Messages

[first]

dear doc and joseph
This is certainly true. But I do not know if you brother joseph've read my first answer to your question, or just the addition of FM Translation? My main concern was really to point to the Torah. or it counts as a source incorrect?
Thank you for your answer.

[rescue]

dear brother joseph
i have anything again
I asked the question for thakaytum in FreeMind forum . So I came to the translation of the verse of them. They translate the word now thakaytum with rescue. Is this correct in your eyes?


5:3 Forbidden to you is that which is already dead, and the blood, and the meat of pig, and what was dedicated to other than GOD, and that which has been strangled, and that which has been beaten to death, and that which has fallen from a height, and that which has been gored, and that which the wild animals have eaten from except what you managed to rescue [dhakkaytum], and what has been slaughtered [dhubiḥa] on altars, and what you divide by the arrows of chance. This is vile. Today the rejecters have given up from your system, so do not be concerned by them, but be concerned by Me. Today I have perfected your system for you, and completed My blessings upon you, and I have approved submission as the system for you. So, whoever is forced by severe hunger and not seeking sin, then GOD is Forgiving, Merciful.

thanks and salaam

dear brother
I think your question goes a little over to the other. Seen from a Quranic point of view (see other post), there is nothing bad for me mingle in politics, when the party to which I belong  matches with the contents of the Koran . To belong to a political party that calls for example, to fix the ban on alcohol at 12 years, stands in contradiction to the Qur'anic principles.
Of the current political situation, it is probably rather difficult to find a "real" Koranic party. If compromises must be made with regard to Allah, I think  a political activity is not allowed. But can (with Allahs teachings)  be implemented in a society a positive effect, it is highly recommended. So it is certainly on the specific situation and it can not be argued almost generally.
Demonstrations, harm others by things be demolished, is certainly not recommended, while a peaceful march can be regarded as in line with the koran ...
If I study however the global political situation today and the corruption of politicians, then I'm more of a retreat, because I do not want to be mobbed up by corrupt  people ...

Salamu aleikum
by my side I see nothing wrong, in meetings, where the people speak about Allah. Only certain points should be noted here.
Perhaps an example. from my time with the Dawa and Tabligh group: there were also those WEEKLY meetings, called Talim. However, there was only one Book of Hadith what we  read and it  no questions allowed (which was the regulation of the "ulama" from India) and from the Koran was never read something or discussed. Such meetings are  clear  nonsens. Even when we have meetings like the Sufis, where summoned by chanting of Allah's name to get a kind of trance, etc. I mean, we have the Koran as a guide and our minds to decide what is OK or not. a meeting who leads us in the proximity of God and expands our knowledge of God and the Koran is certainly nothing wrong. But a "traditionalised" initiated  meeting with rituals are in my view to take with caution ...

[is based on the written text of the Torah 3, the prophets and the Schriften.4 This foundation course can not go without adequate explanation and practical application. This practical complement is found in the "oral Torah". Both were written and the oral Torah]

salamu aleikum dear brother joseph

you say:
If you do not agree with this classical Arabic definition, can you please provide me any evidence from any notable Arabic lexicon source or literature which in the context of 'food to eat' and NOT war, (context is crucial), the word 'thakaytum' does not mean to slaughter in a well known manner, but something else.

I do not agree, but I have no proof. Only the lane is the lexicon used to? 1863 ...? Could it be that the expressions have been already interpreted?
i found i interesing site in germani translated with google. highlights marked from me...
I http://www.hagalil.com/judentum/koscher/schaechten/schaechten.htm

Rabbi Israel Meir Levinger
Rabbi of the Jewish Community of Basel

The Jewish method of slaughter
- The pits

I. The religious foundations

The slaughter of animals is in itself cruel in any way. The terms "human" and "kill" or "shafts" 1 can therefore not really in a nutshell werden.2 as a necessary evil but it should be done at least as carefully as possible. In compliance with certain provisions of Jewish law also allows the slaughter of certain animals.

The Jewish law describes in writing and orally transmitted and prohibitions Content and keeping of Jewish life. It is based on the written text of the Torah 3, the prophets and the Schriften.4 This foundation course can not go without adequate explanation and practical application. This practical complement is found in the "oral Torah". Both were written and the oral Torah to Moses on Mount Sinai übergeben.5

In the nature of oral tradition, the facility for further development. Due to historical events, such as the expulsion of Jews from their homes and the advent of Christianity, the Jews were forced to the oral teachings in the Mishnah (about the year 180 of the general era) and later in the Talmud (about 500 a year ) to write down. These texts are therefore a holy and immutable basis of the Jewish religion.

As a religion for a constantly changing life of Judaism is open to further development being done by the rabbis and held in various forms. This entire structure is halacha genannt.6

A statement obtained halachic liability if it can rely on a long tradition and a recognized authority, a written evidence alone is not sufficient, if not both these criteria are met. It follows that the Halacha developed very slowly and carefully.

