RESPONSE FROM ANOTHER READER
Br When I read Aya 2:282 I found it relates to witness to a contract. How is applicable to narration of Ahadiths?
- Welcome to QM Forum.
News:
Forum Policy
http://quransmessage.com/forum/policy
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.
#451
Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Requirement of at Least Two Witnesses (2:282). What about the Ahad Hadith?
November 16, 2011, 07:12:39 AMRESPONSE FROM ANOTHER READER
Br When I read Aya 2:282 I found it relates to witness to a contract. How is applicable to narration of Ahadiths?
#452
Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Messengers will continue to come?
November 16, 2011, 05:54:36 AM
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
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
#453
Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Was the Prophet Illiterate?
November 16, 2011, 05:51:24 AM
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.
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.
#454
Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Requirement of at Least Two Witnesses (2:282). What about the Ahad Hadith?
November 16, 2011, 03:03:51 AM
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.
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.
#455
Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Did Prophet Receive Revelations Outside the Quran?
November 15, 2011, 01:22:50 PMANOTHER SIMILAR QUESTION RECEIVED FROM ANOTHER READER
Assalam Br Joseph.
In Sura Tahreem it said about the Prophet that Allah revealed something about his wife's intention and it is clear that Allah will give Rasool information other than Wahi.
#456
Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Who Frowned Away in Surah Abasa (80.1)?
November 14, 2011, 02:32:13 PM
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).
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).
#457
Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / The Tree and Iblis
November 14, 2011, 02:28:35 PM
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.
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.
#458
Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Virgin / Miraculous Birth of Prophet Jesus
November 14, 2011, 02:15:35 PM
Salam
Just a quick question to ask you what you think about the virgin birth / miraculous birth of Jesus/Isa?
Just a quick question to ask you what you think about the virgin birth / miraculous birth of Jesus/Isa?
#459
Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Cutting off the Hands
November 14, 2011, 02:08:21 PM
Salaamun aleikum, Br Jospeh.
Thank you for the clarification; I am aware of that interpretation of the cutting of the hands of the women in Surah Yusuf.
One thing that does interest me given diversity of interpretation is to HOW to enforce the hudood in a given mulk/dominion? Do you envisage multiple systems of law co-existing? I say this because beyond academic concerns lies the REAL issue of PRAXIS, i.e. practical implementation of LAW. In short, for theft in a given polity/community, which interpretation(s) should be applied and by whom? This raises the whole issue of authority which DEFINITELY requires examination. Recently, I have been looking into anarchist political thought and am more and more persuaded that The Qur'an does NOT recognise the 'state', as least on its corporate/Weberian conception, as a legitimate entity.
Thank you for the clarification; I am aware of that interpretation of the cutting of the hands of the women in Surah Yusuf.
One thing that does interest me given diversity of interpretation is to HOW to enforce the hudood in a given mulk/dominion? Do you envisage multiple systems of law co-existing? I say this because beyond academic concerns lies the REAL issue of PRAXIS, i.e. practical implementation of LAW. In short, for theft in a given polity/community, which interpretation(s) should be applied and by whom? This raises the whole issue of authority which DEFINITELY requires examination. Recently, I have been looking into anarchist political thought and am more and more persuaded that The Qur'an does NOT recognise the 'state', as least on its corporate/Weberian conception, as a legitimate entity.
#460
Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Cutting off the Hands
November 14, 2011, 02:03:01 PM
Salaamun aleikum, Br Joseph.
Jazak'Allah khairun for the prompt and detailed response.
I'm inclined to think that rather than emphasise the possible contextual relevance of (5:33-34) for the understanding of (5:38), we should focus attention on the verb qata'a as it appears in The Qur'an. According to the dictionary, the basic meanings associated with this verb include "to cut/sever/disunite/separate/detach, to disable in prosecuting, unable to proceed it, withdrew, break down, perish/cease/finish/fail, cut short/stop, intercepted/interrupted, put an end/stop to, a piece/bit/part/portion cut off from a whole, herd, distinct portion." In (12:31) we find the construction "qatt'ana aydiyahunna" which is usually rendered as "they cut their hands" but might be idiomatic language for "they stopped cutting/peeling with the knives they were given". If so, this might lend support to the idea of "fettering/preventing/deterring the exercise of criminal power".
