Messages

466

General Discussions / Re: regarding suicide

« on: April 29, 2013, 07:27:42 PM »

w/salaam,

In 'Reading the Qur'an' by Ziauddin Sardar he discusses this issue, and it's pretty good.


Also, somewhat related:

Misconception: Islam and The Quran promotes suicide bombing
(please also see misconception: Islam and The Quran promotes fighting, war and terrorism)

Background: Suicide bombing is when an attack is made upon others in which the weapon is the person themselves with explosives, and results in the death of that person.

In The Quran, one is not allowed to kill oneself:

O you who believe, do not consume your money between you unjustly, except through a trade which is mutually agreed by you. And do not kill yourselves; God is Merciful towards you. Whoever does so out of animosity and transgression, We will cast him into a fire; and this for God is very easy. If you avoid the major sins that you are forbidden against, then We will cancel your existing sins and admit you to a generous entrance. [4:29-31]

Some general points related to such situations:

...and do not lose hope of God's life-giving mercy; verily, none but people who deny the truth can ever lose hope of God's life-giving mercy. [12:87]

And spend in God's cause, and let not your own hands throw you into destruction; and persevere in doing good: behold, God loves the doers of good. [2:195]

Please also see 15:56, 30:36, 39:53, 41:49.

It must be remembered that when there is much emotion, anger, hatred, injustice, hopelessness, traumatic experiences, it is human nature to struggle with doing the right thing and being just, but that does not excuse such behaviour according to The Quran:

O believers! Stand out firmly for God, as witnesses for the sake of justice, and let not the hatred of a people cause you to turn away from justice. Do justice, for that is akin to piety... [5:8]

The Quran clearly states fight those who fight you, not non-combatants or civilians:

Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not aggressors. [2:190]

It should also be noted that the first documented cases of "suicide attacks" had no association with people called Muslims.

467

Islamic Duties / Re: Speaking out against terror

« on: April 21, 2013, 06:02:02 AM »

Here is a nice piece:

Misconception: Islam and The Quran promotes fighting, war and terrorism

Background: Some think that Islam, Muslims and The Quran promote fighting, killing, war and terrorism, especially for reasons of differing faith or in order to establish Muslim rule.

The idea of fighting people only because of a difference in faith does not exist in The Quran. In fact, it warns about accusing other people of being misguided in order to seek worldly gains:

O you who believe, if you go forth in the cause of God, you shall investigate carefully. And do not say to those who greet you with peace: “You are not a believer!” You are seeking the vanity of this world; but with God are many riches. That is how you were before, but God favoured you, so investigate carefully. God is expert over what you do." [4:94]

O you who acknowledge, let not a people ridicule other people, for they may be better than them. Nor shall any women ridicule other women, for they may be better than them. Nor shall you mock one another, or call each other names. Evil indeed is the reversion to wickedness after attaining acknowledgement. Anyone who does not repent, then these are the transgressors. [49:11]

The Quran clearly states fight those who fight you, not non-combatants or civilians:

Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not aggressors. [2:190]

Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. [60:8]

O believers! Stand out firmly for God, as witnesses for the sake of justice, and let not the hatred of a people cause you to turn away from justice. Do justice, for that is akin to piety... [5:8]

All examples of fighting in The Quran are related to self-defence of oneself or in defence of others who are clearly oppressed, never as aggressors, for example

Except for those who reach a people between whom you have a covenant, or if they come to you with a reluctance in their chests to fight you or to fight their own people. Had God willed He would have given them strength and they would have fought you. But if they retire from you, and did not fight you, and they offer you peace; then God does not make for you a way against them. [4:90]

And why should you not fight in the cause of God and the weak and oppressed among men, women and children who say, "Our Lord rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors. And give us from You, a protector. And give us from You, a helper" [4:75]

Retaliate with equivalence:

And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient. [16:126]

The sanctity of life:

For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for corruption in the land, it is as though he killed all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments... [5:32]

If we take the above verse into account with The Quran's very strong condemnation of oppression below, it is surely a poignant message to reflect upon:

...oppression is worse than murder... [2:191, 2:217]

Even during open war, believers are ordered to be compassionate and offer protection if requested:

