I don't have Arabic script on my keyboard so I'll copy the transliteration from M. Abdul Haleem Eliysee. I find his transliterations to be close to the Arabic pronunciation
5:80. Thou seest many of them turning in friendship to theUnbelievers. Evil indeed are (the works) which their souls have sent forward before them (with the result), that Allah's wrath is on them, and in torment will they abide. S P
Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation
Now look at the Transliteration in bold and compare it to Ali's translation in bold. You will notice that wallaw-nallaziina is translated as "turning in friendship to" I hope you can see that wallaw comes from the same root as walli and that the level of friendship spoken of is more in terms of "having as a walli"
Wa law kaanuu yu'minuuna billahi wan-nabiyyi wa maaa unzila ilayhi mattakhazuuhum awkiyaa-a wa laakinna kasiiram-minhum faasiquun.
5:81. If only they had believed in Allah, in the Prophet, and in what hath been revealed to him, never would they have taken them for friends andprotectors, but most of them are rebellious wrong-doers. S P
Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation
It is still in reference to 5:80, except now we are not calling them Wali, we are describing them as people with the characteristics of friends and protectors, or if translated into more depth would be describing them as having the characteristics of a wali.
It is like calling somebody a Parent in one sentence and then in the next saying it was the closest femal ancestor who loved the child in another sentence.(That is an analogy, not a translation, trying to show a point)
Yaaa -ayyu-hallaziina aamanuu laa tattakhizuu aa-baaa-akum wa ikwaa-nakum aw-liyaaa-a inis-tahabbukufra alal-iimaan. Wa manyyatawalla -hum-minkum fa-ulaaa ika humuz-zaaalimuun.
9:23. O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong. S P
Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation
If you look at the bold parts it is showing not to have some body Protect you, if they are not a wali.
Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoola tattakhithoo bitanatan min doonikum laya/loonakum khabalan waddoo ma AAanittum qad badatialbaghdao min afwahihim wama tukhfee sudooruhumakbaru qad bayyanna lakumu al-ayati inkuntum taAAqiloona
3:118. O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside yourranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom. S P
Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation
this is about something different. It is not the concept of taking friends or walis. To understand 3:118 better it is best not to take it out of context.
3
:116. Those who reject Faith,- neither their possessions nor their (numerous) progeny will avail them aught against Allah: They will be companions of the Fire,-dwelling therein (for ever). S P C
3:117. What they spend in the life of this (material) world May be likened to a wind which brings a nipping frost: It strikes and destroys the harvest of men who have wronged their own souls: it is not Allah that hath wronged them, but they wrong themselves. S P C
3:118. O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom. S P
3:119. Ah! ye are those who love them, but they love you not,- though ye believe in the whole of the Book. When they meet you, they say, "We believe": But when they are alone, they bite off the very tips of their fingers at you in their rage. Say: "Perish in you rage; Allah knoweth well all the secrets of the heart." S P C
Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation
To be honest I am having a difficult time coming up with a proper explanation as to what is meant by rank. In my own thinking I would say that what is meant is more like in terms of equals, but not in the sense of one being superior to the other, but more in the sense of one acting as they believe and those who only give token lipservice and say they believe but do not act as believers.
Food for thought. For those that say we must not take non Muslims as friends, why then are Muslim men allowed to take a Christian wife and are not allowed to force or demand that she converts to Muslim. It is allowed for her to remain Christian if she chooses.
Food for thought. For those that say we must not take non Muslims as friends, why then are Muslim men allowed to take a Christian wife and are not allowed to force or demand that she converts to Muslim. It is allowed for her to remain Christian if she chooses.
--ya , a good point
a little addition: Muslim men are also allowed to marry Jewish women. Muslims are allowed to eat meat slaughtered by Jews & Christians
Christ will never be proud to reject to be a slave to God .....holy Quran, chapter Women , 4: 172
3:118
To understand 3:118 better it is best not to take it out of context.[/COLOR]
.
I wasnt taking it out of context. I have read around it, not just plucking it out on its own.
116 says those without faith will burn in the hell fire
117 says Money wont help them,its their own fault.
118 says Dont be freinds with people not like you. They plot against you
119 says When they talk to you they lie and change their minds behind your back, they are raging and full of hostility.
Which in a nutshell would be that the muslims intercepted a letter to the heathens and threatened the girl, they saw who had written it and the guy was captured & accused of freindship with the unbeleivers.The verse was revealed and Hatib was executed. which puts the verse into context.
Hatib was writing a letter that was telling the enemy the details of what the Muslims were planning to do next, which is spying/treason, punishable by execution. Hatib was not executed because the Prophet (SAW) forgave him because he witnessed Badr.
As Muslims, we don't hate kuffar in terms of them as a person, but we hate their kufr. How can you have love for someone who disrespects Allah(SWT) by saying that he has a son, or how can you love someone who insults Allah (SWT) by saying that Allah forgets, or rests, etc.?
