Show Posts

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


Messages - Mubashir

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13
151
Islamic Duties / Re: Tajweed
« on: February 03, 2012, 09:21:47 PM »
[size=10pt]Salam Friends

What some people recite the Qur'an as if they were singing. Does this not seem like disrespct to Allah's Word? Do we read our company rules and regulations in a sing-song manner? Or a doctor's written instructions in that manner?

I may be wrong but speech should be recited (with correct pronuciaion) as speech. Turning it into a song-like Qir'at does not make sense.

Regards[/size].

152
General Discussions / Re: Christians and Jews
« on: January 29, 2012, 02:23:58 PM »
3:113-115

[But] they are not all alike: among the followers of earlier revelation there are upright people, who recite God's messages throughout the night, and prostrate/adore themselves [before Him].

They believe in God and the Last Day, and enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong, and vie with one another in doing good works: and these are among the righteous.

And whatever good they do, they shall never be denied the reward thereof: for, God has full knowledge of those who are conscious of Him.

153
General Discussions / Re: Taking unbelievers as friends to avoid harm
« on: January 26, 2012, 03:08:03 AM »
Thanks for your response Br Joseph

This underscores the neccessity to read the Qur'an as a whole. Besides:

60:08 God does not forbid you to act considerately towards those who have never fought you over religion nor evicted you from your homes, nor [forbid you] to act fairly towards them. God loves the fairminded.

154
General Discussions / Taking unbelievers as friends to avoid harm
« on: January 25, 2012, 05:22:38 PM »
3:28
(Asad) LET NOT the believers take those who deny the truth for their allies in preference to the believers - since he who does this cuts himself off from God in everything - unless it be to protect yourselves against them in this way. But God warns you to beware of Him: for with God is all journeys' end.

(Shakir) Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.

(Yusuf Ali) Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.

(Progressive Muslims) Let not the believers take the rejecters as allies instead of the believers. And whoever does so will have nothing with God; for you are to be cautious of them as they deserve. And God warns you of Himself, and to God is the destiny.

(Rashid Khalifa) The believers never ally themselves with the disbelievers, instead of the believers. Whoever does this is exiled from GOD. Exempted are those who are forced to do this to avoid persecution. GOD alerts you that you shall reverence Him alone. To GOD is the ultimate destiny.

Above translations show that believers must not take unbelievers as friends in preference to other believers. Except if forced by circumstances. If we do not keep in mind that these verses were revealed 1400 years ago when there was a major conflict going on between believers and unbelievers (and the believers being conspired against overtly and covertly) we are forced to ask ourselves what to do in this day and age?

We live among disbelievers in Muslim majority countries and in countries where Muslims are in minority. Can we not reach out in a friendly way to disbelievers? Can we not inter act with them and influence them with proper Islamic behaviour? What if they reach out to us? Are we to shun them? Or are we to pretend we are friendly with them and indugle in hypocritical behaviour.

As you will notice some translators seem to suggest that yes, we can be friendly to them (in preference to believers) if we are forced by circumstances as a way of precaution.  Would this not generate the feeling of mistrust among unbelievers thinking that these seemingly friendly Muslims are deep down acting against their beliefs but they are not being honest?

Would appreciate any comments to help understand 3:28 in the correct manner.



155
General Discussions / Re: Resurrection explained by a parable
« on: January 24, 2012, 05:02:57 AM »
Br Mubashir, Salam, If I am not inquisitive are Mubashir Inayat ? Thanks

Salam Br Sardar

Yes, you guessed right, I am Mubashir Inayet.

Just to share Brother Muhammad Shafi has added further to the discussion:

In school we were taught a method for solving geometrical problems/theorems. The method was called 'reductio ad absurdum.' It literally means 'I reduce it to absurdity.' The method is to assume the contrary and see how such an assumption would lead to absurdity. Let us apply this method to the problem in hand. Let us assume that the relevant portion in Verse 2:259 means that the food, the drink, and the donkey remained unaffected by the passage of time (100 years). This is obviously absurd. Normally, none of these can remain unaffected. But Allah can do anything. HE can make them remain unaffected even for so long a period. But why would He, when by means of these objects, He wished to prove to the man in the Verse that he had remained dead for 100 years!? So our above assumption is absurd.
 


