Messages

1771

Posts on Other Forums - Questions and Answers / Re: What is "Ahl Al-Bayt"

« on: November 12, 2011, 12:33:34 PM »

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

Peace.

The Quran gives absolutely no warrant to restrict the meaning of 'Ahl-al-Bayt' in the way Shia theology understands / demands.

Also according to the Shia, the restriction to allow only one daughter in this venerated group (Hazrat Fatima) is also a violation of verse 33:59 which clearly makes use of the term 'wa-banatika' in which the noun is clearly a femine [sic] plural i.e. DAUGHTERS.

"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and DAUGHTERS..." (33.59 partial)

To assert only one daughter as part of the 'Ahl' of the Prophet is clearly unsupportable by the Quran itself.

1772

Posts on Other Forums - Questions and Answers / Re: God's Role

« on: November 12, 2011, 12:32:26 PM »

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


In a humble attempt to directly answer the original poster's question, if we note 7:54 and read 'istawa ala 'larsh' (ascended the throne) in context to the establishment of God creating the universe and the laws and taking power over it, we see it further elaborated in 10:13 [sic] (should read: verse 13:2) with the term 'yudabbiru l-amra' (governing / disposing the affairs). I feel this gives us a strong indication of 'active involvement' as many other posters have also suggested and from inferences from other Quranic verses.

1773

Posts on Other Forums - Questions and Answers / Re: Touching a Dog

« on: November 12, 2011, 12:31:06 PM »

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


Aslamaolaikom.

I have read your interesting post and I have a few of humble questions.

What do you think was the purpose why the righteous men of the cave had a dog with them (18:18)? I am sure you will agree with me that they were certainly not out hunting, but merely fleeing (18:10). Also how do you understand the narrative that God kept the dog alive as well as the sleepers, stretching it paws and looking after it for a number of years? The dog was in the cave with them. Do you feel that in this case the angels did not enter the cave or was this an exception?

You mention on the authority of Abu Hurairah that " 'If a dog licks the vessel of any one of you, let him wash it seven times, one of which should be with earth.' It is better if the washing with earth be the first washing. And Allaah knows best."

I note in verse 5:4, the narrative, "qul, uhilla lakumu-tayibatu wama allamtim min-ul JAWARIHI MUKALIBINA" (and made lawful for you the good things and what you have taught the hunting dogs'. I am sure you note the word 'kalb' in the verse. How do you reconcile the fact that Allah has made the food that hunting dogs catch for you (presumably with their mouth) lawful? Would washing the meat caught (at least 7 times) not be appropriate here? I am sure you appreciate that the word 'Mukalib' is one who trains dog's to hunt. This is even attested by good lexicons such as the Sihah, Kamoos and the Lisan-Al-Arab. I am just interested to find out why you feel a 'Najs' (impure) animal (according to your view) would be allowed to catch food for human consumption?

Do you agree that the Quran does not class any creature of God inherently as 'Najs' (impure)? I appreciate that Allah has forbidden humans to 'consume' a particular animal but my focus is on your understanding that a particular creation of Allah is inherently 'impure' such as a dog. If so, how do we then understand Allah creating inherently 'impure' creatures? Is not a state of impurity linked to volition rather than it being an inherent trait due to God creating it that way?

I also note a parable which God himself propounds which features a dog for us to derive 'hikmah' from. (7:176). The state of the dog is used as an analogy to a particular state of a human condition. However, there is no indication of it being 'impure'. Why do you feel that God not enlightened us of the impurity of the dog when he Himself has called the Quran 'fussilat', a 'meezan', a 'furqan' and ofcourse a book 'tibiana lekullay shaye wa-hudan' (clear explanation of all things and a guidance) 16:89. I am sure you will agree with the assertion that Allah could never run out of words (31:27)?

I would love to hear your views so that you may enlighten me with thoughts I may not have considered.

Yours in peace.

1774

Posts on Other Forums - Questions and Answers / Re: Ruh O Soul?

