Messages

1786

Discussions / Re: Watch documentary on Muhammad Asad

« on: November 12, 2011, 11:26:26 AM »

A wonderful video. Thank you for sharing brother Mubashir.

His rendition "The Message of the Quran" is a true asset in the library of great translations of the Quran.  The ending comments in the video were so pertinent. Muhammad Asad stood against extremism and fanatacism throughout his life, yet as the visitor noted "Poor guy, he's still struggling with extremists even in his grave!"

Joseph.

1787

General Discussions / Re: Al-Fajr explained by Parwez - A poetic license ??

« on: November 12, 2011, 07:53:12 AM »

Dear brother Mubashir,

Salamun Alaikum

It is to be noted and with respect, that just because other translations cannot agree on a specific aspect, rendering or interpretation does not imply that they are all wrong and not one of them is right. This would imply false reasoning. One or more of them still may be right.

With respect to Ghulam Parwez's 'exposition'.

He says (as you have presented):

1-4.      (The great congregation of Hajj was proposed to discuss and sort out complicated issues affecting mankind. But just see what these pagan Arabs have turned this event into.) They have earmarked the first ten nights of this congregation for merrymaking, indulging in every kind of lewdness. Gambling, played by throwing dice odd and even, takes place on all around.  During the last night the merrymaking reaches its climax, and when they wake up in the morning to celebrate the function of Hajj, that too is a passing manifestation of their lewdness.  Wealthy traders of Quraish and the custodians of Ka'aba do all this, intoxicated by wealth and power. (They wastefully throw away the wealth, while the poor around them do not even have crumbs to eat.)

With respect, I fail to see what these slanderous accusations have anything to do with translating the verses of the Quran or capturing the beautiful oaths of God given in the Quran.
Academically, all I seem to note is the inherent fallacy argumentation of generalisation. I don't see how this does anything to explain the Arabic of the four beautiful verses of 89:1-4.

             Wal-fajr, wa layalin ashr, wal-shaf'i wal-watr, wa -layli idha yasr
             (By the dawn and ten nights, the even and the odd and the night when it passes)

As far as Quranic oath taken viz a viz 'wa layalin ashr', (and the ten nights) it is an oath on something of relevance. There are many oaths taken by God in the Quran which are not necessarily connected with the complete theme of the surah. However, we can understand and surmise much from the interconnectivity of the oaths, some of the immediate themes they may address and aspects from other surahs. Some oaths may be of general purport. For example, 68:1 may be an oath taken by the pen (qalm) which records (by the scribes) and refutes the claim that Prophet Muhammad was a man possessed (68:2), or the panting horses implying their speed and swiftness granted for mankind's use in 100:1 may have some bearing with the relationship of man's ungratefulness in 100:6. Similarly, the oath in 90:1 may be related to 90:2 or 90:3 may be related to 90:4 and many other themes in the Quran. However, this does not necessarily need to imply connectivity with the rest of the Surah or require immediate explanation for the purposes of the Surah.
 
I could humbly assert that the ten nights (89:2) are linked to the 10 nights of Prophet Moses in 7:142. After all, the Quran could have simply mentioned 40 nights which it clearly didn't. Why did it separate the 10 nights from the 30 nights? Did the Quran give the 10 nights some significance in 7:142? Is it possible that this is the oath that was taken in 89:2 to signify Prophet Moses's 10 nights? Does the oath of the sun's brilliance in 91:1 or the day and night in 91:3-4 have a direct relationship with the narrative captured in the rest of the Surah with regards the people of Thamud? I personally find more resonance between 91:3 and 91:4 (The Day and Night) with the 'wal-shaf'i wal-watr' (the even and the odd) as opposites of 89:3.

007.142
"We appointed for Moses thirty nights, and completed (the period) with ten (more) (Arabic: bi'ashrin): thus was completed the term (of communion) with his Lord, forty nights. And Moses had charged his brother Aaron (before he went up): "Act for me amongst my people: Do right, and follow not the way of those who do mischief."

