered that in this case, I was simply addressing your alleged ‘issues’ as claimed here [2]. This is however not an exhaustive analysis of verse 48:29 nor the related topic [3] among others. It is also not yet a criticism of your own approach and understanding of the verse nor the related topics.



[1]. LANE. E.W, Williams and Norgate 1863; Librairie du Liban Beirut-Lebanon 1968, Volume 6, Page 2466-2467
[2]. Prayer
[3]. Ibid

Dear Br. Wakas,

Peace be upon you,

With a view not to rekindle a debate pertaining the relevant terminologies under discussion given the divergence in the fundamental methodologies of approach as I already acknowledged between us in an earlier thread [1], but in an effort to respond to your alleged issues with my understanding of 48:29 as claimed there [1] as well as recently noted here[2]and here[3], kindly briefly see my comments below.

 ‘Athar’ as ‘an effect/ impression/ mark/ trace’ could be physical (18:64, 40:21) as well as non-physical (30:50, 46:4). As for that ‘athar’ resultant from prostrations (sujud) impressing a 'feature of identity' - ‘siimahum’ (48:29), a general Qur'anic acknowledgement of the ‘impressions’ (athar) on faces (forehead) of those who do prostrate (as-sajidina) does not negate the fact that some believers who perform the prostrations (as-sajidina) do not bear them distinctly. This does not also therefore mean that for one to distinguish believers from non-believers, they can simply go on making out the ‘sijdah’ marks on ‘foreheads.’ Rather, the verse simply acknowledges a generalsujud’ impression on ‘faces’ of the ‘as-sajidina’ (26:219) much like the way it does acknowledge a general ‘intense lust’ (as-shahawati) for ‘women’ implanted within ‘man’ (3:14). This does not however similarly preclude the fact that some people are not given much into the yearnings of ‘women’ but into other illicit intimacies and typical adornments/ love.

On the other hand, the Arabic particle ‘fi’ as used in the Qur’an many a times denotes ‘inclusion’ or ‘inbeing’ either in relation to place or time as well as tropically (2:176, 179). See verses 30:3-4 in relation to time. Specifically, see verses 2:203 and 36:55 with the implication ‘during.’ However, this does not preclude the fact that it has been used to denote other aspects like ‘in respect of’/ ‘concerning’/ ‘about’ (2:139, 176) or ‘denoting concomitance’ (7:38, 46:16) as well as ‘denoting comparison’ (9:38). Furthermore, as relates to our case, it has also been used prepositionally to denote ‘superiority’ i.e, in the sense of the preposition ‘‘ala’ - ‘on’ (20:71) as well as in sync. with preposition ‘ilaa’ - ‘to/ over’ (14:9) and preposition ‘min’ - ‘of/ among’ (27:12). See the referenced link [4] below.

Thus, from my humble perspective, I would not bet appropriateness of the flavor with which ‘fi’ has been employed in 48:29 upon its ‘majoritymeaning in the Qur’an. Rather, other aspects like context and syntax would collectively dictate the nuance. See a thread [5] below in which the following comments of mine appear in response to a typical contention over another Qur’anic verse (9:28).

He expects the ‘qaraba’ imperative verb of 9:28 to be structured in a similar manner to those in the other instances due to an arbitrary majority 2nd person plural occurrence of the verb ‘qaraba’ in those 11 sample Qur'anic instances cited, and which would assumedly be an odd/minor occurrence. In my opinion, this is unwarranted.[6]

Therefore, much similar to 20:71, and arguably also 67:16-17, ‘fi’ in 48:29 can be noted to have been employed to simply mean ‘on’ as in ‘their marks are on their faces from the effects of prostration’ - ‘siimahum fi wujuhihim min athari as-sujudi.’

Further to that, the term ‘sima’ as a noun and as employed within the Qur’anic narratives would basically refer to ‘a feature of identity’ (2:273, 4:46, 4:48, 47:30, 55:41) which is similarly the rendering as with verse 48:29. In this case, it is as a result of ‘impressions’ (athar) from ‘prostrations’ (sujud). As for the contention brought forth against such an understanding of 48:29 allegedly in relation to 48:25, in my humble opinion, what lies at the crux of such a faulty contention is the lack of it to appreciate the overall concept of a ‘muumin’ (believer) which the Qur’an wholly portrays and which God in this verse refers. This is especially if we also consider that even the Prophet (pbuh) could not make out true ‘believers’ (muuminin) from the ‘hypocrites’ (4:142) in his congregation. One could also argue against the impracticality of the Muslims setting out on a mission to identify each of the individuals among their enemies at the Valley of Makkah - ‘bathwni makkata’ (48:24) to allegedly make out their fellow brethren in faith and belief (iman) by use of a simple ‘bare forehead’ impression which is otherwise generally a ‘mark’ (feature) of ones who merely ‘prostrate’ and not necessarily true ‘believers’ (muuminin).

