/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Is this really the way GOD commands death?



Follower
02-23-2009, 08:35 PM
The following verse is vague, not event or time specific the way GOD was in the Old Testament.

009.005
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

PICKTHAL: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

SHAKIR: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Literal:
So if the months the forbidden/sacred ended/passed, so fight/kill the sharers/takers of partners (with God) where/when you found them, and take/punish them and restrict/confine them and remain/be concerned and prepared/beset for them (in) every lookout/observatory, so if they repented, and kept up the prayers and gave/brought the charity/ purification , so free their way/path , that God (is) forgiving, merciful.

Not this one, it is GOD doing the judging and the punishing, and we know that GOD/Jesus does not like hypocrites.

(9:68) Allah promiseth the hypocrites, both men and women, and the disbelievers fire of hell for their abode. It will suffice them. Allah curseth them, and theirs is lasting torment.;
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
'Abd-al Latif
03-02-2009, 01:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
The following verse is vague, not event or time specific the way GOD was in the Old Testament.

009.005
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

PICKTHAL: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

SHAKIR: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Literal:
So if the months the forbidden/sacred ended/passed, so fight/kill the sharers/takers of partners (with God) where/when you found them, and take/punish them and restrict/confine them and remain/be concerned and prepared/beset for them (in) every lookout/observatory, so if they repented, and kept up the prayers and gave/brought the charity/ purification , so free their way/path , that God (is) forgiving, merciful.

Not this one, it is GOD doing the judging and the punishing, and we know that GOD/Jesus does not like hypocrites.
Read the verses before and after and it will make a lot more sense. Wow that really makes sense, doesn't it?

This is by Dr Zakir Naik

By Dr. Zakir Naik

If you read the Qur’an, this verse exists but it is quoted out of context.

The first few verses of Surah Tawbah before verse 5 speak about the peace treaty between the Muslims and Muskhriks (polytheists) of Makkah. This peace treaty was unilaterally broken by the Mushriks of Makkah. In verse no. 5 Allah (swt) gives them an ultimatum to put things straight in four months’ time, or else face a declaration of war. It is for the battlefield that Allah says “fight and slay the Mushriks (i.e. the enemies from Makkah) wherever you find them and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war”.

This verse is revealed and instructs the Muslims to fight in the battlefield and kill the enemy wherever you find them. But natural, any army general to boost up the morale of the soldiers and to encourage them will say “Don’t get scared, fight and kill the enemies, wherever you find them in the battlefield. Arun Shourie in his book ‘The World of Fatwas’ after quoting Surah Tawbah chapter 9 verse 5 jumps to verse 7. Any logical person will realize that verse 6 has the reply to his allegation.

Surah Tawbah chapter 9 verse 6 says:

“If any amongst the Mushriks (i.e. the enemies) ask thee for asylum, grant it to him so that he may hear the word of Allah and then escort him to where he can be secure”. (Al Qur’an 9:6)

Today the most merciful army general may tell his soldiers to let the enemy go, but Almighty Allah in the Qur’an says if the enemy wants peace do not just let them go but escort them to a place of security. Which army general in today’s day and age, or rather in the whole of recorded human history is ever known to have given such merciful instructions? Now will someone ask Mr. Arun Shourie why did he deliberately not quote verse 6?

http://www.islamawareness.net/Hindui...aik/part9.html
And as for this
(9:68) Allah promiseth the hypocrites, both men and women, and the disbelievers fire of hell for their abode. It will suffice them. Allah curseth them, and theirs is lasting torment.;
Definition of a hypocrite: a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

Should god not punish those who pretend to be one of His servants, while in reality he or she is trying to decieve god as well as those who are sincere in faith?
Reply

جوري
03-03-2009, 12:55 AM
Follower.. You need to really focus at the hatred, war, destruction and the misogyny toward women in your bible first, before getting ahead of yourself..
I have no reservations sharing such biblical quotes with you, if you'd like.. or do you think none of us have picked up a bible? else 9:68 might just apply to you!

all the best
Reply

muslimapoclyptc
03-05-2009, 09:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
The following verse is vague, not event or time specific the way GOD was in the Old Testament.

009.005
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

PICKTHAL: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

SHAKIR: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Literal:
So if the months the forbidden/sacred ended/passed, so fight/kill the sharers/takers of partners (with God) where/when you found them, and take/punish them and restrict/confine them and remain/be concerned and prepared/beset for them (in) every lookout/observatory, so if they repented, and kept up the prayers and gave/brought the charity/ purification , so free their way/path , that God (is) forgiving, merciful.
009:001 - 006:
YUSUFALI: A (declaration) of immunity from God and His Apostle, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:- Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate God (by your falsehood) but that God will cover with shame those who reject Him. And an announcement from God and His Apostle, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that God and His Apostle dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate God. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith. (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfill your engagements with them to the end of their term: for God loveth the righteous. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

So, basically when the treaty expires between the warring sides of the Muslims and the pagans, and after the sacred months have past, the Muslims were to attack them until the pagans were either defeated or surrender.

It also helps to understand a bit of history on this issue, so here's a link for you:

Ar-Raheeq Al-Maktoom (The Sealed Nectar)
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Follower
03-06-2009, 03:16 PM
Yes I understand the terms, I have read the verses before and after.

I'll try again - the Bible is time specific in regards to the timeline of man on earth. We see the commands from GOD of killing in the Old Testament, but that time has passed when we come to the New Testament.

Does you Quran reverse the ruling and condone the killing in the present time way into the future? It seems to me that it does.

No specific enemy is mentioned- it could be anyone that disagrees with another group.
Some Muslims consider Ahamdyia, Sufi pagans or maybe just non-Muslims?

Do you consider Jews pagans?
Reply

muslimapoclyptc
03-06-2009, 04:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Yes I understand the terms, I have read the verses before and after.

I'll try again - the Bible is time specific in regards to the timeline of man on earth. We see the commands from GOD of killing in the Old Testament, but that time has passed when we come to the New Testament.

Does you Quran reverse the ruling and condone the killing in the present time way into the future? It seems to me that it does.

No specific enemy is mentioned- it could be anyone that disagrees with another group.
Some Muslims consider Ahamdyia, Sufi pagans or maybe just non-Muslims?

Do you consider Jews pagans?
The enemy is defined as being the pagans, who have made a treaty with the Muslims. I don't think it needs to be any more specific than that. Those to whom the revelation was sent to, certainly understood what it was talking about. God's commands to previous Prophets aren't really worded in a time-specific manner either, but everyone knows what they're talking about.

It doesn't matter what "some Muslims" think. What matters, is what is established by the Qur'an, and by the Sunnah of the Prophet.
Reply

Follower
03-07-2009, 02:11 PM
OK, yes the Quran does reverse the rulling on killing and condones it today and in the future.

Thanks.
Reply

muslimapoclyptc
03-07-2009, 02:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
OK, yes the Quran does reverse the rulling on killing and condones it today and in the future.

Thanks.
It never reverses the ruling on killing. You either don't understand the ruling on killing, or you don't understand what the Qur'an says about it.
Reply

Follower
03-08-2009, 08:34 PM
This was the last ruling on enemies before the Quran:

Luke 6
27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.


With the following verse Allah has made mere men judge, jury and executioners.

9:29
Fight/kill those who do not believe with God and nor the Day the Last/Resurrection Day, and do not forbid/prohibit what God and His messenger forbid/prohibited, and do not take/adopt a religion the correct/right religion from those who were given/brought The Book , until they give/hand over the fee paid by non-Moslems living in a Moslem society from a hand, and they are subservient/humiliated .

So different from this ruling:

Luke 6
37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
39He also told them this parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? 40A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.

41"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Reply

جوري
03-08-2009, 08:57 PM
Matthew 10:34
'Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth.'
Matthew 10:34
'I have not come to bring peace but a sword.'
Luke 12:49
'I have come to bring fire to the earth.'
Luke 12:49
'And how I wish it were blazing already
Luke 12:51
'Do you think I have come to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but hostility!'

Matthew 10:35
'I have come to set son against father...
Matthew 10:35
'...daughter against mother...'

Matthew 10:35
'...and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law
Luke 14:26
'If anyone does not hate his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Is.3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.
1 Cor.11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
1 Cor.14:34-36 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
Eph.5:22-24 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."
Col.3:18 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."
1 Tim.2:11-15 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing
1 Pet.3:1 "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands."

I enjoy little snippets as much as the next guy =)

cheers
Reply

Follower
03-08-2009, 09:51 PM
We are talking about the ruling on killing, not little snippets.

cheers
Reply

جوري
03-08-2009, 09:57 PM
“Thou shall not kill” (Ex. 20:13), and yet in the very next chapter say, “Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death” (Ex. 21:17)?

how about this for starters?
Reply

جوري
03-08-2009, 10:18 PM
I could post tons more by the way, given the little 'snippets' above which you don't seem to spare yourself from dropping steeply into for the sake of argument integrity, seem to contradict the peace and love that your God allegedly came to bring no and especially the disgusting views on women? further your own Christian history speaks a different message, surely you've heard of the crusades from then until now as sanctioned by your bible?
Don't be a hypocrite follower. No one likes lip-service
Your God allegedly came to bring war not peace as so states your bible.

So again you'd better reconcile your book firstly against its own contents and secondly in the face of history before treading into other grounds.
Reply

Follower
03-08-2009, 10:34 PM
LOL! Skye we are talking about the time of Jesus and after.

Yes that is the commandment from GOD for all men for all time. I already explained that GOD did on occassion command killing of specific peoples Amalekites, Midianites, etc. at specific times. The people GOD ordered Israel to be killled were really, really bad.

Fast forward a bit and Jesus comes along and the command for us is no killing period, for any reason.

I am asking is the order for killing in the Quran past, present and future an on going command not time specific. Are there time constraints? It appears to me that it is vague.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
03-08-2009, 10:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
“Thou shall not kill” (Ex. 20:13), and yet in the very next chapter say, “Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death” (Ex. 21:17)?

how about this for starters?
I belive the original Hebrew goes thou shall not murder.
Reply

alcurad
03-08-2009, 10:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower

I already explained that GOD did on occassion command killing of specific peoples Amalekites, Midianites, etc. at specific times. The people GOD ordered Israel to be killled were really, really bad.
care to expand upon above statement?

anyway, if you don't want to believe the verse in question was case specific, go ahead, bearing in mind that not a single muslim at the time of the prophet saw as you did, so now a few ignorant ones use it for whatever purpose and you go on and follow their understanding,,
not that there would be anything wrong with it even if it were vague in the first place-which it isn't- God is God, maybe he also knows that the people who are going to be killed according to said verse are really, really bad too. in the end, who are we to question God,,
the idea you uphold of god being love is quite amazing, christianity would not have spread as it did if not for the Romans butchering their way throughout Europe and elsewhere, where was the god/love then?
Reply

جوري
03-08-2009, 11:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
LOL! Skye we are talking about the time of Jesus and after.
There is no Judeo-Christian if you'll insist that God changes his mind, plus I have already shown you what your God said of not coming to bring peace but a sword. plus your own christian history!
Yes that is the commandment from GOD for all men for all time. I already explained that GOD did on occassion command killing of specific peoples Amalekites, Midianites, etc. at specific times. The people GOD ordered Israel to be killled were really, really bad.
really? because according to the bible the people of Israel were also really really bad, went off to worship a golden calf even from stolen gold and all...

Fast forward a bit and Jesus comes along and the command for us is no killing period, for any reason.
Wonder what Jesus would then say about the crusades, and all the wars thence in his name?

I am asking is the order for killing in the Quran past, present and future an on going command not time specific. Are there time constraints? It appears to me that it is vague.
It is actually rather easy as all you'd to do was read the Quran. in lieu of hiding behind what lying missionaries teach you

[Pickthal 5:32] --whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.




all the best
Reply

muslimapoclyptc
03-09-2009, 12:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
This was the last ruling on enemies before the Quran:

Luke 6
27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.


With the following verse Allah has made mere men judge, jury and executioners.

9:29
Fight/kill those who do not believe with God and nor the Day the Last/Resurrection Day, and do not forbid/prohibit what God and His messenger forbid/prohibited, and do not take/adopt a religion the correct/right religion from those who were given/brought The Book , until they give/hand over the fee paid by non-Moslems living in a Moslem society from a hand, and they are subservient/humiliated .

So different from this ruling:

Luke 6
37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
39He also told them this parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? 40A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.

41"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
There is no change here, as they're obviously not talking about the same thing. It's dishonest of you to cherry-pick verses regarding fighting in war from one book, and then cherry-pick verses regarding the etiquette of social behavior from another book, to support your thesis of the former being one of violence and hostility and the latter being one of peace and tolerance.
Reply

Follower
03-16-2009, 09:29 PM
"the idea you uphold of god being love is quite amazing, christianity would not have spread as it did if not for the Romans butchering their way throughout Europe and elsewhere, where was the god/love then?"

These people were not following the teaching of Jesus. Anyone killing and not loving their neighbor/enemy is not following Jesus.

In Islam you are allowed to kill, Christians are not. The rulling was reversed.
Reply

muslimapoclyptc
03-17-2009, 12:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
In Islam you are allowed to kill, Christians are not. The rulling was reversed.
You're likely confusing "killing" with "murder". Neither Islam nor Christianity allow murder. However, Islam allows killing by the state as punishment for certain crimes, or in warfare, while Christianity is silent on those issues. The reason it is silent on those issues, is because it was already covered beforehand in the Torah, where there is plenty of God-sanctioned killing. This is further confirmed in the NT, where "Jesus" said he didn't come to change the law but to fulfill it.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
03-17-2009, 12:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by muslimapoclyptc
You're likely confusing "killing" with "murder". Neither Islam nor Christianity allow murder. However, Islam allows killing by the state as punishment for certain crimes, or in warfare, while Christianity is silent on those issues. The reason it is silent on those issues, is because it was already covered beforehand in the Torah, where there is plenty of God-sanctioned killing. This is further confirmed in the NT, where "Jesus" said he didn't come to change the law but to fulfill it.
Follower, you are indeed cherrypicking verses to suit your needs. Please don't take both the Quran and the Bible out of context to support your views.
Reply

muslimapoclyptc
03-17-2009, 05:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Yes that is the commandment from GOD for all men for all time. I already explained that GOD did on occassion command killing of specific peoples Amalekites, Midianites, etc. at specific times. The people GOD ordered Israel to be killled were really, really bad.
However, the actual commands given by God at the time, would not read in any more of a time-specific manner than how it reads in the Qur'an.

Furthermore, the killing of specifically-identified peoples is relative to the situation. The enemies were already a specific clan/tribe, that were not Israelite, so it's easy to identify them along those lines.

However, the enemies who opposed the Muslims during the time of Prophet Muhammad, were not a specifically-identified clan/tribe of people. In fact, many of them were from the same clan/tribe as many of those Muslims were from.

The only thing they really differed with the Muslims on (and what they can be grouped together by) is religion. Hence, the Qur'an refers to them based on that, and so they are called polytheists.

Fast forward a bit and Jesus comes along and the command for us is no killing period, for any reason.
Since "Jesus" (based on what is said in the NT) primarily focused on the etiquette of social behavior then this command would make sense. He wasn't a statesman, so the subject of battles and war, crime and punishment, were never issues he had to deal with.

I am asking is the order for killing in the Quran past, present and future an on going command not time specific. Are there time constraints? It appears to me that it is vague.
It isn't any more vague than it is in the Bible.
Reply

Kafir
03-17-2009, 08:21 PM
As an atheist I am really happy to see this topic discussed because these are exactly the kind of passages that give me moral issue with religion. If they were suitably answered to I would feel far more comfortable with religion on a moral level.

