Since I'm relatively new at studying the Quran and the Hadith and I only rely on the internet to do it I'm a bit lost about when are surahs and verses valid.
Some Muslims say the Quran verses are valid at all times but some say that some verses are specific to certain time and place in history and never to be used again.
That is the case with Quran 9:123 when some Muslims bring as context when the verse was revealed and therefore they assume it was meant to be used during that specific battle only.
Recently I brought up Quran 9:123
Sahih International: O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous.
And the Hadith that explains it:
THE PROHIBITION OF TAKING THE IDOLATORS AS SUPPORTERS, EVEN WITH RELATIVES Allah commands shunning the disbelievers, even if they are one's parents or children, and prohibits taking them as supporters if they choose disbelief instead of faith. Allah warns,(You will not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, making friendship with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their kindred (people). For such He has written (predetermined) faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with a Ruh (proof, light and true guidance) from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens (Paradise) under which rivers flow.) (58:22) Al-Hafiz Al-Bayhaqi recorded that `Abdullah bin Shawdhab said, "The father of Abu `Ubaydah bin Al-Jarrah was repeatedly praising the idols to his son on the day of Badr, and Abu `Ubaydah kept avoiding him. When Al-Jarrah persisted, his son Abu `Ubaydah headed towards him and killed him. Allah revealed this Ayah in his case,(You will not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, making friendship with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger.'') (58:22) Allah commanded His Messenger to warn those who prefer their family, relatives or tribe to Allah, His Messenger and Jihad in His cause.
Moderator MidnightRose jumped into the discussion and said:
The quotation you used referred to the Battle of Badr. It's literally in the quotation. This was related to war.
I accept what moderator MidnightRose says but I fail to understand where he got the idea this only applies on the battle of Badr and is never to be used again.
Let's see the important part:
Al-Hafiz Al-Bayhaqi recorded that `Abdullah bin Shawdhab said, "The father of Abu `Ubaydah bin Al-Jarrah was repeatedly praising the idols to his son on the day of Badr, and Abu `Ubaydah kept avoiding him. When Al-Jarrah persisted, his son Abu `Ubaydah headed towards him and killed him. Allah revealed this Ayah in his case,(You will not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, making friendship with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger.'')
Here a son killed his father because his father kept praising idols. (this happened on the day of Badr) as moderator MidnightRose pointed out.
Allah revealed an ayah in his case (Quran 9:25)
In his case meaning in the case of the son killing his father?
So here I'm confused:
Did Allah said that it was justified that the son killed his father because he was praising idols?
Did Allah's revelation only apply on this case?
What if other fathers or sons praise idols the same way it happened here?
Why would a revelation only be used once when the same situation can happen over and over in time?
I agree that the Hadith says this ayah was revealed because of this case but it doesn't say it was meant to be used only in this case.
Its like me throwing a piece of garbage on the street and a police officer stops and in a loud voice aiming at everybody around screams "Do not throw garbage on the street, its against the law"
Yes he warned everybody because of me but the act applies to anybody in time.
THE PROHIBITION OF TAKING THE IDOLATORS AS SUPPORTERS, EVEN WITH RELATIVES
That line basically speaks for itself. We don't turn to disbelievers for support.
The prophet pbuh had relatives who were disbelievers and look how he treated them. Abu Lahab waged war against the prophet pbuh and his followers, and that didn't end well for him. Abu Talib was the complete opposite. The prophet never struck him, threatened to kill him, or even harmed him. Both of those men were disbelievers. Islam does not teach one to treat others with harshness for the fun of it. Reading things at face value is not enough to understand something.
Allah has already given you victory in many regions and [even] on the day of Hunayn, when your great number pleased you, but it did not avail you at all, and the earth was confining for you with its vastness; then you turned back, fleeing.
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy
Here a son killed his father because his father kept praising idols. (this happened on the day of Badr)
He wasn't killed just because he was praising the idols. Rather, he was killed because he went at war with Muslims. He was fighting in the battle, and praising the idols in front of his son was an act of provocation (while being in war). When you are at war, you don't look who your enemy is. Everyone who fights you will be in your line of attack. And if your enemy provokes you, of course you will attack them first.
Muslims do not attack civilians, or anyone who does not fight them. While on the other hand, US has caused the highest number of civilian casualties. You should look at the atrocities committed by your own countrymen first.