With respect, I find much of Ghulam Parwez's work and those that express similar methodologies replete with interpolations which I find, problematic.

You have with respect, stated that Ghulam Parwez connects 1-4 with the rest of the verses, but then 1-4 does nothing to capture the verses or the oaths taken by the Quran or any academic analysis of the verses. All I read is slander and gross generalisations. This is respectfully not befitting of any academic, especially one of the calibre of Ghulam Parwez.

My response is a well meaning academic criticism of Ghulam Parwez's interpolations (or exposition as you assert) that you have provided. I find Ghulam Parvez's methodology and reasoning extremely troubling in light of the Quran.

However, irrespective of my own personal academic criticisms of Ghulam Parwez's work and other's of similar theological ilk, I do humbly invite other readers to scrutinise Ghulam Parvez's work, his methodologies and assumptions to formulate their own views if they deem fit.

Your brother in faith,
Joseph.

1788

Posts on Other Forums - The Salaat Forum / PLEASE READ FIRST

« on: November 12, 2011, 12:52:37 AM »

Dear Readers.

Peace to you all,

You will note some of my responses on the salaat forum dealing with the subjects in quite curt, direct form. This approach has been adopted as the most appropriate after much deliberation given some of the negative experiences on other forums which advance similar arguments. The theological crux of the arguments presented on these forums seems to either be derived or developed (at times inconsistently) from the thoughts of Ghulam Parvez's work.

In other forums, which advance similar theological ideologies, I have found them to curtail and often abuse any constructive academic challenge to their theological arguments, no matter how well advanced. Such posts are often simply denied.

My contentions are with the crux of the arguments put forward by some members. In the main my academic contentions are:

(1) Often use of poor translations of the Quranic Arabic which are replete with 'interpolations' and mistranslations on which the theological arguments are based.
(2) Faulty premise of argumentation. When challenged, the central contention is not refuted, rather skirted.
(3) Fantastic claims of knowledge of classical Quraishi Quranic Arabic for example such as those sought from modern era Bedouin Arabs in the desert. These claims tacitly attempt to provide credence to the often poor English renditions of the Arabic that are advanced.
(4) Inconsistent use of classical Arabic lexicons to derive renditions to prove a particular theological bias.
(5) Faulty argumentation based on an appeal to authorities (most of similar theological ilk), ad hominem, circular reasoning,  false cause, fallacy of exhaustive hypothesis, complex questioning (tying), doggedness, argumentation by half truths, selective observation, selective reasoning, generalisation and argumentation which is inconsistent and non-sequitur.

These weaknesses in argumentation I feel has left some who rely on this approach to conclude that performing prayers is not a requirement, that fasting has nothing to do with abstaining from eating and drinking, to dismiss Quranic confirmations of Biblical portents and at times, question the need to seek help from God (dua). More than the conclusions and as an academic, I find the approach and reasoning to not only be severely flawed for some of the reasons highlighted above, but to remain consistently disproved by the Quran itself.

Please feel free to contact me for more information.

Joseph

1789

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Would the Prophet Have Recited 'Tashahud' in His Prayer?

« on: November 11, 2011, 12:41:06 PM »

Salaam ...

I cannot be certain what the Prophet would have exactly recited in his prayers. I do feel however that his prayer would have been quite dynamic and very spiritually involved. If you understand the Arabic of the 'Tashahhud', you will note that it seems like a prayer that was added later. There is nothing in the Quran to say that the Quran needs to be recited in salat. However, there are many beautiful prayers in the Quran, I think it is a good idea to use them. I also don't see anything in the Quran which prohibits one from reciting the Quran in prayer either. The Quran is silent on this matter so it is left as a choice. 

However, the requirement of salat is that you KNOW what you are saying (hatta ta'lamu ma taquluna - 4:43). Otherwise it is the same as going into your prayer in a state of 'sukara' which is a mind befogged / intoxicated. There is no difference.