In summary therefore, I find the contentions you raise against the understanding of ‘sima’ as 'a physical feature of identity' in the form of marks (athar) of ‘physical’ prostrations (sujud) on ‘foreheads’ (wujuuh) in 48:29 as a result of your own theological approach to verse 48:29 to be, respectfully, academically wanting.

Hopefully that clarifies my position.



[1]. Prayer

[2]. Best explanation i saw about salaat, ever.

[3]. Why should we face towards the Kaaba(mecca) while praying ?

[4]. LANE. E.W, Williams and Norgate 1863; Librairie du Liban Beirut-Lebanon 1968, Volume 6, Page 2466-2467

[5]. The difference between 2nd person plural and 3rd person plural is arbitrary?

[6]. Ibid

Islamic Duties / Re: Prayer
« on: July 10, 2019, 06:54:46 PM »
Dear Br. Wakas,

Peace to you as well,

Thanks for the quick response.

As reiterated in my previous response, what remains at the crux of what appears to be our variant interpretations that would clash over verses such as 48:29 and resultant seeming difficulties with each other's position is the difference in approach and the assumed axioms which would arguably also include definitions of terms as well as overall theological leans.

On the other hand, my citation of verse 6:79 was not a cue to suggesting that it is per se a ‘supportive’ verse for the ‘prayer direction.’ Rather, as noted in my response, what we can gather is that Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) ‘established his focus of prayerful attention - 'wajh.'’ Given the previous verses (6:74-78), it is clear that there was a subsequent swap of prioritized theological focus before Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) could establish the true ‘deity’ to whom his full prayerful ‘attention’ (wajh) was due. See my response below as to what I argued for as support for the ‘prayer direction’ (shathwr) during Prophet Ibrahim’s (pbuh) advent.

As to what you purport to be clear and deserving discussion, "and from wherever thou come forth / depart....," - ‘wa min haithu kharajta’ (2:149-150), I would personally not find it of special interest and discuss it in isolation from ‘and wherever you may be’ - ‘wahaithu ma kuntum' (2:144, 2:150). However, as you personally admit, and given that both phrases seem to be ‘clear’ to me as regards to what they seem to be pointing at, I do not find something in those verses that requires a dedicated ‘discussion,’ unless I’m missing a point.

With regards 10:87, I must admit that I made a typo for that was not the verse I intended to share. Thanks for the correction. It is verse 2:125 that I meant to cite as referencing a ‘focal place of worship and prayer (muswallah)’ for Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh). However, what was cited as a supportive aspect to the ‘prayer direction’ (shathwr) was the ‘context’ (2:141-144) as well as the fact that each (nation) is designated their focal point of direction/ attention - ‘wijhatun’ (2:148). Verse 10:87 was to be an additional reference also for the idea of focus and places of worship (masajid) as mentioned above, in this case 'qiblah' (2:142) otherwise as instructed of Prophet Musa (pbuh) and his people.


Islamic Duties / Re: Prayer
« on: July 09, 2019, 01:27:45 AM »
Dear Br. Wakas,

Peace be upon you,

Given an acknowledgement of yours to a possibility of an 'agreement to a disagreement' between us as regards the difference of approaches I purport to exist, may I in summary express my sentiments as follows with respect to the contentions you raise against my humble perspectives on verses 2:43 and 2:150. I do not however intend to recall a debate on semantics whatsoever of the relevant terms. This is just in a bid to respond to your solicitation of my opinion on the same.

With regards 2:43, the notion that if the phrase 'warkau ma'a ar-raki'in' (and bow down with those who bow) is to be understood as relating to the imperative 'wa aqimu as-swalata' (and establish ritual prayers) then it would possibly also carry with its influence (that of association/ company) the imperative 'wa atu az-zakata' (and give the societal due) is in my opinion partially a valid one. However, I see such an assertion to be based upon the narrowed premise that the root 'ra-kaf-'ayn' can not be a context driven term, rather, always a general one.

Despite the fact that it generally carries with it the flavor of ‘humility/ being humble’ (38:24) hence in 3:43 a possible instruction to ‘humble herself’ with ‘those who humble themselves’ (5:55), given the context - ‘swalaah’ (2:43), the ‘sense of belonging’ that is being alluded to in this case is that of ‘physical congregation’ in nature (4:102), an association (physical participation, 4:102) which would not arguably apply to ‘zakat.’ This is especially because other Quranic verses are also found to build a particular setting to such a term when used in the company of others (22:26, 22:77-78). In this case, it therefore refers back to the aforementioned 'swalaah' (supposed to be established/ standing up for it/ 'aqimu'- 'fa aqimu as-swalata,' 22:78) which comprises of and arguably not limited to 'iqama' (standing), 'ruk'u' (bowing) and 'sujud' (prostration) - (wa al-qaimina warrukka'i as-sujuudi, 22:26).

