Topics

Salaam Brother

I recently read that against all those verses that grant freedom of belief to humans, Mr Ghamdi asserts that once a Messenger delivers "convincing proof" of Allah's Message, those addressed have two choices 1. Believe or Deny. In case they deny, they can be punished. Mr Ghamdi says with previous Messengers where their addressees were in greater number than their jamaat, Allah punished the disbelievers by Acts of God (earthquakes, scorching winds, natural disasters, etc.). In case a Messenger had superiority of numbers, Allah punished them by through them by declaring a war.

When a disbeliever rejects belief, it could be for two reasons. 1. He/she is not convinced at all  2. He/she may be convinced but due to some kind of self interest, chooses to reject it.

Since Allah alone knows the genuine reasons, would it not be better to leave such alone under the principle of freedom of belief?

In my humble opinion, there is another dimension to it. Some not only engage in rejection of belief, but in addition they engage in evil behaviour in the society by exploitation of the poor, leading others to unbelief, denying human rights, engaging in fuhasha and Munar, create disorder in the land, engage in degrative moral behaviour, prevent others from believing, etc. If such is a case then declaring a war against those is a different matter.

Wonder what your thoughts are?

Thanks.

Mubashir

Dear Joseph,

What are your reasons for only upholding the Quran in terms of 'religious' guidance?

Brother, I have one question. Will praying for the dead and doing charitable deeds in their name benefit them in anyway?Or does God seal their book once they die. I am fully aware that each one of us will be rewarded/punished according to our own deeds and that Allah is most merciful. Nevertheless, will our prayers help the dead?

A sister in faith.

[QM Forum Admin]

Dear All,

Some popular questions (mainly from emails) and Joseph Islam's responses have been captured in this section. The identities of the questioners have been removed for privacy unless they have explicitly consented otherwise.

Questions have at times been slightly modified to remove any obvious typographical or grammatical errors, or at times to make the question more intelligible to all readers.

Text not relevant to the question has also been removed.

Joseph Islam's responses have been given. Joseph Islam reserves the right to modify his responses, for example, to advance more clarity or to make it more relevant for a wider readership (etc).

Please do not post in this section but rather, utilize the appropriate board sections for your posts.

Many thanks.

QM Forum Admin

[and will continue to be sent]

Dear Brother Joseph, Salaam

Replying to a questioner on your forum you wrote quite correctly that:

(3) The Quran refers to a number of nations / communities by name and alludes to numerous communities without naming them. Any one of them could be a reference to communities which later became known as 'Hindu's. To all nations it is claimed that warners were sent and will continue to be sent (10:47; 13:7; 39:71).

Question is what does the word warners/messengers mean here? Mainstream Muslims as you know believe in finality of Nubbuwat and proclaim that Muhammad (PBUH) was the final Messenger for all nations and no one else is to come after him. The Qur'an has been left for us and guarded and now to look for guidance and good news and warnings we need not wait for another messenger but study the Book.

Some, like Bahais, Rashad Khalifa  and Ahmeddis believe that messenger will continue to come to warn the people but will not bring any new scripture or law. They will only revive Islam. I think Baha, RK and Mirza each claimed that Allah speaks to them and wrote down what they believed was revelation and under Divine inspiration. If that is true, then what they wrote down becomes additional scripture, does it not? Also if true then what is the fate of those who reject such messengers as loonies?

On a side note, if they were indeed messengers why their message is at odds with each other 

Can messengers mean ordinary Muslims who continue to invite people to the Qur'an spread all over the world? If yes, then even in those who invite to the Qur'an there are differences of opinion and interpretation.
 
Regards,

Mubashir

[025.005]

Salaam brother Joseph,

By the grace of Allah I hope this finds you keeping well. This is in reference to the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) whether he was literate or illiterate. I read your article on the topic and found it to be quite convincing.