So if you do not understand Arabic, it is pointless to pray in Arabic. Did Prophet Jesus pray in Arabic? Or Prophet Moses? Or any of the Prophets? They all prayed in the language that they understood. Of course, it is better if you learn Arabic properly and if you then understand it properly, then to pray in it is fine. However, God understands all languages.

Please see the following articles.

DO WE HAVE TO PRAY IN ARABIC?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/do%20we%20have%20to%20pray%20in%20arabic%20FM3.htm

WHY WAS THE QURAN REVEALED IN ARABIC?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/why%20in%20Arabic%20FM3.htm

I hope this helps.

Your brother ...

1790

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Is 17:104 a Prophecy for the Land of Israel?

« on: November 11, 2011, 12:27:19 PM »

Dear brother,

There does not appear to be a prophecy in 17:104 if read in the Arabic and compared with 17:7. This may be a problem with translations. Let me show you.

First, there is no 'second' in the Arabic as is commonly translated (i.e. when the 'second' of the warnings...). Also note carefully the Arabic in bold and in the illustration. I will translate it more literally from the Arabic for you to make the point.

017:007
"If you do good, you do good for yourselves and if you do evil, (you did it) against yourselves. So when the promise of the last came (Arabic: Fa-idha jaa wa'du l-akhirat), (we permitted your enemies) to disfigure your faces, and to enter your Masjid as they had entered it (the ) first time, and to destroy what they had conquered (with destruction)"

Note the phrase "Fa-idha jaa wa'du l-akhirat" (So when the promise of the last). In the above verse, it is clearly referring to a past event most likely a reference to the destruction of the Temple in AD70 by the Romans.

What is important to note is that the same phrase is used in 17:104

017:104
"And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, "Dwell in the land (of promise)": So when the promise of the last of the warnings came (Arabic: Fa-idha jaa wa'du l-akhirat), We gathered you together in a mingled crowd"

They are both past events with the identical Arabic used. I am not sure why so many commentators, despite the Arabic, translate the latter verse 17:104 differently and understand the 'akhirat' here as hereafter but not in 17:7. The only one that I know who translates it with my understanding is Yusuf Ali.

I feel both verses deal with the events of AD70 and 17:104 is not necessarily a prophecy about a future event.

Finally, 5:21 has a context. Prophet Moses spoke directly with his people and informed them that this particular land was assigned for them. Now the question is whether this is strictly his people or the Children of Israel forever. Note the term 'Bani Israel' is not used in 5:21, only 'ya'qawmi' (my people / community). Then if you read on it was banned to them for forty years because of their transgression (5:26). So a particular generation seems to have been punished. This also lends strength to the argument that this land was promised to a certain people with Prophet Moses. Also, remember that the other Israelites inherited the Eastern lands (7:137) as not all the Israelites left with Prophet Moses.

EXODUS OF PROPHET MOSES'S (pbuh) PEOPLE
http://quransmessage.com/articles/exodus%20of%20moses's%20people%20FM3.htm

As I don't understand the verses the way you have intimated, therefore I cannot answer your pointed question. However, I will say that no one has a right to usurp another's land. Also, I don't necessarily see any Biblical right to land categorically supported by the Quran. 5:21 has a context. 17:104 and 17:7 don't seem to be translated consistently given the Arabic. However, in persecution the Quran clearly encourages 'Hijrat' (migration). There are many verses where God says His earth is spacious. (29:56; 39:10).

There is a strong inference in the Quran that those persecuted will be asked:

004:097
"Lo! as for those whom the angels take (in death) while they wrong themselves, (the angels) will ask: In what were you engaged? They will say: We were oppressed in the land. (The angels) will say: Was not God's earth spacious that you could have migrated therein? As for such, their habitation will be hell, an evil journey's end"

004:098
"Except the feeble among men, and the women, and the children, who are unable to devise a plan and are not shown a way"

So this is another perspective to consider. After all the Prophet also was forced to migrate under persecution.

