Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Ismail

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 16

Of course, (6:45) comes after a particular context.

But it does not mean that it is limited to that context. In fact, 6:145 only repeats what is explicitly told in the other well known verses of the same category.

They are, including 6:145: (2:173, 5:3, 6:145, 16:115).

It is also well known that all these verses limit the prohibitions as regards food, as against the run-away restrictions imposed by the clergy, etc. (16:116).

There is no restriction as far as anybody abstains from eating certain categories on any reasonable basis other than the falsehood that it is a religious restriction.

In my humble opinion, the stress is on the deadly sin of inventing religion.

As for food restrictions, the limit of limitation is awesome in its simplicity.

Over and above this, is the permission to consume it, on certain conditions.

Yet, we will notice all over the world, our people very frequently remain engaged in vehement arguments regarding this and that being halaal or haraam.

That is why, in 6:151, everybody's attention is drawn towards whatever is actually, most awfully HARAAM.

That is where (borrowing a term from ancient Semetic tradition), the Ten Commandments - the Spiritual Legacy of All Mankind, is proclaimed. See (6:151-152-153).

Now, a word regarding a remark by Deliverance. Regarding whales gestating for 17 months, and giving birth to a single baby, etc.

Perhaps, such concerns come under the category of endangered species, etc. And such concerns must be reasonably addressed. Even a ban on whale hunting may be called for.

Now, a word about "eating everything" except the prohibited 4 items.

The whole exercise of divine prohibitions begins with the words:

O ye people! Eat of what is on earth, lawful and good....(2:168)

The subject goes on until at least (2:176).

The verses need be studied with the utmost diligence.

Regarding these, Abdulla Yusuf Ali says:

We now come to the regulations about food. First (2:168-171) we have an appeal to all people. Muslims, Pagans, as well as the People of the Book; then (2:172-173) to the Muslims specially; then (2:174-176) to the sort of men who then (as some do now) either believe in too much formalism or believe in no restrictions at all. Islam follows the Golden Mean. All well regulated societies lay down reasonable limitations. These become incumbent on all loyal members of any given society, and show what is "lawful" in that society. But, if the limitations are reasonable, as they should be, the "lawful" will also coincide more and more with what is "good".

          Good: Thayyib = Pure, clean, wholesome, nourishing, pleasing to the taste.

The general principle then would be: what is lawful and what is good, should be followed, not what is evil, or shameful, or foisted on by false ascription to divine injunctions, or what rests merely on the usage of ancestors, even though the ancestors were ignorant or foolish. An example of a shameful custom would be that among the Pagan Arabs of taking congealed blood and eating it fried
. (End of quote).

Like we do not have any restrictions regarding plant food, as above.

But, nobody, except may be a mad man, just walks into the jungle and eats whatever vegetation he comes across.

Mankind has developed agriculture since time immemorial

Man cultivates certain well known edible things only. But the range of such things goes own increasing with increase in knowledge.

There are poisonous plants too in nature.

All these things are left to man's quest, and his increasing experience. The same thing goes on even regards to edible animals in nature.

Man domesticates certain animals, then he invents animal farming. Then the range of the kinds of animals used in farming, and the farming methods go on increasing and developing.

For example, we have ostrich farms in India now, which, earlier we had never heard of.

But the basic, divine prohibitions always remain in place.

Wallahu A'lam.

A. Ismail Sait.


The following remarks are taken from pages 9 and 10 of the book available online:

(Courtesy, Wakas.)

"Arabs themselves find English translations of the Qur’an disappointing, unconvincing, and lacking in the cohesion, clarity and grandeur, as well as the rhythm and power, of the original Qur’anic verses.

"A comparison between the history and manner of translation of the Bible and the Qur’an into English is useful in this regard.

"The Authorised Version of the Bible was translated by a group of forty-seven, including clerics, scholars and men of letters working together to produce a work for King James I.

"The New English Bible was retranslated into modern English by a similarly large group of English-speaking people.