However, I do take issue with a Christian on here who stated that the New Testament does not call for violence. That statement is utterly false. I am a scholar of the Bible, despite being an atheist, and can post numerous New Testament verses in which violence is advocated, some from Jesus' own mouth! Moreover, many the case can be made from the New Testament that the OT is still valid and should be practiced.

I find it flabbergasting that a Christian comes here and proclaims the Bible is wholly loving and mean while bashes the Qur'an. Such a statement is either made from ignorance of scripture, or dishonesty, either of which is not virtuous. As someone who has read both the Bible and the Qur'an while STILL being an atheist, I can say with all honesty the Qur'an is far more scientifically accurate and has less moral issues than the Bible.

But I don't want to see this turned into a scripture war. Enough time has been wasted in which people argue over religion instead of finding commonality. Moreover, arguing makes us look as very devoid of love, which no matter your religion or lack of love: is the measure of a good human being.

So what I would like to see is both Muslims and Christians find these verses in their scripture and then explain via more scripture why these seemingly viscious tales are not to be followed literally today to non offending atheists like me. It would help me and many more like me (which nearly 20% of the world doesn't believe in a God, so thats ALOT of people) feel less judgmental.

Trying to convert/revert nonbeliever via reason, compassion and knowledge will go ALOT further than witnessing an argument.
Reply

muslimapoclyptc
03-17-2009, 09:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kafir
As an atheist I am really happy to see this topic discussed because these are exactly the kind of passages that give me moral issue with religion. If they were suitably answered to I would feel far more comfortable with religion on a moral level.

However, I do take issue with a Christian on here who stated that the New Testament does not call for violence. That statement is utterly false. I am a scholar of the Bible, despite being an atheist, and can post numerous New Testament verses in which violence is advocated, some from Jesus' own mouth! Moreover, many the case can be made from the New Testament that the OT is still valid and should be practiced.

I find it flabbergasting that a Christian comes here and proclaims the Bible is wholly loving and mean while bashes the Qur'an. Such a statement is either made from ignorance of scripture, or dishonesty, either of which is not virtuous. As someone who has read both the Bible and the Qur'an while STILL being an atheist, I can say with all honesty the Qur'an is far more scientifically accurate and has less moral issues than the Bible.

But I don't want to see this turned into a scripture war. Enough time has been wasted in which people argue over religion instead of finding commonality. Moreover, arguing makes us look as very devoid of love, which no matter your religion or lack of love: is the measure of a good human being.

So what I would like to see is both Muslims and Christians find these verses in their scripture and then explain via more scripture why these seemingly viscious tales are not to be followed literally today to non offending atheists like me. It would help me and many more like me (which nearly 20% of the world doesn't believe in a God, so thats ALOT of people) feel less judgmental.

Trying to convert/revert nonbeliever via reason, compassion and knowledge will go ALOT further than witnessing an argument.
Are you sure it's 20%? I've read that 2.3% of the world's population are atheists.
Reply

Follower
03-17-2009, 09:43 PM
You are twisting what Jesus said into a command from Him to us. What He says is not neccessarily a comand to violence.

luke 22
35Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.
36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors' and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

38The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.

Did Jesus command anyone to go smite anyone on the neck? NO, infact look what happens later in the chapter- Do you suppose Jesus mentions the sword because He knew that it would be used on the soldier? One more teaching for Jesus to show His followers.

49When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" 50And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.

51But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.

The Old Testament and Quran are commands- in the Old Testament for a specific people that lived at a specific time. The Quran command is for all times.
Reply

Follower
03-17-2009, 09:43 PM
http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/node/137

AT 33: Jesus and the Two Swords: Did Jesus Endorse Violence?
Submitted by admin on Sat, 01/03/2008 - 23:12.

Jeremy Thomson
Originally Published in Anabaptism Today, Issue 33, June 2003

There is one passage in the Gospels in which Jesus endorses the possession of weapons of violence, if not their violent use:

He said to them, ‘When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?’ They said, ‘No, not a thing.’ He said to them, ‘But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, “And he was counted among the lawless”: and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.” They said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ He replied, ‘It is enough.’ (Luke 22:35-38, NRSV)

Does this mean that Jesus, though he had previously advocated love of enemies,1 was now envisaging that extreme situations would arise for disciples, in which violence would be an unfortunate necessity? Was he, in his true humanity, accommodating himself to the ‘non-ideal’ context of human fallen-ness, as some have suggested?2

The written records of the Anabaptists give us no clues as to how they understood this passage.3 Before their time, the notion of ‘the two swords’ had been used to justify the Holy Roman Empire by early medieval thinkers, and then theorists of the High Middle Ages grounded the notion of a papal theocracy in the same. For Martin Luther, however, it was a literal interpretation of Romans 13:4 that was basic to his conception of ‘Sword’, and this dominated the discussion of all temporal use of force between the Magisterial Reformers and the Anabaptists.

It is in more recent times that Mennonites and others in the peace tradition have tried to find an understanding of this passage that escapes an endorsement of violence from Jesus himself. I will briefly discuss three of these before suggesting what I believe to be a more convincing approach.

Non-literal readings of the passage

In a previous generation, Guy Herschberger pointed out that the disciples, alert to plots to kill their master, had already acquired swords with which to protect him. However, they had failed to grasp Jesus’ radical rejection of violence, as they had many other elements of his mission. Thus Jesus’ command here should be taken ironically as a rebuke to Peter’s lack of faith (especially in view in the preceding verses, 22:31-34), and Jesus’ conclusion, ‘It is enough,’ should be taken as a regretful ‘What more can I say?’4

More recently, John Stoner has seen our passage as Jesus’ final examination of the disciples’ grasp of his teaching of non-violence, focused on the threat of violence in the impending crisis. Their failure to protest or question his command constituted failure of the test, while his response meant, ‘That is enough. Obviously you do not understand. We shall go on.’5

Richard Hays, in the course of an important chapter-length presentation of the New Testament case against the use of violence, attends to our passage. He takes Jesus’ command as a figurative warning of impending opposition, while the disciples’ literalist response provokes the impatient dismissal, ‘Enough already!’6

Now non-literal ways of taking Jesus’ command are common among commentary writers on Luke who accept the integrity of the narrative, for they must take account of Jesus’ rejection of violence at his arrest (22:49-51). Hays supports his figurative reading of Jesus’ instruction by quoting Howard Marshall: ‘The saying can be regarded only as grimly ironical, expressing the intensity of the opposition which Jesus and his disciples will experience, endangering their very lives.’7 The general approach of more recent commentators, however, has been to take Jesus’ command as a metaphorical reference to the impending reality of hostility against the disciples, not just during, but after his passion.8

However, I can see why such explanations are unsatisfactory to sceptics; figure and irony are difficult to prove. I believe that irony is employed elsewhere in Luke’s writing (e.g. in Paul’s remark concerning the high priest in Acts 23:5), but the only reason to appeal to a figural interpretation here is Jesus’ rejection of sword-use later in the chapter. More immediate considerations count against it. First, if the disciples had misunderstood Jesus, why did he not correct them – as he did on other occasions? Immediately before this interchange, he had punctured Peter’s extravagant expression of devotion (22:31-34). Second, Jesus supplies an explanation of his command in his quotation from Isaiah 53:12 in verse 37. His double insistence here on scriptural fulfilment concerns the culmination of his own career, i.e. in the next few hours. This requires that the command is not a general instruction for the disciples’ future disposition in mission, but has to do with an immediate estimation of Jesus as outlaw (in the eyes of the authorities?).

Furthermore, it is true that several times in Luke Jesus warns the disciples about their encountering hostility (9:23-27; 12:4-12; 21:12-19), and that two of these clearly refer to post-Easter experiences. Yet, hostility has already been expressed towards Jesus and his disciples (6:1-11; 11:53-54), and he has already said, ‘From now on five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three’ (12:52). Conversely, in Luke’s second volume, the followers of Jesus experience ‘the goodwill of all the people’ (Acts 2:47), at least initially. So, Luke portrays the disciples encountering a mixture of goodwill and hostility both during and after Jesus’ earthly ministry – there is no overall shift to a bleaker reception of the disciples after his death and resurrection.

A more straightforward reading

Jesus’ command in verse 36 should not be taken as modifying or superseding his earlier commands as to the apostles’ mission lifestyle in general. He wanted his disciples to carry literal swords as his end approached in order to appear among outlaws, precisely because he had such a binding understanding of Scripture’s delineation of his own career. In which case, Jesus’ final remark in the interchange (v. 38) must be taken as at least a measure of approval; ‘Two swords are enough for me to be counted among the lawless.’ How then to reconcile this with the account of the arrest later the same evening (22:47-53)?

There can be no argument that when ‘it came down to the wire’ Jesus rejected the use of the sword, the bearing of which he had earlier enjoined, in an explicit statement, ‘No more of this!’ (v. 51). The miraculous healing of the severed ear emphasised that violence had no place in his peaceable kingdom: its effects were reversed. Jesus then spoke to those who had come to arrest him, insisting that his previous conduct did not warrant their preparations for violence. The Jewish authorities were revealing their true colours by making a forcible arrest away from the crowds: Jesus recognised the darkness of the powers to which they had given themselves (v. 53b), and with which he must grapple. So we still have an apparent anomaly: Why at his arrest did Jesus reject the identification of himself as bandit, if he previously instructed the carrying of swords in order to be associated with outlaws?

So far I have said nothing about the incident that occurs between the two swords interchange and the arrest. Luke depicts Jesus’ struggle in the unnamed place near the Mount of Olives (22:39-46) in terms of his reluctance to go through with the ‘cup’ of suffering. But what alternative was there by which he might accomplish his Messianic task? – it was a choice between the way of suffering or a campaign of violence. Perhaps the thought came to Jesus that those two swords could be wielded in a dramatic break-out, and that, having once resorted to violence, he could subsequently lead a peasant army to victory over the hated Roman occupying forces. If we try to read the account as a genuine struggle – without a pre-determined view of its outcome – then we may imagine that Jesus had no exact blueprint in his mind as to what would transpire.9 Of course, he had the outline of betrayal, suffering, death and resurrection (9:22; 9:44; 18:32f.), but his preoccupation with scriptural fulfilment indicates that this could be filled out only in limited ways. He did not know exactly what was to be done with the swords when he spoke about obtaining them, except that their appearance would entail outlaw associations. The Jewish authorities would know that so far Jesus and his disciples had not borne arms; to come across them at night carrying swords would signal a significant policy change.

But as Jesus emerged from his prayer-trial, he had become even more determined that the old cycle of violence must come to an end. When one of the swords was used, he immediately intervened. The disciple’s assumption of the outlaw role (wielding the sword against the high priest’s slave) gave Jesus the opportunity to stop the violence. His pronouncement, because it was made in the worst circumstances possible (‘your hour and the power of darkness’, v. 53b), assumes the character of an absolute prohibition for all his followers; an end to violence for all time.

Conclusion

It may be profitable to reflect briefly upon my interpretive method. I have deliberately restricted myself to thinking about Luke’s writing in its canonical form, rather than speculating about ‘the historical Jesus’ or how traditions about Jesus have been passed down and assembled by the author. It seems to me that Christians must be guided by the canonical witness to Jesus, rather than such scholarly attempts at reconstruction. A canonical approach, however, must go on to reckon with the witness of the other Gospels, and so some engagement with accounts of Jesus’ arrest in Matthew, Mark and John would be necessary for a full treatment of that incident. Yet discussion of the meaning of Jesus’ words and deeds as recounted by Luke cannot escape reflection on what was meant at the time of their utterance, and even some speculation as to what was in Jesus’ earthly mind during the events to which the Gospels testify, for theological reflection upon Jesus concerns more than a textual construct. It seeks to come to terms with his humanity at the same time as his divine Sonship.

This way of reading Luke’s two swords passage avoids a hard-to-prove figural take on Jesus’ command. It pays attention more seriously than do others to Jesus’ scriptural quotation. It integrates Jesus’ experience of prayerful struggle over whether to suffer rather than to inflict violence. Finally, it turns the tables on any suggestion that Jesus might have endorsed the use of violence, by suggesting that Jesus’ words in verse 51 should be taken as a theological pronouncement. For a short time Jesus had allowed the impression to arise among his disciples that he might be ‘armed and dangerous’ but, as one began to implement this scenario, Jesus repudiated such a stance once and for all. Jesus knew that his career would be misconceived (if not misrepresented) by the powers that he threatened; yet, at least among his own followers, he declared: ‘No more of this.’

There are two practical implications of my interpretation of the two swords interchange. First, Jesus’ instruction to buy a sword cannot be used to justify the purchase and carrying of weapons today. Many Christians have, of course, been misled by centuries of compromise with violence, and believe that ‘striking with the sword’ can be justified in certain circumstances, especially as a solution to certain political evils. Like the disciple who used his sword, they do not understand the profundity of Jesus’ way to the cross as impacting the deepest of human antipathies. In refusing the violence option, and having compassion on his enemies, Jesus maintains his integrity. He is able to behave in such a remarkably calm manner because he has allowed himself time to contemplate the full enormity of what he is taking on, and prayed through his horror of it. He instructs his disciples twice to pray that we may not come into such a time of trial, but he gives no guarantees that we will avoid it.

Second, Jesus’ preoccupation with the Scriptures regarding the course of his career is remarkable. The Isaiah passage to which Jesus refers was clearly at the forefront of his mind as his passion drew near. Our lives as Christians are not given such clear delineation in the Bible as was Jesus’, and yet he gives us an extraordinary model of searching the Scriptures in detail for setting our contemporary agendas. And it may be that Jesus did not know exactly how this detail would be played out when he invoked it – only as he went on down the path towards arrest did it become quite clear. So there may be times in our lives when parts of the Bible challenge us in strange ways, require us to re-examine our understanding of God’s call on our lives, and lead us to reckon afresh with the cost involved.
Reply

Kafir
03-17-2009, 10:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by muslimapoclyptc
Are you sure it's 20%? I've read that 2.3% of the world's population are atheists.
According to the world religion statistics compendum of 2007 20% of the world is "non believing in a higher power". This includes Atheists, agnostics and philosophical buddhists because they do not recognize a higher power. They are the fourth largest religious group, of course Christianity, Islam and Hinduism come first in population. The three fastest growing theological views are Islam, Ba'haism and Atheism. Atheism of that 20% make up nearly half: 9.9% on the last statistical report.

I know that number seems huge, but you have to remember almost 40% of western europe is atheist, especially in countries like the netherlands, denmark, sweden, etc. Some of those countries have as much as an 80% atheist population.

Granted, take that statistic (though the world compendum is the best one out there thus far) with a grain of salt, because its not like they take census in the amazonian jungles of tribal nations of Africa. They are working with reported data from industrialized nations, and the more industrialized a nation the heavier population of non believers they have.
Reply

Eric H
03-20-2009, 06:28 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Kafir;
I am really happy to see this topic discussed because these are exactly the kind of passages that give me moral issue with religion.
I believe in one God the creator of all that is seen and unseen, and when I walk through town, I see a part of God’s wonderful creation. I see people who could be atheist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu and much else, we are all children of the same God. We should care about God’s wonderful creation; which means caring for all our brothers and sisters, despite all our differences.

What kind of a burden we must be to God with all this arguing and fighting. We must appear just like foolish children fighting our brothers and sisters with words, guns and bombs.

I don’t believe religious people reflect the laws and commands of God truthfully, and I include myself. Keep searching for God despite all of us not being a very good advert for God.

In the spirit of praying to One God for peace on Earth

Eric
Reply

aamirsaab
03-20-2009, 08:46 AM
Sura 9, verse 5: Relates to a period of time where the pagans broke a treaty between them and the muslims. There was a grace period of several months, after which the muslims were allowed to take action against those who broke the treaty. When it says ''forbidden months pass...'' it is referring to that grace period.


It's funny what some people try and do with the verses of the Qur'an. Concocting all sorts of theories and mumbo jumbo.