Hating someone for their disbelief in no way means that we are disrespectful to them, in fact we should be on our best behavior towards them. Hence, being able to marry from them and eating their meat, etc..
As Muslims, we don't hate kuffar in terms of them as a person, but we hate their kufr. How can you have love for someone who disrespects Allah(SWT) by saying that he has a son, or how can you love someone who insults Allah (SWT) by saying that Allah forgets, or rests, etc.?
Hating someone for their disbelief in no way means that we are disrespectful to them, in fact we should be on our best behavior towards them. Hence, being able to marry from them and eating their meat, etc..
And Allah Knows Best.
Interesting that in many ways Muslims and Christians are similar with regard to this principle of the joining of those of the faith with those outside the faith. Christians have the scripture "do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers". And by that we counsel caution with respect to certain relationships such as marriage. And I have been known to tell a teenager to watch out who he hangs out with as his best buds based on it too. But we don't say that a person can't be friends with non-Christians.
However, with respect to "hating someone for their disbelief" what Christians counsel is "hate the sin, not the sinner". I think this is different from what AbuAbdallah has spoken of here. For while AbuAbdallah has said that "we don't hate kuffar in terms of them as a person, but we hate their kufr", he still goes on to speak of "Hating someone".
Yes, it is good to see that this does not mean treating a person with disrespect. But to hate means to not accept. And I prefer to think that we accept the person even if we cannot accept what they do. And yes, in the end it might look the same, that is that in the end we may not be able to associate with the person as long as they are attached to their kufr, their sin, or whatever it is you want to call their behavior. But even then, I prefer the attitude of a heart that reaches out not to hate, but to love the person even in the midst of that behavior.
Thoughts?
Last edited by Grace Seeker; 03-28-2007 at 07:30 PM.
Interesting that in many ways Muslims and Christians are similar with regard to this principle of the joining of those of the faith with those outside the faith. Christians have the scripture "do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers". And by that we counsel caution with respect to certain relationships such as marriage. And I have been known to tell a teenager to watch out who he hangs out with as his best buds based on it too. But we don't say that a person can't be friends with non-Christians.
However, with respect to "hating someone for their disbelief" what Christian counsel is "hate the sin, not the sinner". I think this is different from what AbuAbdallah has spoken of here. For while AbuAbdallah has said that "we don't hate kuffar in terms of them as a person, but we hate their kufr", he still goes on to speak of "Hating someone".
Yes, it is good to see that this does not mean treating a person with disrespect. But to hate means to not accept. And I prefer to think that we accept the person even if we cannot accept what they do. And yes, in the end it might look the same, that is that in the end we may not be able to associate with the person as long as they are attached to their kufr, their sin, or whatever it is you want to call their behavior. But even then, I prefer the attitude of a heart that reaches out not to hate, but to love the person even in the midst of that behavior.
Thoughts?
I like the term 'hate the sin, not the sinner'. I am friends with Christians but I am careful not to join them in anything I find sinful, eg going to pubs. I may hate their sin of drinking but I could not hate them for it. As they understand I am Muslim when I am with them we go to a cafe for coffee instead. As I understand they are Christian I accept that they wear jeans and don't cover their hair. I believe they commit a sin by saying/believing Jesus (pbuh) was the son of God but should I hate them for their belief? I believe no, when they die they will have to answer for this sin and we all stand alone at judgement. And perhaps Allah will forgive their sins if their good deeds have outweighed their bad and they have truly believed in God - Allah is all forgiving. Did He not forgive a prostitute her sins when she brought water from a well to give to a dog dying of thirst?
And I prefer to think that we accept the person even if we cannot accept what they do.
To be honest, that is similar to what I said about not hating the person but hating their disbelief. I can respect the fact that you are free to believe what you want to believe, but I can not respect what you believe.
And perhaps Allah will forgive their sins if their good deeds have outweighed their bad and they have truly believed in God - Allah is all forgiving.
Allah (SWT) is all forgiving, in fact Allah (SWT) will forgive for anything besides associating partners with Allah, which is unfortunately what your Christian friends do.
Surah 4:48 Surely Allah does not forgive that anything should be associated with Him, and forgives what is besides that to whomsoever He pleases; and whoever associates anything with Allah, he devises indeed a great sin.
I have seen a few sources that indeed show that he was executed, but since I cant remember what they were. I'll be back with them at some point.
The term hate the sin but not the sinner is exactly what the christians use to explain that their verses were corrupted by modern thinking.
It's I suppose in a scale of things about as good as things get, for me.
It however dosnt really actually translate to that.
Was Muhammed saying " hate the sin not the sinner", if he had said that or Allah had revealed that, wouldnt the Quran have just said that?
My opinion is that if a creator was talking to humanity, he/she/it would surely call a spade a spade. because if it /she/he was communicating with us, then would know the future.
The entity would indeed know that for over 1300 years if it wasnt actually written in a certain text (non arabic)then the world would be cast into a almost ceaseless fight over doctrine and interpretation.That it would result in the deaths of thousands of millions over the ages.