Some interpreters say that the food and the drink only remained unaffected, but the donkey was dead with its decayed bones only remaining. But it makes no sense that Allah should have kept the food and the drink unaffected. HE had kept the man himself unaffected, and that was enough to show to that man that Allah can do anything, when the passage of time had destroyed the other accompaniments of his.
 



Br Faiz has raised a valid point about the absence of the Arabic letter 'alif' before lam. But, maybe, the word fanzur there has obviated the need for the 'alif'.
 



In any case, we cannot give the divine Verse a construction that would render it absurd. The relevant portion of the Verse could alternatively be interpreted to mean that there was no trace of the food and the drink because of the passage of such a huge period of time, while only the decayed bones of the donkey had survived.
 



Wassalaam,

Mohammad Shafi





156
General Discussions / Re: Resurrection explained by a parable
« on: January 23, 2012, 03:14:44 PM »
Salam Friends! The plot thickens !!

Here is what another brother had to say about the issue being discussed. Just sharing:

Br. Muhammad Shafi's understanding is very interesting. If I am correct (please correct me if not), he seems to be saying that the phrase 'lam yatasanna' (the aging of years have not affected them) is actually not a statement but rather a question 'Has not the aging of years affected them?' So everything got aged except the man.

This is a believable statement.  That may be the case. However I think Allah's question ended with 'How long have thou tarried?'  The rest is the answer, not a part of the question. Allah makes the statement 'lam yatasannah', instead of its interrogative form 'a lam yatasannah ?'. Of course, I understand the question marks are not found in the classic Arabic but the particle 'a' should have been there'¦I think.  The other thing is that the poor man punished for asking the question'he lost his food, drink, and a donkey!  Perhaps, next time he would be careful not to ask questions.

Concerning the poster's comments: A big problem with the notion that Allah caused the donkey to rot over 100 years but did not do that with the man and his food and drink, is that, Allah gave concrete proofs ONLY to this man to convince him while the fact is that hundreds of millions of people have the same doubt every day; How are they going to seek similar, fool-proof proofs? I believe  Allah has the SAME guidance for everyone.

Irfan


Subject: Re: 2:259

The phrase lam yatasannah in the original Arabic text means 'not deteriorated with the passage of time' and Allah Ta'ala is asking the man in question in the Verse (2:259) to see for himself whether his food and drink are not deteriorated with the passage of time and whether his donkey just reduced to broken bones. HE presents these pieces of evidence to prove to him that it was not just for a day or part of it that he had remained dead. The confusion in understanding the Verse is a result of interpreters not treating the relevant part of the Verse as a question posed to the man.

Wassalaam,
Mohammad Shafi

157
General Discussions / Re: Resurrection explained by a parable
« on: January 22, 2012, 04:17:12 PM »
Thanks for your response Sr Saba.

It does makes sense. The main point of the story to provide proof for resurrection is the dead donkey revived. Some translators seem to suggest that the donkey was alive when the man was revived which creates confusion. If the food was preserved and the donkey was alive then what was the man supposed to take as evidence of resurrection other than Allah's assurance?

This also underscores the necessity of reading multiple translations when we find something confusing. Besides, we are told in the Qur'an that believers are not those who fall deaf and dumb over Allahs Signs (and make efforts to make sense of them).

All the best.

158
General Discussions / Re: Resurrection explained by a parable
« on: January 21, 2012, 04:26:50 PM »
For the sake of further discussion allow me to share how G A Parwez interprets this verse:

258        O Jama'at-ul-Momineen! you will face great difficulties in the establishment of the Divine Order as was the case with Abraham. The king himself was his adversary and disputed even the existence of Allah merely on the basis of his worldly power. Abraham told the king that he believed in Allah Who has control over life and death. The king said that in his kingdom he had control over life and death. Seeing the king's mentality, Abraham did not pursue the point but said: 'If you have supreme authority in your kingdom then you should make the sun which rises in the East in accordance with Allah's Law, come out from the West.' The king was dumbfounded by Abraham's argument.

               Persons with such mentality seldom adopt the right path.

 259        (From Laws relating to an individual's life and death We now move to the Laws relating to the life and death of nations.) As is known in history, after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the Bani-Isr'ael lived in captivity for about a hundred years. Then they were liberated and re-established in Jerusalem. This story has been narrated in the Quran symbolically as follows: A person passing through a ruined habitation asked if such a devastated place could have new life. Allah kept him in a death-like state for a hundred years, then gave him new life and asked him: 'How long have you remained in this state?' He replied: 'May be a day or so.' Allah said to him: 'You have been in this state for a hundred years but your food and drink has not gone bad and your ass is still standing as before. You should also reflect upon the process by which man develops from the embryonic state to where he becomes a living human being.' 

              When the passer-by had reflected upon the parable, he said: 'Now I can understand how Allah can give life to dead nations.' 
260        Each Nabi has been confronted with the problem of giving life to a dead nation. For instance, Abraham faced such a problem and said to Allah: 'What is the process by which new life may be infused into a dead nation?'. Allah asked him: 'Do you not believe that dead nations may receive new life?'. Abraham said: 'I do believe but I would like to know by what process, so that I can undertake it with full confidence.' Allah explained the process to Abraham through an example. He said: 'Take four untamed birds. At first they will seek to get away from you. Make them familiar with yourself gradually. This will bring about remarkable change in them. Even if you set them free and call to them, they will come to you swiftly.' This is how you must patiently reform those who rebel against your call and bring them close to yourself and make them understand and appreciate the Divine System. This is how they will receive 'life.' Most certainly Allah is All-Mighty, Wise. 

159
General Discussions / Re: Resurrection explained by a parable
« on: January 21, 2012, 04:11:51 PM »
To help with the discussion, sharing a response:

Salam brother Mubashir,

 

My understanding of this verse relates to 42:51 where Allah spells out three ways/modes of His 'speaking/communication' with human beings.  The last one is 'sending of messengers' after 'revealing to them' but the first two are speaking through 'inspiration (wahi)' and speaking 'from behind the curtain (min waraai hijab)'.  The last one seems to be a subtle Divine 'suggestion' to someone, possibly in a 'dream/vision' state.  Regarding 'caused him to die' for 100 years, it may be of interest to note that the word 'maut' according to the Qur'an seems to be a temporal loss of consciousness'”and is described as 'taking back of the 'nafs'' by Allah either temporarily as in sleep, or more permanently as in death (till resurrection)'”39:42/6:60. Thus the 'sleep' is also a form of 'maut' according to the Qur'an.  I think this verse only describes a dream/vision (min waraai hijab) of someone as a Divine response to his serious doubt/question about how Allah will revive a town that has fallen in ruins.  In other words, the '100-year' was only a virtual vegetative state period as an 'example' (represented by the word 'kallazee-like someone who.  This makes sense to me because Allah promises to guide those who turn to him for clarification of their sincere doubts/questions and He provides answers without bringing up physical 'miracles'.  Allah would not have deprived of the questioner's natural life by taking him physically away from his friends and family for 100 years, nor would he deprive him of his donkey he uses for his living and daily transport.

 

You may have noticed that Allah 'seems' to 'speak' to this righteous questioner, hence my reference to the three modes of revelation indicated in 42:51. Wallahu a'lam.

 

Irfan

160
General Discussions / Re: Resurrection explained by a parable
« on: January 20, 2012, 05:08:15 PM »
Salam

If the food had rotted and all that was left of the donkey was a decayed skeleton (which is what happens to such things over a period of 100 years) the resurrected man would have believed that he was indeed dead for a 100 years.


161
General Discussions / Resurrection explained by a parable
« on: January 20, 2012, 02:34:57 AM »
Salam

Following are two versions of 2:259:

[Muhammad Asad]

Or [art thou, O man, of the same mind] as he who passed by a town deserted by its people, with its roofs caved in, [and] said, "How could God bring all this back to life after its death?" Thereupon God caused him to be dead for a hundred years; where after He brought him back to life [and] said: "How long hast thou remained thus?" He answered: "I have remained thus a day, or part of a day." Said [God]: "Nay, but thou hast remained thus for a hundred years! But look at thy food and thy drink-untouched is it by the passing of years - and look at thine ass! And [We did all this so that We might make thee a symbol unto men. And look at the bones [of animals and men] - how We put them together and then clothe them with flesh!" And when [all this] became clear to him, he said: "I know [now] that God has the power to will anything!"