WAS THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD (pbuh) REALLY ILLITERATE?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/was%20the%20prophet%20muhammad%20really%20illiterate%20FM3.htm

However, while reading the following ayah, it seems to me from the English used that the people were saying that the Prophet 'got the stories of ancients written' & 'read out to him' -----This means that he didn't write or read himself.--------I'm a bit confused--- Kindly explain.

025.005
"And they say: The stories of the ancients - he has got them written - so these are read out to him morning and evening"

Salaam brother.

Peace Joseph,

While I was about to pray Isha, I had some thoughts and I wanted to share them with you....perhaps if you deem it worthy you can include in some article(s) of yours.

1. The Qur'an is serious about having important things put to writing, hence the verse 282, the longest verse in the Qur'an or at least Surah 2 about having transactions written down....

This therefore puts some doubt on ahadeeth for couple of reasons. One is that if the Prophet thought it so important to have his words known to all time, why did he not have them written down or at least made some emphasis that it should be written in the future.

I say "some" doubt because there is ahadeeth where Prophet allowed or perhaps even told companions to write his statements...i think "allowed" was more likely but I forget.

Aslo it was extremely hard to get things written down back then...no paper....parchment very expensive and not very available....only so much room on sheep shoulder blades, etc....also not too many who knew how to write.

So the difficulty of writing them down along with the danger that some might confuse the Prophet's own sayings with the Divine speach of the Qur'an may have led Prophet to not want his speech written but he wanted it "remembered" and "to be taught" to others.

2. Qur'an's order of witnesses for claimants and implication on ahad ahadeeth

The Qur'an says there needs to a witness of each side of the transaction...so if John is byring from Peter, then a witness for John and a witness for Peter....so in a transaction there ware 4 people required....one as each claimant and one witness for each claimant....2 + 2 =4....... now a hadeeth is as important if not probably much more important than a financial transaction....so would this Qur'anic verse imply that we need's 2 narrators (at each level of the isnad chain) or 4 as discussed above or is even 1 narrator enough if we disregard the number of "claimants" and jsut require the "witness"...but do we need 1 witness as if only one claimant is important or 2 witnesses?

Anyhow, if more than 1 narrator is needed or preferred, how does that impact confidence in ahad ahadeeth?

3. And does the Qur'anic verse somehow validate mutawattir ahadeeth because we have multiple witnesses at each level?

4.  But it may get more complicated...because the ahadeeth are based on the rijal system....so would we need 1 or 2 or 4 witnesses to verify if a narrator is trustworthy?

And if there are variances whether someone is trustworthy or not, when we sort out the differences, do we need an absolute number of multiple number of 1 or 2 or 4 more people vouching for a given narrator than those saying ill of him/her?

5. It can get a little more complicated because we don't necessarily know all the people lin detail isted in the rijal books as being  who are saying so and so is good and so on...sometimes we know like ...we know that hasan basri was virtually unanimously recognized as pious....but what if there was someone who is judging a narrator but that theperson judging himself is not universally recognized as very prious?

Just some random but I think important thoughts because they are based on the Qur'anic verse 282 in Surah 2

5. Perhaps the other Qur'anic verses asking for witnesses might also have some implication like 4 witness for adultery...

so if something as important as 4 witnesses of adultery leading to some serious punishment against a person...maybe 4 is an adequate number to give confidence in a hadeeth if we have at least 4 at each level of the isnad.

Please let me know what you think for each number...1-5....I realize that you might view all this as irrelevant if you don't think ahadeeth have any authority...but if you assume they have some authority...then do you have any thoughts on the above points?

Peace,

In sincere pursuit of both knowledge and of true sources of knowledge.

Salam brother Joseph,

In your article about the scope of obedience to the messenger you state:

>080.001 The prophet frowned (abasa) and turned away. The complete narrative is an admonishment (80.11).

This is an interpretation since the Arabic text does not state that "he" who frowned was the messenger (rasool). Other interpretations read this as referring to a rejector/ingrate (kaafir).

Salam,

In your article about swine flesh you state:

>Similarly, Adam and his wife were told to eat, drink and roam freely in the garden but simply, not to go near a particular tree. No reason was advanced other than they would become wrongdoers (zalimeen) if they did. In fact, it seems probable that silence actually amounted to a test to ascertain whether the commandment would be obeyed.