Would he/she want that? Assuming that the entity was (to human standards) merciful and (to human standards "Just")
If not then surely they/it/she/he were committing mankind to war, conflict and sectism. And Although i'm obviously not a deity, (although that would be nice) and therefore unable to comment. To my Human frailty that seems unjust.
(which brings up the concept of Unjustness...who decides that?) Puritan zelots killing "witches" in England in 1670 for showing their ankles?
Was that just? No It was a slaughter of innocent women and intellectuals by a over zealous Christian faith.
Talibanis, flinging stones at adulterers till they were ripped apart? Same for the Incas of South America, Christians and I beleive that the followers of Japanese God-Emperor Tojo in 1936-45, (the worlds most recent effective deity) did fairly well with following a system of " If Your Not With Us Your Against Us"..And Georgey Bush knows how to say that.
It has taken many many years for majority Christianity to slide out of this thinking.
Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps I'm right. i just wish
that humanity could actually see people as people and not as sinners consdered as such by a untouchable higher power brought to a world by men.
[Pickthal 99:8] And whoso doeth ill an atom's weight will see it then.
This can be evidenced by a Hadith about Abu Lahab... who used to torture the Prophet PBUH and was in fact mentioned in the Quran ten years prior to his apparent death-- Ample time for him to repent and prove the Quran wrong which he didn't (but I digress) ... however given that on a Monday he spared a slave girl from torture for having heard the news of the birth of a male nephew... so too shall he have his torture lessened in hell on Mondays for having spared her life...
So the one thing we can be assured... is no matter how tyrannical or good, each person will get their dues on the day of judgement which ultimately lies with G-D and is based on intent... otherwise I don't think anyone else here on earth can give you a relative understanding of justice means... short of what we are told to rule by as mandated by Islamic jurisprudence.
Now I have said my peace...
and good night
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
The entity would indeed know that for over 1300 years if it wasnt actually written in a certain text (non arabic)then the world would be cast into a almost ceaseless fight over doctrine and interpretation.That it would result in the deaths of thousands of millions over the ages.
Would he/she want that? Assuming that the entity was (to human standards) merciful and (to human standards "Just")
I'm not sure I get what you are saying here, are you blaming the translation of the Qur'an for deaths of thousands and millions?
If not then surely they/it/she/he were committing mankind to war, conflict and sectism. And Although i'm obviously not a deity, (although that would be nice) and therefore unable to comment. To my Human frailty that seems unjust.
Are you blaming God for committing mankind to war?
I'm not sure I get what you are saying here, are you blaming the translation of the Qur'an for deaths of thousands and millions?
The translations were done hundreds of years after Muhammed (PBUH)'s death. Since then to this day you have Clerics translating the words of the Koran in their own fashion. Some to promote peace, some to promote good.
It's the same with the Bible. Pope Urban the 2nd wasnt averse to the odd scripture to reinforce hate. Thousands died, perhaps hundreds of thousands in the Crusades. (Almost as many as Saddam Hussain killed., Its possible).
format_quote Originally Posted by AbuAbdallah
Are you blaming God for committing mankind to war?
I dont actually beleive that God interacts with us on any form and hasnt for billions of years. (thats my faith), I cant blame him/her/it.
I blame Man. Thats not the extent of it, but i am aware that on a forum such as this to speak freely would transgress bounderies. So perhaps that is enough about who I blame.
The translations were done hundreds of years after Muhammed (PBUH)'s death. Since then to this day you have Clerics translating the words of the Koran in their own fashion. Some to promote peace, some to promote good.
It's the same with the Bible. Pope Urban the 2nd wasnt averse to the odd scripture to reinforce hate. Thousands died, perhaps hundreds of thousands in the Crusades. (Almost as many as Saddam Hussain killed., Its possible).
Quran has never been changed in the last 1400yrs and it will never be as promised by Allah. Translations can be done 100 or 1000yrs from today and it still doesn't matter becuase the original copy is in arabic and that is the real Quran. The translation is not regarded as the real quran but rather a just a translation. you should check out these links on history of the Quran.
Yes , i'm aware of the history of the koran, I was referring to it's translation in the sense of what clerics have interpreted it's verses to mean.
I think the original message was clear enough. It meant do not have intimate relationships with the unbeleivers. It also is said about justice and fairness in dealings with unbeleivers.Fine.
I think looking at the revalations in context with what was happening when they were revealed is the way to clarify them.
The Verses that relate to "not taking jews & christians as freind/lord" are Medianan. Revealed at a time when the Prophet (PBUH) was at war with Mecca.
The Verses that relate to good relations were revealed before the Median ones, in Mecca, when the Prophet(PBUH) first preached there and he was gathering his first converts. After the religion was rejected the situation changed, and this might account for the changes in tone of the revalations.
I know I'm going over well trodden ground here! In order to make sense of the "conflicting" messages, they mave to be taken, i feel, into context.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks