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.

Topics - Joseph Islam

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8

Posts on Other Forums - Questions and Answers / Code 19

« on: November 09, 2011, 06:30:30 AM »

RESPONSE GIVEN BY JOSEPH ISLAM
[Please contact Joseph Islam for further details of the original thread]

...From my humble understanding (and a little off the fence given my last post on this subject) the Quran gives the purpose of the number 19 in the Quran

(1) As in indication of the appointment of 'malaika' to be keepers of the fire
(2) The number present as a trial for those who are bent upon denying the truth (Kaffir).

There is no third informing that it represents a code of any particular kind or instructs believers to look for it.

In my humble view and reading of the verse, I believe that Point (2) is further extrapolated and describes those that make the number a criterion to judge one's true faith (some do). They believe that:

(i) 'This admonition should grant certainty to those who received the Scripture before while the believers shall increase in faith' [QXP]

(ii) 'The believers and those who have been given the Scripture before shall harbour no doubt to this declaration' [QXP]

But the main pivotal question, which for me goes to the crux of the issue is, who is asking the question 'madha arada l-lahu bihadha mathalan"? (What does God mean by this parable?") [QXP]

Most true believers believe in the veracity of the Quran with all their hearts. They don't ask this question. Nor have 1400 years of Muslims really asked this question (before its discovery) to obtain a definitive answer.

The Quran tells you clearly who asks this question "

'alladhina fi qulubihim maradun wal-kafiruna' (those in whose hearts is a disease and the disbelievers)

QXP captures the essence of the condition:

'The hypocrites and deniers' [QXP]

Hand on heart (no pun intended), before anyone can embark on ratifying this code, would they not have to ask the question "What does God mean by this parable?" QXP?

Really my brothers and sisters, would this question not need to be asked? Is this not remotely troubling?

I have kept to the verses for now as this is not the place for a detailed expose of all the arguments. A great debate has already been captured in 'Running Like Zebras' and I am sure on other forums which most seasoned frequenters will be familiar with.

However, I hope only to impart my own difficulty when I read these verses in the overall context of the Quran.

Just my humble thoughts. No 'GiL' (Arabic *) intended with anyone for or against this theory. Personally, I find it difficult to support in light of the verses.

* see 7:43 for meaning and usage of GiL.

Posts on Other Forums - Questions and Answers / Fluid Beginnings of Asbab-ul-nuzul

« on: November 09, 2011, 06:22:36 AM »

RESPONSE GIVEN BY JOSEPH ISLAM
[Please contact Joseph Islam for further details of the original thread]

Much is made of Quranic revelations with respect to what time and for what purpose they were revealed (Occasions / reasons - Asbab (plural of sabab) of revelation (nazul)).

In my discussions, nothing demonstrates more the fluid nature of 'Asbab-ul-Nazul' than the controversy that surrounded what the very first surah revealed to the Prophet was.

A typical response given is - 'The very first verse of the Quran? - Surely its 96:1. Everyone knows that!'

Maybe - But what is often disconcerting as first realisation, especially those uninitiated with early Muslim sources is that, quite interestingly, the earliest historians didn't seem to be quite sure.

If this is the case with the very first surah of the Quran, then what about all these elaborate narratives that capture and necessitate the study of 'Asbab-ul-Nazul'? - Exactly! - It is a question worth asking and pondering.

THE CONTROVERSY

There is much scholarship work on this and I don't wish to unnecessary lengthen the post. I refer those with an appetite to dig deeper to an interesting piece by G.H.A Juynboll and the 'Studies on the Origins and Uses of Islamic Hadith' (Published by Variorium Pages 167-171 - XI Early Islamic Society as reflected in its use of Isnads). Quite a detailed survey is also done by Noldeke/Schwally, Geschichte des Qorans, I, pages 78-84

In a nutshell, verse 96:1 'iqra bismi rabbika allladhi khalaq' was not the only contender amongst the earliest historians as the first revelation to the Prophet. There was another - "ya-ayyuha -l-muddaththir qum fa-andhir..." (74-1...). Muslim scholars seem to have stated rather than demonstrated that 96:1 was the first. Many have accepted narratives which support this on the authority of early historians such as Ibn Ishaq (d. circa 760s CE) that flesh out the stories. Later historians such as Tabari (d.923 CE) simply relied on earlier historians and as such questionable fluidity of information became cemented as fact as names of these great giants became more important than a critical analysis of their works.