And if anyone from the polytheists seeks your protection, then you may protect him so that he may hear the word of The God, then deliver him to his safety/security. This is because they are a people who do not know. [9:6]

Emphasis on opting for forgiveness, peace and that which is good/righteous:

But if the enemy incline towards peace, then you also incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that hears and knows (all things). [8:61]

And those who, when gross injustice befalls them, they seek justice. The recompense for a crime shall be its equivalence, but whoever forgives and makes right, then his reward is upon God. He does not like the wrongdoers. And for any who demand action after being wronged, those are not committing any error. The error is upon those who oppress the people, and they aggress in the land without cause. For these will be a painful retribution. And for he who is patient and forgives, then that is an indication of strength. [42:39-43]

God guides with it (The Quran) whoever follows His acceptance, to the ways of peace; and He brings them out of the darkness and into the light by His leave; and He guides them to a Straight Path. [5:16]

The true servants of the Beneficent are those who walk upon the earth humbly, and when the ignorant ones address them, they say, "Peace!" [25:63]

Not equal are the good and the bad response. You shall resort to the one which is better. Thus, the one who used to be your enemy may become your best friend. [41:34]

To these We grant twice the reward for that they have been patient. And they counter evil with good, and from Our provisions to them, they give. [28:54]

To each is a direction that he will take, so you shall race towards good deeds. Wherever you may be, God will bring you all together. God is capable of all things. [2:148]

O you who believe, if you go forth in the cause of God, you shall investigate carefully. And do not say to those who greet you with peace: “You are not a believer!” You are seeking the vanity of this world; but with God are many riches. That is how you were before, but God favoured you, so investigate carefully. God is expert over what you do. [4:94]

You can even hand these out as flyers locally etc. (click here)

468

General Discussions / Re: Injustice & Suffering

« on: March 11, 2013, 07:23:15 PM »

but things happen to people and nations (like famine, natural disasters, disease, tsunamis, birth of crippled children, death of infants and mothers or fathers of infants) etc. etc.

I would first consider what would happen to the laws of nature and logic IF the above things did not occur, e.g. no areas of the earth where people lived ever suffered a natural disaster and only uninhabited places did so etc etc.

Consider in conjunction with verses, e.g.[48:17], [6:165] etc.

469

Prophets and Messengers / Re: Was Muhammed perfect?

« on: March 09, 2013, 01:39:48 AM »

w/salaam Hope,

The quote you presented under the "From Tradition" heading, does not support the traditional view in my opinion.  Traditional view holds that Muhammad was infallible and by extension all God's prophets were infallible. 

You may be referring to the dominant view now, but what I quoted covered then and now. My source was this book, in it the author lists hundreds of Traditional Islamic references. I have not verified them so the author may well be misrepresenting the traditional view, although I doubt he is.

470

Prophets and Messengers / Re: Was Muhammed perfect?

« on: March 08, 2013, 03:20:00 AM »

Some information that may be useful:

We all know that messengers and prophets were humans and therefor fallible. We have many examples of mistakes messengers made, including but perhaps not limited to: Muhammad prohibiting something God did not (66:1), turning away from a blind man and giving attention to someone he thought was better (Chapter 80), fearing the people instead of God (33:37); Abraham asking for his father's forgiveness (9:114), arguing about Lot's people (11:74-76); Moses killing a man (28:15-16), Jonah trying to escape from his duties (37:139-144).

From tradition:

The concept of the infallibility of the Prophet found its way into mainstream Sunni doctrine by the 9th century CE (over 160 years after Prophet Muhammad's death), p61. Almost all theologians agreed that Muhammad was free from error when it came to matters of revelation, but there were disagreements to the nature and extent of isma (infallibility) in matters outside the sphere of revelation. Only a minority held to a doctrine of complete immunity from error. The majority limited isma to the period after a prophet received his call and considered matters only directly related to the prophetic mission to be completely guaranteed. In matters that would not affect the prophetic mission, prophets could conceivelably commit errors or even minor sins, although they would remain protected against major sins. Thus the Prophet's persona was divided into human and prophetic spheres. In his everyday life, personal affairs, and private judgements he was potentially fallible, hence his words and actions are not legally binding. In his capacity as Prophet however, his words and actions were divinely guided and represent God's Will.

