Messages

Peace Joseph,

Thanks for the reply.

Re: 1)
Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying no animals are sacrificed at al kaabah. I dont think this can explicitly be shown either way, but my point was the offering does go there, this is clear. What happens after that one can discuss options.

Re: 2)
I agree that it cannot be conclusively shown al safa and al marwa are "ancient Abrahamic rites", but my point was the same wording and context of HaJJ is used. One can say they are not "ancient Abrahamic rites" but it wouldn't be based on anything solid.

Re: 3)
I assume therefore you take TWF to mean circumbambulate in some verses and not in others? If so, that is fine, but I was just clarifying as it doesn't come across as that in your article.

[1)]

salaam Joseph,

Re: http://quransmessage.com/articles/makkah%20bakkah%20FM3.htm

I would like clarification on the following please:

1)
You said:

"The Quran makes it clear that sacrifices took place inside the ancient house or at its location.  This is extremely difficult to reconcile with the location of the Kaaba as even today, no sacrifices take place at or around the Kaaba or anywhere within the precincts of the haram. Let us note the verse:

022.033
You have advantages in them till a fixed time, then their place of sacrifice (Arabic: Mahilluha) is at (Arabic: ila) the Ancient House (Arabic: Baitul-ateeq).

The above verse clearly informs the reader that the place of sacrifice (mahiloha) is at (ila) the house (Bait) ancient (Ateeq). Sacrifice has never been performed at or inside the Kaaba or the Masjid Haram premises. It is performed at Mina.

However:

5:95 ...an offering/gift reaching al kaabah

5:97 God has made al kaabah, (which is) al bayt al haram, a qiyaman for............. the offerings/gifts.......


2)
You said:

Safa and Marwah are never mentioned as an 'ancient Abrahamic rite' within any Quranic context.

However earlier in section 8, when making the case for Abrahamic rites, you quoted 22:32 in which the term "shaAAa-ira Allahi" is used, and this is the same term used in 2:158 for safwa and marwa, also in the context of HaJJ.


3) You translated 2:158 as "....he circumambulates (Arabic: Tawaafa) both of them..."

Do you mean to say going around the hills is meant, not in-between them, as is done today? I'm not even sure if going around them hills is possible today, maybe.


Thanks.

[this thread helpful]

salaam all,

I thought members may find this thread helpful (click)

It is very long, and a little jumbled, as multiple threads were joined together, but it raises many good arguments against the problems in Traditional Islamic beliefs and practices.

salaam,


"abu lahab" literally means "father (of) flame", i.e. provocateur, a metaphor for the originator of fire/hate/destruction.

Now put this into the verse and re-read it please.

In my view, it is referring to an archetype, as Quran does in many places. It is an excellent play on words, as essentially one will get what they give, i.e. law of requital, and in these verses "abu lahab" ends up in the "lahab/flame" in 111:3. The "wife" (or metaphorically, the accomplice) adds fuel to this fire, and in 111:5 it says "in/on "her" neck will be a rope from twisted fibre", suggesting whoever adds fuel to the fire, their fate is intertwined, with the father of flame. The neck is used in Quran as a symbol to tie one's deeds/fate to, e.g. 17:13.

And lastly, as we all know from Traditional Islamic sources, that "Abu Lahab" was apparently a nicname, yet we are told not to call each other by nicnames in 49:11, so is God using a nicname in 111:1?

The only way out of this possible contradiction is to say "Abu Lahab" is not derogatory, it is complimentary! For example, see Asad's notes:

Muhammad Asad - End Note 1 (111:1)
The real name of this uncle of the Prophet was Abd al-Uzza. He was popularly nicknamed Abu Lahab (lit., "He of the Flame") on account of his beauty, which was most notably expressed in his glowing countenance (Baghawi, on the authority of Muqatil; Zamakhshari and Razi passsim in their comments on the above verse; Fath al-Bari VIII, 599), Since this nickname, or kunyah appears to have been applied to him even before the advent of Islam, there is no reason to suppose that it had a pejorative significance. - The expression "hands" in the above clause is, in accordance with classical Arabic usage, a metonym for "power", alluding to the great influence which Abu Lahab wielded.