At best, this was salvation history that the earliest historians were attempting to recover marred with serious political, social and personal influences.

Also, it appears that the main focus for the earliest scholars seemed to be based on scripture and an understanding of the 'living tradition' that coexisted with it, rather than 'al-qassas' (stories).

Abu Hanifa, a well respected jurist amongst Muslims who was born in Kufa (699 CE and d.767 CE) is well known not to have left much in the way of Hadith both in terms of traditions or 'Qassas' (Stories). However, even in his time a parallel desire to capture 'stories' seemed to be garnering popular support.

Ignaz Goldziher, 1850-1921 CE, highly recognised in Western scholarship as somewhat as the father of Hadith criticism (and Matn analysis) in the West captures a very telling narrative in his Muslims Studies Volume II (Muhammedanische Studien) on page 193

'Abu Yusuf, pupil of Abu Hanifa, was greatly interested in the Maghaz, tafsir and ayyam al Arab [1], so much so that he missed some of his master's lectures. One day after he had been absent for several days his teacher asked him: 'Now tell me, who was Goliath's standard bearer?' Abu Yusuf was ready with his answer. 'You are the imam,' he said, 'and if you do not stop teasing me, I shall ask you in front of all the people which battle was fought earlier, the Battle of Badr or that of Uhud?. You will be unable to answer; yet this is the most elementary question in history.' [2]'

[1] - Abu l-Mahasin, I, p:508,7
[2] - Al Damiri, I, p.176 from Tarikh Baghdad

Ask a well read Muslim child the same question today and the answer will roll off the tongue with ease as 'accepted historical fact'. However, this narrative clearly shows the detachment that religious theologians had with historical questions. Even at the time of Abu Hanifa, popular stories (hearsay) were not commonly known. This is not surprising if you look at the following timeline:

Time of Prophet's death d.632 CE
Ibn Ishaq writing his 'Sira' for CALIPH Mansur (Abbassid Caliphate Ruler who died around c.775) on his order. The Sira put together around 760-763 CE
Abu Hanifa - Baghdad (d.c.767 CE)
Abu Yusuf (d.798)

Therefore, it appears that even religious theologians such as Abu Hanifa increasingly turned away from 'popular stories' and literature dealing with such and seem to have relegated them as useless entertainment.

Today, what is even more disconcerting are some of the incredulous popular examples found in the 'Sahih' with regards Asbab-ul-Nuzul.

As an example, verse 11:5 beautifully relates God's immense power of knowledge by capturing a condition of a people.

"See how they fold up their chests that they may hide their thoughts from Him! Even when they cover themselves with their garments, He knows what they conceal and what they reveal. He is Knower of the innermost thoughts of the hearts" [QXP]

The verse remains self explanatory and even more so if read in context with its surrounding verse. No explanation or purpose for its revelation is really necessary

However, the reason for the revelation as recorded in canonised Hadith literature is as follows. (Reader discretion advised).

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 203:
Narrated Muhammad bin 'Abbas bin Ja'far:

That he heard Ibn 'Abbas reciting: "No doubt! They fold up their breasts." (11.5) and asked him about its explanation. He said, "Some people used to hide themselves while answering the call of nature in an open space lest they be exposed to the sky, and also when they had sexual relation with their wives in an open space lest they be exposed to the sky, so the above revelation was sent down regarding them."

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 204:
Narrated Muhammad bin Abbas bin Ja'far:

Ibn Abbas recited. "No doubt! They fold up their breasts." I said, "O Abu Abbas! What is meant by "They fold up their breasts?" He said, "A man used to feel shy on having sexual relation with his wife or on answering the call of nature (in an open space) so this Verse was revealed:-- "No doubt! They fold up their breasts."