The most important collections of rabbinic halakhah, the Mishnah, the Tosefta, the halakhic Midrashim and the Talmud, and from later times, the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides (ca. 1160) and the Shulchan Aruch by Joseph Caro (ca 1575). Only by understanding the origin, content and effect of these mandatory codes opens the way Jewish religious thought.

Hartinger 7 and 8 Rowe et alii, which occur in their writings against the shafts argue right now that a provision could be found on the front of the stunning bays neither the Bible nor the Talmud.

This argument is true and must agree, because at the time of writing the Bible and the Talmud, one of today's comparable form of anesthesia before slaughter was not known. Rather, due to the extremely strict rule of ritual aimed at minimizing the pain, even the most extreme slaughter and guaranteed.

The written Torah only provides a small hint of the shafts. So it says in Devarim (Deuteronomy) 12.21: "Thou shalt kill of thy cattle and sheep, as I have commanded you."

The words "as I have commanded you" are very interesting, because as we find in the whole Bible is no further evidence, they point to an underlying layer, to an even older rule on the oral Lehre.9 this in the specific laws received over the shafts, which we find in the Talmud (Tractate Chulin 1-2) in Maimonides' Mishneh Torah (Sefer Keduschah) and checks the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'a 1-28).

This halachic rules determine an exact method for the shafts, as it is described below. A second, concussed previous anesthetic would cause injury to the animal and make it trefa (impure). They would therefore contradict the Jewish religion.

Ensure that the Jewish faith, the battle pits as the ideal method considered to be major reasons leading to the meeting: the sanctity of life, the psychology of the slaughterer and meat quality.

The saving of life is very essential in the Jewish Lehre.10 If this is about a human life, may all the laws of the Jewish religion with the exception of murder, idolatry and adultery are violated. The life of an animal are of great importance in Judentum.11 are a number of laws in the Torah, the Talmud and the Talmudic codes, subject to the Animal Welfare haben.12
The strict rules of ritual are also dedicated to animal welfare. Then use of such shafts are carried out by qualified persons. A shochet (ritual slaughterer), the same high ethical standards as provided to a Rabbiner.13

The shochet must be aware of the slaughter run. The dog may only use such machines, which are propelled by human power, but not mechanical-automatic apparatus with water, wind or electric drive. Unqualified Schächtet a shochet, full responsibility for the killing of the animal rests on its Gewissen.14

The slaughter is only allowed to supply the people and must therefore bring the highest quality of meat in the best yield. If it would give too little meat, would have more animals to be slaughtered, which would be contrary to the principle of conservation and animal welfare. The meat quality is very good for the shafts, because the animal bleeds out perfectly because of the continuing functioning of the heart.

conclusion: also in the Thora we don't found exactly prescription for shlaughter. We found the law only in the halacha, talmudic teachings (oral transmittion like ahadith...)  It seems as if the Muslims took the practice of shlaughter of the Traditional Jewish sources  and it smuggles into Islam ...
your undecided sister chadiga salaam

salaam you're welcome too!!

you are welcome!

[i questions the association of Kaaba with Mecca]

DEAR brother Wazir
I must first mention that the analysis of the post quoted below is not mine. But still I'll answer to your questions:
you say:

Quote from analysis:
m
"The scholars give us the opinion that 'hateem' was initially part of the main building, and praying inside 'Hateem' is regarded as praying inside Kaa'ba itself." Moreover, in fig 2 the direction of prayer is mentioned.

To be correct, we can not take support on Muslim scholars when they cometo such a conclusion by means of   their historical sources  Your questions make sense only if I prefer this sources. I'm rather skeptical. In addition, your first three questions for me makes little sense. since in fact, i questions the association of Kaaba with Mecca  . So the first three questions are really immaterial, because they were made because of an assumption, not based on verifiable sources.

If we accept this premise, logical questions are:
1) Do you think person standing in a semi-circle of 'Hateem' pray facing another direction while keeping his back towards Kaa'ba?

2) While praying in vicinity of Kaa'ba who wants to pray in another direction?
3) If one is praying in another direction, then, why would he come near Kaa'ba in first place?
this three questions i answered above.

Other questions are:
1) Is it appropriate to use current map to understand the situation of 7th century or prior to that?

This question is legitimate, I would say that it can give us an indication. Surely we can find clues, but rely only on those maps seems to me incorrect.

2) Is there any evidence suggesting that people lived in Makkah used to pray in the direction of Jable Al Awz?
After examining all hypotheses related to the question it seems to me quite possible that the followers of Muhammad  prayed in a different direction from Mecca, it seems quite possible that this could be Jabal al Lawz.

3) Is there any evidence suggesting that people of Book ever prayed in the direction of Jable Al Awz?

It must be said that the theory that the Jabal al Lawz as"the Holy City of God" was established by Christians. There are also newer theories of represent scholars (Finkenstein)  who question Jerusalem as the place where the Temple of Solomon had been in . The situation around the Quibla from the people of the book is not clear.

