Messages

Thanks for clarifying.

Your example in English is welcome but English doesn't really have grammatical gender. We are dealing with Arabic of Quran which does. As I said pronouns are used thousands of times in Quran thus checking viability of your position can be tested. My approach is to apply a robust and ideally falsifiable methodology.

I am happy for others to read and make up their own minds based on what we've discussed. Peace.

To make it even simpler:
I simply mean your position means a pronoun referring to something (e.g. a noun) not explicitly mentioned in context.

Reworded to:
I simply mean your position means a pronoun not referring to an explicit word/noun in context.

Yes it clarifies your position but it doesn't further your argument.

Perhaps I could have worded it better. I simply mean your position means a pronoun referring to something (e.g. a noun) not explicitly mentioned in context.
I provided a simple way for you to demonstrate viability of your position. I think it's a very good suggestion since pronouns are used thousands of times in Quran.

You claim 2:45 somehow supports your view but the feminine "ha" obviously refers to the closest preceding feminine noun which is "salat". Pronouns referring to the closest preceding noun is extremely common in Arabic (probably its most common usage) and likewise in every language in the world.

Thank you for clarifying, however I consider your view implausible. For it to even be an option, in my eyes, I'd have see several clear examples from Quran showing that pronouns can refer to concepts/ideas/situation (things unmentioned) and not words in context. Pronouns are used thousands of times in Quran, thus I would imagine if you struggle to find even one you will have to reject your view.

You may be interested to know that there is much variance when it comes to this issue of "it" which I discuss in the article.

But "wijhatun" is a feminine noun, the "it" in 2:144, 2:146 and 2:149 is in the masculine singular, i.e. it refers to a masculine noun. Thus I do not see how your view is possible unless I have misunderstood.

To clarify what word is the "it" referring to in 2:144, 2:146, 2:149?

peace Athman,

Thanks for clarifying. I did think that was the case but wasn't sure. I personally found brother Joseph's article quite convoluted with too many interpolations.

I dont think it works with the Arabic due to the future particle "sa" and the tenses used. Even in brother Joseph's article he makes improper use of tense, e.g. "It is also clear that some assertions had been made by a section of the community who clearly questioned the Qibla change." This is simply not true. It is more accurate to say assertions will be made.

There are further issues, e.g. what does the "it" refer to in these verses?
2:144 ... and indeed those who have been given the writ/decree know that it is the truth from their Lord.
2:146 ...Those to whom We have given the decree/writ recognise it like they recognise their sons

etc.

Brother Joseph do you have feedback on this issue?

I can't quite tell your position based on this article:
http://quransmessage.com/articles/qibla%20FM3.htm

Also discussed here recently:
https://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9611217.msg431545#msg431545

Thanks. Spread the word about the website, share on social media etc. The accompanying site AreYouMuslim.com is also very good.

peace,

I would imagine if it crosses into harassment/threatening or advocates harming a group then action could be taken. I believe most countries have laws against that, e.g. "hate speech", "incitement to violence".

More verses here:
https://www.misconceptions-about-islam.com/misconception.php?id=44

These verses came up in a discussion here:
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=477.0

As you probably already know it is assumed by the author that sbh, hmd, and salat are equivalent in these contexts.

peace Inayah,

Firstly, no-one is saying the so-called "sacrificial son" can only be Isaac.

Secondly, 14:39 doesn't "confirm" what you claim (i.e. order of birth) but certainly one could make such a case based on that verse but "confirm" is far too strong a word based on the evidence you presented. "suggests" is much more apt.

Thirdly, 37:112 does not mention "the coming of Isaac". Whenever the phrase "good news" is used it tells us what the "good news" is. In 37:112's case it is of "Isaac, a prophet from the righteous".

It is that time of the year again (according to Traditional Islam): Eid Al-Adha

Questions to ask about the traditional story:
http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/Abraham-Sacrifice-Questions.html

(to this day no-one has attempted to answer all the questions)

Is it time to sacrifice our long held dogmatic beliefs? Perhaps.

Re: example 1
Let's say his name was Jim instead. Can you tell us how this would change the guidance?

Re: example 2
e.g. "it is the truth" is singular.
If we read Quran as a whole is there any clear indication in it that we should follow other books also? No.

Are those "details" you mentioned necessary for our salvation/guidance?