« on: November 12, 2011, 12:29:29 PM »

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


... Can I also add in particular response to initial enquiry that 46:15 mentions 'hamluhu' (bearing) and 'fisaluhu' (weaning) combined is 30 months. If we examine this together with 31:14 in which the time of 'fisaluhu' (weaning) only is given as 'amayni' (2 years / 24 months), we therefore get 'hamluhu' (bearing) of a 'nafs' as 6 months (30 months - 24 months). Take 6 months away from the complete pregnancy period and you get the point in which 'nafs' is recognised (approximately 3 months after conception). Before that period the Quran does not recognise the creature to be with a 'nafs' or 'insan' (human). See 23:14 which supports this as well.

Happy to stand humbly corrected if there is an otherwise more consistent / cogent opinion from the Quran.

1775

Posts on Other Forums - Questions and Answers / Re: Qabar Parast!

« on: November 12, 2011, 12:28:02 PM »

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


The best way to educate is to enlighten them with clear verses from the Quran. I am sure brothers and sisters on this website will indeed provide you with many more references. Here are some quickly.

017.056-7
"Say: "Call on those - besides Him - whom you fancy: they have neither the power to remove your troubles from you nor to change them. Those whom they call upon do desire (for themselves) means of access (Arabic: wasilata) to their Lord, even those who are nearest: they hope for His Mercy and fear His Wrath: for the Wrath of thy Lord is something to take heed of"

016.018-21
'And if you would count God's favours, you will not be able to number them; most surely God is Forgiving, Merciful. And God knows what you conceal and what you do openly. And those whom they call on besides God have not created anything while they are themselves created; Dead (are they), not living, and they know not when they shall be raised.'

027.080
'Truly you cannot cause the dead to listen, nor can you cause the deaf to hear the call, when they turn back in retreat.'

030.052
'For verily you (Muhammad) cannot make the dead to hear, nor can you make the deaf to hear the call when they have turned to flee'

035.022
'Neither are the living and the dead alike. Surely God makes whom He pleases hear, and you cannot make those hear who are in the graves'

1776

Posts on Other Forums - Questions and Answers / Re: Unnatural Sex

« on: November 12, 2011, 12:23:06 PM »

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

Peace.

I could not concur more with brother [Name Removed] excellent post [above]. Having studied both Ibn Hajar Asqalani's Fath al-Bari and Badr Al-Ayni's Umdat al Qari on this particular matter and with regards Bukhari's commentary, I am truly aghast at the discussions that have ensued and the sordid details that it contains. It is certainly not comfortable study!

The Arabic word 'harth' means to till, or cultivate land, either by sowing or by planting: (Taj ul-Urus) or when one ploughs up land for sowing: (Mughrib of El-Mutarrizee) because the doing so is a means of gain. It has the inherent meaning of acquisition, reward (gain), seed-produce or what is grown or raised as by means of seed planting.

One reads the beauty with which Allah has portrayed the message. The analogy is clearly one of a farmer who will cultivate his lands, sow the seeds at its proper seasons to reap its benefits. No limitations are set with regards how many times one approaches their partners, however one can clearly note a subtlety of comparison with regards fertilisation cycles. One approaches their spouse much in the same way a farmer approaches his fields sowing seeds at the proper period to expect a gain, a beautiful worldly gain, but a gain indeed.

I wonder how a farmer would be expected to sow seeds with a view to cultivate land in an improper manner and then still expect a 'positive yield'?

The exquisite Quranic guidance is a far cry from some of the incredulous reports found in the Ahadith corpus.

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 51:
Narrated Jabir:

Jews used to say: "If one has sexual intercourse with his wife from the back, then she will deliver a squint-eyed child."
So this Verse was revealed:--

"Your wives are a tilth unto you; so go to your tilth when or how you will." (2.223)

1777

Posts on Other Forums - Questions and Answers / Re: Marrying my Daughters at 8 Years

« on: November 12, 2011, 12:18:20 PM »

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


I am truly aghast at the previous two posts. (If I have understood the sentiments of particularly the first one correctly).

The question has nothing to do with what 'you' as part of whatever society you belong to, or the 'man' seeking to marry a child or indeed, the family of the child think of future prospects of the marriage instituion.

