Messages

Salaam all,

3:59 the likeness of Isa is like the likeness of Adam.  they are not a creation of miraculous births but are created from earthly materials.  God says Kun/BE and FAYAKUNU and" it Was"  is the translation because Adam was assumed to be a single guy.  In 3:47 when Mary objects to the idea of having a child, the angel uses the same term but this time it is translated as 'when God says Be, then it becomes'.  Thus God's command covers all time periods. As Adam representing human species, it has been created, is being created  and will be created as long as God says KUN.

With this story of creation comes the "forbidden tree" that leads men to sin.  Several interpretations have been offered regarding the kind of tree.  It is a possibility that humans emerged  in a garden full of trees in Africa.  There is one particular tree in South Africa called MARULA that leads men to sin.  It's fruit intoxicates those who eat it. 16:69 says eat all fruit  - maybe except the forbidden one. What do you think?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50tlF3kGbT4

Salaam all,

Is this an issue for you or should it be?

The allegations of sexual misconduct against Nouman Ali Khan and sexual assault or rape in the case of Tariq Ramadan have presented numerous challenges to Muslim communities. For a culture that so reveres scholars, arguably to a point of blind commitment, the realization that some may engage in behavior devoid of virtue and harmful to their followers was earth-shattering.

You may still find some, particularly within the social media comment threads of a Nouman Friday khutbah (sermon), who will deny the possibility of wrongdoing, victim-blame, or a commit to any number of deflections. But, if the truth is ever to surface regarding these allegations, and arguably it has in the case of Nouman Ali Khan, a very important question remains:

How do Muslims view the works and scholarship of these scholars in light of personal and/or public scandal?

This question of what to do with their work is profoundly personal, as I consider how Ramadan's scholarship impacted my growth as a Muslim. I remember sitting anxiously in a crowded conference hall at an ICNA convention nearly five years ago, waiting to hear the enlightened words of Professor Ramadan. I thought of Ramadan as being leagues ahead of all the other scholars in attendance, and I was itching to ask some entirely esoteric question about his wrestling with the works of Foucault or Nietzsche as a person of faith.

So, whereas I was less impacted by the allegations against Nouman Ali Khan, the allegations against Ramadan hit much closer to home.

Both scholars spoke/wrote extensively on Islamic ethics, which makes the allegations even more troublesome. How are we to take knowledge of ethics and virtues from individuals who may have acted in vile and abusive ways? Is the scholarship produced by Khan and Ramadan inextricably linked to them as individuals? Or, is there a way we can benefit from the knowledge they produced while still acknowledging their alleged wrongdoings?

The Christian world has faced this dilemma as well, and we might learn from some of the ways in which Christians managed their own instances of scholarly abuse.

John Howard Yoder was a renown Mennonite theologian and ethicist throughout the 20th century, who wrote seminal works of Christian politics and ethics. Yoder also sexually harassed many of his female Mennonite students under the guise of an "experiment in human sexuality." As the extent of Yoder's abuse became evident, Christians struggled to determine how his monumental scholarship should be handled going forward.

Stanley Hauerwas, Professor Emeritus of Divinity and Law at Duke University, was greatly indebted to Yoder's work and found it difficult to imagine Christian peace ethics without Yoder's contributions. However, Hauerwas has also said that he could only use Yoder's work "with an asterisk," noting that Yoder's thought should never be considered without mention of Yoder's behavior.

Others would argue that it is precisely Yoder's thought that lends itself to a patriarchal world, and thus Yoder's work should be condemned along with his actions.

In the aftermath of the Nouman Ali Khan allegations, intense debate ensued on social media threads as some followers sought a compromise that would allow them to take a portion of his knowledge as acceptable while disregarding his talk of gender relations. Interestingly enough, Khan's understanding of gender relations is quite popular, being shared by other well-known scholars like Omar Suleiman.

Whether critic or supporter, few have questioned whether his ideas on gender and sexual ethics may have actually contributed to his behavior, though it should not be overlooked that his insistence on segregation may actually produce a hyper-sexualized environment.

In this way, critiques of Yoder's thought as patriarchal and revealing of a deeper psychological neglect may very well be analogous to Khan's lectures about, particularly his disparaging views on the inevitably nefarious nature of men and their desires towards women.

Just as Hauerwas struggled to reconcile the knowledge of Yoder's actions with the significant influence Yoder played in his own life as a scholar, countless Muslims are wrestling with their feelings towards Khan and Ramadan. Personally, I will continue to reflect upon the ideas of Ramadan, though adopting the "asterisk" approach is the least I can do if he is found guilty of the allegations against him.

Likewise, for those who continue to cite Nouman Ali Khan as inspiration and motivation, it would do good to reflect on how his thought may be linked to his behavior. At the very least, we should remind ourselves of the fragility of placing too much trust in the hands of imperfect human beings.