Therefore, in that respect, from my humble view, ‘al-qaimina’ (22:26), ‘ar-raki’in’ (2:43) and ‘as-sajidina’ (26:219) in their respective contexts would be referring to those ‘al-muswallina’ (70:22) which is a general reference to 'those who pray.’ One would thus find such references as (2:125) and (26:218-219) to be referring to those ‘prayerful gestures’ that are congregationally binding to believers (4:102) such that those which are physically engaging would even leave a sealing mark (48:29).

As regards 2:150, twinned with the fact that the Jews and the Christians kept asserting that salvation was associated with their identities (2:111), they were bent on insisting on their whimsical claims to divert the Prophet's (pbuh) attention (2:120). This would also include shifting the focus of places of worship - 'masajida llahi' (2:114). However, every direction is God's (2:115, 2:142) and thus whichever direction the Prophet (pbuh) faces, he would find God's attention though each (nation) is designated theirs (2:148).

As a 'fully engaging prayerful commitment,' the 'swalaah,' comprised of such physical acts as noted above, is to be established (2:110, 153) despite the dire efforts by the People of the Book to deprive the Prophet (pbuh) of his rightful place of worship (masajid, 2:114) as well as arguably the direction of facing (qiblah, 2:142). Thus, such a direction of sorts (2:143-144) is linked to the 'worship' at the designated places (masajid) which in this case is the 'prayer' - swalaah (2:110, 153). In the backdrop of such an act of directional orientation, Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) established his focus of prayerful attention - 'wajh' (6:79) as well as a focal place of worship and prayer (muswallah) for his followers (10:87). Given the context (2:141-144), this would arguably also include direction of facing (shathwr/ qiblah).

Hopefully that clarifies my position.


Islamic Duties / Re: Prayer
« on: July 06, 2019, 06:01:58 AM »
Dear Br. Wakas,

Peace to you too,

To start with, whether 2:43 is to be contested against as alluding to ‘prayer congregation’ in connection with the use of the root ‘ra-kaf-‘ayn,’ it does not address the matter in question, i.e, whether there’s a reason as to why ‘swalaah’ is to include physical acts like bowing (ruk’u), standing (iqama) and prostration (sujud). I only parted with my humble view as a response to the question with regards to what has been acknowledged by the enquirer as ‘swalaah’ which I humbly wholly submit to be the correct understanding.

On the other hand, to deal with your cursory contentions that address verses such as 2:150 and 2:43 with respect to the meanings of specific terms employed by the Qur’an may prove fruitless if the approaches you and I take to interpreting the Qur’anic narratives are variant and that we do not have a common convergence point in that. With respect, I personally would not set out on a mission to resorting to pure semantics without carefully maintaining a cursory eye to the syntax of passages of the Qur’an and the wider context.

For instance, to address your contention against 2:150, it would entail not only addressing the issue of ‘direction/ attention’ (shathwr - 2:144 / wajh - 28:22) but also the ‘meaning’ of ‘ritual prayer’ (swalaah) which is, in my opinion, arguably implied when the Qur’an mentions ‘direction of facing’ (shathwr) in relation to such a context (2:153).

With respect to 2:43, and in addition 3:43, aside from what is to be addressed as your supposed contention, terms such as ‘sujud’ and ‘ruk’u’ when in reference to worship (48:29) arguably in relation to ‘swalaah’ (22:26) may also need to be defined, definitions which in my humble view, respectfully, would obviously keep our interpretations at loggerheads.

For that aforementioned reason, may I kindly reserve my response in full to you as regards your question and contention for which I feel like such prolonged discussions as those referenced [1] [2] below geared around semantics may ensue without warrant. I agree with Br. Joseph in many areas of understanding with respect to certain terms as those mentioned above and would thus not wish to recall similar unnecessary contentious discussions whose participants assume wholly parallel theological positions with regards the subject matter.

Hopefully that is relevant.



[1]. Why should we face towards the Kaaba(mecca) while praying ?
[2]. Comments on Five Prayers & Meaning of Sujud - Wakas

Dear miracle114,

Salamun ‘alaikum,

Kindly, briefly see my humble view below as gleaned from the relevant Qur’anic verses.

In Islam, a woman's virginity is a noble status that should be rendered sacred and reserved only for their husband as should a man's for his wife. With the willingness of a woman to offer her chastity to a proposing man expressed in a religiously legal contract to last a lifetime, an ordained generous offering (mahr) from the man agreed upon themselves aptly serves to seal recognition of such a life-long sacrifice (4:21). This is the God ordained marriage system for believers where there’s an expectation of the ‘mahr’ to be due to the bride from the groom (33:50) in line with its expectation of a man to betroth a woman (4:25). The reasons behind that can only be surmised, while the wider wisdom is fully well known to God.” [1]

NB: Bold and black highlights are meant to emphasize my areas of interest.

Therefore, in my view, yes, I do find the bridal due (mahr) to be an essential part of the marriage process (2:236-237, 4:4, 4:24-25, 5:5, 33:50, 60:10), as a pre-requisite to the marital bond as explained in brief above by Br. Joseph.