I will let readers decide on that aspect.

And lastly, even if it was referring to one specific person, it is unnecessary to determine who this person is, it adds nothing critically important.

AFAIK the arabic literally says: "path of those You have bestowed/favoured on them not those who received anger on them and not those who go astray"

l-maghḍūbi is genitive masculine passive participle, meaning they received the action expressed in the verb. The question arises: received anger from where/whom/what?

Additional information, the divorce procedure according to The Quran:

'cooling-off' period for those who swear away from their wives sexually, limited to 4 months [2:226]*

after this 4 month 'cooling-off' period, the options are: revert to normal relations or divorce/talaq [2:227]

post-divorce interim/waiting period is 3 menstruation periods or 3 months, if pregnant it is until they deliver, if widowed it is 4 months and 10 days [2:228, 2:234, 65:4]

if no sex has taken place after marriage, then no interim period is required after divorce/talaq [33:49]. Compensation may be due however if dower was agreed upon [2:237]

during post-divorce interim period, wife remains in the same house, and is compensated by way of maintenance during this period in the same living standard as the husband, each according to their means [2:236, 2:241, 65:1, 65:6-7]**

divorce is automatically retracted if sex between the couple takes place during the interim period [inference from 2:226, 33:49, 65:1]***

if couple reconciles, then divorce/talaq may be retracted twice during interim-period. If divorced a third time it is final unless she marries another then they divorce, only then can original partners re-marry. If the couple fear they will not maintain God's bounds, then wife may give some dowry back to release herself [2:229-230]

if couple still wishes to follow through with the divorce/talaq after the end of the interim period and undergo final separation, then two witnesses are required to complete the process [65:2]

exceptions exist, in certain situations [60:10-11]

the onus is upon the person in the wrong to rectify the situation or initiate divorce/release, and it is an obligation upon the contract-breaking party to compensate the other [2:229, 2:237, 4:19, 4:128-129, 33:28, 60:10-11]

As a side note, the last point is also mentioned in traditional Islamic law and sources, see M.Asad's note on 2:229. This system would also protect the male if he were to marry a female who only did so for his money or the marital gift then she wished to end the marriage later, because since the contract-breaking party compensates the other partner, she would have to do so accordingly. Similarly, this would protect the female if she were to marry a male who only did so for lustful reasons then wished to end the marriage later, as he would then have to compensate her.

*Also possibly provides a time limit due to a practice of the time in which husbands did not have sex with their wives but also did not divorce them, see 58:1-4, 33:4; i.e. leaving them in a state between marriage and divorce. Similar to what is implied by 4:129.

**And the same goes for the lesser situation of 'cooling-off' period. Obviously, the wife would not be removed from the home for the lesser serious 'cooling-off' period then brought back just for the post-divorce interim period.

***Inference from 2:226 is that resumption of sexual relations is equated to reconciliation, thus no initiation of divorce. Hence, same proviso for post-divorce interim period, i.e. sex = reconciliation.

w/salaam,

In addition:

I checked this in the past. If memory serves me correctly, the word in question is "ard" and it can mean earth or ground/land, context will determine which. The word itself does not specify the extent of land/ground however.

w/salaam,

All translations are imperfect. The key is to use a sound method (e.g. here) when studying translations and use the quality tools/resources out there, e.g. see www.StudyQuran.org

Having said that, my personal favourite is Muhammad Asad's, mainly because he strives to remain true to the spirit of Quran and applies logic throughout. In my view, it does have many errors however.