I have refrained from posting the reference/source, since this forum apparently only allows such if a member requests the reference.

471

General Discussions / Re: Banning Slavery

« on: February 24, 2013, 02:46:08 AM »

In addition to the above replies, please see:


Misconception: Islam and The Quran promotes slavery

Background: Some think that when Muslims conquered territory, slaves were often taken or that slavery is allowed in Islam.

When the Quran was revealed, slavery was in wide practice throughout the Arab World, thus, it would have been impractical and detrimental to place an immediate ban on the slave trade, forcing all slaves into unemployment/poverty. The Quran uses a better psychological approach to win people’s hearts in the struggle against slavery and all forms of discrimination by placing a strong emphasis on human dignity and equality and encouraging the freeing of slaves:

Did we not show him the two paths? He should choose the difficult path. Which one is the difficult path? The freeing of slaves. Feeding, during the time of hardship… [90:10-14]

Righteousness is not turning your faces towards the east or the west. Righteous are those who believe in God, the Last Day, the angels, the scripture, and the prophets; and they give the money, cheerfully, to the relatives, the orphans, the needy, the traveller, the beggars, and to free the slaves… [2:177]

The Quran lists the penalty for various misdemeanours as freeing of slaves, see 4:92, 5:89, 58:3. It also implies distribution of community/collective charities would contribute towards freeing of slaves:

The charities are to go to the poor, and the needy, and those who work to collect them, and those whose hearts have been united, and to free the slaves, and those in debt, and in the cause of God, and the traveller. A duty from God, and God is Knowledgeable, Wise. [9:60]

The only method mentioned in The Quran for gaining captives (more correctly termed ‘prisoners of war’, not slaves) is during warfare, after which they must be released or ransomed. Keeping them is not an option:

Therefore, if you encounter those who deny the truth (in warfare), then bring about the captives until when you have subdued/overcome them, then strengthen the bind. Then after either grace/favour or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. That, and had God willed, surely He would have gained victory Himself from them, but He tests some of you with others. And those who get killed in the cause of God, He will never let their deeds be put to waste. [47:4]

Interestingly, in the above verse, it implies a preference for taking captives rather than killing the enemy in warfare.

As can clearly be seen, taking all of the above verses of The Quran into account, it would lead to a gradual reduction in slave numbers and eventually abolish slavery.


SOURCE

472

General Discussions / Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change

« on: January 21, 2013, 02:13:40 AM »

Dear Joseph,
w/salaam,

Thank you for the reply, it is very much appreciated. And I agree that we share many views in common, more so than where we differ.

I accept most of what you said, but I wish to clarify a few points:

You said, Re: 18:21:

Therefore, your appeal to something being incongruent with the Quran’s message is respectfully, non sequitur.

My statement was clearly referring to the traditional translations/tafsirs/view, wherein a majority of them see nothing wrong with building a shrine/building in someone's memory, and try to justify it. Please see the link I share in my article wherein you can read some traditional tafsirs/etc.

You said:

‘yattakhidhu’ simply means to take something which does not need to imply a pre-existing thing. It can imply taking something after it has been 'created'. For example, in the following verse, the intoxicants are a derivative product that is created afterwards which did not 'pre-exist'.

‘Wamin thamarati-nakhili wal-a’nabi tattakhiduna min’hu sakaran wariz’qan hasanan’ or loosely translated, “And from fruits (and) the date-palm and the grapes, you take intoxicants and a provision. (16:67).

The examples I gave of verb form 8 usage were all the ones I could find to do with some sort of building. I never analysed the non-building occurrences. Interestingly, on a provisional checking of all occurrences just now, I only found 16:67 as a reasonable candidate, out of 128. I find 16:67 interesting in the sense that it says "from/min it" implying a part/component of it.
Upon reading the occurrences I noted that the connotation of building/creating is not present. Perhaps in a handful of cases one could slot it in and make it work.

In any case, it is a FACT the vast majority of usage is to do with a pre-existing thing.

I said:
Thus, the evidence is weighted in favour of a pre-existing thing.
You said:
With respect, I find your conclusion non-sequitur, in at least what has been presented hitherto.