[1]. Women's clothes and rape?

Islamic Duties / Re: Prayer
« on: June 25, 2019, 07:11:40 PM »
Dear questionsislam,

Peace be upon you,

It is correct as stated by sister Truthseeker that the Qur’an does not explicitly mention why there is an expectation of some formal physical gestures (e.g, prostration) concomitant to the actual ritual personal attachment/ fellowship with God during prayer. However, such a Qur’anic non-commital to a cogent motive for the same should not be taken as a cue to abandoning the actions themselves nor serve as a reason to doubt their implications/ origin. In the main, believers are those who do hear and obey (24:51). Such are the successful ones.

In the same stroke, before engaging into the prayer, a ritual ablution is expected regardless of whether one is already clean (4:43, 5:6). This again is a physical act. Same applies to the direction of facing while praying (2:150) and the need to commit oneself to some utterances (17:110) as well as an expectation to join a congregation (2:43). This is despite whether one finds an obvious cogent reason to do any of those physical acts. Much can however be posited as to the possible reasons/ implications of each expectation. In this case, see below a discussion [1] pertaining to such opinions. In particular, see the following sentiments by ‘optimist’ which I find interesting.

...Though the Quran keeps a watching eye over the essence and reality of action and outweighs the sheer formalism, but wherever there is need for outwitting the essence and reality of passion, it does not give any deterrence provided this very form is not taken to be the mean itself. The practical form, in connection with the standing and prostrating etc. position, infiltrating down to us, is only for this very purpose...[2]

In summary, from my humble view, ‘prayers’ (swalawat) do inculcate within man (who is otherwise created unstable, 70:19-21) an inner disposition towards piety and away from indecencies (fahshai) and evil (munkar) - 29:45. It is thus incumbent upon believers to fully abide by prayers (2:153), a duty which is only accomplished by those believers of a high caliber in obeyance - khashi’in (2:45). In this regard, such believers are constant and consistent at their commitment to prayers - daimun (70:23) which is a mission that given that disbelievers (kafaru billahi) and hypocrites (al-munafiqina) amongst Muslims would fail to aptly uphold (4:142, 9:54), one would expect that such a noble act of devotion would engage a practice that puts both body and spirit in sync. It is thus in only such a fully engaging prayerful commitment that a hypocritical Muslim would lazily (kusala) join the congregation (4:142).

Thus, an expectation to engage physical body motions including some lip-service concurrent with the spiritual attachment/ fellowship with God as ritually prescribed is exactly in place.


[1]. Is The Ritual Prayer a Nonsense?
[2]. Ibid

General Discussions / Re: Honey Bees eating fruits
« on: June 25, 2019, 03:28:48 AM »
Dear Br. Joseph,

Wa 'alaikumus salaam,

It is my pleasure to read that you found my comments somehow relevant and helpful. And yes, I think it would be a good idea to include in the article as an additional excerpt the part that mentions the 'hummadhw' (rose-coloured sorrel) and the 'luubiya' (dolichos lubia of Forskål) which is relevant to the main focus of the article.

Thanks for the appreciation too.


General Discussions / Re: Honey Bees eating fruits
« on: June 24, 2019, 05:01:39 PM »
As salaamu 'alaikum,

Dear all,

I fully do share Br. Joseph’s exposition in the article shared as published today in response to ‘baandaar’s’ question. In resonance, I am happy to share an opinion below in support of his view especially with regards point (5) of the ‘FINAL THOUGHTS’ in the article which appears to be at the crux of the matter in question as quoted below:

The question arises from Sarah An-Nahl verse 69, is the word "الثمرات" translates as fruits or does it have other meanings in classical Arabic language?

As shared in the article, ‘thamarah’ admits some shades of meaning with an underlying connotation of wholesome ‘produce’ mostly from the general ‘flora’ for purposes of goodly consumption. With a primary signification to ‘increase, get to produce, fructify,’ the term is found to be employed referring to even trees, shrubs and also, in the form ‘at-thaamiru’ specifically to a typical flower, of the ‘hummadhw’ (rose-coloured sorrel) which is red. See the reference [1] as cited in the article.

In verse 41:47, some allusion to typical budding is hinted when the term ‘thamarati’ is used with the term ‘akmamiha’ which refers to ‘its sheath.’ This would denote a general fruit or crop. In 7:130, the Qur’an uses ‘at-thamarati’ to refer to the general ‘produce’ that the People of Firawn were made short of. Arguably, this was not only a reference to fruits. One may also note that most translators have rendered the term ‘thamarati’ to ‘crops’ in this case.

On the other hand, the commonly used term to refer to ‘fruits’ in specific within the Qur’an and general parlance is ‘fakihah’ (plural: fawakih). To cite an example, the Qur’an distinguishes between ‘fruits’ (fakihatan) and ‘vegetables’ (abba) in 80:31 as among consumptive enjoyment (80:27-32). Such a distinction can also be noted in verses 55:11-12 where ‘fruits’ (fakihatun) and ‘grains’ (al-habbu) are mentioned.