So much for the sabab-ul-nazul for this particular Ayat. Even without critical enquiry, what level of confidence can one truly place on other narratives of similar ilk?

Posts on Other Forums - Questions and Answers / Traditions of Men - A Small Lesson from the Bible.

« on: November 09, 2011, 06:18:40 AM »

RESPONSE GIVEN BY JOSEPH ISLAM
[Please contact Joseph Islam for further details of the original thread]

Peace to you all.

As we all know, the majority of Muslims today regretfully interpret the Quran through the lens of the Islamic Secondary Sources rather than studying the Quran from within its own context. There is no doubt, strong adherence to the traditions as collected by men centuries removed from the time of the Prophet's ministry but attributed to the Prophet of God. Many traditions are blindly followed without question.

With regards Prophet Jesus (pbuh) and the Children of Israel, we read in the Quran a succinct narrative which outlines Jesus's ministry to the Children of Israel.

003:050
"And (I come) confirming that which is between the hands (Arabic: bayna yadayya) of the Torah, and so that I make lawful for you some of that which was forbidden to you. I come to you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to God and obey me"

The above verse's reference to lifting certain prohibitions may be a reference to prior commandments, or those traditions that were self imposed by the Children of Israel and not necessarily decreed by God.

Despite the nature and context of the prohibition, from the Biblical narrative it seems clear that at the time of Prophet Jesus's (pbuh) ministry, the Jews had undoubtedly added to their practices and made their practices increasingly difficult by adhering to the traditions of their forefathers.

This is no different from the situation that Muslim's find themselves in today. A very revealing dialogue is captured in the Biblical sources between Jesus and the Pharisees.

Most (if not all) on this board will be well versed with the Biblical Pharisees who were not only a school of thought but invariably a powerful political and social movement that also existed at the time of Prophet Jesus's (pbuh) ministry.

THE GOSPEL OF MARK
The 'Earliest' Synoptic Gospel (Based on consensus)

MARK 7 Verses 1-9
"The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders). When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles"

So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"
He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

"THESE PEOPLE HONOUR ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEARTS ARE FAR FROM ME. THEY WORSHIP / REVERE (Greek: sebomai) ME IN VAIN; THEIR TEACHING ARE BUT RULES TAUGHT BY MEN"

YOU HAVE LET GO OF THE COMMANDS OF GOD AND ARE HOLDING ON TO THE TRADITIONS OF MEN"

And he said to them: "YOU HAVE A FINE WAY OF SETTING ASIDE THE COMMANDS OF GOD IN ORDER TO OBSERVE YOUR OWN TRADITIONS!"

[BOLD EMPHASIS MINE for highlighting relevant text. Note also that the Greek text 'Sebomai' that is often translated as 'worship', possibly appealing to a Christian bias, more properly means 'to revere'. A study of the Bible shows shades of meanings to many common Greek words which are usually translated as worship. For example, the Greek 'Proskuneo' gives a stronger meaning of worship as it means to kneel or prostrate and an act of profound reverence. This is not the word used here. See example such as John 4:23 '“ Happy to stand corrected by a Biblical academic / scholar]

No doubt this powerful dialogue captured by the Gospel writers will resonate with many Muslims today that find themselves in exactly the same predicament.

It appears through our experiences of history, little ever really changes. True teachings of God are at best infiltrated and at worst abandoned in preference for the traditions of men.

Many Muslim preachers and clergy today operate no differently to the Pharisees during the ministry of Prophet Jesus. (pbuh) Traditions regrettably often take priority over the commandments of God given to us by scripture.

Sects, Madhabs, schools of thought - our history has repeatedly shown us, nothing really ever changes. Those familiar with Biblical and ancient history with regards the writings of historian Flavius Josephus (d. circa 100 CE) will no doubt be aware of the 'four schools of thought' that the Jews were also divided into in the 1st century CE.

Posts on Other Forums - Questions and Answers / Gentle Speech is Best

« on: November 09, 2011, 06:17:31 AM »

RESPONSE GIVEN BY JOSEPH ISLAM
[Please contact Joseph Islam for further details of the original thread]

I know at times some posts can prompt one to be curt in their response. Some opinions and questions can be frustrating no doubt. However, most on this forum (if not all) strive to understand the wisdom from the Quran and we all pray to live by the teachings of the Quran to the best of our endeavours God willing.

I recall a narrative in 20:44 where God advises Prophet Moses. Despite Pharaoh's corrputed soul, despite his despicable savagery, brutal and heinous crimes, despite the fact that he would never repent nor would he ever accept the truth, God STILL asked Moses:

020:044
'But speak to him with gentle speech / nicely (Arabic: Qawlan Layyinan) , perhaps he may take heed of the reminder or fear'

Those who are familiar with Arabic will know the word 'layyinan' from its root means to become soft, smooth, plain, delicate, tender, flexible, malleable and mild.

Even the greatest of tyrants deserved to be spoken with gentle speech when delivering the message of truth. Surely there are none that we meet in our daily lives or on this forum that would compare with Pharaoh.

016.125
"Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knows best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance"

017:053
"And say to My servants (that) they speak that which is best; surely Satan sows dissensions among them; surely the Satan is an open enemy to man"

The Quran's wisdom is clear for us to read and ponder. We should speak with politeness, with utmost kindness and invite all using the best standards of human speech.

May God help me to learn and understand this wisdom and all those that sincerely seek the path to truth.

Posts on Other Forums - Questions and Answers / When Were the first histories of the Prophet's Released?

« on: November 09, 2011, 06:13:36 AM »

RESPONSE GIVEN BY JOSEPH ISLAM
[Please contact Joseph Islam for further details of the original thread]

I will try to summarise this in the best way I can:

The earliest source of the Prophet's history is by a professional storyteller / historian by the name of Ibn Ishaq who provides much of the biographical information on the Prophet. Ibn Ishaq was born in Madinah (c.704 CE) and wrote his biography (Sirat-ul Rasul) at the order of Caliph Mansur around 760-63 CE (approx. 130 years removed from the death of the Prophet).

Ibn Ishaq's work does not survive. What we have is his work coming to us via various editors such as Ibn Hisham (833 CE) which is one of the most popular recensions used as a source by both Muslim and Oriental scholarship. Ibn Hisham himself receives Ibn Ishaq's work through another intermediary by the name of Al-Bakkai.

Transmission:

Ibn Ishaq (d.c767 CE) - Al Bakkai - Ibn Hisham (d.833 CE)

A very interesting quote in Ibn Hisham's note is worth noting:

"I am omitting things which ibn Ishaq recorded in this book which are disgraceful to discuss and matters which would distress certain people" Ibn Hisham's Introduction

It is also interesting / significant to note that the early historian Ibn Ishaq receives much animosity in his own home town Madinah including animosity from Imam Malik himself who calls Ibn Ishaq a 'Liar'.

Ibn Ihaq's work is transmitted through many other students. Scholar J.Feuck mentions 15. I recall an Islamic scholar mentioning Abbot to have added three more.

Another important recension is found through Salama b.al-Fadl whose extracts can be found in the works of Al-Tabari (d.923 CE). Al-Tabari (838 CE-923 CE) relies on early historians such as Ibn Ishaq (and many others) through intermediary transmitters (such as Salama b.al-Fadl) to source his information. Of course, al-Tabari also makes use of many other sources as well. His colossal work entitled 'Tarikh al-Rasul wa al-Muluk (History of the Prophets and Kings) has been translated in English and consists of 39 volumes plus an index which can be found in specialist libraries (Worth consulting and studying).