The "weight" of each side is simple to show: out of 128 occurrences how many occurrences show a newly created/built usage, and how many show a pre-existent thing usage?

Dear brother Wakas, with respect, for me to even consider an alternative rendition of a well established word of a language, or any theological concept, I have to be absolutely, unambiguously and unequivocally convinced / certain that a problem exists in the first place. I am sure you will at least, appreciate this sentiment. This is long before I embark upon an intricate journey of surveying possible alternative meanings and theological positions.

Hence why I have, with respect sought direct input from you to show me where the problem even exists. I really would like to be convinced so that I may assess the matter for myself with sincerity. At the moment, I humbly find that there is no justification in conducting a study to survey possible alternative meanings as the difficulties you have with the verses you cite are based on your problematic assumptions which are not allowing you to reconcile the verses appropriately.

Let us be very clear, in this instance, you only tackled my comments on 18:21 and 2:187. These two verses are by no means the ones I found to be most problematic overall. This can be seen from the language I use in my articles. The more problematic ones were to do with "al masjid al haram", quote:

'The Sacred Mosque' fares most poorly in 17:1, 2:142-150, 2:217, 9:28, and relatively poorly in 2:196, 22:25, 9:19. Also, please note that traditional commentators (e.g. Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Al-Jalalayn, Ibn Abbas) frequently switch their understanding of AMAH depending on verse, e.g. it can mean 'the sacred site/area of prostration' in 17:1, 'kaaba (cuboid)' in 2:144/2:149/2:150, 'the sanctuary / Mecca' in 2:196, 2:217, 22:25, 9:28. Usually, when one forces an incorrect understanding into AQ it will  result in inconsistency/variance/contradiction, see the important test of 4:82. If the problems discussed in this work can be answered then it recommended for those advocating such a view to put forth their answers.

However, if one were to disregard the mainstream traditional view, or modify it, then some of the above occurrences may not be so problematic. As you have shown with 18:21 and 2:187 - please note, your view on these two occurrences is NOT the mainstream traditional view, which is fine, but what I want to highlight is that they are different and the problems I highlight in my articles are helpful in one's Quran studies.

If/when you have time, feel free to consider the issues I raise with some of the "al masjid al haram" occurrences. I always appreciate your feedback.


With mutual respect and warm regards,
Wakas.

473

General Discussions / Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change

« on: January 19, 2013, 06:20:00 AM »

w/salaam islamist,

I agree that some points made in my article are significant, whilst some are minor. I state so in the introduction.

Can you clarify what you mean by point 2:

I do not think the flow and logic of the verse would imply those who prevailed were in the right due to; (1) The Quran is  making a point here about the people who came after them getting involved in unnecessary disputes; (2) Building a place of worship over graves/ or at any place in memmory of any human being cannot be an Islamic act.  So there is no question of majority being right.

The following requires the meaning of "ibnu" to mean "convert" which does not fit with its other occurrences:

Also, even admitting your argument that it is a pre-existing thing, one thing you can not deny that the building was constructed only at a later stage after their story became known to others (since it is masjid ‘over them’).  It could be that majority wanted to convert a pre-existing building over their grave into a place of worship!

Please bear in mind the following statements in my articles:

Place of SJD (i.e. mosque) and institution of SJD/obedience fare most poorly in 18:21 and 2:187.

and
'The Sacred Mosque' fares most poorly in 17:1, 2:142-150, 2:217, 9:28, and relatively poorly in 2:196, 22:25, 9:19. Also,

please note that traditional commentators (e.g. Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Al-Jalalayn, Ibn Abbas) frequently switch their understanding of AMAH depending on verse, e.g. it can mean 'the sacred site/area of prostration' in 17:1, 'kaaba (cuboid)' in 2:144/2:149/2:150, 'the sanctuary / Mecca' in 2:196, 2:217, 22:25, 9:28. Usually, when one forces an incorrect understanding into AQ it will  result in inconsistency/variance/contradiction, see the important test of 4:82. If the problems discussed in this work can be answered then it recommended for those advocating such a view to put forth their answers.

In my view, whilst 18:21 and 2:187 fare most poorly out of the "masjid" occurrences for such an understanding, the "al masjid al haram" occurrences are more problematic.

474

General Discussions / Re: The triliteral root "Ayn Shiin Ra" (ع ش ر)

« on: January 18, 2013, 09:37:45 PM »

From PRL homepage:

Aim: To list ALL the roots used in Al Quran, including possible meanings (from SEVERAL Classical Arabic dictionaries/lexicons)....

Classical Arabic dictionaries used: Al-Mufradaat fi Ghariib al-Qur'aan, Lisaan al-Arab, Taaj al-Aruus min Jawaahir al-Qaamuus, The Arabic English Lexicon by E.W Lane.

UPDATE BY QM FORUM MODERATOR

13th March 2013

This thread is now closed and a direct link to this post is now available at the dedicated Q&A page.

http://quransmessage.com/articles/q&as%20FM3.htm

Thanks.

475

General Discussions / Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change

« on: January 17, 2013, 05:28:41 AM »

Dear Joseph,
w/salaam.

Please can you cite any Arabic literary source / lexicons which corroborates / supports your understanding of the terms as you have defined them, or do you respectfully acknowledge that this is merely a synthesis of your own Quranic study but has no support in any Arabic literary source / spoken Arabic language?

I have not checked all Classical Arabic dictionaries but I am not aware of this specific meaning in them. However, I do know traditional translators such as Shakir, Yusuf Ali, Muhammad Asad use "time of prayer/prostration" for "masjid", but I do not know if they simply made this up or based it on earlier commentaries. They likely based it on earlier commentaries, so the "time" aspect likely has some support in sources.

Further, grammarians openly acknowledge that the form "ma3fil" (same as "masjid") is known as a "noun of time and place", indicating when and/or where the verb occurs. I discuss this in my article.

Thus, the meanings I have stated are theoretically possible, there is no doubt about that.

In my analysis of occurrences, I discuss every one. I will quote from my articles in regard to the verses you cite as potentially problematic:




18:21 And like that We made known about them that they might know that God's promise is true and that the Hour there is no doubt in it. When they disputed amongst themselves about their issue, so said: "Build over/upon them a building". Their Lord knows best about them. Those who prevailed on their issue said: "Surely we will take* (to ourselves) over/upon them a maSJD."
*verb form 8, reflexive.

Interestingly, almost all translators seemingly neglect certain aspects of this verse:
    Firstly, they imply a physical building was built (worse still, a Mosque) over them (i.e. their graves), as some sort of shrine in their memory, which is completely against the message of The Quran (i.e. no saint/human reverence). Some commentators do not distinguish whether this was a good or bad thing, i.e. do not clarify who "prevailed" in the dispute, the right view or wrong view. The flow and logic of the verse would imply those who prevailed were in the right, otherwise there would be little point ending on this note. It seems most commentators have this view also.
    Secondly, it clearly states there is a dispute and some said "build a building over/upon them" yet it later says those who prevailed said "surely we will take (to ourselves) a maSJD over/upon them" clearly implying there must be a significant difference between each side's position. If traditionally understood, the only difference is one argues for a building, the other argues for a Mosque. What kind of building would have been built by the former side? It would most likely be a communal building, i.e. a Mosque-type building, thus trying to determine the difference in their arguments is difficult going by the traditional understanding. As a side note, Asad makes a reasonable interpretation of the term "over/upon them" as "in their memory", which seems plausible.
    Thirdly, the former expression uses "build a building..." and the latter uses "take (to ourselves) a maSJD...", as if they were both about building why not use the same word? Not to mention "take to ourselves (a building)" doesn't quite make sense, as it implies a pre-existing thing. To check this, out of 128 occurrences of this specific verb form there are five occurrences that may refer to "taking for/to oneself a structure/building" and they are:

29:41 (implies pre-existing thing)
9:108 (unclear)
7:74 - "take FROM (partitive) its plains palaces" (plains are pre-existing) or from context may refer to existing Thamud structures
26:129 (implies pre-existing thing)
16:68 (implies pre-existing thing)

