Messages

w/salaam,

Thanks for the info, but I'm not sure I'd agree with "Quran says...." the part below.

Quran says keep your homes clean and your clothes clean when in mosques. 

If you are referring to 7:29, 7:31, then please see: http://www.mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-quran.html

Salaam Adil,

You ask a good question.

In my opinion, the traditional understanding of the "change in qiblah" verses is riddled with problems.

I am currently writing an article on it. I will link to it here in due course.

salaam,

Generally speaking:

if one is going to be in the presence of others, then it is best to be clean.

when one is clean one feels more fresh, perhaps concentrate better.

cleansing oneself with water etc is good hygeine practice.

recommending cleaning by water places an emphasis of being close to a water supply, access etc.

purifying with clean soil can and likely does reduce germ-load on hands etc (try it yourself, put ketchup on your hands, go to the beach and rub them in sand - after, do you have less ketchup on your hands?)

following a routine in preparation for something can lead to priming/tuning the mind for that task.

etc
etc.

Also see:
http://misconceptions-about-islam.com/two-female-witnesses-one-male.htm

See: https://vimeo.com/49317210

I thought it was good overall, but he seemed to mislead in some claims, e.g. he seemed to imply there is no mention of Muhammad anywhere except on coins ~60 years after his alleged death. But see part 1 in this rebuttal: http://www.iera.org.uk/press_29aug2012.html
Also there is a good explanation for that since Quran is a strictly monotheistic book and it is likely the earliest adherents to the faith understood this and gave no elevation of prophet Muhammad. Interestingly, Holland states that all we pretty much know about the earliest conquering Arabs arriving in Jerusalem is that they believed in one God, called themselves "believers", and had an instructor (or instruction?). This is pretty much the theory as discussed in Fred Donner's book "Muhammad and the believers at the origins of islam", which I recommend reading.

Peace Joseph,

Thanks for the reply.

Re: 1)
Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying no animals are sacrificed at al kaabah. I dont think this can explicitly be shown either way, but my point was the offering does go there, this is clear. What happens after that one can discuss options.

Re: 2)
I agree that it cannot be conclusively shown al safa and al marwa are "ancient Abrahamic rites", but my point was the same wording and context of HaJJ is used. One can say they are not "ancient Abrahamic rites" but it wouldn't be based on anything solid.

Re: 3)
I assume therefore you take TWF to mean circumbambulate in some verses and not in others? If so, that is fine, but I was just clarifying as it doesn't come across as that in your article.

[1)]

salaam Joseph,

Re: http://quransmessage.com/articles/makkah%20bakkah%20FM3.htm

I would like clarification on the following please:

1)
You said:

"The Quran makes it clear that sacrifices took place inside the ancient house or at its location.  This is extremely difficult to reconcile with the location of the Kaaba as even today, no sacrifices take place at or around the Kaaba or anywhere within the precincts of the haram. Let us note the verse:

022.033
You have advantages in them till a fixed time, then their place of sacrifice (Arabic: Mahilluha) is at (Arabic: ila) the Ancient House (Arabic: Baitul-ateeq).

The above verse clearly informs the reader that the place of sacrifice (mahiloha) is at (ila) the house (Bait) ancient (Ateeq). Sacrifice has never been performed at or inside the Kaaba or the Masjid Haram premises. It is performed at Mina.

However:

5:95 ...an offering/gift reaching al kaabah

5:97 God has made al kaabah, (which is) al bayt al haram, a qiyaman for............. the offerings/gifts.......


2)
You said:

Safa and Marwah are never mentioned as an 'ancient Abrahamic rite' within any Quranic context.

However earlier in section 8, when making the case for Abrahamic rites, you quoted 22:32 in which the term "shaAAa-ira Allahi" is used, and this is the same term used in 2:158 for safwa and marwa, also in the context of HaJJ.


3) You translated 2:158 as "....he circumambulates (Arabic: Tawaafa) both of them..."

Do you mean to say going around the hills is meant, not in-between them, as is done today? I'm not even sure if going around them hills is possible today, maybe.


Thanks.

[this thread helpful]

salaam all,

I thought members may find this thread helpful (click)

It is very long, and a little jumbled, as multiple threads were joined together, but it raises many good arguments against the problems in Traditional Islamic beliefs and practices.

salaam,


"abu lahab" literally means "father (of) flame", i.e. provocateur, a metaphor for the originator of fire/hate/destruction.

Now put this into the verse and re-read it please.

In my view, it is referring to an archetype, as Quran does in many places. It is an excellent play on words, as essentially one will get what they give, i.e. law of requital, and in these verses "abu lahab" ends up in the "lahab/flame" in 111:3. The "wife" (or metaphorically, the accomplice) adds fuel to this fire, and in 111:5 it says "in/on "her" neck will be a rope from twisted fibre", suggesting whoever adds fuel to the fire, their fate is intertwined, with the father of flame. The neck is used in Quran as a symbol to tie one's deeds/fate to, e.g. 17:13.

And lastly, as we all know from Traditional Islamic sources, that "Abu Lahab" was apparently a nicname, yet we are told not to call each other by nicnames in 49:11, so is God using a nicname in 111:1?

The only way out of this possible contradiction is to say "Abu Lahab" is not derogatory, it is complimentary! For example, see Asad's notes:

Muhammad Asad - End Note 1 (111:1)
The real name of this uncle of the Prophet was Abd al-Uzza. He was popularly nicknamed Abu Lahab (lit., "He of the Flame") on account of his beauty, which was most notably expressed in his glowing countenance (Baghawi, on the authority of Muqatil; Zamakhshari and Razi passsim in their comments on the above verse; Fath al-Bari VIII, 599), Since this nickname, or kunyah appears to have been applied to him even before the advent of Islam, there is no reason to suppose that it had a pejorative significance. - The expression "hands" in the above clause is, in accordance with classical Arabic usage, a metonym for "power", alluding to the great influence which Abu Lahab wielded.

I will let readers decide on that aspect.

And lastly, even if it was referring to one specific person, it is unnecessary to determine who this person is, it adds nothing critically important.

AFAIK the arabic literally says: "path of those You have bestowed/favoured on them not those who received anger on them and not those who go astray"

l-maghḍūbi is genitive masculine passive participle, meaning they received the action expressed in the verb. The question arises: received anger from where/whom/what?

Additional information, the divorce procedure according to The Quran:

'cooling-off' period for those who swear away from their wives sexually, limited to 4 months [2:226]*

after this 4 month 'cooling-off' period, the options are: revert to normal relations or divorce/talaq [2:227]

post-divorce interim/waiting period is 3 menstruation periods or 3 months, if pregnant it is until they deliver, if widowed it is 4 months and 10 days [2:228, 2:234, 65:4]

if no sex has taken place after marriage, then no interim period is required after divorce/talaq [33:49]. Compensation may be due however if dower was agreed upon [2:237]

during post-divorce interim period, wife remains in the same house, and is compensated by way of maintenance during this period in the same living standard as the husband, each according to their means [2:236, 2:241, 65:1, 65:6-7]**

divorce is automatically retracted if sex between the couple takes place during the interim period [inference from 2:226, 33:49, 65:1]***

if couple reconciles, then divorce/talaq may be retracted twice during interim-period. If divorced a third time it is final unless she marries another then they divorce, only then can original partners re-marry. If the couple fear they will not maintain God's bounds, then wife may give some dowry back to release herself [2:229-230]

if couple still wishes to follow through with the divorce/talaq after the end of the interim period and undergo final separation, then two witnesses are required to complete the process [65:2]

exceptions exist, in certain situations [60:10-11]

the onus is upon the person in the wrong to rectify the situation or initiate divorce/release, and it is an obligation upon the contract-breaking party to compensate the other [2:229, 2:237, 4:19, 4:128-129, 33:28, 60:10-11]

As a side note, the last point is also mentioned in traditional Islamic law and sources, see M.Asad's note on 2:229. This system would also protect the male if he were to marry a female who only did so for his money or the marital gift then she wished to end the marriage later, because since the contract-breaking party compensates the other partner, she would have to do so accordingly. Similarly, this would protect the female if she were to marry a male who only did so for lustful reasons then wished to end the marriage later, as he would then have to compensate her.

*Also possibly provides a time limit due to a practice of the time in which husbands did not have sex with their wives but also did not divorce them, see 58:1-4, 33:4; i.e. leaving them in a state between marriage and divorce. Similar to what is implied by 4:129.

**And the same goes for the lesser situation of 'cooling-off' period. Obviously, the wife would not be removed from the home for the lesser serious 'cooling-off' period then brought back just for the post-divorce interim period.