In that way, we not only keep faith in the value of a virtuous life inspired by the Prophet Muhammad (saw), but we also hold to high standards those who seek to claim the mantle of expertise in his ways.

Charles M. Turner' 
is a PhD student in Political Science at the University of Utah,

Peace Ilker,

"Believe in God and His Messenger, the gentile Prophet who believed in God and His words.  Follow Him, so that you may find guidance." 7:158

"The Messenger's duty is only to deliver the message: Allah knows what you reveal and what you conceal." (Qur'an 5:99)

"This  is sent down from the Lord of all the worlds. If [the Prophet] had said anything against Us, We would certainly have seized his right hand and cut off his artery, and none of you could have defended him." (Qur'an 69:43-47)
 
"This Book has been sent down to you (Prophet) – let there be no anxiety in your heart about it – so that you may use it to give warning and to remind the believers: 'Follow what has been sent down to you from your Lord, (the Qur'an)! Do not follow other masters beside Him. How seldom you take heed!' " (Qur'an 7:2) 

Thus, the Prophet never issued any teaching that violates the Qur'an. Following the Prophet is following the Quranic teaching.  Prophet is no longer with us but we have the Quran he delivered.  Following the Quran is now obeying both God and the prophet.  How else are you going to follow him if not with the Quran?

Hope

This is Muhammad Asad's tafseer

This call to an exercise of charity on every occasion (bayna yaday) of one's "consultation" with God's Apostle has been widely misunderstood as applying only to factual consultations with him, i.e., in his lifetime, supposedly with a view to lessening the encroachments on his time by some of his too-eager followers. This misunderstanding, together with the qualified dispensation from the above-mentioned injunction expressed in the next verse, has given rise to the unwarranted contention by some of the commentators that this injunction has been "abrogated". But apart from the fact that the theory of "abrogation" as such is entirely untenable, the above verse reveals its true meaning as soon as we realize that the term "the Apostle" (ar-rasul) is used in the Qur'an not merely to designate the unique person of the Prophet Muhammad but also the sum-total of the teachings conveyed by him to the world.

This is evident from the many Qur'anic exhortations, "Pay heed unto God and the Apostle", and, more specifically (in 4:59), "if you are at variance over any matter, refer it unto God [i.e., the Qur'an) and the Apostle [i.e., his sunnah]", which latter is but meant to elucidate the former. Taken in this sense, the above reference to a "consultation with the Apostle" obviously applies not only to his person and his contemporaries, but rather to his teachings in general and to believers of all times and environments. In other words, every believer is exhorted to "offer up something in charity" - whether it be material alms to a needy person, or the imparting of knowledge to such as may be in need of enlightenment, or even a mere word of kindness to a
weak human being - whenever he intends to immerse himself in a study of the Apostle's teachings or, as the Qur'an phrases it, to "consult" him who has conveyed the divine writ to us.
Lit., "if you do not find", sc., anyone on whom to bestow charity at that particular moment, or have - for whatever reason - no opportunity to exercise it. I.e., the obligatory tax (zakah) which is meant to purify a believer's possessions and income from the taint of selfishness: implying that one's inability to do more by way of charity does not constitute a sin.

Peace br. Hamzeh in 2018,

It has been said that Sadaqa can even be a smile, something not tangible, like truth.  I was thinking of material goods because of the following verse yet it does not make sense to me.  If I cannot afford the voluntary sadaqah, how am I going to pay the zakat for not paying the sadaqah?

Thanks for responding 

Peace,

58:12  O you who believe! When you (want to) consult the Messenger in private, spend something in charity before your private consultation.

58:13  Are you afraid of spending in charity before your private consultation (with him)? If then you do it not, and Allah has forgiven you, then (at least) perform As-Salat and give Zakat and obey Allah

9:60 charities are for the poor the needy, those who collect, those in debt, freeing slaves, those in the way of Allah, wayfarer

36:21 follow those men who do not ask you any payment


why sadaka is required before private consultation with the Prophet?

SDQ is the opposite of  KZB = to lie, to disclaim

sadaqa  means to be truthful, to fulfill
to accept truth, to admit, to confirm, to believe
to give charity

taṣdīq muṣaddiq

why not use the other meanings?