[Amatul Rahman Omar]

 Or consider the case of him (- Ezekiel) who passed by a town (- Jerusalem as it was left in desolation by Nebuchadnezzar) and it had fallen in upon its roofs. He said, `When will Allah restore this (town) to life after its destruction?' So (in his vision) Allah kept him in a state of death for a hundred years, then He raised him (to life). Then (God) said, `How long have you stayed (in this state of death)?' He replied, `I may have stayed a day or a part of a day (in this state).' (God) said, `(Yes this too is correct) but (as you have witnessed in your vision) you have stayed for a hundred years. Now look at your food and drink, they have escaped the action of time, and look at your donkey (too, years have not passed over it). And (We have made you visualise all this) that We may make you a sign to the people. And look at the (dead) bones how We set them together and then clothe them with flesh.' Thus when the fact of the matter became clear to him, he said, `I know that Allah is the Possessor of full power to do all that He will.'

I am sure it's me but I fail to understand, by the way this verse has been translated, how is it providing proof of life after death (for nations/individuals).

From what I have understood, a man is given proof of Allah's revival by Allah:

1. causing him to die
2. Resurructing him after 100 years.
3. Drawing his attention to his food and drink and his donkey to show no effects of decay
4. Giving him example of how the process of process of creation of life proceeds by bones being clothed by flesh.

I can understand Allah giving death to the man and reviving him after 100 years but would it not make more sense if Allah had shown him remains of his decayed body of his donkey and spoiled food as proof of him beind dead for such a long time?

Would appreciate your comments.

Mubashir

162
Thanks Truth Seeker. Wonder, though if the Old Testament has any evidence as well?

163
Salam Friends,

During my study of the Qur'an, I run into a same verse  translated differently by different authors.  We sometimes have to stop and ask questions to understand which is the correct rendering. For example:

Which translation is correct as per history of the Jews? Did the Jews did in fact kill/slay God's prophets? What does the Bible or New Testament tell us? Or did they attempt to kill them?


2:91 When it is said to them, "Believe in God's revelations" they reply, "We believe in what was revealed to us," but they do not believe in what came afterwards, though it is the truth confirming what they already have. Say [Muhammad], "Why did you kill God's prophets in the past if you were true believers?

Or:

When it is said to them, `Believe in that (- the Qur'an) which Allah has sent down.' They say, `We believe only in that (- the Torah) which has been sent down to us.' And they deny every thing other than that (and which has since been revealed); though it (- the Qur'an) is the lasting truth and corroborates that which is already with them (in their own Scriptures). Say, `Why, then, did you seek to kill the Prophets of Allah in former times if you were (real) believers (in the former Scriptures)?

164
Do angels teach magic/occult sciences/witchcraft/sorcery???

2:102 [Asad]

and follow [instead] that which the evil ones used to practice during Solomon's reign - for it was not Solomon who denied the truth, but those evil ones denied it by teaching people sorcery -; and [they follow] that which has come down through the two angels in Babylon, Hurut and Marut-although these two never taught it to anyone without first declaring, "We are but a temptation to evil: do not, then, deny [God's] truth!" And they learn from these two how to create discord between a man and his wife; but whereas they can harm none thereby save by God's leave, they acquire a knowledge that only harms themselves and does not benefit them - although they know; indeed, that he who acquires this [knowledge] shall have no share in the good of the life to come. For, vile indeed is that [art] for which they have sold their own selves -had they but known it!

Or, the angels do not do such thing and it was a rumour:

[Parwez]

102    The fact is that these people never adhered to Allah's Books and remained preoccupied with their self-created myths and legends. One of these myths was that Solomon had turned away from the Divine Truths and became devoted to magical practices and sorcery.

   How could Solomon act in such a K'afir-like manner? Such evil practices were followed not by Solomon but by those mischievous ring-leaders who taught witchcraft to people themselves and attributed it to Solomon. Another myth was that in Babel there were two Malaika named Haroot and Maroot who had been sent by Allah. People approached them to learn magic by which they could cause dissension between spouses. Before complying, however, the Malaika would warn the people clearly that they were a fitna and that they should not learn magic and become Kuff'ar. (But despite this warning, people learned magic such was its fascination.) All these were nothing but fanciful stories, for there were no such Malaika in Babel nor had Allah taught Haroot and Maroot any magic.
   As far as magical charms or spells are concerned, they cannot harm anyone since all good or evil occurs in accordance with the Divine Laws. Those who profess to practice magic acquire some worldly benefits but ultimately they are the losers since temporary gains are insignificant in comparison to the eternal happiness. Alas! if only they could understand such an evident truth.
   
103    If, instead of being entangled in these myths, these people had believed in Quranic truths and followed Divine Laws, they would have received excellent benefits from Allah. Alas! if only they could understand such an evident truth.

[Shabbir]

(They followed conjecture in the past as well.) Some rebellious people spread a rumor in the Kingdom of Solomon. Solomon never disbelieved in the Divine Laws, but the rebellious ones did. They fabricated a story that two angels Harut and Marut had descended in Babylon and taught magic to people. That they used to warn people, "We are only a temptation, therefore be not oblivious to the rational Divine Laws." The rumor further stated that people learned magic from these two angels how to create discord between a man and his wife. (This entire story is nothing but falsehood. Magic, amulets, ghoul, demon-possession, exorcism, witchcraft, evil eye, fortune telling, astrology, palm reading, clairvoyance, voodoo are nothing but conjecture). These things can neither harm nor benefit anyone since they are contrary to the Divine Laws in Nature ((3:123-127), (6:73), (7:54), (45:22)). (Superstitions can harm people by becoming self-fulfilling prophecies). And that which they try to learn only harms them and profits not. They are well aware that any person indulging in this trade (of the so-called "Occult sciences") will be a loser in the long run, and shall have no portion in the Hereafter. And surely, evil is the price for which they (magicians, diviners, clairvoyants, fortune tellers and claimants to witchcraft) sell their humanity, if they but knew better.

Or did they only taught how to counteract the effects of magic?.

[Dr Kamal Omar]

 And they accepted (without investigation) what the satans propagated against the empire of Sulaiman (Solomon), although Sulaiman did no blasphemy, rather the devils rejected (the Original). They teach magic to people and what was delivered at Babel (Babylon) to two angels - Harut and Marut. And these two provided no knowledge (to counteract magic) to any one till the twain warned: 'We are on trial, so do not blaspheme (by misusing this knowledge).' Then they gain knowledge from the two by which they cause separation between man and his wife. And they could not thus harm any one except by Allah's permission. And they are learning which harms them and does not benefit them. And they certainly knew that whoever purchased this (magic) would have no happiness in the Hereafter. And filthy it is for which they have sold their selves, if they had been knowing (the punishment).

165
General Discussions / Re: 2:73 How was the murderer caught?
« on: December 11, 2011, 05:41:01 PM »
Thanks Truth Seeker for your comments. As this is not a standard method of exposing a disputed murder one wonders what was the reason for Allah to mention this incident?

Since the story does not start with people disputing Allah's power of resurrection but rather a dispute about a murder (who did it? blame going around, whether it was justified or not? Some people perhaps saying "Don't look at me, I did'nt do it" etc. etc.), we can safely assume the miracle here was to expose the murderer and not to demonstrate Allah's powers of resurrection.

Interestingly I ran into a unique interpretation by Dr. Kamal Omar which seems to suggest that a resucitation took place and in this way Allah pointed out a way to revive a seemingly dead person. Just sharing:

2:74 So We said: 'œStrike him (on his chest) by means of a part (i.e., the upper limb) of this (his own deadbody). In this way Allah revives the (apparently) lifeless and He (thus) explains to you His (natural scientific) laws so that you may use your intellect.

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13