Qur'an is nice and simple. Quit overcomplicating matters by ISOLATING SINGLE VERSES and taking them OUT OF CONTEXT.
Reply

Follower
03-23-2009, 02:19 PM
Sura 9, verse 5: Relates to a period of time where the pagans broke a treaty between them and the muslims

Are you saying that if pagans broke a treaty today the verse does not apply?
Reply

aamirsaab
03-23-2009, 04:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Sura 9, verse 5: Relates to a period of time where the pagans broke a treaty between them and the muslims

Are you saying that if pagans broke a treaty today the verse does not apply?
Nope. I'm saying that verse relates to a specific incident at a specific time. Whether or not it can be extrapolated to today's time is not for me to say - I'll leave that to the scholars and imaams :).
Reply

muslimapoclyptc
03-23-2009, 08:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Sura 9, verse 5: Relates to a period of time where the pagans broke a treaty between them and the muslims

Are you saying that if pagans broke a treaty today the verse does not apply?
Can the Biblical verses about those battles and wars be applied today, if the situation were similar?
Reply

Follower
03-24-2009, 09:31 PM
What are the scholars saying on the subject?

muslimapoclyptc -No in the Bible GOD names the people, mentions the evils they were practicing and where they lived. Too many facters would have to be in place to use the command to kill.

Since then, Old Testament time, the Law was fufilled by Jesus. Jesus came and gave perfect obedience to GODs Law. Whole nations of man will never be that depraved again.
Reply

Woodrow
03-24-2009, 10:03 PM
Follower:

Please remember that many if not most of us here are very familiar with the Bible. Many of us were Christian at one time. Some of us were even Christian ministers, pastors or priests.

I only point that out to show that we all do not accept the Bible because we were raised Muslim, We accepted Islam because we found the Bible to be in error.

I am certain you would see the error if we took quotes from the bible out of context and posted them as teachings from the bible. So it is with the Qur'an,
an ayyat from the Qur'an can not be fully understood unless the entire context is read. This usually will be the ayyats before and after it.
Reply

Woodrow
03-24-2009, 10:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
What are the scholars saying on the subject?

muslimapoclyptc -No in the Bible GOD names the people, mentions the evils they were practicing and where they lived. Too many facters would have to be in place to use the command to kill.

Since then, Old Testament time, the Law was fufilled by Jesus. Jesus came and gave perfect obedience to GODs Law. Whole nations of man will never be that depraved again.
Except not one word in the NT is in the writing of Jesus(as) all there is, are alleged quotes by various authors. The identity of some being questionable. I can not find a single lesson or sermon directly given by Jesus(as), only quotes of what he is alleged to have said. Remember there is no indication that Jesus(as) was illiterate and historically he had a good education and was well versed in Judaism to the extent of being addressed as Rabbi. It is a sad commentary on Christianity that none of the early Christians preserved the writings by him and could give a true verification of what he said and/or taught.

From a non-Christian view point, we can not see where the Christians of today are following the Teachings of Christ(as). To us it looks like the bible is the writing of Paul and the desired teachings of the various councils notably the councils of Trent and Nicea.

I have no doubt Jesus(as) gave perfect obedience to God(swt). Jesus(as) is one of the most respected Prophets(PBUT) in Islam. The Qur'an refers to Jesus(as) more times then it mentions Muhammad(PBUH) and his Mother has an entire Surat in the Qur'an. Probably as Muslims many of us follow Jesus(as) more correctly then many Christians do.
Reply

Follower
03-24-2009, 11:26 PM
LOL!! Woodrow I have read the Quran.

The only good answer would be that there was only one "Great Pilgrimage" in the timeline of man - that would identify a very specific time.

LOL! Yes I have realized this:

The Qur'an refers to Jesus(as) more times then it mentions Muhammad(PBUH) and his Mother has an entire Surat in the Qur'an.
Reply

Woodrow
03-25-2009, 02:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
LOL!! Woodrow I have read the Quran.

The only good answer would be that there was only one "Great Pilgrimage" in the timeline of man - that would identify a very specific time.

LOL! Yes I have realized this:

The Qur'an refers to Jesus(as) more times then it mentions Muhammad(PBUH) and his Mother has an entire Surat in the Qur'an.
Have you read the Qur'an or have you read an interpretation of the Qur'an. The Qur'an only exists in Arabic. all of the translations are flawed in one way or another. If you have read a translation. Try to read at least to or 3 different ones and in that way you will find a closer understanding of what the arabic says and perhaps see why it is so important not to take any ayyat out of context. The same wording in Arabic can have a very different meaning when placed in the context of another surat.

I often suggest to non-Arabic readers to use both Pickthall and Yusuf Ali as their writing styles when combined give a more accurate understanding. In addition I suggest using a third translation as verification. Shakir is good
Reply

muslimapoclyptc
03-25-2009, 07:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
What are the scholars saying on the subject?

muslimapoclyptc -No in the Bible GOD names the people, mentions the evils they were practicing and where they lived. Too many facters would have to be in place to use the command to kill.
The same applies to the Qur'an as well. Although specific tribes and their locations aren't mentioned, the context makes it pretty clear what it's talking about. You can't really mention tribes since they weren't divided along tribal lines, and you can't really mention location, since they were all basically in the same area.

What you may or may not realize, is that the conflict alluded to in the Qur'an was ongoing. It didn't begin and end with the treaty. All the ayats regarding fighting allude to the conflict.

If you wanted to take all the ayats pertaining to the issue, you'd see that it's as specific as possible, without becoming excessively wordy.

Since then, Old Testament time, the Law was fufilled by Jesus. Jesus came and gave perfect obedience to GODs Law. Whole nations of man will never be that depraved again.
Here is what that Law (according to the Qur'an) says about killing:

Qur'an 5:32:

On that account, We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

The Islamic perspective on these issues is important to understand if you want to grasp how Islam truly defines itself.
Reply

Follower
03-27-2009, 12:51 AM
Woodrow - When I first read the Quran 5 years ago I was using

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/c.../muslim/quran/

I decided that I did not want to be influenced by man as I read and started leaving out all the words in ( ).

Then just recently I figured if the the Holy Spirit has always helped me through the Holy Bible, shouldn't He be able to help me through the Quran?

If you had read my opening post you would see that I used:

009.005
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

PICKTHAL: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

SHAKIR: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Literal:
So if the months the forbidden/sacred ended/passed, so fight/kill the sharers/takers of partners (with God) where/when you found them, and take/punish them and restrict/confine them and remain/be concerned and prepared/beset for them (in) every lookout/observatory, so if they repented, and kept up the prayers and gave/brought the charity/ purification , so free their way/path , that God (is) forgiving, merciful.

muslimapoclyptic - Thank you. you do understand what I am saying. I don't believe that GOD would not be specific and I have to think that those verses were lost at some time- the battle when so many Muslims were killed, or when Uthmann burned the other versions of the Qurans.

The problem with:
5:32:
On that account, We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.
Literal:
Because of that, We wrote/decreed on Israel's sons and daughters, that who killed a self without a self, or corruption in the earth/Planet Earth, so as if he killed the people all/all together , and who revived it, so as if he revived the people all/all together, and Our messengers had come to them with the evidences, then that many from them, after that in the earth/Planet Earth spoilers/wasters (E) .

It is directed towards the Children of Israel and not Muslims. It lead right into what the Muslim is allowed to do if smeone is against Islam:

005.033
YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
Literal:
But reward those who embattle/fight God and His messenger, and they strive/endeavor in the earth/Planet Earth corruption/disorder, that they be killed or they be crucified , or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposites, or they be expelled/exiled from the land, that for them shame/scandal/disgrace in the present world, and for them in the end a great torture.
Reply

coddles76
03-27-2009, 01:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
"the idea you uphold of god being love is quite amazing, christianity would not have spread as it did if not for the Romans butchering their way throughout Europe and elsewhere, where was the god/love then?"

These people were not following the teaching of Jesus. Anyone killing and not loving their neighbor/enemy is not following Jesus.

In Islam you are allowed to kill, Christians are not. The rulling was reversed.
There wouldn't be much christians in the world then would there, in the past, present and the future.
Reply

muslimapoclyptc
03-27-2009, 01:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
muslimapoclyptic - Thank you. you do understand what I am saying. I don't believe that GOD would not be specific and I have to think that those verses were lost at some time- the battle when so many Muslims were killed, or when Uthmann burned the other versions of the Qurans.
There are no verses missing, and there were no other versions of the Qur'an.

What is "specific" is relative to the situation, and is very subjective.

The problem with:
5:32:
On that account, We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.
Literal:
Because of that, We wrote/decreed on Israel's sons and daughters, that who killed a self without a self, or corruption in the earth/Planet Earth, so as if he killed the people all/all together , and who revived it, so as if he revived the people all/all together, and Our messengers had come to them with the evidences, then that many from them, after that in the earth/Planet Earth spoilers/wasters (E) .

It is directed towards the Children of Israel and not Muslims. It lead right into what the Muslim is allowed to do if smeone is against Islam:

005.033
YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
Literal:
But reward those who embattle/fight God and His messenger, and they strive/endeavor in the earth/Planet Earth corruption/disorder, that they be killed or they be crucified , or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposites, or they be expelled/exiled from the land, that for them shame/scandal/disgrace in the present world, and for them in the end a great torture.
Actually, 5:33 is clearly talking about those who fight against Allah and His Messenger and strive to cause mischief through the land.
Reply

Follower
03-27-2009, 01:49 AM
Yes, fighting against Islam = fighting against Allah and Mohammad.

Many Muslims have said that I am fighting against Allah and Mohammad and causing mischief!!
Reply

muslimapoclyptc
03-27-2009, 03:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Yes, fighting against Islam = fighting against Allah and Mohammad.

Many Muslims have said that I am fighting against Allah and Mohammad and causing mischief!!
Many Muslims say a lot of things. We aren't talking about what many Muslims say, we're talking about what is said in the Qur'an.
Reply

Follower
03-31-2009, 02:18 AM
It would be great if the Quran had been written in chronological order.

All this ties in together the Quran being vague, not written in any sepcial order, leads to WHY "many Muslims" have said that I am fighting against Allah and Mohammad and causing mischief!!

Have you read "Brothers Kept Apart"? I have not, but it sounds very interesting and similar to some of the thoughts I have had about the Quran.

http://brotherskeptapart.com/
Reply

muslimapoclyptc
03-31-2009, 02:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
It would be great if the Quran had been written in chronological order.

All this ties in together the Quran being vague, not written in any sepcial order, leads to WHY "many Muslims" have said that I am fighting against Allah and Mohammad and causing mischief!!
Why would the Qur'an be in chronological order, when it isn't a story book, and doesn't follow any traditional literary style in communicating its message?

Have you read "Brothers Kept Apart"? I have not, but it sounds very interesting and similar to some of the thoughts I have had about the Quran.

http://brotherskeptapart.com/
No I have not, but I may check it out later.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
03-31-2009, 03:49 PM
I like how people say Uthman(ra) burned other "versions" of the Qur'an when BURNING them would be the biggest disrespect EVER to the words of Allah. Claiming that a companion did this is makes me laugh really...there is only one Qur'an.
Reply

Follower
04-03-2009, 01:32 AM
"Why would the Qur'an be in chronological order, when it isn't a story book, and doesn't follow any traditional literary style in communicating its message?"

It would help put the vague verses in context.
Reply

Follower
04-03-2009, 01:34 AM
Sahih Hadith of Bukhari. Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510: Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Quran, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Quran so that we may compile the Quranic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Quran, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Quran was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Quranic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Quran and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.'
Reply

muslimapoclyptc
04-04-2009, 04:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
It would help put the vague verses in context.
If you want the context, then why not read a tafsir?

The verses aren't vague. You're just looking for a sequential narrative where there simply isn't one, and never was meant to be one.

The Book [Quran]:

The Divine Guidance


First of all, the reader should understand the real nature of the Quran. Whether one believes it to be a revealed book or not, one will have to consider, as a starting point, the claim that it puts forward, as does its bearer, Muhammad (s, peace be upon him), that this is the Divine Guidance.

Allah, the Lord of the universe, its Creator, Master and Sovereign, created man and bestowed upon him the faculties of learning, speaking, understanding and discerning right from wrong and good from evil. He granted him freedom of choice, freedom of will, freedom of action. He gave him authority to acquire and make use of the things around him. In short, He granted him a kind of autonomy and appointed him as His representative on earth and instructed him to live in accordance with His Guidance.

... He organized all those who accepted the Divine Guidance into one community, which in its turn was required to reestablish its collective way of life based on the Guidance and to exert itself to reform the world, which had gone astray. The Quran which was revealed to Muhammad (s) is the Book which contains that Invitation and that Divine Guidance.

The SUBJECT it deals with is MAN: it discusses those aspects of his life that lead either to his real success or to his failure. The CENTRAL THEME that runs throughout the Quran is the exposition of the Reality and the invitation to the Right Way based upon it. It declares that this Reality is the same one that was revealed by Allah (SWT) Himself to Adam at the time of his appointment as His representative, and to all the Messengers after him. The AIM and OBJECT of the revelations is to invite man to that Right Way and to present clearly the Guidance which he has lost because of his negligence, or has perverted by his wickedness. If the reader keeps these three basic things in mind, he will find that in this Book there is no incongruity in style, no gap in continuity, and no lack of interconnection between its various topics.

As a matter of fact, this Book is never irrelevant with regard to its Subject, its Central Theme and its Aim... That is why it states or discusses or cites a subject only to the extent relevant to its aims and objects and leaves out unnecessary and irrelevant details, returning over and over again to its Central Theme and to its invitation around which every other topic revolves. When the Quran is studied in this light, no doubt is left that the whole of it is a closely reasoned argument and that there is continuity of subject throughout the Book.

The Style

The revelation of the Quran continued for twenty-three years. The different portions of the Quran were revealed according to the requirements of the various phases of Islam. It is thus obvious that such a book cannot have the kind of uniformity of style which is followed in formal books on religion and the like. It should also be kept in mind that the various portions of the Quran, both long and short, were not meant to be published in the form of pamphlets at the time of their revelation, but were to be delivered as addresses and promulgated as such. They could not therefore, be in the style of the written word. Moreover, these addresses were necessarily of a different nature from that of the lectures of a professor. The Prophet (s) was entrusted with a special mission and had to appeal both to the emotions and to the intellect; he had to deal with people of different mentalities, cope with different situations and various sets of experiences during the course of his mission. He also has to train and reform his followers and to imbue them with spirit and courage, to refute the arguments of opponents and to expose their moral weaknesses.

This also explains why the same issues are repeated over and over again in the Quran. A mission and a movement naturally demand that only those topics should be presented which are required at a particular stage and that nothing should be said about the requirements of the next stage. So the same instructions are covered again and again as long as Islam remains in the same stage. Of course, they have been differently worded and styled to avoid monotony, and couched in beautiful and dignified language to make them impressive as well as effective. Moreover, it repeats at suitable places the basic creed and principles in order to keep Islam strong at every stage.

All the surahs of the Quran contain references to its basic creed: the Unity of Allah (SWT), His attributes, the Hereafter, and accountability, punishment and reward, Prophethood, and belief in the Book. They all teach piety, fortitude, endurance, faith and trust in Allah (SWT) because these virtues could not be neglected at any stage of Islam. If any of these bases had been weakened at any stage in even the slightest way, the Islamic Movement could not have made any progress in its true spirit.
Reply

Follower
04-06-2009, 09:49 PM
Tasfir is just another man's interpretation.

Then the Quran was meant to be vague!?

You see this is how and why some Muslims have caused so much grief for the world. It allows itself to be used for evil deeds by some that "say" they are Muslim.
Reply

muslimapoclyptc
04-06-2009, 10:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Tasfir is just another man's interpretation.
...which is based on the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet.

Then the Quran was meant to be vague!?
Didn't I just say that Qur'an is not vague?