Before scheduling a meeting in private show your sincerity, truthfulness  This has universal meaning.  But if ulterior motives are in play then 58:13 makes sense

Hope

[yad]

Peace,

I'm confused about the number of hands involved.
yad  one hand
yada two hands
aydiya three plus hands

verse mentions  male and female thieves thus plural usage may apply to them but the verse says
Aydiya humā   three plus hands of both (dual)
Aydiyahumā  both their three hands ? literal understanding of this word does not make sense so maybe it should be understood metaphorically  since Aydiya  also means power, strength like in verses
38:17 And remember Our servant, David, the man of strength.
38:45 men of power and insight
51:47  We constructed with strength,


'KataA  physical cut  meaning used twice only 12:31, 7:124
others are used metaphorically
2:27 sever that which Allah has ordered to be joined
6:45 the roots of the people who were unjust were cut off
7:72  We cut off the roots of those who rejected Our signs
9:121 cross/cut/yaqṭaʿūna wādiyan
10:27 qiṭaʿan pieces
11:81 biqiṭ'ʿin
13:4  qiṭaʿun  tracks
13:25 yaqṭaʿūna
22:15 l'yaqṭaʿ
27:32 qāṭiʿatan
29:29  wataqṭaʿūna
56:33 supply will not be cut off

What do you think?

Salam

Salaam all,

SPERM or HUMAN?

86:5  So let man observe from what he was created.
86:6  He was created from a fluid, ejected,
86:7  Emerging from between the backbone and the ribs.
86:8  Indeed, Allah, to return him [to life], is Able.

What is emerging between the backbone and the ribs?  Some claim it is the baby, others claim it is the sperm.  I think both positions are correct.  Baby develops down in the uterus located between the backbone and ribs and the following verse supports the human being.  Yet the 6th and 7th verses are also connected because the sperm producing testicles are developed from the Mesonephroses.  They are at the left and right sides of the baby in the uterus.  The mesonephroses are turned into testicles before the baby is born and they get down to the scrotum through the channel called inguinal channel.

Hope

http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/ugenital/diffmorpho04.html

Salaam all,

Prophet Moses asks 'My Lord, show Yourself to me so that I may look at you' but God says you cannot see Me. Moses was granted only speech with the Creator. Yet Muhammad was granted talking to Him in person which seems to be a distinction per traditional Muslims. Basically, there are two groups: one group maintaining that the Ascension was in spirit and in body, and the other group maintaining that it was performed by his spirit, while his body did not leave its place.
53:18 truly did he see some of the most profound of his Sustainers symbols.

Quran does not provide information on Ascension but the Prophet's Night Journey from Mecca to Jerusalem shows that Islam is not a new doctrine but a continuation of the same divine message which was preached by the previous prophets, who had Jerusalem as their spiritual base.

Hope for Peace

Salam all,
I am sure God will judge Today's Muslims for the same reasons plus blindly supporting Erdogan the mushrik, the thief, the corrupter on land and sea.  What happened to the "Enjoin good and Forbid evil" rule?    Here is the article I like to share.

History Will Judge Today's Christians According To These 4 Questions
Stephen Mattson


You can look back in history and criticize Christians for failing to follow Jesus during some of the world's darkest moments, but today's Christians will also be judged according to their actions, and here are four moral questions facing today's Christians:

1. In the midst of a historically horrible refugee crisis, why didn't you actively pursue helping the poor, the destitute, and those in desperate need?

Matthew 25: 34-40: "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
"The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'
Jeremiah 22: 3-5: Thus says the Lord: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place. For if you will indeed obey this word, then there shall enter the gates of this house kings who sit on the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, they and their servants and their people. But if you will not obey these words, I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that this house shall become a desolation.
Are followers of Jesus supposed to forsake compassion, sacrifice hospitality, and abandon love in favor of a political policy, national security, financial stability, and personal comfort? God is perfectly clear what the mandate is for helping those in need, and yet Christians continue to remain apathetic, passive, and even aggressively hostile toward the notion of aiding such victims.
How could you promote a gospel of hope, peace, joy, and love while simultaneously supporting restrictive policies preventing people from possibly obtaining these exact things by denying them entrance into a safe haven, and why would you go one step further by punitively deporting people back into circumstances of poverty and violence?

2. Why didn't you recognize and fight systemic racism and inequality?

James 2:9: But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
Proverbs 17:15: He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.
1 John 2:9: Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness.
For a faith that promotes the virtues of justice, equality, and fairness — especially for those who are ostracized and mistreated — why didn't you help the victims of systemic racism, abuse, and oppression?
How could you ignore — and even criticize — a large segment of humanity that's being victimized by authorities, institutionally incarcerated, professionally repressed, governmentally mistreated, educationally stifled, financially subjugated, and socially rejected?
Massive abuse on an epic scale was being systemically waged against people simply based on their race and gender, and what did you do? You had a chance to be on the forefront of a civil rights movement — fueled by a righteous and holy God who despises corruption, unjust scales, exploitation, bigotry, and racism. Why didn't you desperately and passionately call upon God in such times, why didn't you publicly condemn such evil, and why didn't you act to right such blatant wrongs?

3. Why were you so supportive of national agendas associated with violence, destruction and death?

Matt. 26:52-54: Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?"