In the end, only God knows best.

Your brother ...

1791

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Prophet Abraham's Test

« on: November 11, 2011, 12:18:10 PM »

Dear brother,

Peace to you

In response to your email, I personally find no linkage of Prophet Abraham's 'test' with the requirement of Hajj in the Quran. Hajj was proclaimed so that mankind could come to an appointed place, on certain days and complete certain rites and remember God alone (22:27-29). When did this requirement for 'pilgrimage' get linked to Abraham's test? I personally find it not the concept of the Quran to perform practices in memory of others, otherwise it would be a contravention of the Quran's following verse.

002.134
"Those are a people who have passed away. Theirs is that which they earned, and yours is that which you earn. And you will not be asked of what they used to do"

We only practice certain rites for the praise of God only.

Today many Muslims run the lengths of Safa and Marwa in the memory of Hagar. There is absolutely no mention of the Hagar-Ishmael narrative in the entire Quran. Nor is any 'story' linked to the Safa Marwa narrative which refers to symbols (Shar'airi), not mountains and to an existing pagan practice which was allowed to continue (2:158). [1]

002:158
"Indeed! Safa and Marwah are among the symbols (Arabic: sha'airi) of God. It is therefore no sin for him who is on pilgrimage to the House or visits it, to go around them (Arabic: Yattawwafa). And he who does good of his own accord, (for him) lo! God is Grateful, Aware"

With regards the need to sacrifice, I humbly find from the Quran it compulsory for those who complete Hajj. Outside that it would be charity. I personally would strongly recommend any charity as it has numerous benefits as well as atoning for one's sins. [2]

Eid is a celebration. Customs are no doubt attached to it. However, it is important to remember it is not part of 'ordained' religion. It is a choice. [3]


[1]      Did Prophet Abraham (pbuh) Really Send His Wife Hagar and Son Ishmael (pbuh) Away Alone to a Barren Land?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/abraham%20hagar%20FM3.htm

[2]      The Concept of Sadaqah from the Quran
http://quransmessage.com/articles/sadaqah%20FM3.htm

[3]      Eid
http://quransmessage.com/articles/eid%20FM3.htm

Your brother ...

1792

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Is a Muslim Anyone That Believe in a Peaceful Existence?

« on: November 11, 2011, 12:02:55 PM »

Peace brother.

With respect to your question:

"What if a non-believer or a mushrik submits to live peacefully in an Islamic state? He may be a submitter but with a small "s" his  faith does not come into play here. Just like the bedouins who were admonished in the Qur'an as having submitted, but faith had not yet entered into their hearts?"

He would remain a 'mushrik' and a 'non-believer' (not necessarily a Kaffir).  A Muslim is one that submits to the will of God in the truth of His religion that he has revealed and not simply living peacefully in an Islamic state. An atheist can live peacefully in an Islamic state and do good deeds. This doesn't make him Muslim.

I feel your reference to the bedouins on the strength of 49:14 is respectfully misplaced. The desert Arabs had submitted to the message of the Prophet but faith (imaan) is something which can sometimes take time to develop. In either case, the Arabs had submitted to the true deen. They would have worshipped, paid zakat etc. One would not expect atheists living under an Islamic state to pray or fulfil the Shariah that believers are expected to fulfil.

To further elaborate 49:14, if we read it in context with the next verse (49:15), it is clear that there were still some doubts in their hearts as their submission had not yet translated into their actions (especially in them not striving with their belongings (49:15)).

Now if 49:14 was just a reference to those that submitted to an Islamic law, then why were they expected to strive like believers? (49:15). Therefore, it seems more likely that these were early converts, who still harboured doubts. This is very different from one who is a disbeliever living under an Islamic state.

Even today, many new converts do submit to the veracity of the message, but 'imaan' takes time to develop. This will also show in their actions. They may start praying, intermittently. They may start to strive, but eventually get stronger.

I hope that helps.