I already posted the explanation of what the Qur'an is meant to be.

You see this is how and why some Muslims have caused so much grief for the world. It allows itself to be used for evil deeds by some that "say" they are Muslim.
No it isn't. The Qur'an is not used to cause grief in this world.
Reply

Follower
04-07-2009, 01:32 PM
The Quran is supposed to be a clear and final revelation from Allah.

A clear revelation from GOD does not need explanation. If you need an explanation or hadith to explain a verse it is not clear, but unclear-vague.

I understand that some minorities of Muslims support suicide bombers, justify their bombing of non-believers because they are fighting in Allah's way? The actions are considered heroic martyrdoms allowing immediate entrance into paradise.

They ignore the following verse:

002.195
YUSUFALI: And spend of your substance in the cause of Allah, and make not your own hands contribute to (your) destruction; but do good; for Allah loveth those who do good.
PICKTHAL: Spend your wealth for the cause of Allah, and be not cast by your own hands to ruin; and do good. Lo! Allah loveth the beneficent.
SHAKIR: And spend in the way of Allah and cast not yourselves to perdition with your own hands, and do good (to others); surely Allah loves the doers of good.
Reply

muslimapoclyptc
04-07-2009, 09:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
The Quran is supposed to be a clear and final revelation from Allah.

A clear revelation from GOD does not need explanation. If you need an explanation or hadith to explain a verse it is not clear, but unclear-vague.
Actually, a clear revelation from God does need explanation. That's what Prophets and Messengers are for.
Reply

Follower
04-10-2009, 02:36 PM
So you are saying that those that produce the explanations of the verses from Mohammd are prophets and messangers?
Reply

Thinker
04-10-2009, 03:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Light of Heaven
I like how people say Uthman(ra) burned other "versions" of the Qur'an when BURNING them would be the biggest disrespect EVER to the words of Allah. Claiming that a companion did this is makes me laugh really...there is only one Qur'an.
Oh dear, where have you been all your Muslim life. Indeed the original copies were burnt, the question is why? read on . . . . .

Bukhari (6:61:510) Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to the scribe Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33.23)

Can't put my finger on the hadith but there was another verse lost, Aisha says that it was eaten by a goat!
Reply

Zafran
04-10-2009, 04:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Oh dear, where have you been all your Muslim life. Indeed the original copies were burnt, the question is why? read on . . . . .

Bukhari (6:61:510) Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to the scribe Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33.23)

Can't put my finger on the hadith but there was another verse lost, Aisha says that it was eaten by a goat!

salaam
I'm not sure what your getting at? there still is one Quran - the other Qurans that were burnt were the ones with different dialects nothing to do woth content - so that no confusion would arise. They wrote the Quran in its original dialect (the dialect of prophet Muhammad pbuh). No verse was lost. Then the Quran was sent to major centers.

The uthmani Quran still exist today.

a great site about the Quranic manuscripts

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...raat/hafs.html

some good videos (lectures) :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WC_8...0DCF82&index=2 - Hamza yusuf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGx19...e=channel_page - Shabir Ally on the histroy of the Quranic text.

peace
Reply

Zafran
04-10-2009, 04:55 PM
salaam

to follower yes the Quran is clear as it gets - its up to the individual to accept it or reject it.
Reply

- Qatada -
04-10-2009, 05:06 PM
:salamext:


1) Tafsir of the Qur'an is an indepth of study of it, to understand its meanings, while combining it with the Prophetic Guidance [Sunnah] to get a proper interpretation of what is meant by Allah.

Tafsir was done by Prophet Muhammad himself to his companions, and there are many examples of this in the ahadith.


There's a whole book on it in Sahih Al bukhari [book 60].
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/c...i/060.sbt.html



2) In regard to what Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) did, this is based on the Qur'ans different forms of recital.


The evidence for that is the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas who narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Jibreel taught me one style and I reviewed it until he taught me more, and I kept asking him for more and he gave me more until finally there were seven styles.”

(narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3047; Muslim, 819)



So there are 7 styles of recital of Qur'an, for the different tribes [since they spoke slightly differently in wording. So to make it easy for the ummah [muslim nation] - Prophet Muhammad asked Allah to reveal the Qur'an in 7 styles.]



These 7 styles may have slight differences in wording, but the meaning is the same.


i.e. In surah al fatihah, the main copy has the recital:

"Ihdinaa (guide us) as-Siraat Al Mustaqeem (on the straight path.)".


Another recital mode us:

"Irshidnaa (guide us) as-Siraat Al Mustaqeem (on the straight path.")

[with the underlined letters being the root letters]



So there isn't much difference except in the wording, with one tribe preferring to use the word Irshidnaa over Ihdinaa, since both mean 'guide us' in arabic.



Why did Uthman burn the other copies? Not because there were any errors. But because the new muslims started to become confused as to why different people were reciting the Qur'an differently (not all the people had heard the hadith of the Qur'an being revealed in 7 styles, only some of the Prophets companions who were present when the hadith was mentioned.)

So Uthman united the people by burning the extra copies (which is allowed since all the companions of the Prophet agreed with him), and united the believers upon 1 style, which is the most famous today. The other styles are still preserved today, so they havn't been lost.



This link is useful;

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...raat/hafs.html



Allah knows best.
Reply

- Qatada -
04-10-2009, 05:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker

Can't put my finger on the hadith but there was another verse lost, Aisha says that it was eaten by a goat!

Proof and we'll discuss.
Reply

- Qatada -
04-10-2009, 05:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
"Why would the Qur'an be in chronological order, when it isn't a story book, and doesn't follow any traditional literary style in communicating its message?"

It would help put the vague verses in context.

The Qur'an is explained by the Messenger of God, and his companions. They are further explained in context by seeing his life, which is also preserved authentically.
Reply

- Qatada -
04-10-2009, 05:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
So you are saying that those that produce the explanations of the verses from Mohammd are prophets and messangers?

They study the Qur'an, and the Prophets life and the way of his companions to come to conclusions. That's why they are called 'ulama (people of knowledge) - since they talk based on knowledge.
Reply

Yanal
04-10-2009, 05:24 PM
Follower why are you against our religion when we are not against yours?
Reply

Thinker
04-10-2009, 07:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
salaam
I'm not sure what your getting at? peace
I was simply enlightening the Muslim lady 'Light of Heaven' whose knowledge of Islam appears wanting; she said . . . . I like how people say Uthman(ra) burned other "versions" of the Qur'an when BURNING them would be the biggest disrespect EVER to the words of Allah. Claiming that a companion did this is makes me laugh really...there is only one Qur'an.
Reply

Yanal
04-10-2009, 11:14 PM
^ where's the proof a companion burned it?
Reply

muslimapoclyptc
04-11-2009, 02:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
So you are saying that those that produce the explanations of the verses from Mohammd are prophets and messangers?
Obviously not. How exactly did you read that from what I said?

Explaining the Qur'an is what Prophet Muhammad did, regardless of who later conveyed what he said to others.

People who have studied the Qur'an in depth are obviously going to be more knowledgeable about it than those who have not, and whose knowledge of it, is confined to the cherry-picking of ayats. This is why, when questions arise, people should consult with those who are knowledgeable.

The best tafsir (exegesis) is the explanation of the Qur'an by the Qur'an. Many of the questions which may arise out of a certain passage of the Qur'an have their explanation in other parts of the very same book, and often there is no need to turn to any sources other than the word of Allah, which in itself contains tafsir.

If it isn't explained in the Qur'an, then the next best source, would be the explanation of the Qur'an by Prophet Muhammad. There are numerous examples of explanations of the Qur'an by the Prophet, who either himself asked the Angel Gabriel for explanations of matters not clear to him, or who was asked by the Companions about the Qur'an.

If it isn't in either source, then the next step, would be to refer to the reports of the Sahabah. Then, for further clarification, consider the reports of the Tabi'un.

Ultimately though, none of these sources match the explanation of the Qur'an by the Qur'an itself, and by the Prophet.

For further information on this:

Interpreting the Text
Reply

Thinker
04-11-2009, 03:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yanal
^ where's the proof a companion burned it?
Proof = Bukhari (6:61:510) but why do you ask for proof, the suggestion that the originals were destroyed by fire is (I believe) uncontested in Islam. It is a subject which has been thoroughly discussed in previous threads on this forum together with the questions; Why was it destroyed and Why are there no original copies of Uthman’s version.

Again a surprising example of a lack of knowledge of the origins of your own religion! I am starting to form the view that most Muslims attend some form of religious instruction where they learn whatever they are taught and never research or study Islam beyond that. That’s not surprising, I attended a christen school and I am sure that 99% of my fellow students never looked beyond the Christian instruction they received there. But then the internet did not exist then.

I am often castigated for using the internet as a research tool and I have often read derisory remarks here about using the net for that purpose (of course I have a copy of the Qu’ran which I have read and to which I continually refer). Members here have suggested I should consult with a scholar at my local mosque as a source of research. My problem with that is that is, I have no confidence that scholar A is going to give a truer interpretation than scholar B and I have every reason to think that the scholar might shield me from the difficult questions as appears to have happened with Yanal and Light of Heaven here.

Don’t shoot the messenger
Reply

Thinker
04-11-2009, 03:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by muslimapoclyptc
For further information on this:

Interpreting the Text
Thank you for the link I have glanced through it an will study it later.

Regarding the below . . . . . . . . . .

Tafsîr bi-l-riwâya

By this is meant all explanations of the Qur'ân which can be traced back through a chain of transmission to a sound source, i.e.:

The Qur'ân itself.

The explanation of the Prophet.

The explanation by Companions of the Prophet (to some extent).


I presume 'The explanation by Companions of the Prophet' are the hadith can you explain 'to some extent?'


Thanks
Reply

wth1257
04-11-2009, 03:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
"Why would the Qur'an be in chronological order, when it isn't a story book, and doesn't follow any traditional literary style in communicating its message?"

It would help put the vague verses in context.

Based on what? What do you base this assertion on?

Of course not any scholarly studies as such an attempt was quite popular in early twentieth century orientalist circles. The result was an incoherant mess.

A.J. Arberry wrote a very enlightening criticism of this approach in his "The Koran Interpreted".
Reply

Zafran
04-11-2009, 04:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker

Again a surprising example of a lack of knowledge of the origins of your own religion! I am starting to form the view that most Muslims attend some form of religious instruction where they learn whatever they are taught and never research or study Islam beyond that. That’s not surprising, I attended a christen school and I am sure that 99% of my fellow students never looked beyond the Christian instruction they received there. But then the internet did not exist then.

This isnt realy exclusive to any particluar religious group - if you look at the
majority of the poeple in the world they just follow the society, family, religion they are born into - very few people go and research about other traditions and cultures and campare them with there own tradition. Some people dont even know there own traditon and follow people blindly.

Every soceity/nation or religion have people that follow the religion/ world view just because they were born in that family, race, area, country etc. Its just a common human trait IMO.

Only very few people think outside the box.

so to think its exclusive to muslims or even christains is heavily narrow.
Reply

- Qatada -
04-12-2009, 05:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Thank you for the link I have glanced through it an will study it later.

Regarding the below . . . . . . . . . .

Tafsîr bi-l-riwâya

By this is meant all explanations of the Qur'ân which can be traced back through a chain of transmission to a sound source, i.e.:

The Qur'ân itself.

The explanation of the Prophet.

The explanation by Companions of the Prophet (to some extent).


I presume 'The explanation by Companions of the Prophet' are the hadith can you explain 'to some extent?'


Thanks

The companions had the best knowledge of the revelation since they lived with the Messenger of God, Muhammad (peace be upon him.) So they would ask him questions in regard to the revelation, so he would inform them. Furthermore they would come to certain conclusions based on understanding of what was mentioned in the Qur'an and the Prophetic sayings (authentic hadith/Sunnah).
Reply

Thinker
04-12-2009, 07:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by - Qatada -
The companions had the best knowledge of the revelation since they lived with the Messenger of God, Muhammad (peace be upon him.) So they would ask him questions in regard to the revelation, so he would inform them. Furthermore they would come to certain conclusions based on understanding of what was mentioned in the Qur'an and the Prophetic sayings (authentic hadith/Sunnah).
Hi,

Yes I figured that out; it appears to me that the sahâba are the companions and the tâbicûn are others who had direct conversation with a companion. So does it then follow that the hadith can only come from a sahâba or a tâbicûn? And it would seem to logically follow that an hadith from a sahâba would be more reliable than an hadith from a tâbicûn? So why in the link provided by muslimapoclyptc does it say “The explanation by Companions of the Prophet (to some extent)” i.e.hadith from sahâba is only relied upon ‘to some extent?’
Reply

- Qatada -
04-12-2009, 08:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Hi,

Yes I figured that out; it appears to me that the sahâba are the companions and the tâbicûn are others who had direct conversation with a companion. So does it then follow that the hadith can only come from a sahâba or a tâbicûn? And it would seem to logically follow that an hadith from a sahâba would be more reliable than an hadith from a tâbicûn? So why in the link provided by muslimapoclyptc does it say “The explanation by Companions of the Prophet (to some extent)” i.e.hadith from sahâba is only relied upon ‘to some extent?’

A hadith which is authentic is a statement of the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad (peace be upon him), which was heard by his companions - who themselves could write the hadith down - or could memorise it with a strong memorisation and pass it onto their students (the tabi'een/tabi'un).

They could also record it or memorise it thoroughly [their life was based on memorisation, and implementation of Qur'an and Ahadith] and pass it onto their students too. It was these students which recorded them in the massive books of hadith such as Sahih Al Bukhari, Sahih Al Muslim etc.



On the issue of the explanations of the companions. Let me give you an example.


Abu Sa’id al-Khudri narrated that the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) said:

“Indeed, you will follow the practices of those who came before you - handspan by handspan, armspan by armspan - to the point that if they follow the lizard into its hole, you would follow them in this.”


We [the companions] said: “O Messenger of Allah, are you referring to the Jews and Christians?” He replied: “Who else?”

[Reported by Ahmad, al-Bukhari, and Muslim]

Now this is a Prophecy which we know has already occurred and will continue to occur till the final hour.


But there are statements which the companions of the Prophet also said, based on their understanding of the hadith mentioned above.

10 - al-Walid said that he was walking with Abyad, one of the Companions of the Prophet, to visit a friend:

“So, we entered the mosque, and we saw the people praying. I said: “Praise be to Allah who has caused Islam to unite white and black people!” So, Abyad said: “By the One in Whose Hand my soul is, the Day of Resurrection will not come until you adopt some practices of every religion.”

I said: “Will this be because people will leave Islam?”

He replied: “They will pray like you pray, they will sit in your gatherings, they will live amongst you, and they will adopt some of the practices of every religion.”"


[Reported by 'Abdan in the book 'as-Sahabah']

http://iskandrani.wordpress.com/2008...-of-the-kuffar

We see this clearly in the world today, and even throughout our Islamic history if you study it.


There's more similar reports narrated by other companions of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).


Now since they had the most fear of lying about Allah and His Messenger without knowledge, they would think a great deal before making some statement about Allah's religion. When they did narrate, we could accept them statements - but if there was to be an authentic hadith which contradicted a statement of a companion - then the hadith would be taken as the real authority.

Why could there be a contradiction between them two? Because it may have been that a companion was not present when the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) spoke about the issue from another perspective, and the companion may have only heard one of his sayings concerning the issue. The companions who had heard the different sayings of the Prophet could correct the one who had only heard one statement. They would discuss, and come to conclusions after gathering all the evidences.



So since the companions were all sincere, and true believers. They would not lie about Allah and His Messenger, but may have erred on an issue or two. They would be corrected if this was the case. Thats why their sayings would be relied on to the extent of what agreed with the revelation. Since the Qur'an and Sunnah/authentic ahadith take precedence over everything else.
Reply

Thinker
04-13-2009, 09:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by - Qatada -
A hadith which is authentic is a statement of the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad (peace be upon him), which was heard by his companions - who themselves could write the hadith down - or could memorise it with a strong memorisation and pass it onto their students (the tabi'een/tabi'un).
Thanks for the explanation
Reply

Follower
04-14-2009, 01:07 AM
You said - Actually, a clear revelation from God does need explanation. That's what Prophets and Messengers are for. I thought you meant that the explainers of an unclear revelation were prophets.

A clear message needs no explanation.

Hadith or not?:

Sahih Hadith of Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 509: Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:
Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet's Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found 'Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), "Umar has come to me and said: "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra' of the Quran (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yamama and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra' on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Quran may be lost.
Reply

aamirsaab
04-14-2009, 08:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
...
A clear message needs no explanation.
''I like apples. ''
That is a clear message but requires an explanation as to why I have revealed it. Why have I revealed it?
A) To make a point (that clear messages DO need explanations!)
B) cus I'm hungry
C) I really do like apples. Big, greeny juicy ones. Sliced, seedless and sweet!

Hadith or not?:

Sahih Hadith of Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 509: Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:
Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet's Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found 'Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), "Umar has come to me and said: "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra' of the Quran (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yamama and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra' on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Quran may be lost.
What is the relevance of this hadith and/or the bolded part?
Reply

GreyKode
04-14-2009, 09:12 AM
^ditto
Reply

Follower
04-14-2009, 12:34 PM
Every Muslim I know says that the Quran is so clear and yet you need all kinds of explanations and hadith to live as a Muslims. LOL!! There is even argument about what words mean.

What if the verses that would have made the Quran truly clear were in fact lost with the people in battle and when Uthman burned the various copies. We know Aisha mentions verses lost or that chapters were originally longer.

I believe there is more to Islam and people/Muslims are just skiming off the surface.

In the Holy Bible there is almost always deeper meaning/ life lesson, facts in verses/parables beyond the main thread of thought.

Why would GOD write such a rich and full Holy Books for Israel and Gentiles and not do the same for Mulims?
Reply

muslimapoclyptc
04-14-2009, 01:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Every Muslim I know says that the Quran is so clear and yet you need all kinds of explanations and hadith to live as a Muslims. LOL!! There is even argument about what words mean.
Of course the Qur'an is clear. You are simply confusing clarity with encompassing every single detail. The Qur'an does not cover every single detail of everything. It covers what's important for it to cover. The extraneous details are covered, and are meant to be covered, in the tafsir of the Qur'an.

What if the verses that would have made the Quran truly clear were in fact lost with the people in battle and when Uthman burned the various copies. We know Aisha mentions verses lost or that chapters were originally longer.

I believe there is more to Islam and people/Muslims are just skiming off the surface.
'Uthman burned only what had already been copied and only what was recorded in different dialects besides the Qurayshi one. People dying in battles, is one of the reasons 'Uthman made the standard copy of the Qur'an.

As Allah says in the Qur'an, with regard to "lost verses":

2:106: We do not annul any of Our revelations nor let it be forgotten, unless We replace it with a better one, or (at least) the one similar to it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?

In the Holy Bible there is almost always deeper meaning/ life lesson, facts in verses/parables beyond the main thread of thought.

Why would GOD write such a rich and full Holy Books for Israel and Gentiles and not do the same for Mulims?
That's if you believe God wrote the entirety of the Bible, instead of his words being scattered in it, here and there, with a few people inserting explanations in-between God's actual words.

There are always deeper meanings, etc. in God's words.
Reply

burdenofbeing
04-14-2009, 06:42 PM
sending just a book to people wouldn't be fruitful I think. Moses had lots of trouble with his people. The golden calf and all that. Christianity without Jesus is even more impossible, considering he was the kalamullah, word of god.

Oh and, yes muslims are allowed to kill and sometimes ordered to kill people. turning the other cheek tends to cause problems.
Reply

burdenofbeing
04-14-2009, 06:45 PM
one more thing. christians only have the "hadith" of jesus (as they claim) without the scripture. so claiming hadith is irrelevant when you yourself have only the hadith to go with, seems, I don't know... hypocritical?
Reply

Thinker
04-15-2009, 01:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by burdenofbeing
one more thing. christians only have the "hadith" of jesus (as they claim) without the scripture. so claiming hadith is irrelevant when you yourself have only the hadith to go with, seems, I don't know... hypocritical?
That’s a fair point as it stands and I could find good reason to support your suggestion that the Bible is, def facto, Christian hadith but as Christians do not have the ‘scripture’ as you call it, they would have no guidance on the will of God without their ‘hadith;’ could it not then be argued that as Muslims have the Qu’ran they should not need hadith.
Reply

Uthman
04-15-2009, 01:05 PM
Greetings Thinker,
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
could it not then be argued that as Muslims have the Qu’ran they should not need hadith.
Please view this thread:

http://www.islamicboard.com/methodol...n-hadeeth.html

Regards
Reply

muslimapoclyptc
04-15-2009, 01:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
That’s a fair point as it stands and I could find good reason to support your suggestion that the Bible is, def facto, Christian hadith but as Christians do not have the ‘scripture’ as you call it, they would have no guidance on the will of God without their ‘hadith;’ could it not then be argued that as Muslims have the Qu’ran they should not need hadith.
Well, no, not really, since the ahadith expand on the Qur'an, and the Qur'an makes following the Sunnah of the Prophet obligatory.
Reply

Imam
04-15-2009, 01:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
That’s a fair point as it stands and I could find good reason to support your suggestion that the Bible is, def facto, Christian hadith but as Christians do not have the ‘scripture’ as you call it, they would have no guidance on the will of God without their ‘hadith

Do you really want the most accurate term for the Gospels?

they are not similar to neither the Quran nor the hadith....

the best word to call them is Sira (biography)

the gospels are incomplete hearsay account (Sira) of the final chapter of Jesus's life ......
We muslims believe Jesus had a message which he preached and ordered the disciples to preach during his life time "The disciples began going about among the villages, preaching the Gospel..." (Luke 9:6).

such message is equal in our terms to the term (Quran)

while what has been written after years of his departure is equal in our terms to the term Sira.....

we believe that (Jesus is the message) sect conquered the (The message of Jesus) sect politically.....
Reply

GreyKode
04-15-2009, 02:12 PM
What if the verses that would have made the Quran truly clear were in fact lost with the people in battle and when Uthman burned the various copies.
Why can't you understand this?
There were HUFFAZ and SCRIPTURES NOT one but BOTH, so even if the sciptures of certain verses were lost/burnt/decayed etc.., that doesn't mean the huffaz didn't remember them.
Reply

GreyKode
04-15-2009, 02:14 PM
I believe there is more to Islam and people/Muslims are just skiming off the surface.
Yeah, like for instance the lost verses that should assert the divinity of jesus, right?
Reply

Zafran
04-15-2009, 03:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
That’s a fair point as it stands and I could find good reason to support your suggestion that the Bible is, def facto, Christian hadith but as Christians do not have the ‘scripture’ as you call it, they would have no guidance on the will of God without their ‘hadith;’ could it not then be argued that as Muslims have the Qu’ran they should not need hadith.

The Quran is the word of God - in 16:44 it tells the muslims that the prophet is there to tell us what the Quran means - so the hadith or "traditions of the prophet" are sanctioned in the Quran - there are many other Ayats that also tell the muslims to follow the prophet and that he is a great example to look at.

16.44] (We sent them) with clear signs and the Psalms. And We sent down to
you the Remembrance so that you can make clear to people what has been sent
down to them, in order that they reflect.


[33.21] In the Messenger of Allah you have a fine example for he who hopes
for Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah abundantly.


Going back to the idea that christains have only "hadiths" of Jesus - problem with that is they dont have a scienece of hadith to distinquish weak hadiths with authentic ones unlike Islam.

peace
Reply

Thinker
04-16-2009, 10:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
Do you really want the most accurate term for the Gospels?

they are not similar to neither the Quran nor the hadith....

the best word to call them is Sira (biography)

the gospels are incomplete hearsay account (Sira) of the final chapter of Jesus's life ......
We muslims believe Jesus had a message which he preached and ordered the disciples to preach during his life time "The disciples began going about among the villages, preaching the Gospel..." (Luke 9:6).

such message is equal in our terms to the term (Quran)

while what has been written after years of his departure is equal in our terms to the term Sira.....

we believe that (Jesus is the message) sect conquered the (The message of Jesus) sect politically.....
I wasn’t trying to defend Christianity, I though he made a good point and I was simply agreeing with him in broad terms i.e. the New Testament and hadith are both accounts written by people after the event about things they saw or were told about.
Reply

burdenofbeing
04-16-2009, 05:58 PM
well, we know that the scripture is not enough by itself with the example of moses.

that said, what should be understood is that god of abraham does not want to make sure everyone is acting good and to his will (according to the abrahamic religions). he could as well send a book/message that would make everyone believe, or rather know, if that were the case.
Reply

Thinker
04-16-2009, 07:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by burdenofbeing
well, we know that the scripture is not enough by itself with the example of moses.

that said, what should be understood is that god of abraham does not want to make sure everyone is acting good and to his will (according to the abrahamic religions). he could as well send a book/message that would make everyone believe, or rather know, if that were the case.
Could that book that he sent be the Ten Commandments? Could it be that they are enough by themselves as a guide to how God wants us to live our lives?
Reply

burdenofbeing
04-16-2009, 07:58 PM
Even many of the muslims prove that whenever there's a slightest ambiguity, even if the solutions and directions are available by bigger rules and common sense, humans tend to take advantage of them. that's our fitrah or nature.

that's always the case. people try to outsmart laws. people think they are smarter than people before them, and make history repeat itself. people get used the critical aspects of the rules, and forget the circumstances that made the rules rules.

to cut to chase, it's never enough. but, muslims, and according to islam, everyone, should be thankful, that islamic law and hadith and the life of prophet covers lots of things.

and a verse from quran: "Even if We did send unto them angels, and the dead did speak unto them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes, they are not the ones to believe, unless it is in Allah's Plan. But most of them ignore (the truth)."
Reply

Thinker
04-16-2009, 08:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
Greetings Thinker,

Please view this thread:

http://www.islamicboard.com/methodol...n-hadeeth.html

Regards
Greetings Osman,

Thanks for the link I have read it. I have read similar stuff in the past and as a none Muslim, if I was tasked to choose a side in a debate for one side or the other, I believe I could better argue the case for the Quranites.
Reply

Uthman
04-16-2009, 08:25 PM
Greetings Thinker,
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Thanks for the link I have read it. I have read similar stuff in the past and as a none Muslim, if I was tasked to choose a side in a debate for one side or the other, I believe I could better argue the case for the Quranites.
Did you watch the video provided in the thread as well?

Regards
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
04-16-2009, 09:45 PM
This is for Follower. It may also be relevent to Thinker.

Article contains the subtitles:
  1. Tafsir of the Qur'an
  2. Schools of Tafseer
  3. Transmission of Tafseer


There is much more to this chapter but this is relevant to you.

Excerpts from the Book Usul at-Tafsir (Lit. The Fundamental Principles of Qur’aanic Interpretation) by Dr Bilal Philips.

Chapter 2: Tafsir of the Qur'an

The Qur’aan, God’s final book of revelation to man, represents the primary source of the principles which constitute the way of life known as Islaam. The passages of the Qur’aan contain advice and guidance in the form of laws, parables, stories, and arguments for those who choose to believe in God and the Day of Judgment. Hence, a believer’s success and happiness in this life and the next largely depend on his understanding, internalization, and application of the concepts contained in the Book. However, the depth of comprehension of the Qur’aan’s meanings will vary from individual to individual due to natural differences in intelligence. This variation existed even among the sahaabah (companions of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)), in spite of the Qur’aan’s clarity of expression and its revelation in seven different dialects. Moreover, Allaah, the Most Wise, chose to place generalities in the Qur’aan, some of which He later explained in its other verses, while some he explained only to the Prophet (pbuh). The Prophet (pbuh) knew and understood the Qur’aan completely because Allaah had chosen him as its vehicle and explained it all to him. Hence, Allaah said in one verse:

“Verily, collecting the Qur’aan (for you) and reciting it (to you) is My 21 responsibility, so when I read it to you, listen to it. Then it is upon Me to explain it.” 22

Therefore, it was the Prophet’s job to explain the Qur’aan to his followers by his actions, as well as his statements. Allaah stated this in the Qur’aan:

“I have revealed the Reminder (Qur’aan) to you (O Muhammad) so that you may explain to people what has been revealed to them.” 23

Consequently, the sahaabah all turned to the Prophet (pbuh) whenever possible during his lifetime for the tafseer (explanation, understanding, interpretation) of the Qur’aan. For example, Ibn Mas‘ood related that when the following verse was revealed:

“Those who believe and do not obscure their faith with transgression (thulm), for them there is security, and they are rightly guided,” 24

some of the companions became distressed, because the general linguistic meaning of thulm covers any kind of wrong, major or minor, and none of them were free from error. However, when they approached the Prophet (pbuh) about it, he replied,

It is not as you all think. It is no more than what Luqmaan said to his son,Verily, shirk (associating partners with God) is the greatest form of thulm.’ 25 ” 26

Thus the Prophet (pbuh) clarified for them that the broader meaning of thulm was not intended in the first verse; rather it was used to refer to shirk.

In this incident, the Prophet (pbuh) explained the Qur’aan by the Qur’aan, demonstrating the first step in the divinely ordained method of understanding and interpretation of the Qur’aan that was established for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. After the Prophet’s death, the sahaabah turned to those among themselves who were more gifted in understanding the Qur’aan and who had been able to spend more time with the Prophet (pbuh) for interpretation and explanation of the Qur’aan.

Among the sahaabah who became the most noted for their ability to make tafseer of the Qur’aan are the following: The four Righteous Caliphs, 27 the Prophet’s wife, ‘Aa’ishah bint Abee Bakr, Ibn Mas‘ood, Ibn ‘Abbaas, Ubayy ibn Ka‘b, Zayd ibn Thaabit, Aboo Moosaa al-Ash‘aree, ‘Abdullaah ibn az-Zubayr, Anas ibn Maalik, ‘Abdullaah ibn ‘Umar, Jaabir ibn ‘Abdullaah, and ‘Abdullaah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas.28 Within the space of twenty-five years after the Prophet’s death, the sahaabah carried Islaam to all corners of the known world, toppling in the process the great empires of Persia and Byzantine. Wherever the Muslim armies stopped their advance, some of the sahaabah would settle and begin teaching those who came into Islaam the recitation and interpretation of the Qur’aan. For this reason, the knowledge of tafseer spread throughout the Muslim realm, and centers of Qur’aanic learning sprung up everywhere. Among the people who gathered around the sahaabah were some outstanding individuals who remained their students and absorbed their knowledge. These students became known as taabi‘oon. Each sahaabee carried with him a portion of knowledge, some of which overlapped with that of others and some of which did not. Consequently, some of the students traveled to other Islaamic centers to study under other sahaabah, while others stayed with their teachers until their deaths.