Psalm 11:5: The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence,
Since you represent a God that died for humanity, how could you actively participate in national agendas that so actively killed, hurt, and neglected humanity? You destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives through militaristic actions and wars that offered little peace, resolution, or stability.
You watched — and even turned a blind eye — as your governments violently intervened throughout the world and selfishly, fearfully, and hatefully supplied weapons, technology, and the means to miserably kill, eradicate, and create humanitarian tragedies across the globe on an unparalleled scale.
What moral gain was won? What specific need or goal was so vital that it necessitated such outrageous and rampant death? Church, Christians living in the year 2016, please answer these questions and explain yourselves.

4. Why did you crave martial, economic and political power when God has already warned you against putting faith in such foolish and temporary things?

Matthew 16:26: What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?

1 Peter 2:11-12: Dear friends, I warn you as "temporary residents and foreigners" to keep away from worldly desires that wage war against your very souls. Be careful to live properly among your unbelieving neighbors. Then even if they accuse you of doing wrong, they will see your honorable behavior, and they will give honor to God when he judges the world.
Do you not trust in God's sovereignty that you must devote all of your time, energy, and resources into supporting a candidate, a political party, and making sure you're pursuing more wealth, fortune, protection, and influence?
You boasted of a countercultural gospel and yet fell into the same pitfalls of countless civilizations before you: a desire for carnal power, personal safety, comfort, luxury, fame, and wealth.
You divisively judged, shamed, alienated, hurt, slandered, and attacked others under the banner of "Christian morals," all in an effort to gain additional political clout and control.
Have you lost so must faith in God's promises that you've abandoned the ways of Jesus for the ways of a worldly empire? Are you so ashamed of identifying with a Divine God who died on a cross that you would rather align yourselves with oppressors, war-mongers, and corrupt rulers?

The good news is that these questions are still in the process of being answered, and God can still greatly be glorified by how we serve the world around us. By focusing on Christ and refusing to become co-opted by ulterior motives, modern Christianity can leave a mark on history that can show what millions of believers can do together in the name of Jesus — helping, serving, protecting, and loving everyone!

Our world isn't without hope because Jesus is alive, and the Holy Spirit can empower us to be the change we're so desperately in need of. God help us.

Salam,

Hypocrites punished twice in this world for their duplicity maybe.  9:55 says God will punish them through their wealth and offspring.

Peace Munir,

You are very welcome, continuing:9:101 " Some of the desert Arabs around you are hypocrites as are some of the people of Madinah- they are stubbornly resistant to moral teachings.  You do not know them, but We know them ....

When the call goes out for God's religion, there can be either a hostile or a favorable response.  If hostile, those who issue the call become aliens or muhajirs in their own hometown; if favorable, they risk neither life nor property and can lend their support to the muhajirs..  The helpers are called ansar.  The Meccan Muslim townspeople were forced into the position of muhajirs while the Madinan townspeople were able to become ansars during that period.  God's approval is attainable by anyone willing to pay the price of being a muhajir or an ansar.  God causes some people to be deprived in order to see that they turn to Him.  Similarly, God saves others from deprivation in order that they may help the deprived ones and join those who spend for the sake of God.  Those who do not adopt this standard are not 'pleased' with God's plan and God will not be 'pleased with them in the Hereafter.  A hypocrite is one who claims to be a Muslim, but when the question arises of paying the price of hijrah for the sake of religion, he does not find it in his heart to do so.

Salaam all,

This is Wahiduddin Khan's explanation of 15:16-17:
"There are innumerable stars spread out in the universe, grouped in clusters called constellations.  During the night when the atmosphere is free of clouds, dust, etc, when one stands on open ground and casts a glance at the sky, the array of twinkling stars in the vastness of the heavens is so wonderfully glorious that, on seeing it, man becomes overwhelmed by the feeling of God's greatness and majesty.  Those who used to tell the Prophet he should show an angel descending from heaven were asked, 'Is the scene of the stars in the sky shown to you everyday not enough to awaken your consciousness and is not enough to melt your hearts?  Must you then demand further miracles?'

Satan too has been allowed to settle along with human beings on the earth.  Here he enjoys full freedom to go wherever he likes.  But in God's world beyond this earth, insurmountable hindrances have been placed in the path of Satan, so that he is unable to go beyond a certain limit.

It is a different interpretation than provided.  Hope it helps you, too

Peace

Salaam Sardar,

I do not have a problem with five prayer justifications; yet just like Prophet Abraham, I want to put my heart at ease and want to explore only the named salat in the Quran. In addition to Fajr and Ishaa there is an another one named as Wusta which is not practiced by that name.  At that point Br. Wakas referred me to an article which reduces the named salaat to Fajr and Ishaa, only.  Then I asked him what to do with the 'Wusta'. 

Peace

Peace Wakas,

Then, how can you conceptually explain to me the middle of two?  Salatul wusta may not exist but it is something to be guarded.

Thanks