About wearing shoes while performing Salat

[Saba]

It seems like Mr. Shabbir Ahmad is not a reliable source of information !!! Saba

In this case, it seems not very reliable.

I don't find Mr. Shabbir reliable in lots of ways, not just in this case. Take a look at this below

http://quransmessage.com/expose/dr-shabbir-razi%20FM3.htm

A proper scholar would retract his statement when shown the errors of their way. I have come to know that some people have tried to contact him about this, but apart from petty, ridiculous excuses, he has not provided anything to address this. Oh no! he won't budge. It beats me why people follow certain people blindly. Saba

[optimist]

note that Ghamidi Saab's critique is very strong and convincing and it is mainly academic.

Ghamidi said Parwez knowledge and understanding in Arabic was poor.  This is an arrogant remark not befitting for a scholar.  Don't worry, even in the communication received by Joseph Islam (ignore Dr. Shabbir), it is said "What he might have said to Dr Shabbir is that had I done done it today my style of presentation would have been different".   Most probably he later realised the knowledge of Parwez in Arabic (may be).  It is not required to state ""Ghamidi Saab's critique is very strong and convincing" when he himself is 'apologetic' about his approach earlier.  Ask Ghamidi Saab to make a fresh video first and post it.  Actually he should take necessary action to delete the video first if he feels his approach was not fully correct.   

Here is a comment posted by someone for the video.

Islam Quran 6 months ago
Whoever says G A Parwez dont know arabic, is ignorant about who G A Parwez was and about his work,

[optimist]

I don't find Mr. Shabbir reliable in lots of ways, not just in this case. Take a look at this below

This I have read earlier.  Thank you brother Joseph Islam for your effort to make people know the real facts.  I know also couple of other examples (in his quran translation) where he seems deliberately twisting meanings to promote certain strange views.  But I do not think he is completely unreliable in all circumstances.  I have noticed couple of verses he has explained in QXP, comparatively - according to me - in a better way than Parwez and other Quran translators.

[islamist]

Thanks Bro JAi for sharing. Bro Optimist Please don't quote strange translations on this Forum. Please watch Allama Ghamidi's review on GAPerwaiz's translation particularly of Surah Mamal. Thanks

Peace!

Dear Sardar,

Like most of the readers here, I feel  that the verbal direct literal meaning is sufficient here, however, I do not feel that the explanation from Parwez is 'strange' as you seem to have projected.   What I felt strange is your suggestion not to quote  such "strange" explanations.  For me the explanation given is  just "interesting" only, and I politely do not want to understand the issue in an allegorical way.  According to me, the message was simple and very plain.   

Having said so,  I want to state, actually, the allegorical way of explaining facts is no strange to Quran.  We all know,  Allah conveys certain facts - through the medium of Dream - using certain symbols, signs, metaphor and allegory.   For example, the king who saw the dream, in the story of Yousuf,  “seven lean cows devouring seven fat cows” had a divine hidden meaning of; “Ye shall sow seven years as usual, but that which ye reap, leave it in the ear, all save a little which ye eat. Then after that will come seven hard years which will devour all that ye have prepared for them, save a little of that which ye have stored. (12:47-48)

Similarly, "I see myself (in a dream) carrying bread on my head, and birds are eating"(12:36) had the meaning of “getting crucified so that the birds will eat from his head” (12:41).

Therefore,  there is always a "possibility" that  Allah may convey certain facts through allegories.   I agree the issue here is “Dream”, but, according to me, the subject matter is the same, i.e., Allah “communicates” certain facts through the medium of dream using "allegories".   I will say that, both extreme views are not good.  We should respect both literal and allegorical views considering the element of “possibility” for both views.  I cannot agree with those who insist to interpret something as allegorical and also those who insist to interpret as literal.   However, we should use our logic and reason to understand if something could be an allegory, with an attitude to tolerate both views.   Especially things like Solomon listening to an ant’s speech and an ant "recognizing" and "identifying" Solomon, understanding facts and behaving like a human being, I prefer to keep open the “possibility” of Allah informing us certain facts based on allegory,  especially in the light of the verses mentioned  above,  and at the same time open to positively recognize the views of others who want  to understand it in a  literal sense.

Regards, Islamist

[Sardar Miyan]

Thanks for sharing. Have gone through Allama Ghamidi's critiquing on GA Perwaiz's translation which is available on this Forum? Pl go through & find out. Thanks

[islamist]

Thanks for sharing. Have gone through Allama Ghamidi's critiquing on GA Perwaiz's translation which is available on this Forum? Pl go through & find out. Thanks

Why should I listen to someone criticizing someone when I do not agree on taking extreme views?   I prefer a middle path -unlike you- and I want to evaluate things, case by case, with an open mind to tolerate both views.  And to make a point clear, I may have an opinion something is allegory based on my logic and understanding, but I do not want to impose my view on others and to criticise others for taking a different view.   For example, I sincerely think there is possibility of allegory in the description of Solomon’s communication with an Ant.   It is my personal view only, and it is not Parwez who explained it as an allegory for the first time, however, as I said, I respect the view of others who want to understand it in a literal sense though the reasoning for such an explanation I came across so far not really convincing for me.  If anyone can give me a satisfactory logical reasoning to prove that an ant can “think” like a human being and deliver ‘thoughts’ through “speech”  similar like human being, and that it had known Solomon earlier so as to “recognize” and “identify” him, and it had the “knowledge” of Solomon’s mission, I can agree on a literal understanding.  Just imagine, if there was such thing like real ants ‘communicating’ with Solomon he would have spent a difficult time entire his life “to save” all ants on his way.  Even while typing this message I can notice an ant on the wall and it is really scary for me to think that it knows me and understand what type of person I am, like my neighbors in the other flat!!  We should have a realistic approach. The Quran is full of wisdom.   I do not like an argument on this topic. That’s it and this is my final post here. 

[Duster]

Shalom / Peace Islamist and everyone

On the point made about literal over allegorical on the stories of ants and animals talking etc, there is a great discussion between bro Joseph and Jawaid. I think Jawaid follows Dr. Shabbir of ourbeacon and some of Ghulam Parwez's line of thinking so he obv i think takes a more allegorical view. However I think bro Jawaid's views are more extreme in some ways that he rejects ritual namaaz, the need to do dua etc etc.

http://www.salaatforum.com/index.php?mode=thread&id=328#p335

However, I thought id provide the link. Its a good debate re the allegorical over literal understanding of this incident ... I think we can't sit on the fence on this one.. what I mean is we can't say its both. It is either one or the other but depends on which side has the greater evidence.

However I do think bro Joseph raises some very strong points esp. on his linguistic analysis and what the Qur'an actually says as opposed to what is commonly understood when thinking about these stories in general.

In the end I am thinking, its about which side has the stronger evidence or case which is more convincing ......>

Sorry for talking about a matter unrelated to the main topic. If this discussion continues, it might be an idea to create a new thread for it.

[islamist]

Peace!

Thanks Duster for sharing an interesting discussion!  I had posted I do not want to get involved in any argument on this.  However, after reading your post and going through the link I thought a point is needed to be clarified. So let me make a final posting.

According to me, the issue is NOT whether an ant can “speak”,  but the issue is whether ants have the capacity to identify, recognize, perceive things like a human being, whether it had the ability to recognize Solomon, who was most probably at the least a mile away,  to have sufficient time for all ants to find "safe place" in their ‘dwellings’ and most importantly, the possibility of any ant having advance knowledge of who was Solomon, his character, his mission, etc.   Scientific references to show an ant can "speak" cannot help here.

Here is wiki notes about ant’s eye sight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant#cite_note-39

Compared to vertebrates, most ants have poor-to-mediocre eyesight and a few subterranean species are completely blind. Some ants such as Australia's bulldog ant, however, have excellent vision and are capable of discriminating the distance and size of objects moving nearly a metre away*

*Eriksson, E. Sture (1985). "Attack behaviour and distance perception in the Australian bulldog ant Myrmecia nigriceps". J. Exp. Biol. 119: 115–131.

Here is some interesting notes about an ant's ability to "THINK" and "ANALYSE" facts.  I am sure many others can post many more intersting facts.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061018094651.htm

Professor Tom Collett from the University of Sussex's Centre for Neuroscience, explained:  "To show that ants use visual memory to navigate we trained ants to find food 10cm from a cylinder. We then doubled the size of the cylinder and the ants searched for the food at 20cm away where the retinal size of the landmark was the same. "To analyse the ants' powers of recall an ambiguous a situation was set up. Ants were trained to search for food between two cylinders of different sizes and then tested with the training cylinders replaced by two cylinders of the same size. Would ants know which cylinder is which? They were only able to search in the predicted place when a patterned background was introduced as a retrieval cue

I read at one place the method used by Ants to gather food. 

By following pheromone trails created by other ants from the colony, foraging ants can gather and store food efficiently. A scout ant first leaves the nest in search of food, and wanders somewhat randomly until it discovers something edible. It will then consume some of the food and return to the nest in a straight, direct line. It seems these scout ants can observe and recall visual cues that enable them to navigate quickly back to the nest. Along the return route, the scout ant leaves a trail of pheromones, special scents that will guide her nestmates to the food. The foraging ants then follow her path, each one adding more scent to the trail to reinforce it for others. The workers will continue walking back and forth along the line until the food source is depleted

If an ant, in the story of Solomon, could make an announcement to all ants in a valley to take shelter in their homes without being crushed by solomon and his army, and we should assume here Solomon and all ants in the valley instantaneously head this announcement, why ants have to follow the above complicated process for a simple thing of gathering food?

Anyhow, in verse 2:26 Allah states the possibility of using simile even that of a mosquito to convey certain facts.   Therefore illustrations using ant to convey certain facts is a clear possibility.  The important question is, why should we insist that there is no question of Allah using an allegory using an ant?  What is the need to take an extreme position?   Why we can not approach the issue with a flexible mind?

Regards, Islamist