Your brother ...

1793

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Is a Muslim Anyone That Believe in a Peaceful Existence?

« on: November 11, 2011, 11:58:14 AM »

With regards to your comment below

"With respect to the term Muslim, there are some scholars who say that anybody who believes in peaceful existence, is a Muslm (regardless of faith for which Allah alone is the judge)"

This is not a definition that can be sourced from the Quran and therefore not one I can humbly subscribe to. God makes it clear what a Muslim is in the Quran. Many atheists believe in peaceful existences. I would doubt if any of us would class them as Muslims from a Quranic perspective.


MUSLIM AND MU'MIN (BELIEVER) - THE DIFFERENCE
http://quransmessage.com/articles/muslim%20mumin%20FM3.htm

WHY IS THE TERM 'MUSLIM' HIJACKED
http://quransmessage.com/articles/term%20muslim%20hijacked%20FM3.htm

1794

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Stops or Prevents? Verse 29:45

« on: November 11, 2011, 11:49:58 AM »

Peace brother Mubashir.

In my humble opinion, the verb 'tanha' is dependant on context of the sentence. From reading the Arabic, it admits a meaning of refraining, desisting, or keeping one away. Note the usage of 'nahakum' (forbid) and 'intahu' (refrain) in 59:7. Both are formed from the same roots, but the imperfect verb is nuanced differently given context.

A state cannot always stop 'fahisha'. Fahisha is a broad term which compasses many ills, many of which are not always apparent. For example, you cannot impose a law for certain sexual gratifications or disgusting thoughts which all form part of 'Fahisha'. '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

I hope that helps.

Kind regards ...

1795

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Aqsa

« on: November 11, 2011, 11:44:21 AM »

Peace brother Mubashir.

I can only base my opinion on proof and research. Respectfully, many scholars have a tendency to make claims on what may have happened selecting parts of the historical sources. Some they reject, some they accept. This is not consistent methodology in my candid view nor thorough scholarship. I take the Quran as ultimate proof and don't attempt to marry it up with selective history. Whatever the Quran makes clear, I accept, where it is silent or intentionally vague, I leave aside.

As far as the Quran is concerned, the Quranic use of the term 'Blessed' to signify a land that is blessed has always been reserved for localities around the holy land;
 
For example, some terms used in the Quran.
 
(1)   Barakna hawlahu
 
017.001 - Masjid Aqsa
 
(2)   Barakna fiha
 
007.137 - Blessed lands for the Children of Israel
021.071 - Prophets Abraham and Lot (pbut) delivered to the blessed lands
021.081 - Wind flowed for Solomon on the blessed lands
034.018 - Saba and cities in-between
 
(3)   Mubarakan
 
003:096 - The first house that Prophet Abraham (pbuh) built
 
The Quran never makes use of the term 'barakna' to describe the sanctuary at Makkah, which is normally referred to as 'Masjid Haram' (Prohibited / Inviolable Mosque) or the Kaaba which is present within its bounds, or Madina.

With regards the Qibla change, my own research has led me to a particular conclusion, which in my humble opinion best marries up with the Quranic directives and my opinion on where the Bait-ul-ateeq originally was. I have advanced my thoughts humbly based on the Quran in my articles which I have already shared with you. If academically those points can be challenged with better evidence, I will be most happy to consider it as an alternative InshAllah. I really mean that. However, I cannot accept another's assertions based on personal interpretations that make use of selective history.

Please do read the articles and if you feel there is any weakness in academic thought or rigour, please do challenge it based on the Quran with a rebuttal.

THE QIBLA CHANGE
http://quransmessage.com/articles/qibla%20FM3.htm

PROPHET ABRAHAM'S (pbuh) ORIGINAL SANCTUARY - AT MAKKAH (MECCA) OR BAKKAH (BACA)?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/makkah%20bakkah%20FM3.htm

Furthermore, you make a very good observation / theological argument in your email which I'd humbly like to respond to:

"However this does not makes sense as in those days there was no masjid or temple there. The place was in ruins !!"