Although I don't disagree with this, I think there may, in fact, be a deeper rationale. If you consider (4:65), you will discover the sole instance of the verb shajara. Since nouns are derived from verbs, I would argue that the core meaning of the noun shajarat (tree) should be related / traced back to the verb.  On this basis, I think a case can be made that the shajarat symbolises disputation / branching in the sense of something like a 'self'-'other' distinction that transforms into a 'subject'-'object' difference. Such a difference implies a condition of imbalance since objects are not equal to subjects. Consider how the non-white 'other' is turned into an 'object' under conditions of Racism/White Supremacy. Note also that Iblees is a 'proto-Racist/Supremacist' figure, and the connection between Iblees and ash-Shay'thaan.

Salam

Just a quick question to ask you what you think about the virgin birth / miraculous birth of Jesus/Isa?

Salaamun aleikum, Br Joseph.

I have just read your article on the punishment for theft. While interesting, I'm not persuaded that this is necessarily the 'right' interpretation. I strongly incline to the view that the word 'yad' as appearing in (5:38) must be understood metonymically as "power" and/or "resources". (There are a number of signs/indicators in The Qur'an where yad carries this meaning, e.g. in relation to God/Allah who created Adam with His two hands.) On this basis, I would render the phrase "aq th'aa-oo aydiyahuma" in (5:38) as "restrain/prevent them from exercising their ability (to steal)". However, this is a deterrent reading; an alternative is "freeze their assets". It is interesting that the punishment for theft described in (12:75) is some form of detention. I don't see physically cutting the hand as justified because of the law of qisas (like for like): Amputation is NOT the like of theft; amputation is the like of amputation. Finally, your appeal to (5:33-34) is somewhat problematic since, as Muhammad Asad has argued in The Message of The Qur'an, this "legal punsihment" is the same as that implemented by Pharaoh/Fir'awn (7:124, 20:71, 26:49) who The Qur'an identifies as guilty of taghaa (tyranny/excess).

I reproduce Asad's commentary on (5:33-34) for your consideration below:

In classical Arabic idiom, the "cutting off of one's hands and feet" is often synonymous with "destroying one's power", and it is possibly in this sense that the expression has been used here. Alternatively, it might denote "being mutilated", both physically and metaphorically - similar to the (metonymical) use of the expression "being crucified" in the sense of "being tortured". The phrase min khilaf - usually rendered as "from opposite sides"- is derived from the verb khalafahu, "he disagreed with him", or "opposed him", or "acted contrarily to him": consequently, the primary meaning of min khilaf is "in result of contrariness" or "of perverseness".

Most of the classical commentators regard this passage as a legal injunction, and interpret it, therefore, as follows: "The recompense of those who make war on God and His apostle and spread corruption on earth shall but be that they shall be slain, or crucified, or that their hands and feet be cut off on opposite sides, or that they shall be banished from the earth: such shall be their ignominy in this world." This interpretation is, however, in no way warranted by the text, and this for the following reasons:

(a) The four passive verbs occurring in this sentence - "slain", "crucified", "cut off" and "banished" - are in the present tense and do not, by themselves, indicate the future or, alternatively, the imperative mood.

(b) The form yuqattalu does not signify simply "they are being slain" or (as the commentators would have it) "they shall be slain", but denotes - in accordance with a fundamental rule of Arabic grammar - "they are being slain in great numbers"; and the same holds true of the verbal forms yusallabu ("they are being crucified in great numbers") and tuqatta'a ("cut off in great numbers"). Now if we are to believe that these are "ordained punishments", it would imply that great numbers - but not necessarily all - of "those who make war on God and His apostle" should be punished in this way: obviously an inadmissible assumption of arbitrariness on the part of the Divine Law-Giver. Moreover, if the party "waging war on God and His apostle" should happen to consist of one person only, or of a few, how could a command referring to "great numbers" be applied to them or to him?