***Inference from 2:226 is that resumption of sexual relations is equated to reconciliation, thus no initiation of divorce. Hence, same proviso for post-divorce interim period, i.e. sex = reconciliation.

w/salaam,

In addition:

I checked this in the past. If memory serves me correctly, the word in question is "ard" and it can mean earth or ground/land, context will determine which. The word itself does not specify the extent of land/ground however.

w/salaam,

All translations are imperfect. The key is to use a sound method (e.g. here) when studying translations and use the quality tools/resources out there, e.g. see www.StudyQuran.org

Having said that, my personal favourite is Muhammad Asad's, mainly because he strives to remain true to the spirit of Quran and applies logic throughout. In my view, it does have many errors however.

With regard to taqwa, this is a decent article.

salaam all,

As a side note, for a more probable translation of 47:4 please see section 1, part 17: http://www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.html#part1

fa darba al rriqabi hattaitha athkhantumoohum = so strike the necks until when you have overcome them
[47:4]

Some use "hit", "smite", "strike-off". Whilst this is the most common translation, it should be noted that it is taken by many as an idiom (e.g. Al-Jalalayn, Ibn Kathir), meaning slay or kill. This seems a plausible interpretation as in a battle of swords and arrows no commander would order his soldiers to aim for the necks alone. Similarly, "put forth" could also be used. Interestingly, Mustansir Mir's book mentions a similar expression "daraba raqabatahu" and renders it as "to cut off somebody's head / kill somebody".

However, upon closer examination, there is an alternative translation, which seems the most likely based on the evidence:

So, when you encounter those who have rejected/concealed, then put forth /bring about the captives; until when you have subdued/overcome them, then strengthen the bind. Then after either grace/favour or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. That, and had God willed, surely He would have gained victory Himself from them, but He tests some of you with others. And those who get killed in the cause of God, He will never let their deeds be put to waste.

Notes for the above translation:
1) "darba" is a verbal noun, indicating the act of doing as well as the noun itself, e.g. then putting forth / bringing about the captives.
2) In a battle of swords and arrows no commander would order his soldiers to aim for the necks alone.
3) RQB is NEVER used to mean neck elsewhere in The Quran, as the word for neck is "unuq" (as used in 8:12 also with DRB). RQB is always used to mean slaves/captives.
4) If they were supposed to be beheaded, there would not be a need for an instruction regarding captives. Thus to overcome this apparent omission, many traditional commentators translate "fa shuddoo al wathaqa" as "then tie the bond" and say this refers to taking prisoners of war. However, the word "strengthen/tighten (Arabic: shuddoo)" implies a pre-existing thing to strengthen/tighten (see its usage in 38:20, 76:28, 28:35, 10:88, 20:31), but if this is true, where is it in context? It can only relate to "darba al rriqabi", and thus provides strong proof that this phrase is about bringing about captives from the enemy.
5) This translation makes sense because during open/active fighting, the captives may not be totally secure, and could only really be secured once the enemy has been subdued/overcome. Thus, this verse is implying aim to bring about captives, not necessarily kill them, which shows mercy and less aggression in such a situation, even if it means getting killed.
6) One meaning of DaRaBa found in Lane's Lexicon is "he made or caused to be or constituted" which is similar to the suggested meaning discussed above.
7) I am not aware of a Classical Arabic Dictionary which references verse 47:4 under the root entry of DRB or RQB.
8 ) 47:4 refers to those mentioned in the previous verses, going by its use of connective particle "fa", then these people were not fighting or killing, thus killing them may violate the law of equivalence [2:190, 4:90, 5:8, 16:126, 42:39-43].
9) Interestingly, Traditional Tafsirs (altafsir.com) also mention this possibility along with the common understanding. Ibn 'Abbas: "...and taken them prisoners, (then making fast of bonds) keep the prisoners in captivity...". Tafsir al-Jalalayn: "...take them captive and bind firmly, the bonds (al-wathāq is what is used to bind [yūthaqu] a captive).".

As a side note, it is interesting to note the difference in phrasing of this verse compared to 8:12, giving further weight to each of them having different meanings as discussed.

Also additional information:
http://learn-about-islam.com/2011/11/01/islam-and-the-quran-promotes-slavery/

Dear brother Joseph,
w/salaam,

The reason I refer to sun-timings is because the original post in this thread. It was regarding the polar regions in which for some months they do not have the sun present and for other months the sun persists all the time. Thus citing "evening" and "morning" verses etc doesn't address the polar region situation:

If we base salaat ritual on Sunrise and Sunset ( day and night which is measure of time when there were no clocks ) then this application for salaat timing is not practical in Polar region.

Hope that helps to clarify.