Schools of Tafseer

The most notable centers of tafseer which evolved during this period were those of Makkah, Madeenah, and ‘Iraaq. In Makkah, the tafseer school of Ibn ‘Abbaas became the most prominent. ‘Abdullaah ibn ‘Abbaas was considered to be the greatest tafseer scholar among the sahaabah. He reported that once the Prophet (pbuh) hugged him and prayed for him as follows,

“O Allaah, give him a deep understanding of the religion and make him skilled in interpretation.” 29

‘Abdullaah ibn Mas‘ood, the great scholar among the sahaabah, was reported to have conferred on him the title, “Tarjumaan al-Qur’aan, ”30 “Translator of the Qur’aan.” The most famous students of Ibn ‘Abbaas were Mujaahid ibn Jabr, ‘Ikrimah (the freed slave of Ibn ‘Abbaas), Sa‘eed ibn Jubayr, Taawoos ibn Keesaan al-Yamaanee, and ‘Ataa ibn Abee Rabaah.31

In Madeenah, the most noted school of tafseer was that of Ubayy ibn Ka‘b, who was considered by most of his contemporaries as the top reciter of the Qur’aan. Ubayy was also the first person chosen by the Prophet (pbuh) to record the revelation of the Qur’aan.32 The Prophet (pbuh) was reported to have said to him,

“Verily, Allaah, the Most Great and Glorious, has commanded me to recite to you, ‘Lam yakunillatheena kafaroo.’ (Soorah al-Bayyinah).” When Ubayy asked if Allaah had mentioned him by name, the Prophet (pbuh) told him yes, and Ubayy cried.33 Ubayy’s most notable students were Zayd ibn Aslam, Aboo al ‘Aaliyah, and Muhammad ibn Ka‘b al-Qurathee.34

In ‘Iraaq, Ibn Mas‘ood headed the most prominent school of tafseer. ‘Abdullaah ibn Mas‘ood, the sixth person to enter Islaam,35 was among the top reciters of the Qur’aan. The Prophet (pbuh) himself praised his recitation saying,

“Whoever wishes to recite the Qur’aan in the tender manner in which it was revealed should recite it as Ibn Umm ‘Abd (Ibn Mas‘ood) does.” 36 As for his knowledge of tafseer, Ibn Mas‘ood said, “By the One besides Whom there is no other god, I know where and why every verse of Allaah’s book was revealed.” 37

Among the many students of Ibn Mas‘ood who later became scholars in their own right were al-Hasan al-Basree, ‘Alqamah ibn Qays, Masrooq, al-Aswad ibn Yazeed, and ‘Aamir ash-Sha‘bee.38

Transmission of Tafseer

During this period, tafseer was taught by narration. That is, the sahaabah who headed schools of tafseer would quote the sayings of the Prophet (pbuh) which explained the meanings of verses, or explain the historical context in which the verses were revealed, or they would quote verses of pre-Islaamic poetry which explained the meaning of some words that were no longer in common use. After the era of the sahaabah, their students, the taabi‘oon, continued to teach by narration in much the same way that they had learned. However, some of them also began narrating along with their tafseers tales from Jewish and Christian sources to further explain certain passages of the Qur’aan.

It should be noted that some compilation of tafseer took place during the era of the taabi‘oon. The most noteworthy example is that of Mujaahid ibn Jabr (642-722 CE/40-103 AH), a student of Ibn ‘Abbaas. Mujaahid compiled the earliest known tafseer ; however, no copy of his work has reached us. The significance of Mujaahid’s tafseer can be appreciated from his following statement, “I read the whole Qur’aan to Ibn ‘Abbaas three times. During each reading, I stopped at the end of every verse and asked him about whom and why it was revealed.”39

Towards the end of the Umayyad dynasty,40 the systematic compilation of tafseer began. The scholars of hadeeth began compiling the sayings and actions of the Prophet (pbuh) in chapters according to their subject matter, and the chapter on tafseer was one of them. Some of these scholars paid special attention to the narration of tafseer attributed to the Prophet (pbuh), the sahaabah and the taabi‘oon. The foremost among them were Yazeed ibn Haaroon as-Salamee (d. 737 CE/118 AH), Shu‘bah ibn al-Hajjaaj (d. 777 CE/160 AH), Sufyaan ibn ‘Uyaynah (d. 814 CE/198AH), ‘Abdur-Razzaaq ibn Hammaam (d. 827 CE/211 AH), and ‘Abd ibn Humayd (d. 864 CE/250 AH).41 However, no tafseer of the complete Qur’aan took place at this time.42

Near the end of the ninth century CE, the field of tafseer evolved into an independent Islaamic science. This generation of scholars was the first to compile tafseers of the Qur’aan according to the order of the written text. The earliest tafseer to reach us was authored by Ibn Jareer at-Tabaree (839-923 CE/225-310 AH), who comes from this era. Other tafseers were written by Ibn Maajah (d. 886 CE/272 AH), Ibn Abee Haatim (d. 939 CE/327 AH), Ibn Hibbaan (d. 980 CE/369 AH), al-Haakim (d. 1014 CE/404 AH), and Ibn Mardawayh (d. 1020 CE/410 AH).43 All of these scholars were also famous for compilations of hadeeth, most of which have reached us intact. Occasionally, tafseers were attributed to scholars of the previous generation, known as atbaa‘ at-taabi‘een (the students of the taabi‘oon). These tafseers also mentioned the legal rulings deduced from the verses and the breakdown of grammatical constructions where necessary.

Although the next generation of scholars followed the same general format as their predecessors, many of them deleted the chains of narration from their tafseers, leaving only the names of the sahaabah or taabi‘oon and their interpretations; for example, Bahr al-’Uloom by Aboo al-Layth as-Samarqandee (d. 983 CE/372 AH). Great stress was placed on literary forms and grammatical constructions in many of these tafseers. The various forms of recitation, without their chains of narration, were also recorded and used as explanations of the text. However, they also included in their tafseers a vast number of anonymous statements and opinions without any mention of who made them. Consequently, many of these tafseers are confusing. Accurate accounts and interpretations were mixed with inaccurate ones without any distinction between them.

In addition, the door of tafseer according to personal opinion was opened. Works of tafseer soon began to reflect various trends of thought in Muslim society. By the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the major works of Greek philosophy and science that had been translated in the previous centuries began to have an effect on all of the various Islaamic fields of study. Philosophical schools of thought like that of the Mu‘tazilees (Rationalists) had evolved which boldly threatened pure Islaamic thought. Tafseers full of philosophical and scientific terminology, like al-Kash-shaaf of az-Zamakhsharee (1075-1144 CE/467-538 AH) or Mafaateeh al-Ghayb of Fakhrud-Deen ar-Raazee (1149-1210 CE/544-606 AH), and tafseers expressing the thoughts of various heretical sects also appeared during this period. For example, the Twelver Shee‘ah tafseer of Mullah Muhsin al-Kaash made the verses of the Qur’aan speak of twelve infallible imaams, the imaginary walaayah (governorship) of the Prophet’s son-in-law ‘Alee and the claimed apostasy of all of the Prophet’s companions except a handful; and the Soofee tafseer of Ibn al-‘Arabee (d. 1240 CE/638 AH) made Qur’aanic verses voice his pantheistic ideology of Allaah being all and all being Allaah.44

There was also a trend towards specialization among the Islaamic scholars, resulting from the evolution of Islaamic learning into a multiplicity of disciplines. Consequently, tafseers like those of al-Jassaas (917-980 CE/304-369 AH) and al- Qurtubee (d. 1273 CE/671 AH) concentrated on the deduction of fiqh (Islaamic law) from the Qur’aanic passages according to their respective math-habs (schools of fiqh). Likewise, ath-Tha‘labee, who specialized in tales of ancient history, authored al-Jawaahir al-Hisaan fee Tafseer al-Qur’aan, in which he gathered all of the narrations about the ancients, regardless of their authenticity.45

Tafseers of this era and subsequent generations contained a mixture of truth and falsehood, some valuable material and much that was worthless. Eventually, tafseer based on personal opinions completely superseded tafseer based on authentic narration. The authors of these tafseers stretched the meanings of the verses to affirm the thoughts and ideas of their respective sects or schools and rebut those of others. Thus, the primary role of tafseer, that of explaining religious instruction contained in the verses, was lost. The tafseer scholar Jalaalud-Deen as-Suyootee (d. 1505 CE/910 AH) noted the following:

I have seen approximately ten different opinions concerning the tafseer of the verse:

“Not the path of those on whom is [Your] anger nor those who have gone astray,”46

in spite of the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions (sahaabah) and their students (taabi‘oon) all related that the verse referred to none other than the Jews and the Christians. And (one of the early scholars) Ibn Abee Haatim said concerning this verse, “I know of no disagreement among the scholars of tafseer about it.”47.

Some of the scholars of this and later periods confined themselves to making abridgements of earlier works while others were satisfied to write footnotes for earlier works. It should also be noted that in spite of the deviation and stagnation which afflicted the field of tafseer, as well as all of the Islaamic sciences, there were a number of great scholars who held high the banner of pure Islaamic thought. Thus, it should not be surprising to find that the most highly acclaimed tafseer of all times was produced by a scholar of this time, Tafseer al-Qur’aan al- ‘Atheem by al-Haafith ibn Katheer (d. 1373 CE/774 AH).

In this century, a new form of tafseer has evolved in which the authors have tried to apply the passages of the Qur’aan to the needs of the twentieth century. For example, tafseers like Tafseer al-Manaar, started by Muhammad ‘Abduh (d. 1905 CE) and completed up to Soorah Yoosuf by his student Muhammad Rasheed Ridaa,48 or Fee Thilaal al-Qur’aan by Syed Qutb point out the Qur’aanic foundations for human society, legislation, and scientific theories.

Both these tafseers have their critics. ‘Abduh was interested in reforming Muslim societies to meet the challenge of the west, and he called for the abandonment of taqleed as the starting point for that reform. He stressed the need for approaching the Qur’aan fresh, unencumbered by past inter-pretations of it. Neither he nor Ridaa would look at anyone else’s tafseer until they had finished writing their own tafseers of a particular passage.49 In his zeal to accommodate scientific theories, ‘Abduh interpreted angels as being synonymous with natural forces, which led him to a symbolic interpretation of the story of Aadam and Iblees.50 His student denied that the Prophet (pbuh) performed any miracles other than conveying the Qur’aan. Both he and his student rejected a number of hadeeths reported by al-Bukhaaree and Muslim, claiming that they were weak.51 Ridaa was, however, more learned in hadeeth than ‘Abduh and relied on hadeeths more than him.52 Both of them gave their intellects great freedom to interpret as they saw fit.

Syed Qutb lived at a time when the Islaamic caliphate had just been abolished. The Islaamic world had been divided into small countries with legal systems that were the product of European colonialism. He felt a deep outrage at Islaamic societies’ abandonment of the Sharee‘ah in ruling their affairs. His interpretations of the meaning of tawheed focused on Allaah’s sole right to formulate the laws for the rule of human society. His stress of this point led to the neglect of other aspects of tawheed and of the dangers posed by forms of shirk other than shirk in legislation. He seems to have actually been confused about the difference between tawheed al-ulooheeyah and tawheed ar-ruboobeeyah.53 His critics also say that he laid the seeds for today’s modern takfeer movements with his blanket condemnation of contemporary Islaamic societies as having nothing to do with Islaam, and with his praise of revolutionary movements in Islaamic history.54 Despite these shortcomings, he presented a vigorous Islaamic critique of the flaws of secularism and the European civilization that spawned it at a time when most Muslims were apologetic about Islaam.

------------------------

Footnotes:

21 Literally, ‘Our.’ The ‘royal We’ is barely used in English, but it is a common feature of Arabic speech, used to indicate the importance of the speaker. It is my standard practice to translate this ‘We’ as ‘I,’ since the literal translation is a frequent cause of confusion for English speakers.
22 Soorah al-Qiyaamah (75):17-9.
23 Soorah an-Nahl (16):44.
24 Soorah al-An‘aam (6):82.
25 Soorah Luqmaan (31):13.
26 Sahih Muslim, vol. 1, p. 72, no. 226.
27 Aboo Bakr as-Siddeeq, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab, ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan, and ‘Alee ibn Abee Taalib.
28 Al-Itqaan fee ‘Uloom al-Qur’aan, vol. 2, p. 239.
29 Collected by Ahmad (al-Musnad, no. 2274). A version mentioning only the first half of the
Prophet’s supplication on his behalf is reported in Sahih Al-Bukhari, vol. 1, p. 106, no. 145, and Sahih Muslim, vol. 4, pp. 1320-1, no. 6055.
30 Collected by al-Haakim and by Ibn Sa‘d in at-Tabaqaat. See Siyar al-A‘laam an-Nubalaa’, vol. 3, p. 347.
31 Al-Itqaan fee ‘Uloom al-Qur’aan, vol. 2, p. 242. It is interesting to note that all of these great scholars were former slaves.
32 According to al-Waaqidee. Quoted in Al-Isaabah fee Tamyeez as-Sahaabah. Perhaps he meant in Madeenah.
33 Collected by al-Bukhaaree (Sahih Al-Bukhari, vol. 5, p. 97, no. 154) and Muslim (SahihMuslim, vol. 4, p.1313, no. 6031).
34 Mabaahith fee ‘Uloom al-Qur’aan, p.339.
35 Sifah as-Safwah, vol.1, p. 395.
36 Reported by ‘Umar, Ibn Mas‘ood and other sahaabah and collected by Ahmad, Ibn Maajah (vol. 1, p. 77, no. 138), al-Haakim and others. Authenticated by al-Albaanee in Saheeh al-Jaami‘ as-Sagheer, vol. 2, p. 1034.
37 Sahih Muslim, vol. 4, p. 1312, no. 6023.
38 Mabaahith fee ‘Uloom al-Qur’aan, p. 339.
39 Collected by Ibn Nu‘aym in Hilyah al-Awliyaa’ and by Ibn ‘Asaakir. See Siyar al-A‘laam an-Nubalaa’, vol. 4, p. 450.
40 The Umayyads were overthrown in 132 AH (750 CE).
41 The most accessible hadeeth collection on tafseer for the English-speaking reader is volume six of Sahih Al-Bukhari.
42 Mabaahith fee ‘Uloom al-Qur’aan, pp.340-1.
43 Ibid., p.341.
44 Muhammad ibn ‘Alee ibn Muhammad ibn al-‘Arabee was from Andalus (Spain), but he travelled extensively and died in ‘Iraaq. A prolific writer, he authored some 300 books, the most famous being al-Futoohaat al-Makkeeyah and Fusoos al-Hikam. He wrote nine different tafseers
of the Qur’aan, among them Tarjumaan al-Ashwaaq, for which he wrote a number of commentaries.
45 At-Tafseer wa al-Mufassiroon, vol. 1, pp. 145-8.
46 Soorah al-Faatihah (1):7.
47 Quoted in Mabaahith fee ‘Uloom al-Qur’aan, p. 345.
48 Muhammad Rasheed (dtook notes from ‘Abduh’s tafseer lectures, then wrote them up in his own words, and published them with his approval in his magazine al-Manaar. ‘Abduh died after having completed from Soorah al-Faatihah until verse 126 of Soorah an-Nisaa’, then his student
continued until his own death in 1935. (Lamahaat fee ‘Uloom al-Qur’aan, p. 321.)
49 Lamahaat fee ‘Uloom al-Qur’aan, p. 322, and at-Tafseer wa al-Mufassiroon, vol. 2, 598-9.
50 Tafseer al-Manaar, vol. 1, p. 167, quoted in at-Tafseer wa al-Mufassiroon, vol. 2, p. 611.
51 At-Tafseer wa al-Mufassiroon, vol. 2, pp. 615-7, 628.
52 Lamahaat fee ‘Uloom al-Qur’aan, pp. 321-2.
53 See Fee Thilaal al Qur’aan, vol. 4, pp. 1846 and 1852.
54 See Adwaa’un Islaameeyah ‘alaa ‘Aqeedah Syed Qutb wa Fikrih, pp. 43-5, 60-104.
Reply

Follower
04-17-2009, 01:12 AM
I understand the tasfir and why you need it.

I choose to believe that GOD would write a very straight forward book that could be read by all without human intervention and clarification. My guide is the Holy Spirit when I read the Holy Bible. I am using the same to read the Quran.

I find this statement interesting-
However, some of them also began narrating along with their tafseers tales from Jewish and Christian sources to further explain certain passages of the Qur’aan

I believe that to truly understand the Quran you must read the Bible first or in conjunction with the Quran.

