Messages

Salaams br Wakas.. I know 'sujud' was discussed at the start of this thread and  br. Joseph already responded to you on this....but  I also found a parallel and helpful discussion where similar problems were being highlighted with your method with words / the qur'an.. sjd etc and the way you study the qur'an. I really liked Mohsin7's response to you which I think for me really highlights your weaknesses in your arguments..(no disrespect intended) ...I wanted to share this thread with everyone here too. i think it all goes back to the same problem that i think u are trying to fit one meaning of the work in all contexts. sometimes SJD just means physical prostration!!

http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606251.msg347588#msg347588

Thanks for replying good logic   

[-- Joseph-- Slipped up and put his trust on other than GOD.]

Greetings Saba.

That is how I understand the verse about Joseph. You may understand it differently

The point that I wanted to make is to get into the habit of remembering to say " Bismi allah", "In shaa allah" and " Mashaa allah"...etc. A true believer has GOD on his/her mind 24/7. If he/she errs or forgets then:

Salaams goodlogic. I mean no disrespect, but they way you have interpreted the verse is no small matter.. you said:

-- Joseph-- Slipped up and put his trust on other than GOD.

12:42
He then said to the one to be saved "Remember me at your lord."* Thus, the devil caused him to forget his Lord, and, consequently, he remained in prison a few more years.

You are almost accusing a noble prophet of committing Shirk (ma'zallah)!!! so much so that he was further punished for it and remained in prison for it ...You even wrote your own translation to fit your understanding of accusing a prophet.

As I said, and as far as I know nearly most understand this verse (quranic and traditionalist) it was one of the prisoners that forgot!!!! due to Satan's influence. !!

012.042
YUSUFALI: And of the two, to that one whom he consider about to be saved, he said: "Mention me to thy lord." But Satan made him forget to mention him to his lord: and (Joseph) lingered in prison a few (more) years.
PICKTHAL: And he said unto him of the twain who he knew would be released: Mention me in the presence of thy lord. But Satan caused him to forget to mention it to his lord, so he (Joseph) stayed in prison for some years.
SHAKIR: And he said to him whom he knew would be delivered of the two: Remember me with your lord; but the Shaitan caused him to forget mentioning (it) to his lord, so he remained in the prison a few years.
ASAD: And [thereupon Joseph] said unto the one of the two whom he considered saved: "Mention me unto thy lord [when thou art free]!" But Satan caused him to forget to mention [Joseph] to his lord, and so he remained in prison a few [more] years.

http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/12/42/default.htm

Saba

[ذُكِرَ (is) mentioned.]

ذُكِرَ (is) mentioned.  The usage of the word is passive here.  Here  it is very clear that the person who eats need not necessarily the one who mentions Allah's name.  And also the time referred is past, not connected to the time when food is in front of us. 

Salaam Optimist .. This is such a GOOD POINT ....

"Therefore eat of that on which Allah's name has been mentioned if you are believers in His communications." (6.118)

I checked 'dhukira' is a PASSIVE PERFECT VERB

http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=6&verse=118

That is the end of the discussion as far as I am concerned. Saba.   

Salaam JoeShaer

Thanks for your post ...Just a quick q then based on your view. How do you reconcile verses like 5.43 where Allah is asking them why they come to the prophet for judgment when they have their own books? and also that if they don't follow their books they are 'kaffirs' !!! - 5:44.

Where does the Qur'an say they must abandon their laws and Torah for the Qur'an? Saba 

[12:42He then said to the one to be saved "Remember me at your lord."* Thus, the devil caused him to forget his Lord, and, consequently, he remained in prison a few more years.وَقالَ لِلَّذى ظَنَّ أَنَّهُ ناجٍ مِنهُمَا اذكُرنى عِندَ رَبِّكَ فَأَنسىٰهُ الشَّيطٰنُ ذِكرَ رَبِّهِ فَلَبِثَ فِى السِّجنِ بِضعَ سِنينَ]

Here is an example in Qoran:

-- Joseph-- Slipped up and put his trust on other than GOD.
12:42
He then said to the one to be saved "Remember me at your lord."* Thus, the devil caused him to forget his Lord, and, consequently, he remained in prison a few more years.

وَقالَ لِلَّذى ظَنَّ أَنَّهُ ناجٍ مِنهُمَا اذكُرنى عِندَ رَبِّكَ فَأَنسىٰهُ الشَّيطٰنُ ذِكرَ رَبِّهِ فَلَبِثَ فِى السِّجنِ بِضعَ سِنينَ


GOD said if one forgets , ask for forgiveness.

Salaam good logic, Where did you get the idea that prophet Joseph slipped up and put his trust in other than Allah? As far as I can tell reading all the translations - it was one of the prisoners that forgot!!!! due to Satan's influence. !! Saba 

012.042
YUSUFALI: And of the two, to that one whom he consider about to be saved, he said: "Mention me to thy lord." But Satan made him forget to mention him to his lord: and (Joseph) lingered in prison a few (more) years.
PICKTHAL: And he said unto him of the twain who he knew would be released: Mention me in the presence of thy lord. But Satan caused him to forget to mention it to his lord, so he (Joseph) stayed in prison for some years.
SHAKIR: And he said to him whom he knew would be delivered of the two: Remember me with your lord; but the Shaitan caused him to forget mentioning (it) to his lord, so he remained in the prison a few years.
ASAD: And [thereupon Joseph] said unto the one of the two whom he considered saved: "Mention me unto thy lord [when thou art free]!" But Satan caused him to forget to mention [Joseph] to his lord, and so he remained in prison a few [more] years.

http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/12/42/default.htm

[which modify a noun by attributing possession (or other sense of belonging) to someone or something]

Tell us saba, does Quran say those who know Arabic best will understand it best? If so, please provide the verse.

Even if we both agree that knowledge of Arabic is important, it is only one element used to derive an accurate understanding. I have already discussed in some detail about the other elements.

salaams ..I never said that those who know Arabic will understand the Qur'an the best. However, an arab or anyone that knows arabic will know arabic words / grammar better than those who don't.

.......... br Mazhar on the free-minds link challenged your understanding with proof or 'evidence' as you like to call it..... Now I am interested to see what your reply is...do you have a rebuttal to his view? can you prove to me and other readers on this forum that your view is better than his??

"the challenge in the manner requested" is in fact no challenge but is based on ignoring the first step of understanding a language and extracting meanings.

The first step is to determine the word as to which part of speech it relates and to identify the phrases.

صَلَاةِ الْفَجْرِ  and صَلَاةِ الْعِشَاءِ are possessive phrases.

Phrase: It is a string of words that form a constituent and so function as a single unit in the syntax of a sentence. A phrase is lower on the grammatical hierarchy than a clause. These are compounds, in Arabic الْمُرَكَّبَاتُ. When two or more words are joined they constitute a Phrase [مركب ناقص] or [مركب تام] a Sentence-جُمْلَةٌ.

In English, possessive words or phrases exist for nouns and most pronouns, as well as some noun phrases. These can play the roles of determiners (also called possessive adjectives when corresponding to a pronoun) or of nouns.

Possessive determiners constitute a sub-class of determiners which modify a noun by attributing possession (or other sense of belonging) to someone or something. They are also known as possessive adjectives.

In Arabic possessive phrase is called:

أَلإضَافَةُ ٱلْحَقِيقِيَّةُ
   [literally: annexation, addition, or attachment] Possessive/Relative Phrase-"the Construct"

Salat is time bound. Time is determined by the movement of the Sun. The above two words are NOT the names, but possessive phrases-single unit where the second noun with definite article is indicative of the point in time. Point in time does not mean duration.

http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606088.msg347459#msg347459


Saba 

[it seems you are looking for validation]

Salaam Wakas ...from what I can tell, the only person really uncomfortable with their position may be you...it seems you are looking for validation ...that is why you keep putting out these challenges on different forums... I mean look at this thread ...

http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606088.msg347459#msg347459

I totally agree with what Mazhar said to you ..