Thus, the evidence is weighted in favour of a pre-existing thing. To use a reflexive verb such as this, to refer to building/creating something anew seems odd. To refute this, evidence to the contrary would have to be brought. Interestingly, this simple observation helped illuminate the parable of the spider: click to read.
    Lastly, since it implies the ones who prevailed had it right, we must ask ourselves what is the message of this verse? Well, clearly for the people in question God gave them a sign in this story. After this lesson, they disputed, some said "build a building over them" and in-between the other side's argument it says 'Their Lord knows best about them' (also mentioned in subsequent verses), implying their number or who they were is not the point, thus no need for a building, as their Lord knows best about them, and it is the outcome/lesson of the story or God's will prevailing that is important. Also, in 18:22 it says "do not dispute about them except with an argument obvious/apparent", and since AQ does not clarify their number which seems to be the main dispute, the primary obvious/apparent argument is the lesson of their story, and this is what people should be reminded of and take to themselves.
May be interesting to read in conjunction with 2:125, for a comparison of a similar phrasing "...take (to yourselves) from the status/position of Abraham a time/place of bonding/blessing/honour/commendation...".

#####

2:113 And the Jews said: "The Nazarenes have no basis," and the Nazarenes said: "The Jews have no basis," while they are both reciting the decree/writ! Like that, those who do not know said a similar thing. So God will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection in what they were differing in.
2:114 And who is more wicked/unjust than one who prevented God's maSaJiD to be remembered/mentioned His name in them and strived in their ruin/waste/uncultivation? Those! Not it was for them that they enter/dKhl them except as those fearing; they will have humiliation in this world and in the Hereafter a painful retribution.

Note the use of "those!" in 2:114, implying those previously mentioned are doing this. Are the previous incidences examples of ruining and preventing God's maSaJiD to be mentioned His name in them? If so, the salat mentioned in 2:110 may be of relevance to the context, as it could be argued the regular/timed salat is an example of a maSJD, i.e. a time of SJD/acknowledgement. (Background: salat article)
    Note the use of "enter" implying whatever maSJD is it can be entered, but this is not necessarily an entering of a building, e.g. see how the word dKhl is used in 5:61, 72:17, 2:208, 7:151, 17:80, 27:19, 49:14, 110:2.
    The phrase "not it was for them that they enter them except as those fearing" is a little unusual. For a comparison, this perhaps should be read in conjunction with 48:27, in which an example of entering "al masjid al haram" not fearing is given. Possibly implying they (believers) may have feared previously when entering. If we imagine one group is in a minority and they attempt to disrupt something the majority are trying to uphold then it would be natural to "fear" doing so - of what may happen, e.g. the consequences, e.g. humiliation, or worse. See 41:26, 7:204, 17:46, 15:91, 23:67, 43:31, 25:32 - for ways in which people cause problems or prevent others from the message.
The traditional understanding is related to attempting to destroy Mosques, however, there is no clear evidence of this taking place in AQ as far as I'm aware.

#####

Note the plural, not singular:

9:17 It was not for the polytheists that they develop/cultivate/enliven* God's maSaJiD (while) witnessing over their own rejection/concealment. For these, their works have fallen, and in the Fire they will abide.
9:18 Only will develop/cultivate/enliven* God's maSaJiD is one who believed in God and the Last Day, and upheld/established the bond/salat, and brought forth betterment/zakat, and does not fear except God. Then perhaps these that will be of the guided ones.
*Arabic: ya'muru, root: Ayn-Miim-Ra, other occurrences of this form lessen the possibility of "maintain" as a meaning, e.g. see 30:9. Please note the difference between "maintain" and "develop".

These verses likely refer to the mix of polytheists, i.e. those who did and did not break the treaty, see chapter 9. In 9:18 note the use of imperfect and perfect verbs, implying in future only those who did X, Y, Z will be able to develop/enliven God's maSaJiD.
    Note the important and very interesting use of the word "asa/perhaps" in 9:18 which clearly shows even if you believe and do the aforementioned things you may not be of the guided ones. This notion ties in with verses such as 7:28 in which those who believe in a diety/Allah are doing things not authorised by Him, in other words, one can believe in God but still be on a Quranic journey, purifying their beliefs/practices as they go.