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy
Some Muslims say the Quran verses are valid at all times but some say that some verses are specific to certain time and place in history and never to be used again.
Yes, Quran is for all times and all places. Islam is a universal religion and applies for everywhere. But at the same time, you have to look at the context before applying any text. You cannot isolate a verse from the Surah and say this is the rule that must be applied. No, apply the whole of Quran, not selective verses.
Your questions have been sufficiently answered. Do not post repeated threads on the same topic.
Muslims do not attack civilians, or anyone who does not fight them. While on the other hand, US has caused the highest number of civilian casualties. You should look at the atrocities committed by your own countrymen first.
Why are you assuming I'm from the US?
I'm not here to argue about politics but to discuss religion.
The Hadith says this happened on the day of Badr but doesn't say it was during battle.
The Quran verse 9:123: (sorry I said 25 before)
Sahih International: O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous.
The Quran on the other hand never mentions any battle or when this revelation should be applied.
So my question is how do you end up interpreting that this happened during battle instead of happening on the day of the battle but on the house where this son and father live?
Who makes those detailed corrections for Muslims?
There is a scholar that interprets the scholars?
This hadith is by Ibn Kathir so you're saying that other scholars review what Ibn Kathir says and then add whatever is missing from the hadith?
Is that how it works?
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy
Allah commanded His Messenger to warn those who prefer their family, relatives or tribe to Allah, His Messenger and Jihad in His cause.
Here Allah commanded His Messenger to warn those who prefer their family ....
This warning is clearly not done during war but at home (we're talking family and relatives) or at he Mosque in our times I assume.
Who has time to warn relatives and family when they're pointing a sword at you during a battle?
So my question is how do you end up interpreting that this happened during battle instead of happening on the day of the battle but on the house where this son and father live?
Why is it so difficult to understand for you? The father's house was in Makkah, and the son was living in Madinah with the Muslims. He had come to the battle with the Muslim army.
On the Day of Badr, they were all face to face in the battle, not at any other time. Read the history and you will understand.
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy
Who makes those detailed corrections for Muslims?
There is a scholar that interprets the scholars?
This hadith is by Ibn Kathir so you're saying that other scholars review what Ibn Kathir says and then add whatever is missing from the hadith?
Is that how it works?
You are selectively reading the texts. Read the whole part and you will be able to understand properly. No need to go for in-depth interpretations. Once you read the historical context, you will find it easier to understand.
Here is a biography of the Prophet Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar). Read it from the beginning and do not jump to places for selective reading.
Thank you for that link. I'll try to find that story.
I think you're right. After so much reading and getting confused so many times I still believe that if Islam is truth then the Quran verses must be timeless.
It doesn't make any sense that Allah used an entire revelation to be used for 24 hours or so and then you can just use it as an Historical event to be forgotten or avoid it in the future.
So let's go back on topic, are verses meant to be timeless or some were meant to be used only on one occasion?
By reading the Quran you would say they are definitely timeless because you rarely see any specific location or time mentioned in them.
In many occasions not even Muhammad (based on the Hadith) interpret them as a one time only verses.
So who is making those assumptions and based on what?
The answer is, "the scholars".
Ibn Kathir wrote:
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy
Allah revealed this Ayah in his case,
So here you see for the first time who linked the verse with an historical fact.
It wasn't Allah (in the Quran) nor Muhammad (in the Hadith) but it was Ibn Kathir in the Tafsir while explaining the verse.
So now we know how the verse was linked to an historical fact but still Ibn Kathir never said this verse was to be used only this time.
Yes it was created for this occasion but not to be used for this occasion only unless I'm still missing something.
So here is my question if anybody cares to answer it.
What am I missing?
Where does it say the verse is to be used only this time?
I would appreciate a quote from some scripture if that is possible.
Aoa. We need a context for everything. Why was the ayah revealed in the first place? This is what the tafseer explains. If you look at the order of the quranic verses, they are self explanatory. For instance men have been asked to lower their gaze before women have been told to cover themselves.
Similarly when u talk abt the ayah where the man killed his father. Why?