"the challenge in the manner requested" is in fact no challenge but is based on ignoring the first step of understanding a language and extracting meanings.

.. who (Mazhar) by the way has his own website on quran translation, comments on the http://corpus.quran.com/ website and imho is much better than you in understanding arabic..

http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/eng%20article.htm

Why do you think you think the thread became deflated after what ... 6 pages? u see .. ppl give you their reasons .. but because they don't fit in with your 2 prayer a day method .. you dismiss it .... Anyway ...good luck! I can't speak for anyone else .. but I think enough is said about your view on 2 salat. Just take this as feedback .... nothing more ...Saba 

[The test:]

I'm sure some do state their methodologies, to various degrees, but I am confident they will be woefully inadequate i.e. lacking details, few Quran references, and little or no mention of how to verify what they write etc.

Salaam br. wakas ...my point of giving examples was to show you that lots of translators claim a methodology. You are confident that their methodology is inadequate, others may say the same about yours... its a never ending saga.

The test:
Please provide a link/quote to the stated methodology of any translation that in your view is Quran-based, is the most detailed/robust and verifiable that you can find.

Please note, I do not want any one, I want the strongest you can possibly find. One will do.

Sorry br. Wakas but I'm not going do your homework for you. I gave examples to make my point. I've done that. Thanks Saba 

[to judge]

As-salam alaykum

Thank you all for your contributions on this thread.

As many of you will be aware, the Quran asks the People of the Book at the time of the Prophet's ministry to judge by their own books (5:43), inferring the laws within them. The Quran even goes as so far as calling them 'Kaffir' (disbelievers) if they fail to judge by what God has revealed to them (5:44).

Leviticus 11 states: (NIV)

11 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: 3 You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud.

Exceptions are further stated. This is also confirmed by Deuteronomy 14:4-8. Therefore, animals such as the goat, sheep, ox, deer and gazelle are thus lawful for the People of the Book as these animals chew the cud.

Therefore, the reason that 'grazing livestock' is explicitly mentioned in verses 5:1 and 40:79 of the Quran was not only to confirm the general category of animals that is made lawful for believers but also to remove the restrictions from believers that were imposed on the People of the Book by God from within the category of grazing animals. For example, within the category of grazing animals, extra restrictions had been placed on the People of the Book:

Leviticus 11:4 (NIV)
"'There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you.

Leviticus 11:5 (NIV)
"The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you."

Leviticus 11:6 (NIV)
"The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you."

Leviticus 11:8 (NIV)
"You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you."

Restrictions imposed on the People of the Book are also confirmed by the Quran.

006.146
"And to those who are Jews (who follow the Jewish Law), We forbade every (animal) with undivided hoof, and We forbade them that fat of the ox and the sheep, except what adheres to their backs or their entrails, or is joined with the bone. That is their recompense for their wilful disobedience. And indeed, We are lawful".

This is further confirmed in the following verse:

016.118
"And to those who are Jews, We prohibited such things as We have mentioned to you before. We did them no wrong, but they were used to doing wrong to themselves."

Furthermore, if it were just a case that such restrictions were placed exclusively on the Jews, then this argument is also unwarranted as swine is still prohibited to the believers. This infers a general prohibition against swine from grazing livestock and the extra prohibitions within the category of grazing livestock for the People of the Book was due to their transgressions. As believers are not responsible for the transgressions of another community, therefore those prohibitions have arguably been lifted.

This does not mean however that the Quran allows for the consumption of all animals. The focus and lawfulness still remains restricted to a particular category of animals. (i.e. grazing animals).

Similarly, where lawfulness in general of the catch of the sea is expressed (5:96), this removes some of the restrictions that were imposed on the People of the Book. (See Leviticus 11:9-10). Here again, the Quran clarifies for believers. Similarly, if the intention was to make all animals lawful, the Quran could have arguably given a similar explicit statement (such as the catch of the sea) to make lawful all land animals. It did not but once again, restricted it to a particular category (5:1, 40:79).


THEREFORE IN SUMMARY FROM MY HUMBLE PERSPECTIVE

• Verses 5:1 and 40:79 explicitly confirm the particular category of animals which is made lawful for believers to consume as food (i.e. grazing livestock / animals). If all animals were to be made lawful, arguably there would be no need to explicitly state a specific category which was already known as a category of animal consumption. The Quran makes clear what is lawful and unlawful. In this case, it has explicitly stated lawfulness. The Quran is not averse from giving general approval as it has done for the catch of the sea (5:96). However, it has not done so for land animals thereby restricting the category by explicit mention (i.e. grazing animals / livestock).
• The People of the Book never consumed animals that did not chew their cud.  Therefore, the Quran would be expected to clarify that all animals were now made lawful for consumption if this was the case, in stark contrast to what was known to previous Abraham faiths of which the Quran's message was a continuation. It did not make this clarification. This is no different from the extent that the Quran goes to clarify the general lawfulness within the category of grazing livestock.
• Given the fact that only animals in a particular category are lawful for People of the Book, it would be inconceivable that by virtue of verse 5:5 of the Quran all animals were now lawful for them if one asserted that the Quran allows the consumption of all animals. "...and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them..." (5:5)
• Verse such as 6:145 should be read in context of previous verses where the Quran is clarifying that there are no self-imposed restrictions within the category of livestock as have been mentioned in the previous verses 6:143-144. Verse 6:145 is not a cue to make lawful all animals, but a response to verses 6:143-144. This is also supported by verses 2:173, 16:115 and 5:3 where in the context of previous verses, the lawfulness is given within a particular category of food.
• The only main counter argument is an argument from silence and reading of verses out of context. With respect, this is neither a cogent argument nor approach.

Regards,
Joseph


RELATED ARTICLES

[1] FOOD & DRINK (Articles)
http://quransmessage.com/articles/food%20FM3.htm
[2] FOOD & DRINK (Q&As)
http://quransmessage.com/articles/q&as%20FM3.htm

Salaams br. Joseph ... thank u so much for this and summary v. useful!!...Saba   

Salaam br Sardar ... from the link that sis Abbsrayray shared from br. joseph... what did you make of his comment

However, the creditor (who deposits their savings) is entitled to receive their principle amount back. As already mentioned, in today's economy, currency seldom holds the same value over a period of time. Therefore, it can be argued that any interest payment that covers the rate of inflation is permissible as this allows for the creditors principle amount to be returned.

Doesn't that answer your q??      Saba

[stated]

w/salaam sister saba,

I don't think you get it.

Salaaam .....No disrespect br Wakas... but I don't think you get it.....

Firstly, the methodology will be extracted from Quran of course, similar to this, but more detailed.

Why similar to this? This is your website isn't it? You see my point?? you have already given a methodology in that link that you would expect to follow which is your way of thinking ......

Secondly, the group would only be formed from people who agreed upon the methodology. Even if no-one agreed to the methodology and let's say I did it myself, it doesn't matter, see point below.

Who will be in that group? Free-mind people? 19ers? or traditionalists too? you think they will agree?... or the movement will again be like minded people that agree with your way of critical analysis which you have given the link for above?

Thirdly, the key is it is a stated methodology. No translation exists with a stated robust/detailed and verifiable methodology.

And lastly, the translation would be unique/better for other reasons. Primarily to do with verification, discussion of options etc.

If you know of a Quran translation with a stated methodology, that is Quran-based, robust/detailed and somewhat verifiable, let me know. If you cant cite one, then translationmovement is already ahead of the game by being the first to do so..... if it goes ahead.

Many translators claim that their method is reliable.