A very interesting (and seemingly honest) excerpt is noted in his introduction of the 'Tarikh al-Rasul wa al-Muluk':

"Let him who examines this book of mine know that I have relied, as regards everything I mention therein which I stipulate to be described by me, solely upon what has been transmitted to me by way of reports which I cite therein and traditions which I ascribe to their narrators, to the exclusion of what may be apprehended by rational argument or deduced by the human mind, except in very few cases. This is because knowledge of the reports of men of the past and of contemporaneous views of men of the present do not reach the one who has not witnessed them nor lived in their times except through the accounts of reporters and the transmission of transmitters, to the exclusion of rational deduction and mental inference. Hence, if I mention in this book a report about some men of the past, which the reader of listener finds objectionable or worthy of censure because he can see no aspect of truth nor any factual substance therein, let him know that this is not to be attributed to us but to those who transmitted it to us and we have merely passed this on as it has been passed on to us"

Another recension of Ibn Ishaq's work is found through Ibn Al-Athir via Yunus bin-Bukayr. I understand that a copy of part of his recension ('Usdu'l Ghaba') exists in the Qarawiyin mosque in Fez which I have yet to find suitable sources / scholarship sources to access for my own study.

Ibn Ishaq was succeeded by another well known historian by the name of Al Waqidi (748 CE-822 CE) who like Ibn Ishaq exhibits possible Shia leans which is evidenced through a study of his works, narrative, collection style and his interpretation. There is much discussion in scholarly circles with regards Al-Waqidi's work and it is often asserted by some scholars that it contains possible plagiarism from Ibn Ishaq's work but with embellishments.

Having studied these sources in considerable depth, my own study concurs partially with this view. However I do feel that Al-Waqidi's work is somewhat shaped by his own image of the Prophet.

Both early historians have received criticisms of their works by their own contemporaries and by scholars throughout history to even the present day.

A good place to start a study in this area would be to access the Phd study of Dr. Rizwi Faizer.
Ibn Ishaq and Al-Waqidi Revisited: A Case Study of Muhammad and the Jews in Biographical Literature

The Phd thesis can be found here.
http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=28738&local_base=GEN01-MCG02

You can note the treatment of some of Ibn Ishaq's narratives such as the infamous slaughter of the Banu Qurayza by another well known scholar Dr. W.N. Arafat.

New Light on the Story of Banu Qurayza and the Jews of Medina

A copy of this article can be found here:
http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/misc/qurayza.html

Al Waqidi's secretary (Ibn Saad) is the source of the infamous Satanic Verses (Isnad: Al Waqidi from Yunus Ibn Muhammad Ibn Fazla al Zafari from father who said from Kasir ibn Zayd from Al Mutallib ibn Abdullah ibn Hantab).

Al Waqidi's Kitab al Maghazi has survived and was a crucial source regarding the prophet which also influenced Al-Tabari's work. It no doubt also shaped Ibn Saad's (d.845 CE) Kitab al-Tabaqat.

Point to note:

The earliest historians for the Prophet's biography such as Ibn Ishaq and others such as Al Waqidi (d.822 CE), often relied on folklore and various traditions from a plethora of traditionalists (at times indiscriminate) at times citing their sources and at others remaining economical with their source of information. Popular translations of this work exist such as that of Islamic scholar Guillaume (Oxford University Press) - The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sira.

There are also non-Muslim sources worth considering which form a small body of literature and comprises Greek and Syriac writings dating from the time of early Muslim conquests which takes ones study to within the a time period of decades of the death of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

It is the Armenian chronicler Sebeos, Bishop of the Bagratunis (writing approximately 660s CE - approximately 30 years after the death of the Prophet) who gives us the earliest narrative accounts of the Prophet's ministry in any language today.

I hope this helps :-)

Posts on Other Forums - Questions and Answers / Who Forbade Hadith?

« on: November 09, 2011, 06:10:35 AM »

RESPONSES GIVEN BY JOSEPH ISLAM
[Please contact Joseph Islam for further details of the original thread]

Peace to you all.

Surely the question with regards secondary sources (such as ahadith) is one of 'authority' and not 'authenticity' which seems to have kept the Muslim learned unnecessarily busy and sifting through tomes of various opinions for over a millennia. The Quran seem to give absolutely no 'authority' to any other source apart from itself.