The question is - does the child really have the capacity to make informed decisions about her life at the tender age of 6,7, 8 or 9?

Does the child have the capacity or the experience to really know what is good for her and what the marriage institution entails for the rest of her days at that tender child age? Can she really enter into a 'Meethaqan Galezan' (solemn covenant) completely at her own volition or is this a form of disguised exploitation and given religious legitimacy which really has no true warrant from scripture?

Would you really entrust an 8 year old with the finances of your company or all your financial matters? Would really give a child complete control over her finances or property regardless of value? Would you class her to be of sufficient sound judgment and maturity to be able to do that? Really? You may think that is an irrelevant benchmark, but that is the benchmark provided by the scripture against whose name you swear to be Muslims.

004:006 (Part)
'Test (trial) the orphans (Arabic: wa-ibtalu l-yatama) until they reach the age of marriage (Arabic: balaghu l-nikaha); if you then find sound judgment in them, release their property to them..."

Physical maturity and mental maturity are both as important in discerning marriageable age.

Can you really enter into a solemen covenant (4:21) with a child given the gravity and significance of such a contract that God describes as a Meethaqan Galezan in the Quran? Have you noted the gravity of such a covenant and the level of volition and understanding required for such a covenant from the Quran for yourself?

Note how God describes a Meethaqan Galezan in the Quran. There are only 2 other instances where such a term is used.

To describe:

(1) The solemn covenant (Meethaqan Galezan) God took with the Bani Israel with regards the matter of the Sabbath.
(2) The solemen covenant (Meethaqan Galezan) God took with all His Prophets (33:7)

Do you really think (hand on heart) that a child of 8 can display enough volition, understanding and wisdom to enable her to enter into a 'Meethaqn Galezan' with regards marriage for the rest of her life? Really?

Dear brothers (previous posters), rather than sink our heads in the sand, we all have a responsibility to truly study the scripture of God that born Muslims have inherited and not simply follow the understandings and practices of our forefathers.

One can find enough support in the 'Sahih Sitta' Ahadith corpus to drum up support to deal with ones own carnal desires (the sexual tyrannasaurus predator that one may be!). But rather than fanning these overt carnal desires, one should be suppressing them. Rather than 'shopping' for narratives to support these overt desires, one should be reading the scripture of God with a view to seeking wisdom to contain them.

The second post referred to Bukhari. Maybe you should first try to capture the Quran's own wisdom. The majority of these narratives which support Hazrat Ayesha's age in Bukhari are narrated on the authority of one person, Hisham bin Urwa. For the sake of brevity, I would rather not comprehensively tackle the secondary sources that you mention here in this post. Suffice to say, legitimising the marriage of a child of such an age is negated by the Quran's own wisdom, which remains the primary source, our source of judge and criterion between right and wrong (furqan).

I am sure you are not going to argue that the Prophet of God practiced something against the wisdom he himself received from God and then preached?

Also, sexual intimacy is intertwined in a marital relationship. Let us not be so naive here. What do you really think goes through a 55 or 60 year old man who seeks a 6, 7, 8 or 9 year old child for marriage?

1778

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

« on: November 12, 2011, 12:15:52 PM »

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


Al-Tabari's colossal annals are better known and studied as 'al-Tarikh al-Tabari'

As it explores the history of ancient nations, prophets and details the step by step rise of Islam post prophetic era it also goes under the guise of both Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk (Histories of prophets and kings) and Tarikh al Umam wal Muluk (Histories of nations and kings).

It has seen various editions but a popular rendition into English is made by SUNY Press (ISBN 978-0-7914-7249-1, ISBN 978-0-7914-7250-7) and is translated by various translators (some well known to the academic world such as the Yale Professor Franz Rosenthal, SOAS University Professor G.R.Hawting and Gautier Juynboll). A list of the volumes and translators can be found here (Clicking on the links will give more detail)

http://www.sunypress.edu/p-4511-set-history-of-al-tabari.aspx

Wiki also has an entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Prophets_and_Kings

Other Non-English translations can be found here:

http://ia700306.us.archive.org/3/items/Tarikh_tabari1/Tarikh_tabari_07.pdf

There was also a version published in 1879 by Brill based in Leidin under de.Goeje which was published in 3 sets which included 13 volumes, an indices (volume 14) and an intro (volume 15).