The old temple in Jerusalem has been referred to as a 'Masjid' elsewhere in the Quran. Even though it was destroyed, or may lay in partial ruins, the site could still be referred to as a 'Masjid' Aqsa (Furthest mosque).

017.007
"If ye did well, ye did well for yourselves; if ye did evil, (ye did it) against yourselves. So when the second of the warnings came to pass, (We permitted your enemies) to disfigure your faces, and to enter your Temple (Arabic: The Masjid) as they had entered it before, and to visit with destruction all that fell into their power.

What I feel is behind brother Pervez's interpretation is a belief that God cannot suspend physical laws if He so wishes. I have made this clear before that I do not concur with this line of thinking nor do I find any proof in the Quran or in any previous scripture that limits God's authority in such a way.

I have covered this here:

MIRACLES OR MISUNDERSTOOD NATURAL PHENOMENON?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/miracles%20and%20laws%20FM3.htm


Your brother in faith,
Joseph.

1796

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Why Rituals Don't Work

« on: November 11, 2011, 11:40:32 AM »

Peace brother.

You are absolutely correct. A tree is known by its fruit.

How can one claim to uphold ritual prayers and then go and shoot someone else dead while they are praying in a mosque for the sole reason that they have different sectarian beliefs? What use are their prayers going to be when they read 'Only you do we worship and only from you we ask for help' in Surah Fateha (1:5), and then ascribe prophets, saints, and past personalities to God and His guidance?

It is not the need for 1:5 in prayer which is the problem, it is not acting on it.

They pray, yet do not judge by the Book of God. They may pray, but do not use the spiritual connection with God which should stop one from shameful deeds and injustices. They say 'Show us the straight path', in 1:6, but when one comes along with a message which is closer to the truth, they rebuke him and send him away. So are they really asking to be shown a 'straight path', or are they really saying, 'Show us the straight path, but as long as it does not conflict with our inherited beliefs of our forefathers!?".

What is the real sentiment?

It is not the ritual which is the problem. It is the purpose behind the ritual which has become lost.

Your email was very true in my own humble opinion.

Your brother ...

1797

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Why Rituals Don't Work

« on: November 11, 2011, 11:35:51 AM »

Peace brother Mubashir.

I personally feel that the requirement to pray has nothing to do with the state of the Ummah. Many Jews pray and are arguably one of the most powerful people on Earth if their influence is also considered. Muslim nations have seen tremendous successes "They prayed". The decline of the Muslim Ummah has many factors. Numerous you have already mentioned and there are many more. This has nothing to do with prayer. It is little use praying and then not upholding the values of the Quran, but rather following convoluted and oft contradictory traditions of the 9th century Arabs.
(note 9 not 7 - reference to secondary source canonisation periods).

Prayer is an important part of worship, an extremely fundamental part. But much of today's prayer is ritualised, without meaning and purpose. It is often uttered in a language where majority of Muslims have no understanding of it's meaning (Arabic). Many that do understand the Arabic, have a convoluted understanding of its narratives based on Secondary sources. Therefore in recitation, much 'hikmah' could potentially pass by.

There are many my brother, (probably like me and yourself), that Alhamdulillah are living a full life with God's bounties and thanking Him for it as much as we can. To instil justice, honour and righteousness in our lives as best we can with the hope to improve on our endeavours and in hope of God's salvation. It is a hope. May God help us. However prayer is still a fundamental part of our lives. It gives us spiritual strength as we commune with him at different times of the day with every changing conditions on the ground. I often find I have a new matter to discuss with my Lord. He is our God, our only True friend and listener.

God tells us that He does not change a condition of a people unless they are willing to change themselves (13:11) Unless they change what they want to follow, how will things change?