Hopefully that also helps to support such an understanding as shared above.


. LANE. E.W, Edward Lanes Lexicon, Williams and Norgate 1863; Librairie du Liban Beirut-Lebanon 1968, Volume 1, Page 353

Dear Beyond Tradition,

Salamun ‘alaikum,

If I may give an opinion, I humbly would not find it a ‘duty’ for a ‘believer’ or ‘Muslim’ to ‘form an Islamic country/ state’ or ‘join a particular movement’ geared towards creating such one. Rather, it is an ‘obligation’/ duty for believers to judge by the Qur’an in the utmost capacity availed for them. If such an opportunity is there, I would humbly encourage it without however any possibility of resorting to any form of violence or compromise. Otherwise, the Qur’an mentions ‘hijrah’ (migration) as a viable alternative for undermined believers if tolerance and peaceful remonstrations stay unheard of by those in governance.

Concerning your question as quoted below, see brother Joseph’s following sentiments in another thread as referenced [1] below.

Not only that in Morden world when a Muslim lives in a Non Islamic country ( majority non Muslim ) then how he violate rules of that country where he lives in ?”

Today, we are required to fulfil our obligations whether they are personal or societal and we must respect the decision of those that are in authority. If we disagree, we must use due process to voice our concerns. Ultimately it is by God and His Book that believers should judge. If we cannot practice our religious beliefs in the society we live in under those that have authority over us, then we should be prepared to migrate. Migration particularly becomes obligatory if we are subjected to oppression on account of our religion (4:97).[2]

NOTE: Black highlights are mine to emphasize my areas of interest

Hopefully that helps.



[1]. Who are 'Ulil Amr' These Days?
[2]. Ibid

General Discussions / Re: Marriage with the People of the Book
« on: June 01, 2019, 05:12:33 PM »
Dear brother Hamzeh,

Wa alaikumus salaam,

Kindly see my humble thoughts below in response to your solicitation of an input.

"Do you think its between the People which goes back to the context in verse 5:42 those who came to the prophet for judgment ? That's what I understand it to be"

I do share such an understanding yes.

In such a context, for purposes of an admonition, the Prophet (pbuh) is given an option to 'turn away' (tu'ridhw) from them (Jews - al-ladhina hadu, 5:41) if he so wishes. If he otherwise opts to give a judgment (wa in hakamta), he is instructed to give a just one (bil qisthwi) which is however readily already to be found within the Taurat they possess in which are God's judgments - 'hukmu allahi' (5:43), guidance (hudan) and light (wa nurun) - 5:44.

Those from the Jews who do not judge according to what God revealed (bi ma an-zalallahu) of such judgments, guidance and light from the 'Taurat' as did their prophets (an-nabiyyuna), rabbis (ar-rabbaniyyuna) and scholars (al-ahbaru), they actually are the disbelievers (humu al-kafirun) - 5:44. Such instances of judgments/ laws (hukm) are outlined (5:45, life for a life...) and that those who do not rule according to such revealed judgments/ laws are the unjust (humu ad-dhwalimun).

In the footsteps of those previous prophets to the Children of Israel, Prophet Isa (pbuh) was sent with the 'Injeel' as a confirmation of the 'Taurat,' as a guidance (hudan), light (nurun) and counsel (maw'idhwatan) to the righteous (5:46) thus those who followed it were supposed to judge (walyahkum) according to what was revealed (bi ma an-zalallahu) of judgment in it (fihi) - 5:47.

Therefore, in light of this foregoing precept (5:43, 5:47), the Prophet (s.a.w) was supposed to judge the Jews and the Christians according to the Taurat and Gospel respectively, the Qur'an superseding them both altogether.

"What is your understanding of the part of the verse that says "and judge between them by what Allah(swt) has reaveled"? It is said once in 5:48  And once in 5:49"

'By what God has revealed' (bi ma an-zala llahu) in verses 5:48-49 in the context of judgment over People of the Book would still refer to 'what God has revealed' (bi ma an-zala llahu) for the Jews (5:44) as well as 'what God has revealed' (bi ma an-zala llahu) for the Christians (5:47).

To be sure of what was truly revealed in their scriptures (5:44, 5:47) which is what they are actually to be judged against, such that he would be judging between them justly (bil qisthwi) -5:42, the Prophet (s.a.w) is to check whatever is prescribed for them in the scripture they possess (e.g 3:93, 'say bring the Taurat...') against that which is approved of them in the Qur'an (16:118, 6:146). Therefore, the Qur'an stands as the ultimate check (muhaymin) against scriptures of the People of the Book as can again be seen in the verse 5:45 against Exodus 21:23-25 (also Leviticus 24:18-21 and Deuteronomy 19:21).

In such a way, the Prophet (s.a.w) would avoid pursuing their desires - 'ahwahum' (2:120) in the form of 'laws' (hukm) possibly some from their times of ignorance (5:50, hukma al-jahiliyyati) brought forth (yaktubuna al-kitaba bi aydihim) in the name of religion (2:79) or rather doctoring the scriptures (5:15, tukhfuna) through for instance, attempted obfuscation (5:41, yuharrafuna al-kalima min ba'di mawadhwi'ihi). If after checking their scriptures against the Qur'an the Prophet (s.a.w) encounters a disparity, then surely, that particular judgment/ rule is not part of their commandments/ judgments but from their own whims (ahwahum).

"And if so would you say that it is expected that Jews and Christians would also need to judge by what they were given by using the Quran as a criterion regarding their books and would judge in their countries who ever abides therein including Muslims?"

In my humble opinion, on the other hand, yes, I do resonate the sentiment that the same is to be reciprocated to believers of the Qur'an in a government (Jewish/ Christian) whose primary scripture of authority is that of the People of the Book; i.e, one that guides/ rules by the 'Taurat'/ 'Injeel'/ 'al-Kitab' in truth - the Qur'an being the final check (muhaymin) and criterion (furqan) sifting through in this case the main authoritative scripture ('al-Kitab'). However, collectively, together with those subjects that are exclusive followers of the Qur'an, such a Jewish/ Christian community is descriptively Muslim.

In summary therefore, the Prophet (s.a.w) and believers of the Qur'an were to use the Qur'an to discern that which 'has been revealed' by God (ma an-zalallahu) in the former scriptures when judging them lest they follow their desires hence their doctored creed (mil-lat). See the following quotation:
"And the Jews (al-yahuda) will not be pleased with thee, nor will the Christians (an-Naswara), till thou follow their creed (mil-latahum). Say: Lo! the guidance (huda) of Allah (Himself) is the Guidance (al-huda). And if thou shouldst follow their desires (ahwa-ahum) after the knowledge which hath come unto thee, then wouldst thou have from Allah no protecting guardian nor helper." [Qur'an, Al-Baqarah 2:120]

However, bearing in mind that each of nations (ummat) was sent a prophet with a given set code of rules (hukm) and devotional acts (mansakan), each is supposed to race in good works within their law (shir'atan) and avoid unnecessary disputes across such codes of conduct (minhajan).

Believers of the Qur'an should not falter in their 'creed,' 'law' nor 'way' for they are upon an 'upright guidance' (hudan mustaqim). Given the context, this was clearly an admonition for the Prophet (s.a.w). See the verse below:

"For every Ummah We have appointed acts of devotion (mansakan), which they observe. So do not let them dispute with you in this matter. And invite to your Lord; you are upon a upright guidance (hudan mustaqim)." [Qur'an, Al-Hajj 22:67]

Hopefully that clarifies my position. Thanks for giving me the chance to elucidate further.


General Discussions / Re: Marriage with the People of the Book
« on: May 31, 2019, 05:00:02 AM »
Dear Mohammed,

Peace be upon you,

Kindly see verses 5:48 and 5:49 cited below:

"And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a watcher over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation, but so that He tests you in what He has given you; so race in [doing] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ." [Qur'an, Al-Ma'idah 5:48]

"And judge, [O Muhammad], between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations and beware of them, lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you. And if they turn away - then know that Allah only intends to afflict them with some of their [own] sins. And indeed, many among the people are defiantly disobedient." [Qur'an, Al-Ma'idah 5:49]

Dear brother, with all due respect, I am somehow quite disappointed that you seem not ready to indulge into an engaging discussion.

Respectfully, you appear to have a narrowed interpretation of certain Qur'anic verses based on a confined ambit of narratives within which it is made. I trust that I have given you an apt interpretation of the verses under question. I would have been readier and more willing to engage with and at best accept an alternative one if there could have been. As far as goes your interpretation above, I would humbly reiterate my disagreement but resort to my understanding as given in my earlier responses.

I am otherwise sorry if I appeared to have ignored what you seem to have noticed to have been from my side. I however had no intention to nor does it sincerely appear so if read within the whole context of supporting verses. With all the related verses in view, I still would understand and interpret the verses 5:48-49 in the manner I have. We can just agree to disagree if this is conclusively in contrary to what you do and will ever do interpret those verses the way you do.

Similarly, I humbly have to conclude my responses to you with this one on this particular matter.


General Discussions / Re: Marriage with the People of the Book
« on: May 30, 2019, 09:59:56 PM »
Dear Mohammed,


Kindly see my responses below to your contentions:

The Qur’an is/was the Guidance for all people, Qur'an revealed confirming to what the people had/believed/followed before it i.e. the scriptures (guidances) of the former prophets. So, those who followed the former scriptures would definitely believe and accept the Qur’an as the truth and guidance.

And I'm curious to know that what's you people's understanding of Guidance ?


As referenced earlier, in verse (5:48), it is pointed out that each of us (in this case the Abrahamic faiths) has been assigned their own law (shir'atan) and method (wa minhajan). With respect to verses 2:38-42 that you share as regards what ‘guidance’ (huda) entails, it was never the intention of God to leave humankind remain as one nation (walau la kalimatu sabaqat min rabbika) [10:19] but we have been diversified in laws - ‘shir’at’ and methods - ‘minhaj’(collectively guidance - ‘huda’) [2:38] laid out within scriptures/ revelations/ signs (ayat) [7:35, 20:123-127] to be tested with them (5:48). Therefore, guidance in the form of revelations is not only found within the Qur’an but also in older scriptures as revealed to the People of the Book.

As a check (muhaymin), the Qur'an therefore confirms (muswaddiqan) previous scriptures sent to the Children of Israel (2:41), clarifies and corrects them (litubayyina) where necessary (16:64), explains them (watafswila) where warranted (10:37), reveals that which has been obfuscated (mimma kuntum tukhfuna) and inserted (yaktubuna al-kitaba bi aydihim) [2:79] while still overlooking (waya’fu) much in them (5:15). Thus, the People of the Book are to follow all the teachings in their scriptures in truth (5:68) using the Qur'an as the main discerning tool (2:41). It is in this sense how the Qur’an acts as a ‘guidance’ for them as they remain observant of the contract in 7:35 and 7:157 (wanaswaruuhu wattaba’u an-nura al-ladhi un-zila ma’ahu) as well as 2:100-101. This is still with a view to stay in line with what is expected of each Abrahamic faith (5:48) as decreed by God for specific reasons (5:48, 11:118).

I disagree with you. Believing in the Book means accepting it as the truth and guidance. Therefore, one who believes in it should follow it.[this is the same case in many of the Qur’an alone followers today; they don’t know what is FAITH actually].”


I do respect your prerogative to disagree. However, as far as what you excerpted from my earlier comments is concerned, I am quite surprised that you seem to forgo the rest of my sentiments in their full remit. I once again disagree with your take on what is to be understood as ‘believing’ (amanuhu) or ‘following’ (wattaba’u) the Prophet (s.a.w) or Qur’an. Kindly see my position in RESPONSE 1.

For example, consider 5:6, how your Logic works here if one believes in the Qur'an? because it's a command to the believers of the Qur'an/guidance !”


Respectfully, I see this as a strawman’s argument especially considering who the primary audience of the Qur’an is. ‘O you who believe’ (ya ayyuha a-ladhina amanu) is a popular Qur’anic address to the believers/ followers of the Qur’an. Other familiar addresses are employed for other different audiences. There is even a general address for people in general (ya ayyuha an-nas).

On the other hand, when it is a direct address to factions amongst the People of the Book, the Qur’an does mention so (e.g, 2:122, 3:65, 3:70-71, 3:113-115, 4:171, 5:15-19). In the verses you shared (2:62, 5:69), the Qur’an even distinguishes between believers of the Qur’an (alladhina amanu) and those of older scriptures (man amana billahi...). Those who disbelieve in their scriptures amongst the People of the Book are the losers (2:121). However, those who do believe in their scriptures and all the revelations sent to them (5:68) amongst People of the Book as do the believers of the Qur’an (2:136) do share a common belief in religion with them (2:137). This does not however preclude the expectation of each of them to uphold the religious code of conduct and worship as stipulated to them each in their own respective scripture (5:48).

Hopefully that clarifies.


General Discussions / Re: Marriage with the People of the Book
« on: May 28, 2019, 07:22:48 PM »
Dear Mohammed,

Peace be upon you,

May I share some thoughts about your issues of concern which you could consider looking into. This is notwithstanding that brothers Duster and Hamzeh have continuously offered to respond to your contentions. Hopefully this is acceptable with brother Joseph. I hope he will respond to your contentions to his article where necessary.

You share:

but I think this is only applicable for that time i.e. for marriages that are fixed(given the bridal due) before the revelation of Qur'an.

here's the translation of 5:5 as I understand the verse,
"This day (all) the good things are made lawful for you; and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them; and the chaste women from among the believers and the chaste women from among those who have been given the Book before you; when you have given them their bridal due, marrying not fornicating nor taking them for secret concubines; and whoever denies faith, his work indeed is of no account, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers"

In my view, I do admit that ‘ataytumu’ - ‘you have given’ (5:5) truly alludes to a perfect action yes especially as emphasized by the 2nd person plural perfect verb ‘atay’ - ‘have given.’ However, one should also not overlook the timely provision which the adverb ‘when’ - ‘idha’ comes with. It certainly would have been referring to a ‘future’ event (the payment of a bridal due) especially when we consider that there are other ‘provisions’ that were being made lawful as mentioned prior to that in that same verse. It could be argued, from that verse alone, that a possibility is even hinted as to the absence of such a bridal due (ujura) arrangement in the manner the Qur’an would have expected it, prior to such a general permission (halal) to the believers.