With regard to taqwa, this is a decent article.

salaam all,

As a side note, for a more probable translation of 47:4 please see section 1, part 17: http://www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.html#part1

fa darba al rriqabi hattaitha athkhantumoohum = so strike the necks until when you have overcome them
[47:4]

Some use "hit", "smite", "strike-off". Whilst this is the most common translation, it should be noted that it is taken by many as an idiom (e.g. Al-Jalalayn, Ibn Kathir), meaning slay or kill. This seems a plausible interpretation as in a battle of swords and arrows no commander would order his soldiers to aim for the necks alone. Similarly, "put forth" could also be used. Interestingly, Mustansir Mir's book mentions a similar expression "daraba raqabatahu" and renders it as "to cut off somebody's head / kill somebody".

However, upon closer examination, there is an alternative translation, which seems the most likely based on the evidence:

So, when you encounter those who have rejected/concealed, then put forth /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.

Notes for the above translation:
1) "darba" is a verbal noun, indicating the act of doing as well as the noun itself, e.g. then putting forth / bringing about the captives.
2) In a battle of swords and arrows no commander would order his soldiers to aim for the necks alone.
3) RQB is NEVER used to mean neck elsewhere in The Quran, as the word for neck is "unuq" (as used in 8:12 also with DRB). RQB is always used to mean slaves/captives.
4) If they were supposed to be beheaded, there would not be a need for an instruction regarding captives. Thus to overcome this apparent omission, many traditional commentators translate "fa shuddoo al wathaqa" as "then tie the bond" and say this refers to taking prisoners of war. However, the word "strengthen/tighten (Arabic: shuddoo)" implies a pre-existing thing to strengthen/tighten (see its usage in 38:20, 76:28, 28:35, 10:88, 20:31), but if this is true, where is it in context? It can only relate to "darba al rriqabi", and thus provides strong proof that this phrase is about bringing about captives from the enemy.
5) This translation makes sense because during open/active fighting, the captives may not be totally secure, and could only really be secured once the enemy has been subdued/overcome. Thus, this verse is implying aim to bring about captives, not necessarily kill them, which shows mercy and less aggression in such a situation, even if it means getting killed.
6) One meaning of DaRaBa found in Lane's Lexicon is "he made or caused to be or constituted" which is similar to the suggested meaning discussed above.
7) I am not aware of a Classical Arabic Dictionary which references verse 47:4 under the root entry of DRB or RQB.
8 ) 47:4 refers to those mentioned in the previous verses, going by its use of connective particle "fa", then these people were not fighting or killing, thus killing them may violate the law of equivalence [2:190, 4:90, 5:8, 16:126, 42:39-43].
9) Interestingly, Traditional Tafsirs (altafsir.com) also mention this possibility along with the common understanding. Ibn 'Abbas: "...and taken them prisoners, (then making fast of bonds) keep the prisoners in captivity...". Tafsir al-Jalalayn: "...take them captive and bind firmly, the bonds (al-wathāq is what is used to bind [yūthaqu] a captive).".

As a side note, it is interesting to note the difference in phrasing of this verse compared to 8:12, giving further weight to each of them having different meanings as discussed.

Also additional information:
http://learn-about-islam.com/2011/11/01/islam-and-the-quran-promotes-slavery/

Dear brother Joseph,
w/salaam,

The reason I refer to sun-timings is because the original post in this thread. It was regarding the polar regions in which for some months they do not have the sun present and for other months the sun persists all the time. Thus citing "evening" and "morning" verses etc doesn't address the polar region situation:

If we base salaat ritual on Sunrise and Sunset ( day and night which is measure of time when there were no clocks ) then this application for salaat timing is not practical in Polar region.

Hope that helps to clarify.

salaam Joseph, all,

'sunset' or terms to describe it are clearly known to the Quran (maghrib al-shams 18:86, duluk e-shams (17:78)

To clarify, "maghrib al-shams" does not mean "sunset", it means "setting-time/place (of) the sun". This can clearly be seen in 18:86 in which it says "...he reached maghrib al-shams, and he found it setting (imperfect, incomplete action, ongoing)....", i.e. it had not already set. Do you agree/disagree?