"On the other hand, the first translation of the Qur’an into English was made by Alexander Ross and printed in1649. He called it The Alcoran of Mahomet, the Prophet of the Turks … newly Englished for the satisfaction of all that desire to look into the Turkish vanities . Ross was not a specialist in the Qur’an or˙adíth, and he did not know Arabic, but based his translation on a French version. He added a letter ‘From the Translator to the Christian Reader’, justifying his translation of the ‘heresy of Mahomet’to satisfy his critics who almost prevented the publication of this ‘danger-ous book’.

"This was the beginning of a long tradition of translations and studies of the Qur’an in English. Some – Rodwell (1861) and Bell (1937) –sought to refute it in the light of the Bible, while others – Sale (1734), Palmer (1880), Pickthall (1930) and Arberry (1955) – brought increasing understanding the qur’an levels of scholarship in Arabic and appreciation of Arabic literature, and decreasing levels of prejudice to bear on their translations – no prejudice being apparent in the last two.

"There are now numerous translations in English, but not one has been made by more than one person at a time, and no Arab Muslim specialist in Qur’anic studies has made a translation.

"The Qur’an’s unique qualities in the Arabic need to be analysed in Eng-lish, and a new approach adopted towards its translation.

"Even the best of the available translations pose very serious difficulties in the proper appreciation and understanding of the Qur’an. The Arabic original, however, will remain to the Muslims the sacred speech, ‘a sublime scripture’ (41:41)."

A. Ismail Sait.

General Discussions / Re: Wine in the Quran
« on: January 31, 2014, 01:42:25 AM »

Like wine, women too, are not like their mortal counterparts. They are mentioned as Spouses Purified:

2:25, 3:15, 4:57

But, the mention of wine and women conjures up images of disgusting debaucheries and orgies for the dwellers of this world.

And so, the clarification in the Qur'an.

A. Ismail Sait.


Abul A'la Maududi, in his Thafseer Thafheemul Qur'an, mentions what is called "Fiqh Al Qur'an", which, he says, is compiled from reports attributed to Hazrath 'Aisha (R A), wherein, all animals, birds, reptiles and insects are decreed as Halaal, except those mentioned in (6:145).

Of course, it is another matter, that, for us, surely, the crystal clear verse (6:145) unequivocally restricts the prohibitions to just the four items.

However, please explain:

"There are certain additional restrictions from the perspective of food processor in 5:3" (emphasis mine).

And, dear Joseph Islam, I just made haste because I had something to say, as you have seen.

A. Ismail Sait.


"I was asking you about cases which only individuals can effectively undertake under their individual capacity without the need for collective effort."

This is a question regarding specifics.

I have only a general idea, which I have already indicated.

A. Ismail Sait.


"You are desperately trying to dilute the role of government.  I challenge you to list down to me examples which can be handled in an efficient manner (for the purpose of promoting general welfare) that are within the scope of individuals. Please also list down examples that are beyond the scope of individuals and has to be handled by a government.  I will wait for the two lists. OK" 

Individuals not only efficiently handle huge, welfare works, but also efficiently organize colossal welfare projects.

It is they, who, if they feel the necessity for a large scale organization (call it governmental or whatever), take the necessary steps to form it.

In my imagination, it is a scenario, where, the proverbial lamb and the lion drink together from the same water hole.

Everyone would have evolved to that degree. That will require the least government control.

And it will be a World government, not requiring any Defense arrangements in order to kill human beings.

At the most, there will be a battery of state-of -the-art rockets (like the historic Sultan's Battery at Kasargode, South India), standing guard against any perceived Alien attack.

A. Ismail Sait.


A corrupt society produces corrupt administrators only.

A decent society brings up decent administrators.

A decent society needs no curbs on their God given freedom to earn and save. They will never be oblivious of their duties to their society.

The corruption-free government's only duty is to organize the delivery of only that portion of the general welfare, which is beyond the scope of individuals.