Why do many in Western countries seem to succeed? Because unknown to them, they seem to adhere to more Islamic values than do those that call themselves Muslims! Trial and error has seen them through intellectual growth, better technology, social welfare etc. But it has taken time and without guidance, they still overstep the mark in many areas. Overt Libertarians, political correctness, injustices for fathers, all this once again part of the trial and error method.

But Muslims have the perfect guidance. But do they use it? Well you and I know the extent of the answer.

However,  I am sure that you do appreciate that this has anything to do with prayer.

I really liked your penultimate sentence which I concur with:

"As patients belonging to a sick Ummah, we need to sit up and ask the doctors of religion what are they feeding us in the name of a cure? It is not working for hundreds of years!! We need to examine the medicine to make sure it is the right one"

On a related matter, please see the following link. I know I have shared brother Yusuf's video with you before, but I've tried to put it in another way for prospective readers to entice them to think, God willing.

Please let me know what you think.

http://quransmessage.com/articles/jewish%20prayer%20FM3.htm

1798

Posts on Other Forums - The Salaat Forum / A Question About the Namaz Tradition

« on: November 11, 2011, 10:19:09 AM »

LINK TO THE ORIGINAL THREAD
http://www.salaatforum.com/index.php?mode=thread&id=274#p281

by Joseph Islam  , On God's Earth, Thursday, November 10, 2011, 17:44 (1 hours, 32 minutes ago) @ Shabbir Ahmed

Dr. Shabbir.

The flaw of your argument is in its premise.

You say:

"So, this is the Salaat or Namaaz of Hadith. Can you pray at all according to Hadith? If you claim Hadith tells you the method of Namaaz, then, which one is the greater riddle; Hadith or your thinking?"

Where in the Quran are you told that we need to pray in the manner of the Hadith? Why do you make that assumption?

You say:

"- "Imam" Waqidi, a liar by consensus, claimed: Imam Maalik alone, transcribed 100,000 Ahadith. He learned from 900 teachers and by age 17 he was able to teach classes of Hadith. When the authenticity of MUWATTA (title of his compilation) was questioned, he suggested throwing it in water; if the water did not damage the writing, then that was to be taken as proof of its accuracy."

Why are you using a 'liar by consensus' by your own statement and then using the same 'liar' to undermine Imam Maliks work?

Furthermore, using one set of historical narratives to undermine another is called circular reasoning. You are arguing from within the Islamic secondary sources which are subject to the same question of authenticity.

Regards.

--
'During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act'
George Orwell

http://www.quransmessage.com
Copyright © 2010 Quransmessage.com

1799

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

« on: November 11, 2011, 10:15:16 AM »

LINK TO ORIGINAL THREAD
http://www.salaatforum.com/index.php?id=279

by Joseph Islam  , On God's Earth, Thursday, November 10, 2011, 17:00 (2 hours, 12 minutes ago) @ Razi


Dear brother Razi,

Salamun Alaikum.

With respect, I am not interested in personalities, their academic achievements nor do I overtly revere anyone. Nobody is beyond criticism, myself included. I judge only on merit.

You said:

"...Just resembles the comment of Javed Ghamidi who stated that Allama Parvez knowledge and understanding of Arabic was poor".

I only criticise what is put in front of me if it warrants it. If brother Javed Ghamidi's argument is not agreeable to me, I will raise it in the form of academic criticism. Where I concur, I will express my agreement.

For example, in a recent thread I said:

However, I note the translation from G. Parwez does use the word prayer and remains very consistent with the Quranic Arabic as opposed to the second rendition that you have provided. Why is there such a dichotomy between the two?

I find G.Parwez's rendition of this verse very agreeable with the Quranic text. Anyone comparing the two translations will note major differences. For example, where is the Arabic "wa-ldhikru-lahi akbaru" in the second rendition which G. Parwez correctly translates as "and remembrance of Allah is the greatest".

http://www.salaatforum.com/index.php?id=243

I simply found one rendition better than the other. I wasn't concerned who gave it, I was more interested in what it said.

Here are the two renditions which were presented to me and I commented on. Maybe you can elaborate.