On the other hand, if one is to understand that the provision of marrying from the chaste women (muhswanat) of the People of the Book to the believers only applied to those already given their bridal due, in that case then, what entails the new permission, what entails the new marriage arrangement that is being alluded to and in which sense is it a new arrangement? With the same line of thought, one is also bound to define/ identify the category of People of the Book whose ‘food’ (thwa’amu) is permitted to the believers for consumption. What prior allegiances or contracts would have to have bound the believers with such a category for them to enjoy each other’s foods in the same manner as with those already given a bridal due for the issue of marriage?

You share:

So as they believed in the Qur'an, they will have Swalat, Fasting, Hajj etc. right? i.e. they are no more Nazarenes/Christians.

Not necessarily. Believing in the Qur’an does not outright tantamount to rejecting other scriptures, ceasing to be followers of older scriptures nor not being the People of the Book, Jews nor Christians. If one does so, it would simply be a matter of choice, not a 'must do' thing as you seem to insist. Even before they believe in the Qur’an, they still are bound to perform such religious practices as swalaat, fasting, Hajj, etc. Just not the way you seem to be expecting them to perform them, that is, the way followers of Qur’an and believers under Quran’s guidance are supposed to, to every detail.

As brother Duster has tried to show you the context of the implication of such ‘isolated’ verses as 5:51, further referring you to brother Joseph’s article on the same [1], brother Hamzeh has also nicely tried to rightly broaden the scope of the ‘descriptive’ term ‘Islam’ (not a ‘linguistic’ label/ tag) which actually brings us under one ‘roof’ (Islam) and in fact ‘describes’ us (Qur’an followers and followers of older scriptures) altogether (muslimeen).

In as much as the contextually timely bound verses 5:82-84 are used to infer that those Christians that would likely be closer to Qur’an believers are those who would proclaim to have believed in the Qur’an or would shed tears when its strongly captivating verses are read, it has to be maintained that upon such an admission, they are said to be admitting to surely have already been muslims prior (28:53) and even so, amongst the believers/ followers of the Qur’an and themselves, each people has been prescribed their own law (shir’atan) and method (minhajan) to be tested in them so each is supposed to race in good works (arguably as per their own law and method) for it is to God where all shall finally return for reckoning (5:48).

Therefore, while verses 24:32 and 4:25 might contextually have possibly been with reference to women amongst believers/ followers of the Qur’an, verse 2:221 broadens the scope of the permissible category as those chosen with a ‘primary’ determination of correct and pure belief while verse 5:5 specifically permits those from among the People of the Book arguably with a ‘primary’ signification of the ‘correct’ belief in ‘one’ God as in 2:221. Thus, in light of 42:13 and 5:48, verses 3:19, 3:85 and 48:28 would not be referring to those believing souls amongst the People of the Book who still maintain their stance towards following their scriptures even after accepting the veracity of the message of the Qur’an alongside its divine origin claim.

You ask:

Now think, is the term 'people of the book' applicable to today's Jews/Christians?(who do not follow the Qur'an)

If by ‘do not follow the Qur’an’ you mean not adhering to the ‘law’ (shir’at) and ‘method’ (minhaj) prescribed by the Qur’an for believers then yes, as long as those particular Jews/ Christians do adopt the ‘law’ (shir’at) and ‘method’ (minhaj) proffered by their scriptures as it ought to be adopted - with the Qur’an as a check/ criterion (muhaymin, 5:48) and as the overall criterial authority (furqan, 25:1).

You then append:

[and do you think that all people today who say 'we follow the Qur'an' are in true dheen?]

Certainly not all. You can refer to brother Hamzeh’s response above. See also verse 3:167 where God sees to the condition of hypocrites who conceal what is in their hearts to proclaim false confessions. In my humble opinion, verses 3:113-115 do not only apply to the People of the Book but generally to any group of believing souls including believers/ followers of the Qur’an.

Finally you share:

So before following others and their works verify for yourself, for your safety.

I would in this case again share to you brother Hamzeh’s advice to you above regarding this. As brother Duster has shared above, it is in the first place at best contradictory and at worst, dishonest, to jot down statements whose undertones appear to insinuate blind-following of others, while again indirectly giving an implication to be followed of ones own thoughts, obviously, blindly. The strength of an argument/ thought/ idea used/ referred to is what makes it to either be accepted or rejected hence dismissed/ denounced or referred to/ be used. Therefore, presenting or referring one to somebody else’s exposition, discourse or thoughts does not mean that one is blindly ‘following others and have not verified the information, for their own safety’ (sharing brother Hamzeh’s advice to you is a good example of that by the way). Again, if in future I happen in another thread to refer to a given argument that you brother Mohammed raise in this thread today which I find convincing and evidenced from the Qur’an, surely, as you may agree, I should then not be criticized of not using my intellect, my ‘reasoning’ ability, not verifying the information for myself nor will I be ‘following’ your arguments blindly. Kindly think about this.

I hope that my comments shall be received with the respect with which it is imparted.


[1]. Taking unbelievers as friends to avoid harm

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10