#####

2:187 Lawful for you nights (of) the abstinence is sexual approach* to your women, they are a garment for you and you are a garment for them. God knows that you used to betray/deceive yourselves so He turned towards you and He forgave you; so now approach** them and seek what God has decreed/written for you. And eat and drink until becomes distinct the white thread from the black thread, of dawn. Then you shall complete the abstinence until the night, and do not approach** them while you are devoting/cleaving in the maSaJiD. These are God's boundaries, so do not transgress them. It is thus that God makes His revelations clear to the people that they may be righteous/God-concious.
*Arabic: RaFaTh (root: Ra-Fa-Tha)
**Arabic: BaShiR (root: Ba-Shin-Ra)

IF one takes masajid=mosques then if women were not allowed in them, it would make this statement illogical, thus clearly implying women could be present in the mosques. It also implies men and women are unlikely to be segregated, as they could approach one another, i.e. interact.
    Who in their right mind would approach their wife in a sexual manner in a public Mosque? Was this such a temptation or common practice that AQ had to tell them not to do it? According to history/tradition mosques in those early days were very basic or simply courtyards thus unlikely to have multiple rooms so it seems even more odd to suggest such a thing taking place in a Mosque. This traditional understanding verges on the nonsensical.
    IF masajids=mosques, why even mention mosques, when there is much greater chance of sexual temptation in the homes during abstinence? The traditional commentators attempt an explanation for this, e.g Jalalayn/Ibn Kathir say this is referring to 'itikaf' (spiritual retreat in the mosque) when believers would leave the mosque for sex then return, when they are meant to reside at the mosque for a certain number of days. This is a complete insertion of course, and hardly "clear" as it implies at the end of the verse, and the obvious error as it says "...WHILE YOU are devoting/cleaving IN the masajid" not when one leaves them. So, it would seem they interpret it as "...while you are staying in the masajid (for itikaf)...".
    If it did mean 'itikaf' then this is not explained elsewhere in AQ, e.g. how many days, what does it involve, why, is it obligatory, examples of anyone actually doing it etc. If we are relying upon AQ only for our understanding of this verse, then 'itikaf' must be rejected outright. The consequence of this however, is that it renders the understanding of masajid=mosques illogical, or at least very unusual.
    Another explanation put forth for this verse is that sexual approach to your women is permitted in the nights of the abstinence but not when one is staying in the mosques, e.g. The Sacred Mosque (in Mecca). Not for "itikaf" per se but simply a spiritual/devotional retreat there, e.g. travellers to The Sacred Mosque (in Mecca) may have come from afar and thus set up tents there, and this verse is referring to them (a verse cited to support this notion of "residency/staying" is 22:25). Not that I necessarily agree with this explanation, but it is at least more plausible than the Traditional explanation, which advocates a specific practice of "itikaf" rather than an undefined one. It is debatable whether the word "akif" means "reside/stay" according to Quran usage, but in any case people staying-over in the mosque seems odd/impractical if one takes "tawaf" as "circumambulation" for example, and the "hadiy" (gifts/offerings) are also to be taken to such a venue. It could make "circumambulation" rather awkward, and if many residents/gifts/animals, perhaps impossible.

#####

I consider 22:40 perhaps the best example of a non-time understanding, however even this does not provide concrete counter-evidence:

22:39 It is permitted for those who have been persecuted to fight. And God is able to give them victory.
22:40 Those who were expelled from their homes without right, except that they said: "Our Lord is God!" And if it were not for God checking/defending the people, some by others, surely would have been overturned/demolished monasteries and churches/synagogues and synagogues/blessings/bonds/petitions and maSaJiD in which the name of God is mentioned/remembered much. And surely God will help those who help Him. Indeed God is Powerful, Noble.
22:41 Those who if We empower them in the land, they uphold/establish the salat/bond, and give forth betterment, and enjoin the right and forbid from the wrong. And to God is the conclusion of matters.

According to CAD "salawatun" (the plural of 'salat') can mean "synagogues", hence translators opting for this. Interestingly, it should be noted that if "salawatun" were translated as "prayers", as it is elsewhere in AQ by most translators, it would not fit as "prayers" are not destroyable. Coincidence? The word "biya'un" can also mean "synagogues" hence putting it twice above.
The implication of 22:40 is that God does not want these things to be ruined. Somewhat unusually, it singles out 'maSaJiD' saying "in which the name of God is mentioned/remembered much", implying the others listed do not have this or some maSaJiD do not have this. A more detailed study into the possible CAD meanings of "sawami" and "biya'un" may need to be done.
24:36 may be interesting to note as it uses "buyoot/houses" not "masajid". IF masjid=mosque, it seems that could have been more appropriate to use.