(c) Furthermore, what would be the meaning of the phrase, "they shall be banished from the earth", if the above verse is to be taken as a legal injunction? This point has, indeed, perplexed the commentators considerably. Some of them assume that the transgressors should be "banished from the land [of Islam]": but there is no instance in the Qur'an of such a restricted use of the term "earth" (ard). Others, again, are of the opinion that the guilty ones should be imprisoned in a subterranean dungeon, which would constitute their "banishment from [the face of] the earth"!

(d) Finally - and this is the weightiest objection to an interpretation of the above verse as a "legal injunction" - the Qur'an places exactly the same expressions referring to mass-crucifixion and mass-mutilation (but this time with a definite intent relating tothe future) in the mouth of Pharaoh, as a threat to believers (see 7:124, 20:71 and 26:49). Since Pharaoh is invariably described in the Qur'an as the epitome of evil and godlessness, it is inconceivable that the same Qur'an would promulgate a divine law in precisely the terms which it attributes elsewhere to a figure characterized as an "enemy of God".

In short, the attempt of the commentators to interpret the above verse as a "legal injunction" must be categorically rejected, however great the names of the persons responsible for it.

On the other hand, a really convincing interpretation suggests itself to us at once as soon as we read the verse - as it ought to be read - in the present tense: for, read in this way, the verse reveals itself immediately as a statement of fact - a declaration of the inescapability of the retribution which "those who make war on God" bring upon themselves. Their hostility to ethical imperatives causes them to lose sight of all moral values; and their consequent mutual discord and "perverseness" gives rise to unending strife among themselves for the sake of worldly gain and power: they kill one another in great numbers, and torture and mutilate one another in great numbers, with the result that whole communities are wiped out or, as the Qur'an puts it, "banished from [the face of] the earth". It is this interpretation alone that takes full account of all the expressions occurring in this verse - the reference to "great numbers" in connection with deeds of extreme violence, the "banishment from the earth", and, lastly, the fact that these horrors are expressed in the terms used by Pharaoh, the "enemy of God".

Again, what do you think?

Salaamun aleikum, Brother Joseph.

Insha'Allah, I hope you and yours are well.

I wonder if you could help me resolve a "knotty issue" and in the process perhaps generate another article for your website.

The issue concerns the interpretation of the word noor as used in The Qur'an, specifically with reference to (10:5) and (24:35). According to my CURRENT understanding, the word noor means "light which subsists by means of something else". (This appears to be the meaning contained in Lane's Lexicon.)

This rendering of noor is fine when used to describe the moon as in (10:5) since the light of the moon is clearly a derived/borrowed/reflected light; however, this rendering becomes problematic since its use in (24:35) would entail that Allah/God is the derived/borrowed/reflected light of the heavens and the earth.

In this connection, I should like to refer you to the following website:

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/moonlight_wc.html

I am confident that there is a way to resolve this issue, but am currently unable to do so. Can you help?

Dear brother,

In the following verse it seems that Mary was commanded to perform prayer with others. There is no mention of gender ( male or female). But In the Muslim socities women dosent perticipate in prayer in the mosques with other men. Some of the mosques has separate  separate place for men and women.  And for the Friday prayer its a common saying that this is only required for men. But I couldnt not find any such commandment from quran. Could you please give your opinion on this?


3:43 O Mary! Remain thou truly devout unto thy Sustainer, and prostrate thyself in worship, and bow down with those who bow down [before Him]."

Peace

Salam Joseph,

There is a Verse in the Glorious Quran, which mentions something like, '' eat from the Land that  which is Pure & Clean'' Or Clean and Pure, I think the Arabic word is 'Tayyab'?

This Verse, Is it referring to something Specific? OR is it just a 'ststement' from GOD Almighty, stating 'eat the good that I have provided for you'?

How should we best understand this?

There are Muslims (True Muslims!) I know, i.e. followers Only of Quran, who say THIS verse means Certain Sea Creatures, Like Scampi?? are  'scavenger ' type creatures and not permissible using this verse?