Openlibrary.org has an entry.

http://openlibrary.org/books/OL22894973M/Tarikh_al-rusul_wa_al-muluk

Most of us access these sources through our libraries for studies as to purchase the set is quite expensive, though the paperback version can be purchased relatively cheaply.

Apart from his other works and those unfinished such as the Tahdib al-Athar which was his attempt to sift through hadith collections, his other monumental work as you know was the commentary on the Quran (Al-musamma Jami al-bayan fi ta'wil al-Qur'an) or commonly known as 'Tafsir al-tabari'.

I hope this helps.

1779

Posts on Other Forums - Questions and Answers / Re: The Right to Punish a Wife

« on: November 12, 2011, 12:09:46 PM »

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


Salaam [Name Removed]

... and peace to you all :-)

Brother Javed Ahmad Ghamidi is no doubt a great scholar. Shehzad Saleem who has been under the tutelage of Brother Javed is also an intelligent and thinking mind which is quite evident from his writings. Both should be respected in the opinions they impart. However, neither of them is beyond academic reproach and as far as I can tell, neither of them claims to be.

MODERATORS - Please allow me a little discretionary licence to read into some of the Arabic verses which I think is pertinent for the purposes of this post so that some readers can understand some of the underlying arguments and counter arguments.

(Please do refer to your own translations / interpretations of the Quran)

Scripture for any serious academic is to be studied holistically and the best meanings derived.

In my own humble opinion, I cannot concur with this particular rendering of Surah 4.34 to affirm  'wife beating ', especially as the only viable rendering of the text of this verse.

Here are my reasons:

Let us first consider some directives of the Quran when it comes to dealing with spouses within the ambit of marriage institutions.

30:21 states that mates have been created from among yourselves so that you may find tranquillity / rest in them. The Arabic here is 'litaskunu'. Most readers on this forum will be familiar with what the word 'Sukoon' means. The verse further states that He has placed between them love (Arabic: Muwaddatan) and mercy (wa-rahmatan). The verse culminates by informing the reader that there are signs in this for those who reflect.

Therefore, from verse 30:21 it is clear that the institution of marriage is one of tranquillity, love and mercy.

Even in the complex matter of divorce, we find clear instructions of arbitration, mutual consultation and kindness with no recourse to harm or injury of any kind.

With regards the latter important point of 'injury', note the Arabic word 'Diraran' in the following verse and its prohibition. This is very pertinent to the theme of this post.

002:231 (Part)
"And when you divorce women and they reach their prescribed time, then either retain them in fair manner or set them free in a fair manner, and do not retain them for injury / hurt (Arabic: Diraran), so that you exceed the limits..."

Dirar - not only means to make inconvenient, harass or to annoy but also carries the meaning of harm, to injure or hurt. (See 3.111 as an example)

Also, we note the pretext to the admonishment as 'Nushuz' (ill conduct, treatment/ rebellion) by the 'wife'. However, what is often not appreciated is that in verse 4:128 we also note a reciprocal scenario where a wife fears 'Nushuz' from her husband. Do we expect a  'beating ' by the wife of the husband as equal and fair retribution? Clearly the verse is devoid of such correction methods.

IDHRIBOHUNNA (BEAT THEM?)

It is in verse 4:34 where one encounters the word 'idhribohunna' which is usually translated as 'beat them'. There are two parts to this word, 'Idhribo' (1) being a verb and 'Hunna' (2), a feminine plural pronoun (referring to the wives).

'Idhrib' which is formed from the root 'D-R-B' continues to form one of the most multifaceted words in Arabic.

In the Quran, one of the meanings of 'dharab' is to give examples; to propound similitudes or to coin parables (2:26 - example given of a gnat, 14:24-5 - an example given of a goodly word; 14:45 - the dwellings of old; 16:75 - an example of a slave, 16:76 - an example of the dumb, 16:112 - a secure town, 22:73 - example of a fly, 18:32 - example given of two men with two gardens etc)

There are also many other meanings such as to set out on a journey or to travel (3:156; 4:94; 4:101; 5:106 (witnesses and travel) 73:20; 2:273); or to condemn (2:61 - The Children of Israel's complaint with regards food); to seal (18:11 - companions of the cave), to take away (as in the reminder 43:5) and of course, to strike or beat (2:60, 2:73; 7:160 (Moses (pbuh) and the rock); 8:12 (instruction to the angels); 20:77 (Moses (pbuh)); 24:31 (women and feet); 26:63; 37:93; 47:4 (battlefield); 8:50; 47:27 (angels and death))

As you can see, words forming from 'dharab' have various meanings depending on context even in the Quran.

'idhribhunna', in this exact form only appears once in the Quran and in verse 4:34 so there is no direct comparison from another part of the Quran to compare. However, as we have previously noted in examples 30:21 and 2:231, dealings with spouses carries a central theme in the Quran of peace, tranquillity, love and mercy without any sort of harassment or injury. This should not be ignored while interpreting other verses of the Quran which fall within the scope of marriage institutions, especially 4:34.

What is often not appreciated is that 'Dharaba' can also mean to turn away or shun if it appears with a preposition 'AN'. As there is no preposition 'AN' in the Quranic word 'idhribohunna', it is usually argued by academics and scholars that the Arabic word cannot therefore take the meaning of shun / turn away in this form and must be interpreted as 'beat them'.

However, in classical Arabic, it is to be noted that 'Idhribohunna' (as it appears in the Quran) would not necessarily require the preposition 'AN' to make the rendering 'shun - turn away from' operative. This is attested by well known Arabic lexicon authorities and therefore a counter argument can be posited to this effect.

This rendering to 'shun / turn away' also finds support with the overarching philosophy depicted by the Quran which underscores how marriage institutions should be managed in kindness, respect and without causing harm to one another.

Also, much is made of the time sequence in verse 4:34 by virtue of the Arabic 'wa' which means 'and'

004:034 (Part)
"...As from those whom you fear ill-conduct (Arabic: nushuzahunna) advise them (Arabic: fa'izuhunna) and (Arabic: wa) forsake their (Arabic: uh'juruhunna) beds and (Arabic: wa) ...idhribohunna ..."

This is usually interpreted as a 3 step correction method.

Any ardent student of the Quran will note that the Arabic 'wa' does not always denote a separation in time in the Quran, but can also be construed as an approach to be carried out simultaneously or in immediate succession (with no great time lapse or 'stepped' action). Let us note an example. In the very next verse, we note the 'wa' not being used as a separation in time:

004:035
And if you fear a breach between the two, then appoint an arbiter from his people and (Arabic: wa) an arbiter from her people; if they both desire agreement, God will effect harmony between them, surely God is Knowing, Aware.

Here the 'wa' does not necessarily denote a time separation.

or in the very next verse:

004:036 (Part)
"...Serve God, and (Arabic: wa) join not any partners with Him..."

So two points to note:

(1) Idrhibhunna can mean to shun / turn away and not necessarily to 'beat' (with or without the 'an' proposition)

(2) There is not necessarily a time separator in verse 4:34 which is usually understood as being left to the arbitrary impulses of the (possibly already aggressed) husband to decide what they should entail. Rather, a corrective method can include verbal admonishment, forsaken beds and the process of shunning / turning away from their spouses in relative sequence without the oft understood '3 step corrective process'.

In the end of course, only God knows best.

1780

Posts on Other Forums - Questions and Answers / Re: What is Lewdness/Sexual Immorality?

« on: November 12, 2011, 12:00:21 PM »

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

Dear Brother [Name Removed]

Thank you for your response.

As you will note from my post, I have humbly already admitted that adultery is a form of 'Fahisha' but not all 'Fahisha' is 'zina'. Apart from the fact that 'prostitution' was merely quoted as an example and that no one would claim that the only service a prostitute offers is 'zina', there are many other forms of 'fahisha' that are possible without they amounting to zina. Without seeming to reiterate, Fahisha in the context of 4:15 is an ill which affects wider society. Therefore, I would find it difficult to accept the assertion that the type of 'Fahisha' in 4:15 is synonymous with the specific 'Fahisha' (zina) mentioned in 24:2. There is a difference.

I also, humbly, will not be able to concur with your understanding that 'Fahishtan' in 4:25 is restricted to 'zina'. Albeit, if the 'Fahisha' was found to be 'zina' one would no doubt appeal to the 50 lash prescription as half of what is stipulated in 24:2. But please note the lack of any numbers stipulated in verse 4:25, other than 'nisfu' (half) of the punishment levied to a believing woman in a similar situation. Therefore the scope of 'Fahishtan' in 4:25 is not restricted to 'zina' but can denote any number of transgressions. Would one restrict the interpretation of 'Fahisha' in 33:30 when referring to the Prophet's wives as 'zina' (adultery)? Of course not! (as I'm sure you will agree with me) but rather, it refers to any unseemly conduct which amounts to a transgression. Hence the suffering / punishment would be doubled for the Prophet's wives in this case. This is consistent with the understanding of 'Fahisha'.

I hope that helps.

Your brother ...

1781

Posts on Other Forums - Questions and Answers / Re: What is Lewdness/Sexual Immorality?

« on: November 12, 2011, 11:59:29 AM »

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


Peace brother [Name Removed]

'Fahisha' is anything which is evil, an excess, an enormity, immoderate, beyond measure or an excessive sin. So something which is gross, or lewd and obscene. This excess can also apply to speech or language (as in uttering foul, evil, lewd or obscene speech).

Note how 'fahishatu' is used as excess (in slander / scandal in speech) in 24:19

24:19 Surely, those who love to see immorality (Arabic: fahishatu) spread among the believers, shall be punished in this world and in the life to come. For, God knows and you do not know.

Now the 'fahisha' here given the context of the narrative dealing with slander is not referring to sexual immorality, but a reference to slander or obscene or transgressed speech by those amongst the believers that spread slander.

There is no 'fahisha' in 24:2. The terms used are 'zaniyatu' (female) and 'zani' (male) which means one that commits fornication / adultery (zina).

So yes, 'zina' can be considered as a form of fahisha but not all 'fahisha' is 'zina'.

Therefore, there is not necessarily any conflict between 4:15 and 24:2 as they are two separate conditions and offences. Whereas the offence in 4:15 could be an ill which affects the wider society (such as prostitution), the offence in 24:2 is simply restricted to personal immorality such as adultery or fornication and applies to both genders and attracts a specific punishment.

Just my humble opinion. Happy to stand corrected by a more cogent interpretation from the Quran and Arabic usage.

1782

Posts on Other Forums - Questions and Answers / Re: What is Contact Prayer?

« on: November 12, 2011, 11:51:07 AM »

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


My Dear brother [Name Removed]

I do respect your view point 

My humble responses to your questions.

So, is it not possible that Allah SWT used two opposite words (salla v/s tawalla) to make meaning clear?

Anything is possible my brother. However, in my view given the immediate context and my wider understanding of the terms I retain a differing view.

Second point to note is that ṣaddaqa (accepted the truth) v/s kadhaba (Denied the truth). If argument is of repetition, then how to explain this repetition?

Third point to note is that of word "lākin" (But), which provides the sense that opposite words are used to make meaning clear.

In my opinion, the amendment particle 'lakin' in 75:32 provides separation and then the elucidation of the two verbs present in 75:31. I feel that in your proposal, the 'wala salla' is part of the elucidation of the truth (saddaqa) not being accepted. In this case, I feel the 'lakin' would become superfluous, as it is this that separates the elucidatory verbs in 75:32 from 75:31 and not the 'wa' (and) in 75:31. This is why I humbly asserted a repetition in the overall context of the two verses.

You have very rightly cited 6:105 and 17:41 in support of the Quran's usage of multifarious explanation techniques to make the matter clear.

This point is even further ratified in 25:32 where the Quran uses the phrase 'ratalnahu tartila' to describe itself. This clearly denotes the well constructed action of putting together of component parts into one integral whole endowing the complete scripture with an 'airtight' inner consistency devoid of errors.