"These are the verses of God that We recite to you with truth. Then in what 'Hadith' (statement / narrative) after God and His 'Ayat' (verses) will they believe?" (45:6)

It seems that the question of 'authenticity' of secondary sources has been a mute point from the point of view of the Quran but unnecessarily laboured by many traditionalists.

The response given on the Day of Judgment is very significant. There seems to be no other source apart from the Quran being mentioned or as giving knowledge, explanation or guidance to the believers. There seems to be no mention of Hadith, Sunnah or any other kind of secondary source in this verse being insinuated or mentioned expressly or implicitly.

007.052
"For We had certainly sent to them a Book based on knowledge, which We explained in detail (Arabic: fasalnahu), a guide and a mercy to all who believe"

It doesn't say we sent a book, prophetic sayings, or a practice of a certain community for their guidance.

No doubt, there might be core essential truths in certain sayings, practices and pearls of wisdom, but no 'authority' seems to have been given as part of God's guidance which seems to be clear from 7:52.

______________________

Peace to you all.

The Quran itself testifies that it was being written down at the time of the Prophet by noble scribes who must have been in companionship with the Prophet.

80:13-16
In Scrolls Dignified, Exalted, Purified, (written) BY THE HANDS OF SCRIBES (Arabic: bi'aydi safara), Honorable and virtuous.

For example, the Arabic expression 'Safara-l-kitaba' - He wrote the book, or writing. The Arabic word Bi'aydi - by the hands / in the hands etc

Numerous Ahadith reports stand in clear tension with clear verses of the Quran. The Question for Muslims is, do they really put their trust in the most contemporaneous source to the Prophet (i.e the Quran), or are they truly content to rely on narratives which were not fully canonised until centuries removed from the prophet.

______________________

52:3 and highlighting the word 'Raqq' is so crucial indeed!

As you and many readers on this forum will no doubt already know, the word 'Raqq' from its root has the inherent meaning of something thin or of little thickness as compared to its breadth and length. Something thin, fine, flimsy, delicate. This most definitely refers to a well refined parchment or animal skin especially prepared for writing! For example the Arabic phrase, "raqqu kalamuhu" (His speech was or became tender, soft, sweet, graceful or elegant) carries that element of refinement in the word 'raqqu' from the same root.

I don't see bones, stones or anything of the sort in the word 'Raqq' in Arabic. Only as you say 'Fine parchment' which is such an apt translation.

Thanks so much for sharing.

______________________

Just to add to my previous post for completeness, that though the word 'safara' (plural of safir) means a scribe or a writer, many grammarian authorities have also noted it as a reference applied to the angels who register actions (such as in lexicon authorities such as the 'Mohkam' and 'Qamus').

However, if we note the context of the verse, especially the previous verses 80.11 which refers to something being presented as a reminder / advisory (tadhikratun) and the next verse 80.12, informing one 'so let him pay heed who wills', the pretext is likely a reference to the Quran.

It is in this context and in the very next verses (83.13-16) that dignified scrolls, exalted, purified - (written) by the hands of scribes who are honourable and virtuous is mentioned.

Happy to stand humbly corrected if presented with an alternative, more persuasive view :-)

Posts on Other Forums - Questions and Answers / Are Imam's Infallible?

« on: November 09, 2011, 06:02:19 AM »

RESPONSE GIVEN BY JOSEPH ISLAM
[Please contact Joseph Islam for further details of the original thread]

Peace all.

We can also take this matter straight to the Divine source. The Quran is absolutely clear that there are good leaders (21:72-73; 32.23-24 - Note Arabic word: Immatun) and there are BAD leaders (Susceptibility with regards inflated egos as brother [Name Removed] has suggested no doubt plays a very important part)

With regards bad leadership:

Pharaoh's men in the Quran are described as "Imams" (leaders) and confirmed that have led their people to the fire

028.041
'And we made them (but) leaders (Arabic: Imamatun) inviting to the Fire; and on the Day of Judgment no help shall they find'

Also, on the Day of judgment, people will be summoned with their Leaders (Righteous and Unrighteous, no distinction given)

017.071-72
'One day We shall call together all human beings with their (respective) Imams (Arabic: bi-imamihim): those who are given their record in their right hand will read it (with pleasure), and they will not be dealt with unjustly in the least. But those who were blind in this world, will be blind in the hereafter and most astray from the Path.'