And as for "duluk e-shams (17:78)" I agree that it means "sunset". I dont see any problem for using "layl" as the beginning of "layl" is after sunset in my view. I think this timing is used because sawm ends then one begins their salat al 3sha - this way, they will be less distracted thinking about food etc.
Also, if you imply Quran could have used such a phrase if it meant sunset, please bear in mind you also say sbh/hmd with timing can mean the timed salat, even though it did not use this word.

Whereas if a fast is kept a little longer than is required (even if the view is incorrect), one has naturally covered the period of the traditional fast anyway not falling foul of the possibility of opening it too early.

In my view, it all boils down to sincerity, i.e. if a person is sincere and put in effort into understanding when to end sawm, then goes with the most probable answer, it does not matter if they get it wrong. God is Forgiving, Merciful, and knows best.

w/salaam Joseph,

Thanks for the verse, however, can you provide another example apart from 30:17?

The reason is 30:17 does not mention sun-timings, only "morning" and "evening", which can be present anywhere, regardless of the sun.

With regard to the method I apply regarding the Arabic, I simply look at the grammar via books/resources/corpus. If the grammar indicated plural (as in 30:17) then its plural, if it is singular (as in 20:130) then it is singular.

w/salaam,

The grammar of who is being addressed in the verses can be singular, dual or plural, please check the arabic, e.g using http://corpus.quran.com

Dear Joseph, w/salaam,

Thanks for the swift reply.

You said:

I only desired to weigh the evidence in favour of a 2 prayer system as a possible alternative as opposed to my argument for 5, so I do not feel my request was unwarranted, rash or unfair. Your criticism is therefore unwarranted.

Your response to me implied something, and that is you expect forum members, such as myself, who point out something in your articles that they should provide a detailed evidenced article of their contrary position whilst doing so. Or if they mention something and ask your view on it, and even if they put it under "other information", it is fair for you to assume that this is their "main support" for their position!

I find the above notions completely objectionable, and in my view, a clear example of an error in judgement on your part. If you disagree, it is ok, each to their own subjectivity.

You said:

It was clearly my opinion which should be clear for anyone reading my quote "I find ..." Therefore, I find no reason to correct my statement as it a personal opinion.

And I clarified your "opinion" of my method is not true.

You said:

An example of this is your fantastic and unwarranted understanding of 'sujud' and 'masjid' to which you seem to pin alien meanings when you can't appreciate simple nuances of the language and where you have trouble reconciling verses. I only mention this as I find that you bring the same limitations in your analysis technique and faulty premises that you oft form to this discussion.

Firstly, I am glad to hear that you know of those works and have perhaps read them. If we do not read alternative views, or works that challenge our views, then we can never truly weigh and consider the truth, and would clearly fall afoul of "confirmation bias". We should all bear this in mind.

You claim I pinned alien meanings, when I am sure you are very aware that not only Classical Arabic dictionaries but also Quran itself uses "sujud" how I understand the term (even traditional exegetes). And as for "masjid", well the jury is out on that one, but I know one thing, the problems I point out are clear for all to see. If you have understandings of 2:187 and 18:21 please link me to them, thanks.
(Reference for readers who may be unaware of what is being referred to: see sujud and masjid links)

You said:

I have till date failed to see any such evidence and neither have you provided any.

In your view, yes (assuming you read them). For others, see the links I provided.

You said:

...I find absolutely no credibility in your contentions...

I find the language you use absolutist. Personally, I would not describe your 5-a-day position in the above terms, even though I disagree with it.


And in case it was not obvious, I also appreciate your works, in fact, very much so.

Regards,
Wakas

salaam sardar,

As far as I know, all salat verses which have a timed component to them are in the singular EXCEPT 24:58. Since it does not mention the "sun" in 24:58 it can be taken to mean your morning and evening, whatever it may be.

Similarly, as far as I know, all sabih/hamd verses with timings are in the singular.

The singular address can be taken to mean the prophet, i.e. addressing him with his point of reference, not a universal address.


And as a side note, sawm/abstinence is only for those who witness the shahr (full-moon/lunar-cycle/month), thus if you do not witness it you do not abstain.

God knows best.