ALLAMA PARWEZ
29:45. Recite what is sent of the Book by inspiration to thee, and establish Prayer: for Prayer restrains from shameful and unjust deeds; and remembrance of Allah is the greatest (thing in life) without doubt. And Allah knows the (deeds) that you do.

QXP:
29:45 (O Prophet!) convey to people all that is revealed to you of the Book, and establish the Divine System. For, certainly, establishment of the Divine System will shut off lewdness, stinginess, and behavior contrary to the Permanent Values. This is so, because God's law is the Greatest law that can give you eminence. And God knows whatever you people contrive on your own. [21:10, 21:24, 23:70, 43:43-44, 70:21-27. Fahasha includes miserliness, and Munkar is all behavior that goes against Permanent Values given in the Qur'an]
As Salawat = Divine System

Peace to you.

Joseph.

--
'During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act'
George Orwell

http://www.quransmessage.com
Copyright © 2010 Quransmessage.com

1800

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Why do we say 'Qul' (say) in our Prayers?

« on: November 11, 2011, 09:46:01 AM »

Salamun Alaikum,

You are absolutely correct, that the current utterance of the 2nd person masculine singular imp. verb (fi-lul'amri) 'Qul' (Say) is possibly inappopriate in the context of a personal prayer. However, please note that it can be argued that an 'imam' in a congregational prayer is reciting not only a personal prayer, but also in the capacity as a leader (to the congregration). In the latter case, it may be considered appropriate to recite the 'Qul' in such a way to the congregation.

This is the sole reason why, I personally do not recite it with the 2nd person verb form. In fact, if like myself one is multilingual, one may even decide to recite a prayer in French, or Hebrew or any other prayer.

There is no point in my humble view making use of utterances which are not prayer based and are in effect, reading utterances back to God. This is 'ritual' prayer. The Quran does not command one to recite scripture back to God.

Surah Fateha on the other is a proper prayer as are many other prayers in the Quran.

The Quran does not define 'utterance'. Please note this very significant point. It leaves utterance open for a 'personal' communion with God. This also applies to 'form'. The Quran does not fix form (where you put your hands, how many rakahs etc) but it may make logistical sense in a congregation to have a form. The Quran describes all other aspects of prayer.

So the possible reasons as to why the Quran is intentionally silent about the prayer's form and content is because it does not want to fix it and neither does it want to fix it in any particular language.

However, this does not mean:

(a)  That we need Hadith and Sunna to fix the form and content and make it a ritual.
(b)  That we go to the other extreme, abandon the prayers altogether and inconsistently redefine all the prayer related verses.

Both of these approaches have not understood the reason behind the Quranic 'silence'.

We need to understand the 'hikmah' behind the Quranic silence and with regards prayer, form and content only.

The Quran can be detailed when it wants to be. It can go to lengths to inform you of what is required in 'Wudu'(5:6), a precursor to prayer, but on the other hand, not give you any details about what to say in prayer. Silence does not mean absence. It means, fluidity. It is left to the ummah and the individual to commune with God in a manner which makes one feel closest to Him.

Today many Jews and Christians do not have fixed form or content. However, this does not mean they don't pray. Many still do in a similar manner to many traditional Muslims.

There are many prayers in the Quran.

Here are some:

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

I for one, may choose to pray in English, Arabic, Hebrew, French, Spanish or whatever. The Quran gives me that right and no human can take that away. This is right given to me by my Divine Creator.

I hope you understand my point.

I'd like to share some articles with you.

DO WE HAVE TO PRAY IN ARABIC?

http://quransmessage.com/articles/do%20we%20have%20to%20pray%20in%20arabic%20FM3.htm

HOW CAN WE LEARN PRAYER IF WE DON'T HAVE HADITH TO TEACH US?

http://quransmessage.com/articles/prayer%20without%20hadith%20FM3.htm


I hope that helps, God willing.

Regards,
Joseph.