However, I personally feel that I have made use of the same methodology and have come to a differing conclusion. I am aware that these debates linking to an understanding of 'salah' are well exhausted on the [Name Removed] forums.

Finally, I am aware of both brother Ghulam Parvez's and my dear brother Dr. Shabbir's views on this matter. I respect them both in their own rights, as I do any great thinker or scholar (latter two terms are not necessarily mutually exclusive).

However, I also have my own views as much as you have yours based on our own studies.

With respect,

Your brother ...

1783

Posts on Other Forums - Questions and Answers / Re: What is Contact Prayer?

« on: November 12, 2011, 11:50:08 AM »

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


Peace brother [Name Removed]

Thanks for your response.

Yes I do understand what you are trying to say.

I think the argument becomes a little superfluous if I may be so humbly candid (but with respect).

Even if I accept your premise of translating 'salla' to 'to follow', then 'wala sala' and 'watawalla' seem like an unnecessary repetition.

You can even sense the repetition in the English translation that you have offered.

"And he did not accept (the) truth and did not follow (the truth), But he denied (the truth) and turned away (from the truth)"

Also if one does not accept the truth, then it is a given he is not going to follow it.

I personally see them describing two separate verbs which I feel is resonated by the link that you have provided and the rendering offered for that verse.

Of course, we are both entitled to our respective understandings of the terms 'salla'. I respect any possible differences of opinion as I have already intimated in my previous responses. I am not intending to change that, just offering my own humble view.

With respect,

Your brother...

1784

Posts on Other Forums - Questions and Answers / Re: What is Contact Prayer?

« on: November 12, 2011, 11:48:55 AM »

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


...In response to your interesting question. On the basis of 75:31-32 alone, I would personally concur with your assertion that the term 'sadaqqa' in 75:31 deals with the subject of a particular truth. I understand the Arabic 'sadaqqa' in context as 'accepted a truth' or 'to find true', whatever it may be. Pretty much similar to the 'sadaqqa' that Satan found 'true' regarding his 'zanna' (assumption) about a particular matter in 34:20.

Indeed, the subject certainly seems to deal with a 'truth'.

Now what I may humbly beg to differ with is your particular understanding of 'salla' as 'it'. I read the 'salla' as a perfect verb in 3rd person. Combined with the conjunction 'wa' (and), I read the 'salla' as a separate verb. This is similar to verse 96:10 I quoted earlier. So whether this is a reference 'to pray' or whichever way one defines 'salla', it is a separate verb.

Also, I find the denial (kadhaba) linked to the denial of the 'truth' (sadaqqa) and 'tawalla' linked to the turning away from the 'salla' (however the verb is defined)

Admittedly, none of this defines the 'salla' by virtue of an analysis of these two verses alone and the Arabic used, but this does not influence my understanding of seeing the 'salla' as a separate verb.

Just my humble opinion. I hope this helps.

Your brother in faith.

1785

Posts on Other Forums - Questions and Answers / Re: What is Contact Prayer?

« on: November 12, 2011, 11:47:51 AM »

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


Peace brother [Name Removed]

Please forgive my brother, I am not sure I concur with your line of reasoning.

Please note how the same 'salla' (3rd person mascular singular) is used with a slave / servant (abdan) in verse 96:10 and forms part of a rebuke against one who forbids one from 'salla'.

'tawalla' just means to turn from something. So whatever the subject is, it means to turn away from it.

This is a well known term in Arabic.

(1) tawalla (3rd person masculine single) - turneth away.
(2) tawallau (3rd person masculine plural) - they turned away.
(3) tawallaitum (2nd person masculine plural) - ye turned away.
(4) yatawalla (3rd person masculine plural) - he turns away.

So whatever the subject is, the 'tawalla' is turning away from it. So the 'tawalla' in 75:32 can easily be construed as the turning away from 'salla'. This does not change the meaning of salla whatever you conceive it to be. Tawalla is just moving away from it. If one renders the term 'salla' with the traditional understanding 'prays', then in this case it would mean abandoning the prayer.

I hope this helps.