4) What is significance of alignment line drawn you in pictures? There can be many places in the world aligning with Kaa'ba. So, what it proves?
This analysis was also  not mine, but anyway, it can give us an idea to study the Quibla changes more accurately. There is no proof, but perhaps another clue to solve the puzzle.
It seems to me that you ask  always for "prove". Counter question: where are your proofs? From my side it was always clear that this theory is firstly  an assumption. Far from being a complete theory.
I hope that I am now sufficiently answered your questions?and sorry for mistakes in the language.

[do]

dear Visionary
In my view, the Koran tells us clearly that we should not accept injustice, especially when other people are suffering from oppression and poverty. So the believer must do something. (see 42.42, 42.39) Sometimes it may be better to practice patience until the right time for change the situation is coming  and sometimes is  talking the right way and sometimes revolution.
Moses is indeed from Allah sent to Pharaoh, first, to invite him to believe in Allah, to the  truth, to  make good, as  this it has borne no fruit, he got help from Allah with warnings (the nine plagues), and finally he chose the path of hijra with the people of Israel.
Here we see pretty different steps:
1 - Invitation to the Truth
2-  Disclosure of oppression, injustice
3- warnings
4- deeds
The story of the Queen of Sheba comes to me in the same direction.she also was invited to the truth. When we see something wrong, we must try to change it.
I actually see nowhere in the Koran the call for passivity how some people demand it from the Muslims. Injustice should be always "fought", it is just the question of what "weapon."

[why]

dear brother
what i wanted  point out is:
Third Prohibition of beaten to death, kicked and strangled:
  why Allah has forbidden the beaten to death, kicked and strangled ?
my understanding: 1. because the animal died not from our hand,i.e. without the name of Allah, i.e. without thanks to Allah

Also, please can you tell me in the first point what you mean with your statement 'the question of the date of death'.
for our health
I wanted to say that it is Rahma of Allah for giving us this prohibits, for the simple reason that by the animals from the first and the third group we do not know exactly when and why they are died - perhaps died from a disease and so the enjoyment of such meat would poison us.
i hope now my question is more clear? sorry...

[not mentioned in the Koran]

dear brother Wazir
First Point, of course,  Midian is not mentioned in the Koran, this is an interpretation on my part, it should be in kursiv letters , to emphasize the difference.
You know, a theory is primarily here to make you reflect on it. I have said several times that I've never claimed to be complete. Every day I learn again something new. So it makes me out of nothing at all to admit that I could be wrong ....
I have trouble  to recognize Mecca as the place of pilgrimage. I think I have proven this with my post. But where we have to make the pilgrimage, where the real masjid al haram is that it seems to me still not clear.
I read new theories, all based on the Koran, all must be looked at compared. So I take me back and leave the field for the more learned...
You say that my theory has several holes. I see confusion too! tell me where you see the holes.
Either I give it up or we go on again ... Salaam and thank you for your answer.

Salam again
i found a post anywhere, very interesting for the topic:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603245.0
salams

Dear brother wazir
I want to come out, now that it seems so important to you. I have posted  this theory of Jabal al Lawz to brother Joseph.  But I must emphasize again that I have never claimed that this theory is the absolute truth. Please let me living... Once again I've looked at all relevant points, plus Posts, plus articles, I have now written down all my thoughts on this subject, according to my possibilities. I apologize for the bumpy language, I have translated it with Google. For the verses of the Quran, I would ask everyone to take a reliable translation, since my post certainly errors. I hope that this will ensure the outstanding issues on your part, as well as possible. Many thanks to all.

http://koransaussage.blogspot.com/2012/01/pilgrimage-last-edition.html


And i'm sorry that my answer came so late, but i have three children and they need me also a little bit...

dear brother and sisters
I am a little confused. I've always believed that miracles were confirmed in the Bible and in the Quran ( the virginal conception of Mary and the miracles of Moses and Jesus- peace be upon them all). Yesterday I came across an article that  denies everything.
http://quraniceducationandresearch.com/doc/Miracle.htm

The presentation seems to me logically on one hand, but since I first mastered the Arabic language not perfectly, and secondly, the English not well, I would be glad, I'd get more opinions on this topic. Thank you all for your help.salam

[Yes clear!]

 dear brother
Thank you for your answer, I agree with you, i have only one (tiny) remark, you say

Are you prepared to accept that a more plausible explanation of the prohibition against consuming blood is actually based from scriptures? For example, the prohibition against consuming blood was always a universal law that even predated the Bible (even known to the people of prophet Noah). The Bible simply confirmed this law and the Quran confirmed further.
Yes clear!


Therefore, the prohibition in my view has nothing to do with the Quraish or any other ancient civilisation that may have consumed blood but it is a universal law which was known even at the time of Prophet Noah, confirmed by the Bible and further confirmed as a universal law to the believers via the Quran.

we actually don't know, if the Quraisch consumed blood but the Quran has something to do with all the humans
What is an universal law other then an affirmation also  of ancient civilizations? These are indeed within this law- And: i have my Knowledge also from scriptures, but not divine scriptures....

But you're hundred percent correct with your assertation. ! i'm agree!!salams