Those that mislead (such as Imams) will carry an extra burden...

016:025
"That they may bear their own burdens entirely on the day of resurrection and also of the burdens of those whom they lead astray without knowledge; now surely evil is what they bear"

Note that one cannot take away another person's responsibility and each of us are ultimately responsible for our own burdens (6:164). However, it is clear in 16:25 that misleading others is an indictment on our own responsibility and for that one inevitably accrues some share of the crimes of those that they misled.

For example, a crazy warmonger imam cannot just simply sit back and claim no responsibility for the impressionable minds he may have led astray to cause atrocities with his vile despicable teachings. He will inevitably bear the burden a breach of that responsibility and that crime. At the same time however, the impressionable mind will ALSO bear the burden of his / her own responsibility and their own share of the crime.

God's justice is perfect.

General Discussions / The Compilation of the Quran

« on: November 08, 2011, 06:56:27 AM »

http://quransmessage.com/articles/the%20compilation%20of%20the%20quran%20FM3.htm

Posts on Other Forums - The Salaat Forum / Verse 5/106..

« on: November 08, 2011, 04:39:12 AM »

LINK TO THE ORIGINAL THREAD
http://www.salaatforum.com/index.php?mode=thread&id=178#p184

by Joseph Islam, Tuesday, November 01, 2011, 22:25 (6 days ago) @ jawaid ahmed

To Jawaid.

Peace.

With regards 5:106, you say:

"Since I do not believe that Salat is prayer, but means to remain within the bounds of the Laws of Allah, then it has something to do with the will that is being asked to be witnessed. When death approaches us, we must have a will so that our inheritance can be distributed accordingly"

Respectfully, what you believe is entirely your prerogative. I completely respect that. However, you have provided no cogent explanation for what the prayer in this verse signifies. 'Then it has something to do with the will ..."or "but the two witnesses understanding the conditions of the will and agreeing to give testimony on this" is respectfully not a persuasive argument in light of the Quranic context.

Furthermore, where is the Arabic 'fa-asabatkum musibatu l-mawti' (then befalls you calamity of death) in your translation? You include it in your transliteration but completely miss this out in your translation. The prayer is clearly linked with death and is only taking place after death. Therefore, a crucial part of the Arabic has been missed.

If you have a better explanation then the one you have offered, I would be delighted to take academic note and learn.

Salam.

100

Posts on Other Forums - The Salaat Forum / Salaat = Follow the Quran

« on: November 08, 2011, 04:15:18 AM »

LINK TO THE ORIGINAL THREAD
http://www.salaatforum.com/index.php?mode=thread&id=169#p182

by Joseph Islam, UK, Tuesday, November 01, 2011, 20:50 (6 days ago) @ jawaid ahmed, uk

To Jawaid:

You quote:

If Salat is not following the Quran, then it is certainly not doing rituals five times a day either! No 'bird'I know performs rituals as a means of 'Salat'to Allah. If they are engaged in following what they have been programmed to do then it is up to us to find out what is our best programming. This is by following the teachings, the principles, the values etc of the Quran, which means when I carry them out, I am performing my Salat. Salat is established collectively by implementing a Quranic social order; society then behaves in a harmonious manner, beneficial to all.

First of all there is no 'as they fly in columns' in the Quran in verse 24:41. There is also nothing to suggest in your translation that you have included this as an insertion.

With respect, you have missed the point of the verse.

All the verse informs us is the fact that creatures of God have a form of prayer and glorification. In another verse, God expands that it is clear that humans have not been given the capacity to understand their methods of glorification.

017.044
'The seven heavens and the earth, and all beings therein, declare His glory: there is not a thing but celebrates His praise; And yet you understand not how they declare His glory! Verily He is Oft-Forbear, Most Forgiving!'