Dr. Laleh Bakthiar claims that her translation has "internal consistency and reliability"
http://www.sublimequran.org/

Mazhar Noorani who gives comments on quran.corpus site as well has his own site with a methodology. Many of the times you both don't agree on freeminds..... you can't even agree on number of prayers ... he says 5 you say 2 ....

http://www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/eng%20article.htm

Dr. Shabbir's QXP claims all sorts of things like tasreef al ayat methodology with a shura and a methodology and a QXP which is revised over years and years ....

They all state their methodologies ...to them there methodology is right!!!!

That is what I am saying .. what is reliable methodology to one may not be to another. You just cannot separate an interpretation which is inherently subjective with a methodology. I hope you get my point this time .....Saba 

[a robust and verifiable methodology]

It is the pick and choose - cherry picking from dictionaries to suit your own views that causes a lot of the problems with such qur'anist groups. what do u think>?

I agree. As I said, a robust and verifiable methodology would be stated from the outset. You will note that no Quran translation exists that has done this - to my knowledge. This is a critical flaw in my view.

Salaam br. Wakas, have you thought maybe why it appears to you that no 'robust and verifiable methodology' exists? Maybe because all existing methodologies that translators have used that seem to them as being robust and verifiable are simply just not robust and verifiable to you. Lets look at it this way ... you write articles on salaat and the meaning of SJD and you then come up with meanings of masjid .. to you these must be robust and verifiable methodologies,  ... but that's it you see .. to others they are simply not robust, otherwise why do you not believe in 5 ritual prayers or that masjid is a mosque or a place for worship?? you see. ....there is disagreement with your what you think is your robust methodology. Then you issue challenges .. I have seen it often.. and when people don't respond... you may think that they have no response because they can't refute you, but maybe they just don't have the time or patience to go through pages and pages of your methodology because the end result seems not right to them. There are people on freeminds that have their own qur'an translation webpages but even they don't agree with your robust methodology.... so where is this 'robust and verifiable methodology' going to come from??' or will it only be robust if it agrees with your definition of robust??? Thanks, Saba

['after the salaat']

Thanks br Mubashir 

PS: I remember the video that was shared:

Dear brother Haji,

As-salam alaykum

I would like to share a couple of verses for your consideration:

Verse 5:106 says that:  'Detain both of them 'after the salaat' (ba'di -l-salaat).

If 'salaat' just meant the establishment of a Divine system with a view to implement it, how would this verse be reconciled with such a concept considering that the believers were already in a state of establishing God's laws and the context is specific and 'immediate' to someone's demise?

Furthermore, in verse 62:10, the Quran says "Then when the salaat is concluded, finished or ended' (qudiyati).

How can such a Divine System of laws that one is expected to uphold 24x7 end or conclude?

Finally, with regards Ghulam Parwez's views on ritual prayer and what he really believed, I share with you a link to his video in which you can hear his views directly from his own mouth. I trust this will remove any ambiguity. This video has been shared with me by trusted Urdu speaking sources who have translated this for me independently and I am rest assured that this will provide you unequivocal evidence to satisfy your request, God willing.

BELIEFS OF ALLAMA GHULAM AHMAD PARWEZ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGgLSGnbhCk&sns=em

Kind regards,
Joseph.

http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=1030.msg4133#msg4133


I mean I don't know how much br Joseph could understand from that video even though he says he had it translated, but I can tell you that I speak fluent Urdu and I can also tell you this....that there is absolutely no doubt from Ghulam Parwez's own mouth that he believed in the ritual prayer.

So Dr. Shabbir is not just being odd... IMHO he is being dishonest and disingenuous!!! How can you deny that video??? If he can change the words of the teacher he looks up to.. what do you think will be happening in the QXP translation?
 

Thank you sis    That was very helpful. Also I don't know where this impression comes from that all the arabs were nomad dwellers living from one place to other travelling in camels all day long. I mean, the qur'an even mentions the two great cities and they even asked about the prophet ...why was a great man not sent to the two cities? This does not mean that the quraish were beduoins either.. they may just have been city dwellers, like mentioned here ----> http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=538

thanks again for your response .....Ma'salaam!!!!