###

And as for 17:7 and 2:144 the quotes are rather lengthy, thus it would be better to view them directly on the article pages, article 3 in the series:

Articles:
1) http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-of-SuJuD-from-Quran.html
2) http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-quran.html
3) http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.html


I thought you had already read the above articles, but if not, please take your time, and if/when you have time to respond, please do so.
Even if you prefer not to respond at length, you may wish to tackle the multiple problems I highlight for an understanding of "place of sujud, i.e. Masjid" and "The Sacred Masjid" which I assume are your understandings.

476

General Discussions / Re: Quran translation with multiple meanings side-by-side?

« on: January 17, 2013, 05:15:37 AM »

w/salaam,

This is not exactly what you asked for, but along the same lines:

http://www.studyquran.co.uk/MSAhmed_Koran_translation.htm

477

General Discussions / Re: The triliteral root "Ayn Shiin Ra" (ع ش ر)

« on: January 17, 2013, 04:50:52 AM »

salaam Ornage,

Just a clarification to say you did not quote Lane's Lexicon, you actually quoted 'project root list' (PRL).

PRL is not equivalent to lane's lexicon, please see it's homepage: http://www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm

478

General Discussions / Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change

« on: January 07, 2013, 04:45:41 PM »

Salaam all,

I just wanted to add a note to this discussion. I recently completed an extensive research on "qiblah" and "al masjid al haram", as per Quran, and found an alternative to those shown below:

The main views that range are:

          (1) The original sanctuary built by Prophet Abraham (pbuh) was in Makkah (Traditional position)
          (2) The original sanctuary built by Prophet Abraham (pbuh) was towards the Holy Lands (My position)
          (3) The original Masjid al Haram was not in Makkah but in Jerusalem
          (4) The original Masjid al Haram was not in Makkah or Jerusalem but in Jabal al-Lawz
          (5) The original Masjid al Haram was in Makkah (My position and the traditional position)
          (6) The different locations of the first Qibla

The term "qiblah" means, in terms of likelihood:
1) focal-point - focus/centre of interest or activity
2) direction - general aim or purpose; a general way in which someone/something is developing
3) point-of-approach - a way in which to approaching something
4) counteraction - to oppose and mitigate the effects of by contrary action

"masjid" means "time of SJD/acknowledgement".

"al masjid al haram" means "the inviolable time of acknowledgement" (i.e. the term referring to the time-period/event of the inviolable months).

The above can provide a perfect fit with The Quran, and consequently renders much of this debate/controversy moot.

Link can be provided upon request.

479

Discussions / Re: Is islam an oxymoron?

« on: November 07, 2012, 06:12:41 AM »

salaam,

Peace,

Yes, brother I'm well aware of brother Joseph's stance on the subject.  My focus was on what you and I can do about projecting Islam in its true nature.  Any ideas?

I think we can start with ourselves, by setting a good example of a muslim, as per Quran.

There is also two good websites I helped with for promoting islam: www.Learn-About-Islam.com (good for Muslim and others) and www.AreYouMuslim.com (especially good for passing onto 'non-Muslims')

480

General Discussions / Re: Q&A Blessings, Shaving the Head and Dhikr

« on: November 05, 2012, 10:10:41 PM »

w/salaam Hope,

Thanks for the reply.

if you (plural) are prevented from completing hajj/3umra, then how can you ensure the hady reaches its mahilla?

Either you do it yourself or a reliable person you hire does it for you. 

I do not see how one can do it themselves, as it clearly says "if you (plural) are prevented" but I do think one could do "a reliable person you hire does it for you".

As far as shaving and cutting is concerned, you do whatever applies to you. Shave head and beard or cut hair before and after ihram.  Shaving during ihram 'breaks' it like breaking the fast before its time.  There is penalty.

I'm not sure how this can be evidenced from Quran, however perhaps this is just me.