>Conversely then, it can then be argued if we accept 5:33 as not literal, then why should we assume 7:124, 20:71 and 26:49 are literal in Pharaoh's case? This only increases the difficulty. I suppose we need to find an honest way to remain consistent and harmonious with all the verses in which the terms are utilised as I'm sure you agree.
Agreed, but I'm not sure that was/is what Muhammad Asad is trying to argue; rather, I take him to be saying that the constructions in all these signs/indicators (ayaat) may be making use of idiomatic and/or metonymi/metaphorical language.
Jazak'Allah khairun for the prompt and detailed response.
I'm inclined to think that rather than emphasise the possible contextual relevance of (5:33-34) for the understanding of (5:38), we should focus attention on the verb qata'a as it appears in The Qur'an. According to the dictionary, the basic meanings associated with this verb include "to cut/sever/disunite/separate/detach, to disable in prosecuting, unable to proceed it, withdrew, break down, perish/cease/finish/fail, cut short/stop, intercepted/interrupted, put an end/stop to, a piece/bit/part/portion cut off from a whole, herd, distinct portion." In (12:31) we find the construction "qatt'ana aydiyahunna" which is usually rendered as "they cut their hands" but might be idiomatic language for "they stopped cutting/peeling with the knives they were given". If so, this might lend support to the idea of "fettering/preventing/deterring the exercise of criminal power".
>Conversely then, it can then be argued if we accept 5:33 as not literal, then why should we assume 7:124, 20:71 and 26:49 are literal in Pharaoh's case? This only increases the difficulty. I suppose we need to find an honest way to remain consistent and harmonious with all the verses in which the terms are utilised as I'm sure you agree.
Agreed, but I'm not sure that was/is what Muhammad Asad is trying to argue; rather, I take him to be saying that the constructions in all these signs/indicators (ayaat) may be making use of idiomatic and/or metonymi/metaphorical language.
#461
Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Cutting off the Hands
November 14, 2011, 01:57:01 PM
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?
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?
#462
Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Meaning of 'Nur' from the Quran
November 14, 2011, 01:53:00 PM
Salaamun aleikum, Br Joseph.
Jazak'Allah khairun katheeran for the article which clears up the matter as far as I am concerned; I had wondered during the day whether the problem might be taking a restrictive (khass) meaning for a word which actually has a general ('amm) scope and you appear to have confirmed my suspicions.
However, is it POSSIBLE that interpreting noor as "reflected light" in (10:5) and (71:16) remains valid since it constitutes a restriction of the general meaning of the word, but ONLY as applied to the moon as a created thing (shayy-un)? I appreciate your position vis-a-vis interpretations of The Qur'an that project "scientific miracles" on to the text; nonetheless, it is interesting to note that different terms HAVE been used for the sun and moon with respect to their illuminative capacities.
What do you think?
Jazak'Allah khairun katheeran for the article which clears up the matter as far as I am concerned; I had wondered during the day whether the problem might be taking a restrictive (khass) meaning for a word which actually has a general ('amm) scope and you appear to have confirmed my suspicions.
However, is it POSSIBLE that interpreting noor as "reflected light" in (10:5) and (71:16) remains valid since it constitutes a restriction of the general meaning of the word, but ONLY as applied to the moon as a created thing (shayy-un)? I appreciate your position vis-a-vis interpretations of The Qur'an that project "scientific miracles" on to the text; nonetheless, it is interesting to note that different terms HAVE been used for the sun and moon with respect to their illuminative capacities.
What do you think?
#463
Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Meaning of 'Nur' from the Quran
November 14, 2011, 01:44:34 PM
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?
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?
#464
Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Women Praying with Men
November 13, 2011, 12:06:15 PM
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
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
#465
Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Are Prawns / Scampi's Halal to eat?
November 13, 2011, 07:48:10 AM
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
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