You say:

'Nowhere does the Quran describe the rituals of namaaz that is performed five times a day by the majority, name only, Muslims. If this is what Allah intended for us, then He would have put the instructions in at least one clear verse, leaving no doubt about His intentions'

What the Quran does not provide is pedantic 'form' and 'utterance' (what to say in your prayers). The Quran has no intention to prescribe this. All various other aspects of prayer have been provided by the Quran. (direction, need for wudu, allusion of times etc).

The details of ablution (4:43; 5:6)
A need for a direction - Qiblah, specific for the 'believers' (Mu'mins) (2.143-44)
Garments (7:31)
Allusion of times: (4:103; 11:114; 17:78; 24:58; 30:18; 2:238: 20:58)
That prayers must be observed on time (4:103)
Followers of the previous scripture to observe their Qiblah and the Believers (Mu'mins) their own Qiblah (2:145)
Prayer involves prostration (Sujood - 4:102; 48:29)
There is more than one prayer (Prayer in plural used - Salawat) (2:238)
There is a general form to prayer (2:238-39).
Standing position (3:39; 4:102)
Bowing down and prostrating (4:102; 22:26; 38:24; 48:29)
Form is not required during times of emergencies, fear, and unusual circumstances (2:239)
A mention of a call to prayer and congregation prayer (62:9)
A warning not to abandon prayer as was done by people before (19:58-59) but to establish prayer (Numerous references)
The purpose of prayer - To remember God alone (6:162; 20:14)
Prayer involves utterance (4:43)
The purpose to protect from sins (29:45)
What to do in danger and the shortening of prayer (4:101)
Garments and mention of a Masjid, or a place of prayer (7:31)
The tone of prayer (17:110)
There is a leader of prayer (4:102)

The Quran has no intentions to define rakats, where you should tie your hands, what you should say in prayer etc. The purpose is communion with God. Communion is a personal spiritual experience and exercise. You misunderstand lack of form and utterance in the Quran as an absence of prayer altogether, This is untenable in light of the scripture.

You mention the narratives with respect to Shoaib (pbuh). You quote a rendering of a verse 11:87 as , and I quote:

11:87 They said, "O Shoaib! (We had thought that your religion was only a matter between you and your Lord.) Does your Salaat Command that we should forsake the worship that our fathers practiced? Or, that we leave off doing what we like to do with our economy? Indeed, you want us to think that you are the only clement, and the rightly guided man among us."

First what Arabic word are you translating as 'economy'? The word used by the Quran is 'amwalina' which refers to their wealth (property, assets etc). The use of 'economy' implies resources at a regional or society level.

Secondly, the argument is not against 'prayer'. The argument is against praying to what their forefathers used to worship. (natrula ma ya'badu abauna).

It seems you may have difficulty with finding the details for the 'traditional prayers' in terms of form and utterance in the Quran and therefore assert that there is no 'prayer' in the conventional sense altogether. Why do you not consider the possibility that there is no intention by the Quran to give you a pedantic form or content (utterance)? There is also no directive in the Quran for you to pray in Arabic, or assign specific rakats (albeit it may make logistical sense in a congregation). However, this does not mean that there is no prayer.

101

Posts on Other Forums - The Salaat Forum / Qurbani

« on: November 08, 2011, 04:05:56 AM »

LINK TO THE ORIGINAL THREAD
http://www.salaatforum.com/index.php?mode=thread&id=150#p185

by Joseph Islam, Wednesday, November 02, 2011, 06:46 (5 days ago) @ Shabbir Ahmed

Dr. Shabbir.

On the strenghth [sic] of 22:36, you say:

"Only camels may be slaughtered at Hajj, and only in Makkah for the pilgrims to host one another (22:36). NAHR strictly refers to the sacrifice of a camel"

Where do you get this interpretation from 22:36?

The Arabic word used by the Quran is 'budna'. 'bud'na' is plural of 'badanah' and comes from 'badan' which means body without arms legs or a cow, goat, bull, camel or any animals of sacrifice.

So to say only camels can be slaughtered on the strength of 22:36 is untenable in my opinion and from an Arabic perspective. It means all sacrificial animals.

Salaam.

102