I also agree it is a very good idea to reject hadith. IF I was a Muslim I would be a Quran only. Then i wouod not be mislead by hadith and would be able to see the true unique gift that Jesus was to us.
Reply

burdenofbeing
04-17-2009, 01:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
IF I was a Muslim I would be a Quran only.
Then i ... would be able to see the true unique gift that Jesus was to us.
does not compute
Reply

جوري
04-17-2009, 02:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by burdenofbeing
does not compute

:haha: in a couple of days you'll get acquainted ...:D

:w:
Reply

Thinker
04-17-2009, 10:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
I also agree it is a very good idea to reject hadith. IF I was a Muslim I would be a Quran only.
Me too, I can't believe that God would care about how I stood or which way I faced during prayer, or whether I plucked my eyebrows or whether I ate this animal and not that animal or how high my pants were etc., etc.
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
04-17-2009, 11:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
I understand the tasfir and why you need it.

I choose to believe that GOD would write a very straight forward book that could be read by all without human intervention and clarification. My guide is the Holy Spirit when I read the Holy Bible. I am using the same to read the Quran.

I find this statement interesting-
However, some of them also began narrating along with their tafseers tales from Jewish and Christian sources to further explain certain passages of the Qur’aan

I believe that to truly understand the Quran you must read the Bible first or in conjunction with the Quran.

I also agree it is a very good idea to reject hadith. IF I was a Muslim I would be a Quran only. Then i wouod not be mislead by hadith and would be able to see the true unique gift that Jesus was to us.
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Me too, I can't believe that God would care about how I stood or which way I faced during prayer, or whether I plucked my eyebrows or whether I ate this animal and not that animal or how high my pants were etc., etc.
The whole religion including the Prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) is of the signs and wisdoms of Almighty God. Allah says in the Qur'an that had He willed He would have placed this Qur'an on a mountain for man to discover and learn on his own but wisdom necessates that there be sent a Messenger as a role model and as an embodiment of the Qur'an to explain in detail it's verses. For you to claim that hadeeth will mislead you is only due to your shortsightedness and limited views. For example, Allah says in the Qur'an that we must establish the prayer but he doesn't say how. Who will teach us how to perform it? He says we must pay zakat but he doesn't give the details, who will teach us that? It's of the wisdom of Almighty God that he sends His message in a book which is explained by a Messenger to remove all doubt and uncertainity.

… Indeed, there has come to you from Allah a Light (prophet Muhammad (pbuh)) and a plain Book (the Qur’aan), wherewith Allah guides all those who seek His Good Pleasure to ways of peace, and He brings them out of darkness by His Will unto light, and guides them to a Straight Way
[al-Maa’idah 5:15-16].

You cannot question god and ask him why he is legislating His religion a certain way, rather He will question you. God did not create the world and leave mankind on his own to do whatever he likes because this does befit the wisdom of Almight God. Rather Allah created life for a purpose and that purpose is to serve Him;

Blessed be He in Whose hands is Dominion; and He over all things hath Power;- He Who created Death and Life, that He may try which of you is best in deed: and He is the Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving;- [Surah Al-Mulk 1-2]
Reply

muslimapoclyptc
04-17-2009, 03:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
I understand the tasfir and why you need it.

I choose to believe that GOD would write a very straight forward book that could be read by all without human intervention and clarification. My guide is the Holy Spirit when I read the Holy Bible. I am using the same to read the Quran.

I find this statement interesting-
However, some of them also began narrating along with their tafseers tales from Jewish and Christian sources to further explain certain passages of the Qur’aan

I believe that to truly understand the Quran you must read the Bible first or in conjunction with the Quran.

I also agree it is a very good idea to reject hadith. IF I was a Muslim I would be a Quran only. Then i wouod not be mislead by hadith and would be able to see the true unique gift that Jesus was to us.
You can't truly be "Qur'an-only" when the Qur'an says to obey the Messenger (24:56), and you can't really obey the Messenger, if you discard what he said and did. What he said and did is something only recorded in the ahadith.

You claim to use the "Holy Spirit" to read the Bible, but even in that case, you're still using a guide. "Clarity" is subjective.
Reply

Uthman
04-17-2009, 04:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
Greetings Thinker
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Greetings Osman,

Thanks for the link I have read it. I have read similar stuff in the past and as a none Muslim, if I was tasked to choose a side in a debate for one side or the other, I believe I could better argue the case for the Quranites.
Did you watch the video provided in the thread as well?

Regards
Thinker you have not responded to this...
Reply

جوري
04-17-2009, 06:11 PM
Perhaps someone scholarly can explain to Thinker and the rest, the difference between fiqh il3ibadat and figh il7ayat...

Jurisprudence when it comes to worship is a done a deal..
Jurisprudence as comes to every deal living, politics, economics dress (when in doubt ask the scholar) ijtihad is important to understand the point of a hadith and interpret them for every day living..

Also I'd refer to Suret Al'momenoon if I so desired to be a Quran only sect, as the question especially in factions is well explained in there...

There is no room for Islam to succumb to the errors of christianity, as it is the last train to hop on!

all the best
Reply

Thinker
04-17-2009, 06:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
Thinker you have not responded to this...
Osman,

Sorry but the video is over an hour long. It's difficult for me to sit listening to these things (it irritates the wife) unless you're telling me this one is REALLY VERY special?
Reply

Uthman
04-17-2009, 07:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Osman,

Sorry but the video is over an hour long. It's difficult for me to sit listening to these things (it irritates the wife) unless you're telling me this one is REALLY VERY special?
Sorry, I thought it was just a 10 minute clip from the whole speech (which I have watched in it's entirety on Peace TV).

I would appreciate it, therefore, if you could make your case logically for the Qur'anites in an appropriate thread (if the admins/mods will allow it - I know this topic grows tiresome). I am interested to hear your argument.
Reply

Thinker
04-17-2009, 08:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
Sorry, I thought it was just a 10 minute clip from the whole speech (which I have watched in it's entirety on Peace TV).

I would appreciate it, therefore, if you could make your case logically for the Qur'anites in an appropriate thread (if the admins/mods will allow it - I know this topic grows tiresome). I am interested to hear your argument.
I know that the Quranite question has been discussed previously and I don't want to open it up again not least because I know a few get very irritated and although I have my views I don't think I'm going to change the views of anyone else and I really don't have a strong desire to attempt to change anyone's views on that subject. My argument on the subject is simple and simply based upon what I said above.
Reply

Uthman
04-17-2009, 08:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
I know that the Quranite question has been discussed previously and I don't want to open it up again not least because I know a few get very irritated and although I have my views I don't think I'm going to change the views of anyone else and I really don't have a strong desire to attempt to change anyone's views on that subject. My argument on the subject is simple and simply based upon what I said above.
Fair enough.
Reply

Follower
04-18-2009, 02:00 PM
Gossamer skye- yes exactly, very good point!! "There is no room for Islam to succumb to the errors of christianity", as it is the last train to hop on!

Do you realize where, when, how the errors of Christianity crept in? When traditions ie., indulgences, purgatory, etc. of man was followed instead of the Holy Bible, scripture alone!! Having been there we see Islam repeating our history.

Then again the reason you need all the man-made tradition, man-made tasfir and man-made hadith:

Jesus was a messenger. Jesus was the messenger given clear signs. He was mentioned so much more then Mohammad how do you know that it isn't Jesus as messenger who you are supposed to follow. The Quran is just vaque enough that is a possibility.

024.056
YUSUFALI: So establish regular Prayer and give regular Charity; and obey the Messenger; that ye may receive mercy.
PICKTHAL: Establish worship and pay the poor-due and obey the messenger, that haply ye may find mercy.
SHAKIR: And keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and obey the Messenger, so that mercy may be shown to you.
Reply

جوري
04-18-2009, 04:26 PM
What man made tradition and man made hadith?
We don't FOLLOW any messengers, unlike you 'christ'ians we are not called 'Mohammedans' we are called Muslims, submitters to Allah swt on the path of Abraham the upright. Also in the Quran you should look it up!

You haven't read the Quran and frankly you are one of the most ignorant people I have encountered.. Al7mdlilah for the wisdom in the Quran which frankly bewilders me your useage of it to assert a nonpoint. Just last page I told you the Prophet Abraham is mentioned the Most 68 times as opposed to Jesus 20 times, if we are going merely by number don't you think Abraham would be the one we should 'follow' if the purpose of religion was to follow or worship men at all?...

I don't know it must be difficult for christians to use their brain?

all the best
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
04-19-2009, 12:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Gossamer skye- yes exactly, very good point!! "There is no room for Islam to succumb to the errors of christianity", as it is the last train to hop on!

Do you realize where, when, how the errors of Christianity crept in? When traditions ie., indulgences, purgatory, etc. of man was followed instead of the Holy Bible, scripture alone!! Having been there we see Islam repeating our history.

Then again the reason you need all the man-made tradition, man-made tasfir and man-made hadith:

Jesus was a messenger. Jesus was the messenger given clear signs. He was mentioned so much more then Mohammad how do you know that it isn't Jesus as messenger who you are supposed to follow. The Quran is just vaque enough that is a possibility.
Follower, you really do make me repeat my self so many times so please listen cearfully.

You - including Thinker - have largely misunderstood the concept of hadeeth and you make hadeeth what you want it to be as opposed to what it actually is.

Hadeeth is specific to the Messenger of Allah unless it is stated otherwise. Hadeeth is the sayings or approvals or actions of the Prophet and it's usually referred to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) unless the hadeeth is referring to his companions but when it is it's specifically mentioned to make a distinction. And when a hadeeth of a companion is reported it is unanimously agreed that he is doing such an action because he heard or saw it from the Prophet.

Now the need for hadeeth is obvious, the Qur'an wasn't revealed to a supernatural being it was revealed to a human being for human beings. Sometimes, as humans, we have questions or we may not understand something so we need to ask for clarifications. Other times you need to see someone as a role model to understand and comprehend correctly the texts which as a human one may not sometimes be able to grasp. One may also have different learning abilities and may need a teacher, and so on and so forth. This was the duty and role of Prophet Muhammad, to clearify and explain the verses and make the message clear.

Since Prophet Muhammad was a human being and as a human being he was going to die one day - as we all will - in order to preserve his teachings his companions documented everything he said or did or even intended to do in a type of documentation called 'hadeeth'. They were written down and preserved so the Islamic teachings can be passed down through the generations without any alerations or editions to the religion. And these very hadeeth have been passed down through the generations are with us today and one of the wisdom of this is that Allah in the Qur'an has promised us (muslims) to protect Islam from corruption (i.e. to be edited or altered by men) and one of the many ways Allah's promise has come to be true is through the preservation of hadeeth; even though Prophet Muhammad died over 1400 years ago.

Now as far as tafseer is concerned, it's the interpertation or explination of the Qur'an based on the hadeeth of Prophet Muhammad and his companions and the way they understood the religion because they are the ones to whom the Qur'an was revealed to, needless to say they are the ones who practiced Islam perfectly so it is their example that every muslim after them must follow.

Now since you are someone who has clearly has never read the Qur'an to understand the need for hadeeth I suggest you stop promoting jesus because jesus confirms the Prophethood of Muhammad in his own words in the very bible that you have in your hands today. So that logically means jesus was not the last and final messenger! While Muhammad is because he said so himself while confirming jesus and his message. So my advice is for you to read the Qur'an and keep Islam, Qur'an and hadeeth in it's context.

Open your mind and understand Islam the way it is and put all your preconditions aside. If your not going to then it's the same as you trying to pour water in a glass that's upside down. You can try all day long but you'll never fill up the glass.
Reply

Thinker
04-19-2009, 09:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abd-al Latif
You - including Thinker - have largely misunderstood the concept of hadeeth and you make hadeeth what you want it to be as opposed to what it actually is.
I believe I understand what the hadith is, where it came from and the levels of authenticity. The problem (IMHO) isn’t a lack of understanding of the origin of hadith it how they are used.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...tml#Principles

Above is a link posted in another thread which I have found most helpful. The document explains the process of Tafsir and the place the hadith has in that process.

I can understand why Muslims might look to the hadith as a helpful source of information in the process of tafsir, the problem is (IMHO) that Muslims make little or no distinction between hadith which explain unclear verses of the Qu’ran from any other hadith.

It seems to be that there is a belief that because God revealed the Qu’ran to Muhammad, he is no longer a man but acquired a status similar to a God in so far that he was super human, unable to make a mistake; unable to do any wrong and that everything he did and said should be copied. You can’t even say his name without following it with some words of veneration. Consequently the difference between the sunnah and the Qu’ran becomes blurred and you then get a pseudo tafsir process whereby the hadith are used to legitimise the sunnah and the sunnah are sued to legitimise the hadith. From that follows certain practices which can be used by others to ridicule Islam (e.g. plucking hair, not shaking hands etc., etc).

Skye went someway into suggesting that there is a difference in her post which said . . .

Perhaps someone scholarly can explain to Thinker and the rest, the difference between fiqh il3ibadat and figh il7ayat...

Jurisprudence when it comes to worship is a done a deal..
Jurisprudence as comes to every deal living, politics, economics dress (when in doubt ask the scholar) ijtihad is important to understand the point of a hadith and interpret them for every day living.


I am not sure about the words with numbers and I don’t see how ijtihad is relevant over any other form of critical analysis, again it seems to come down to its all a bit of a muddle but there’s a scholar somewhere who understand it all; to me that the same as Christians saying ‘have faith’ when they can’t explain something.
Reply

burdenofbeing
04-19-2009, 11:15 AM
With all due respect you are assuming too much :)

There are many incidents where the ashab, the companions of the prophet, asked the prophet if what he revealed was from god, or his opinion. and their examples were always there for the muslims to see.

moving from there, assume that you believe in the prophet, and the religion brought through him. why in that position, would you think his acts were faulty? granted, you don't need to follow every sunnah. not all of them are musts. most of them are beneficial, and their distinction is clear. fard, and sunnah.

from what I could gather, you seem to be a decent fellow, and I thought these comments didn't befit you, or any objective, critical mind.
Reply

Thinker
04-19-2009, 11:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by burdenofbeing
With all due respect you are assuming too much :)

There are many incidents where the ashab, the companions of the prophet, asked the prophet if what he revealed was from god, or his opinion. and their examples were always there for the muslims to see.

moving from there, assume that you believe in the prophet, and the religion brought through him. why in that position, would you think his acts were faulty? granted, you don't need to follow every sunnah. not all of them are musts. most of them are beneficial, and their distinction is clear. fard, and sunnah.

from what I could gather, you seem to be a decent fellow, and I thought these comments didn't befit you, or any objective, critical mind.
Thank you for your kind remarks; I believe I am a decent fellow:D. I am sorry if I said something which you found offensive, I didn’t mean any offence. Looking back through what I wrote in an attempt to identify what might have been offensive I presume it was where I said matters which make Islam look ridiculous (plucking hair, not shaking hands etc., etc). I agree that my choice of words there are clumsy, I have changed it to . . .From that follows certain practices which can be used to ridicule Islam look ridiculous (e.g. plucking hair, not shaking hands etc., etc).
Reply

muslimapoclyptc
04-20-2009, 02:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Gossamer skye- yes exactly, very good point!! "There is no room for Islam to succumb to the errors of christianity", as it is the last train to hop on!

Do you realize where, when, how the errors of Christianity crept in? When traditions ie., indulgences, purgatory, etc. of man was followed instead of the Holy Bible, scripture alone!! Having been there we see Islam repeating our history.
The difference, is that for a significant portion of the early history of Christianity, both the Bible and the various Christian traditions, were all esoterically maintained by an elitist priesthood.

There is no priesthood in Islam, and its traditions are generally all exoteric, so the problem isn't going to be the same.