Any light form your point will be welcomed!

Peace

...

I notice it is, again only in Verse 6.145, that Blood is mentioned as 'blood poured forth' or 'running  blood' which is absolutely fine. However, in none of the other verses (2.173/ 5.3/ 16.115 ) Does it say this, but instead just says 'Blood'.

As we all know, however you slaughter an Animal, there will always be 'some blood' even if it very small amount, Usually when we read the Verses on 'Blood Poured forth' and 'Running Blood' We Praise GOD that it does not just say Blood, otherwise maybe All meats would be prohibited !?

Why does it ONLY say Running blood In Verse 6.145? and None of the others- Is this not confusing, some people could say ALL blood is prohibited?

...

Salam Joseph,

The 'consensus ' on this is  that ALL /Any part of the Pig is forbidden.

Brother Edip Yuksel and Late Rashad Khalifa, (and one other website) I think give  a very Potent argument, that whilst the flesh of swine is Haram  , The FAT is NOT?

They Both Use the Quran as the basis of their argument, In Verse 6.146 there is clear  mention of  how GOD had prohibited the FAT of animals For The Jews? and that GOD can distinguish between the Fat of animals and the Meat.

Although I personally could never see my self Eating Any part of a Pig (Up bringing??)  I really am interested in your views from the Quran on this, that the Fat is permissible?

why would GOD only mention the Word Flesh of Swine? Why not Say Pig Only?

Dear Brother Joseph,

There is a Verse which talks about the Prophet 'discussing a hadith with one of his wives,' and She then tells somebody else, in this verse, the Prophet then says that ''GOD told him about this disclosure',

Many 'muslims' will use this verse, to 'prove that Muhammad received revelations other then Quran,

i can think of some examples where We may be informed of something, but maybe not from the Source direct, How do we explain this Verse? (sorry i cannot recall the verses, if yo do not know it, i will look again'

Thank you in advance!

Peace

[;messenger was sent to Teach then the books and Wisdom]

Dear Brother Joseph

I was wondering if i could trouble you with some questions on the Quran?

As you will be aware from previous emails, I now follow the one true message from Muhamad, the Quran.

However, there are a couple of verses, which I would like to understand better And, I find that these verses are sometimes used by Bukhari & Co followers to 'justify' other books then Quran.

One of the Verse are 62.2  (there is also another one very silmilar to this but i cannot remember the chapter/verses)

In this verse (62.2) God talks about (amongst other things) that the ;messenger was sent to Teach then the books and Wisdom  

We know form Quran 55.2 that it is GOD who teaches Quran and the messengers job was to 'proclaim and deliver the message'.....

So how are we meant to understand the words Teach (and maybe wisdom) in this verse?

Is this a contradiction? Against 55.2 and others? Is it a mistranslation? Yusuf Ali does not seem to use the word 'teach' , I would be very grateful if you could shed some light on this, for me & those who use this verse to justify other books.

Dear Brother Joseph

I may not have read it all (or it may not be there?) but I have a question regarding people of Other faiths.

If, someone from another faith, say a Christian. Jew, Sikh, Maybe even a hindu? Believe In ONE GOD and do NOT associate Partners, is there a necessity that they MUST Follow Quran?

I have heard some differing opinions on this and when I look at the Quran can sometimes get confused.

I ask this, because I have been asked this and it is a topic you hear quite often in the UK (not sure where you are based) on Radio shows/TV's etc.

Can someone remain of Their faith with the prerequisite?? that they believe in One GOD and NOT follow/or accept Quran?

Separately if you have time/knowledge, Does Quran refer to'  people other then the Book '? ie, massive communities such as Hindus for example? Did they not receive revelations from GOD?

Hope this makes sense!

Peace

Salaam brother,

There has also been something that I have not been quite able to understand in the Quran, maybe you could shed some light. The verse where it says: 'God will not place any soul a burden that is too heavy to carry...'. Instantly I think well, if someone has committed suicide they obviously have a burden that is too heavy to carry!