A. Ismail Sait.


The fellow was not focusing on the moral aspects of the great epic. Like the following academic stuff:

"...Then of course there is the Jain Ramayana, which other than following the rough outline of Valmiki’s is an entirely independent work. The Thai Ramayana differs greatly from the Indonesian one, not just in what it says but in its story line, and both are very different from Valmiki’s. And when I say different, I mean really different. In one version Ravana is the hero, not Rama. In some versions Sita is Rama’s sister, not his wife. The Malay Ramayana, Hikayat Seri Rama, and the Lao version, Phra Lak Phra Lam, make Lakshmana the hero and Rama his sidekick." Quote from:

The bane of my country is the all pervading corruption, and not at all, ownership of lands, or saving of money in banks.

A. Ismail Sait.




It is clear from 18:17, that the cave remained open.

It is clear in 18:18, that the dog was at the entrance, separate from its masters.

Or at least, it might not have had any occasion to answer the calls of nature.

It was not like our pets creating nuisance inside closed doors.

For, "....God loves those who turn to Him constantly, and He loves those who keep themselves pure and clean." (2:222)

A. Ismail Sait.


You said:

"My case is that under any circumstances, an Islamic state will give ownership of lands to individuals."

I said in my last post:

"The moot question, throughout this thread has been, whether private ownership of unspecified amount of wealth or unspecified area of land is allowed in the Qur'an, any revolution or evolution notwithstanding."

Please clarify, so that I may not stray.

A. Ismail Sait.



I have no experience with dogs. I have heard that they don't lick their whole body clean, like cats. Cats never take bath. But they always lick themselves quite clean!

Birds are in the habit of bathing in water, and even performing dust bath in summer when there is scarcity of water, and then, they preen themselves clean.

We, polluters of the earth and sky, go to the country side or even to the woods and jungles to breath fresh air. But jungles (with zero pollution), are, after all, the abode of animals!

A. Ismail Sait.



After all, it was a state of grave emergency, when any government worth the name can legitimately suspend the citizen's rights and freedoms if the situation calls for it.

That means, if the situation calls for abolition of land ownership rights, then the government will take recourse to that.

It neither means that land and its resources were owned by their legitimate owners, nor that the government had nationalized it.

I mean that there is no proof that before, during, or after Nabi Yusuf took over, ownership of land or its resources was abolished. Nor even that just to tide over the grave situation, the  government took over all the land and it's resources temporarily.

This is in reply to your contention that all lands and its resources were used collectively (without allowing people to monopolise the land and it resources).

(Bold letters by Optimist, January 22, 01:02:08 PM.)

The moot question, throughout this thread has been, whether private ownership of unspecified amount of wealth or unspecified area of land is allowed in the Qur'an, any revolution or evolution notwithstanding. 

A. Ismail Sait.


You said regarding Nabi Yusuf (taking over the administration of the treasures of the country):

 "This incident is also connected to the topic of the discussion because all lands and its resources were used collectively (without allowing people to monopolize the land and it resources)."

After all, it was a state of grave emergency, when any government worth the name can legitimately suspend the citizen's rights and freedoms if the situation calls for it.

Even so, in the narrative of Sura Yusuf, there is no clear evidence that such suspension occurred, let alone abolition of land ownership rights for ever.

A. Ismail Sait.


Under normal circumstances, cats keep on licking their whole body clean. They do this to their kitten too.

In addition to the extremely disgusting annoyance of carrying one's waste glued to ones body, see what Nanny Culture and ultra urbanization does:

A. Ismail Sait.

It is difficult to prove that they got so rich by means other than normal in the obtaining system.

In India we have more than enough funds being funneled into maintaining and improving public schools.

And the public School teachers are well paid.

And there are  innumerable private schools, where the salaries of teachers is abysmally low, except a very few highly elite schools.

The overwhelming majority of people send their children to Public Schools.

And the Public School teachers send their children to the ordinary private schools where teachers are ill paid.

The whole focus is on "passing" the exams. Not at all on learning and educating.

To boot, we have hundreds of thousands of so called Trusts that collect mind-boggling sums in the name of education, and misappropriate the funds.

No dearth of funds.

Only greed, and the blame game everywhere.

A. Ismail Sait.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 16