Then again the reason you need all the man-made tradition, man-made tasfir and man-made hadith:

Jesus was a messenger. Jesus was the messenger given clear signs. He was mentioned so much more then Mohammad how do you know that it isn't Jesus as messenger who you are supposed to follow. The Quran is just vaque enough that is a possibility.

024.056
YUSUFALI: So establish regular Prayer and give regular Charity; and obey the Messenger; that ye may receive mercy.
PICKTHAL: Establish worship and pay the poor-due and obey the messenger, that haply ye may find mercy.
SHAKIR: And keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and obey the Messenger, so that mercy may be shown to you.
How many times a Prophet is mentioned in the Qur'an is irrelevant. There is no substantial basis for making it an issue like that. It's an entirely whimsical concern, as is your suggestion with regard to it, which is also false, based on other verses of the Qur'an.

The Qur'an was not revealed to "Jesus", it was revealed to Prophet Muhammad, and was directed to him and his followers. "Jesus" is only mentioned in the same way the other previous Prophets are. Prophet Muhammad was the Messenger who recited and explained the Qur'an to the people, as well as followed it and exemplified it. Furthermore, we do not find any mention in the Qur'an, of Muslims being commanded to follow any of the previous revelations. What we find instead, is that it tells people to follow what is in itself, as well as the Messenger who it was revealed to.
Reply

جوري
04-20-2009, 02:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
I believe I understand what the hadith is, where it came from and the levels of authenticity. The problem (IMHO) isn’t a lack of understanding of the origin of hadith it how they are used.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...tml#Principles
How are they used?


I can understand why Muslims might look to the hadith as a helpful source of information in the process of tafsir, the problem is (IMHO) that Muslims make little or no distinction between hadith which explain unclear verses of the Qu’ran from any other hadith.
How is it that we make no distinction, what do you base your opinion on? You seem to have already concluded on your own accord and not taken the opinion of actual practicing Muslims on the matter.
It seems to be that there is a belief that because God revealed the Qu’ran to Muhammad, he is no longer a man but acquired a status similar to a God in so far that he was super human,
Really.. Name me one Muslim that has elevated Mohammed to the status similar of God? The funny thing is, that is actually a western myth, given that such terms as mohammedans and Termagant as was the way hateful westerners described the 'Muslim God' are indeed a western invention not recognized by Muslims and are considered highly offensive but none of you whether x-Christians or not seem to be able to let go of your prejudices!
SURAH 18
(110) Say [O Prophet]: "I am but a mortal man like all of you. It has been revealed unto me that your God is the One and Only God. Hence, whoever looks forward [with hope and awe] to meeting his Sustainer [on Judgment Day], let him do righteous deeds, and let him not ascribe unto anyone or anything a share in the worship due to his Sustainer!"
unable to make a mistake; unable to do any wrong and that everything he did and said should be copied.
Funny you should say, given that Prophet Mohammed is lectured in the Quran for turning away from a blind man.. don't you think if any of the above were true he'd hide that the way the scribes hide whatever they don't like in their bibles, or that such verses as this from the Quran as the following:
9:97
The Arabs of the desert are the worst in unbelief and Hypocrisy, and most fitted to be in ignorance of the command which Allah hath sent down to His Messenger but Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.
would be removed?
You can’t even say his name without following it with some words of veneration.
That is usually what people do to folks who have earned their title. At work I am addressed and paged as Dr. A.. it is NOT a veneration it is giving people due respect for that which they have earned.. Most people look very poorly on folks with poor manners in whatever form, Christians might be happy that their God jesus can be made into a bobble head toy or sold next to bratz dolls and that is their own business, BUT THOSE AREN'T THE MANNERS OF MUSLIMS!
do you wonder why many people consider westerners rude in general?
Go around surveying other cultures (eastern) they don't have to be Muslim go surveying Hindus or Janists or Shintos on their feelings of how you treat one another, they'll tell you one of the things they reflect on are that western folks throw their kids at 18 out and in turn get put into old folks home because they simply don't care.
You mistake having genuine good manners for veneration and that is too bad!


Consequently the difference between the sunnah and the Qu’ran becomes blurred and you then get a pseudo tafsir process whereby the hadith are used to legitimise the sunnah and the sunnah are sued to legitimise the hadith.
That is your own obtuse understanding and because it really doesn't matter what folks here write you, men and women, children converts born muslims alike you only wish to assert, not engage assuming you already know all there is to know with no interest to even scratch the surface!
In other words you come to scowl with displeasure but no interest really in why there are nearly two billions devout Muslims..

From that follows certain practices which can be used by others to ridicule Islam (e.g. plucking hair, not shaking hands etc., etc).
ridiculing is a sign of ignorance no more.. I was driving home the other day listening to the radio about some matching website, eharmony, match.com chemistry.com take your pick, and I chuckled to myself about how westerners constantly mock 'arranged marriages' .. well isn't that exactly what those services are providing for westerners? 'an arrangement'? why the hypocrisy then? I am not siding with either arranged or services I merely question the audacity of one group's alleged superior methods over another when it comes down to it, at least the first there are many people involved so that you don't end up with a random Joe that can leave you for dead without anyone knowing about it... I do digress, couple of posts ago I mentioned fiqh il3ibdat vs fiqh al7yat, I can tell you have skimmed or gave it a mere glance, given that you assert the same slogans over and over and even when quizzical you follow your questions with answers, thus leads me to believe you are not really interested in what anyone has to say.. People lose interest do you understand? It isn't that they can't provide you a rational response, it is that their rational response is objectionable to you on some level... and even as I often forgo whether something is conclusive or debatable, I cross to other cultures and ask you, do you find this Japanese practice as offensive and open to ridicule?




Do you take yourself to Japanese forums and protest with the same bravado the stupidity of bowing in lieu of a handshake?



Skye went someway into suggesting that there is a difference in her post which said . . .

Perhaps someone scholarly can explain to Thinker and the rest, the difference between fiqh il3ibadat and figh il7ayat...

Jurisprudence when it comes to worship is a done a deal..
Jurisprudence as comes to every deal living, politics, economics dress (when in doubt ask the scholar) ijtihad is important to understand the point of a hadith and interpret them for every day living.

!

I am not sure about the words with numbers and I don’t see how ijtihad is relevant over any other form of critical analysis, again it seems to come down to its all a bit of a muddle but there’s a scholar somewhere who understand it all; to me that the same as Christians saying ‘have faith’ when they can’t explain something.
The numbers are irrelevant given that I have given you the translation to the Arabic terms.. and that isn't what I am suggesting at all.. it has nothing whatsoever to do with faith, let me explain in simple terms so you don't go off concocting some cockamamie story.

Fiqh il'3ibada' has to do with how you perform worship.. There is no room for you or a shiite or a christian to question why do this way and not that way, why three prostration during this salat and four during that salat. Because the fact remains you don't object to why three or why four, you object that it is performed at all.. I am certain that if it were 6 you'd say why not 7 or 3, it the psychology of man and thus described by the way in the Quran chapter 18!
When I scrub to go into surgery, each of my fingers is divided into four planes, each plane must be scrubbed five times and again and again all the way above my elbows.. I don't go questioning the protocols, they are universal, I wouldn't be let any where near a pt. without and might be kicked out of the OR by a nurse of all people.. I don't set and ponder well why not four times or 6 times, or why bother all together since we'll end up gowned and gloved.. and this is man made protocol you dare not protest, then by what liberty do you protest God's law?
If you don't want to partake then don't, but you have no business ridiculing. You don't have to be a Muslim, the same way you don't have to be a surgeon!
the fiqh of ibada (jurisprudence of worship) It is a done deal--it isn't open to reinterpretation, save when you have an excuse and wish to know how far that extends in terms of your worship...

Now things to do with your every day dealings and wheeling are a different story and I have gone ahead and explained to you over plucking whether you are suffering from PCO and look abnormal or whether you are doing it to get the latest drag queen look, that aside and to get to a better example..

Say a cat pooped in your well where you and yours get water, now one school of thought might do some ijtihad and decide maybe after you have taken 12 pails of water out your water is suitable for drinking, another more strict school of thought or more lenient might assert, no take out 24 or 8 pails of water.. well modern day there is no room for pails-- now we have instrumentation and a board of health that can test your well for you and thus see whether the water is suitable for drinking or not.. the original ruling on the matter that is, water is contaminated by poop still stands, and you shouldn't drink contaminated water, but how you treat the problem is a completely different story, and you don't have to follow a particular mazhab or bother with pails if you can have a better approach. Now if you are a very poor village, and have no board of health, then you should still do some ijtihad to see how much of the water should be cured by whatever means to make the water suitable for drinking or see if there are other wells all together... was that easy enough?

There is nothing to do with having faith.. It has to do with working with the prophetic wisdom for every day living..

Hope that was clear!!!!!!!

all the best
Reply

Follower
04-22-2009, 02:40 PM
Only Catholics truly follow tradition adamantly, I am not sure about the eastern orthodox church.

I have spoken with Muslims on forums that follow hadith closer then Quran. They simply did not know any Quranic verses and then confess that they follow hadith more closely! I have no idea what sect they were.

"Jesus" is only mentioned in the same way the other previous Prophets are." If you read the Quran you see that Jesus is unique in the Quran.

LOL! I am not being clear or you are missing my point. Because the Quran is vague: OK say someone picked up the Quran and there is no hadith and no one else to explain the message to him he could easily think that the messanger mentioned through out the Quran is Jesus.

He would be instructed by the Quran to go back to the Bible to answer any questions he has. Interestin here it is Book, the Holy Bible that is confirmed and not just the Torah and Gospel.

010.094
YUSUFALI: If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.
PICKTHAL: And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.
SHAKIR: But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you; certainly the truth has come to you from your Lord, therefore you should not be of the disputers.
Reply

جوري
04-22-2009, 03:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Only Catholics truly follow tradition adamantly, I am not sure about the eastern orthodox church.
?
I have spoken with Muslims on forums that follow hadith closer then Quran. They simply did not know any Quranic verses and then confess that they follow hadith more closely! I have no idea what sect they were.
Who are these mysterious Muslims?

Let's put this in terms you can understand..
Say your teacher assigns you Homer's odyssey, and you read it-- Now what? Do you skip on to the next book or is it usually followed by a class analysis and discussion?
That is what the hadith does for us, a discussion to explain that which needs an expansion for instance you are told to pray but hadith tells you how to pray . You don't know the first thing about islam and you genuinely ask the oddest questions, which have no relevance whatsoever!

"Jesus" is only mentioned in the same way the other previous Prophets are." If you read the Quran you see that Jesus is unique in the Quran.

LOL! I am not being clear or you are missing my point. Because the Quran is vague: OK say someone picked up the Quran and there is no hadith and no one else to explain the message to him he could easily think that the messanger mentioned through out the Quran is Jesus.
Firstly the Quran isn't vague, all you really need to do is actually read it!
2- I don't see how anyone could say Jesus is the one? Have you for instance read suret al'anbya? of course not, -- Say I go along with that premise, Mohammed mentioned 5, Jesus mentioned 20, but Abraham is mentioned 67+ times and referenced to often.. one would think if there is someone to 'follow' and I previousely explained to you, it isn't about following so or so it is about submitting to God, then someone with the least amount of intellect would still concede (if we are to go simply by your line of thinking) that Abraham is the one!

He would be instructed by the Quran to go back to the Bible to answer any questions he has. Interestin here it is Book, the Holy Bible that is confirmed and not just the Torah and Gospel.
There is no reference to your alleged bible in the Quran, there is a reference to the Injeel, obviousely something that is lost to you-- further I'll say ok I am game with that too, then what? why would anyone go backwards to the darkness of christianity? What does christianity tell you to actually do? All the rituals and forms of worship and covenant with God is already eradicated by your forefathers, do you want the whole world to dance around like loons to the organ and call that worship? the hilarity!

010.094
YUSUFALI: If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.
PICKTHAL: And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.
SHAKIR: But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you; certainly the truth has come to you from your Lord, therefore you should not be of the disputers.
Indeed!

all the best
Reply

burdenofbeing
04-22-2009, 03:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
OK say someone picked up the Quran and there is no hadith and no one else to explain the message to him he could easily think that the messanger mentioned through out the Quran is Jesus.
By this post and many others I've seen in my short LI history, you are suggesting that muslims should go back to christianity because islam says so. Like the time you said if you were a muslim, you would then do some weird stuff and then be a christian. What kind of a logic is that? I mean really!

It's like saying if I believed in evolution I would then in turn believe in creation by instantaneous materialization. It doesn't make sense!
Reply

muslimapoclyptc
04-22-2009, 05:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
"Jesus" is only mentioned in the same way the other previous Prophets are." If you read the Quran you see that Jesus is unique in the Quran.
The Qur'an is still only recounting his story, like it recounts the stories of the other previous Prophets. It isn't addressed to him in the present tense, like it is to Prophet Muhammad.

LOL! I am not being clear or you are missing my point. Because the Quran is vague: OK say someone picked up the Quran and there is no hadith and no one else to explain the message to him he could easily think that the messanger mentioned through out the Quran is Jesus.

He would be instructed by the Quran to go back to the Bible to answer any questions he has. Interestin here it is Book, the Holy Bible that is confirmed and not just the Torah and Gospel.

010.094
YUSUFALI: If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.
PICKTHAL: And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.
SHAKIR: But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you; certainly the truth has come to you from your Lord, therefore you should not be of the disputers.
Now, if you had read the whole Qur'an, you'd realize that it tells people to follow what is in itself, as well as the Messenger who it was revealed to.

003.144:
Muhammad is no more than a Messenger, and indeed (many) Messengers have passed away before him. If he dies or is killed, will you then turn back on your heels (as disbelievers)? And he who turns back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah, and Allah will give reward to those who are grateful.

005.019:
Oh you, the people of the book! After a long pause between messengers, there has now come to you Our messenger who clarifies matters for you. Lest you should say, “No bearer of good news and no warner had ever come to us!” The bearer of good news and the warner has indeed come to you now! Allah has the power to do all things.

033.040:
Muhammad, is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah and the last of the prophets. Allah is very well Aware of all things!

047.002:
But those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, and believe in the (Revelation) sent down to Muhammad - for it is the Truth from their Lord,- He will remove from them their ills and improve their condition.

048.029:
Muhammad, is the messenger of Allah. He and his followers are tough on the unbelievers; but they are kind to each other. You see them bowing, and falling down prostrate (before Allah) seeking His favors and His acceptance. The distinctive effect of prostrating (before their Creator) is apparent on their faces. Such is their description in the Torah. About them, the Gospel quotes the parable, “It is as if the seed is sown in the field. In time it sprouts and sends up a tiny green shoot. Then, it becomes strong and stout, and stands on its stalk. It delights the sower and enrages the unbelievers.” Allah promises forgiveness and a tremendous reward to those of the believers who perform the righteous deeds.
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
04-23-2009, 09:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
LOL! I am not being clear or you are missing my point. Because the Quran is vague: OK say someone picked up the Quran and there is no hadith and no one else to explain the message to him he could easily think that the messanger mentioned through out the Quran is Jesus.

He would be instructed by the Quran to go back to the Bible to answer any questions he has. Interestin here it is Book, the Holy Bible that is confirmed and not just the Torah and Gospel.

010.094
YUSUFALI: If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.
PICKTHAL: And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.
SHAKIR: But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you; certainly the truth has come to you from your Lord, therefore you should not be of the disputers.
Qur'an isn't vague, it's only vague to one who hasn't actually read it like yourself for example.

The verse you quoted only means that the previous books Attest to the Truth of the Qur'an. Not what your making it out to be!
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
04-23-2009, 09:49 PM
Another thread which doesn't seem to be getting anywhere as everyone seems to be repeating them selves so i'm closing it.

:threadclo
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-26-2010, 11:38 PM
  2. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 10-28-2007, 01:56 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-19-2006, 04:35 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!