Did the man abide by all islamic rules in the first place? Was he piois? Did he offer namaz regularly? Did he pay his zakat? Did he fight in the name of the lord? Yes.. He did. It was the last recourse for him to kill his father. Now adays people have misinterpreted the quran. They would tell people not to commit a sin, while they are sinners themselves. First cleanse urself. Then fight in the name of God. Even if u have to fight ur blood. Also, u are like one of the examples mentioned in the Quran. Jews. Who were more obssessed with the number of people of the cave instead of focusing on the message their story brought.
So here is my question if anybody cares to answer it.
What am I missing?
To gain a better understanding of what the Qur'an is, please see the following work: An Approach to the Quranic Sciences (click on the link to the left)
Additionally, Ibn Kathir was not the first to do what you mentioned. He came much later in the history of Islam. Islamic knowledge has an unbroken chain of transmission going back directly to the Prophet himself. Please see the following IB thread - The Isnad System: An Unbroken Link to the Prophet. (click on link to the left)
The following is an example of these chain of transmission links from the Prophet all the way to present day scholars living in North America.
Last edited by MidnightRose; 04-05-2021 at 06:35 PM.
I think you're right. After so much reading and getting confused so many times I still believe that if Islam is truth then the Quran verses must be timeless.
It doesn't make any sense that Allah used an entire revelation to be used for 24 hours or so and then you can just use it as an Historical event to be forgotten or avoid it in the future.
So let's go back on topic, are verses meant to be timeless or some were meant to be used only on one occasion?
By reading the Quran you would say they are definitely timeless because you rarely see any specific location or time mentioned in them.
You would be right if that was the case, but it isn't. Quran verses are timeless. There are several ways Allah revealed verses to teach us. The most familiar is the "You may do this, but you may not do that" types of verses. But there are also verses that were revealed during a specific event in the history and only applies to that specific event but which still is an example for us today. in other words, yes it applies to only that event in history, but we still can take lessons from it.
A clear example of this:
al-Baqarah 2:65-66:
And indeed you knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath (i.e. Saturday). We said to them: ‘Be you monkeys, despised and rejected.’So We made this punishment an example to their own and to succeeding generations and a lesson to those who are Al-Muttaqoon (the pious)
This verse clearly refers to one specific event in the history, and how they got punished.
It was about Jews from a certain town who were not allowed to fish on sabbath day (saturday)...so they thought they could outsmart that rule by setting up their nets on friday, and collect it on sunday...
That way they could say "we did not fish on Saturday (our nets did, we just collected the fish the day after)"
Allah punished them by transforming them into apes.
This verse does not mean that some jews or other humans nowadays will be transformed into apes...It just shows that trying to outsmart the verses in the Quraan wont get you anywhere. The Jews living in that town thought they outsmarted Allahs words...they thought they found a cunning way how to make money on a non working day...but they couldn't get away with it.
This applies to us too. We can think we found legitimate reasons to disobey Allah by slightly differently interpretting the Quraan so that we can avoid certain rules...just like the jews back then thought they did...however, we would not be able to get away with it.
We cannot outsmart Allah.
So again...back to our topic: the verse refers to one occasion in history, the message behind it is timeless.
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy
In many occasions not even Muhammad (based on the Hadith) interpret them as a one time only verses.
So who is making those assumptions and based on what?
The answer is, "the scholars".
Ibn Kathir wrote:
So here you see for the first time who linked the verse with an historical fact.
It wasn't Allah (in the Quran) nor Muhammad (in the Hadith) but it was Ibn Kathir in the Tafsir while explaining the verse.
Scholars like Ibn Kathir do not make assumptions. They collect historical information and use that to provide us background information about the verses. They give us the essential information we need to understand the verses correctly. without that information, we would be lost.
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy
So now we know how the verse was linked to an historical fact but still Ibn Kathir never said this verse was to be used only this time.
Yes it was created for this occasion but not to be used for this occasion only unless I'm still missing something.
So here is my question if anybody cares to answer it.
What am I missing?
Where does it say the verse is to be used only this time?
I would appreciate a quote from some scripture if that is possible.
What you are missing is the lesson that you should take from that one-time-only-event. The event was one time...the message behind it is timeless.
If a son killed his father and this father happened to be a idol worshipper, then you still cannot just assume that the son killed him because of that.
You should look a little deeper and find out WHY he killed him.
Islaam clearly says that you cannot harm anyone if they are just minding their own business...
But in this case, just like brother abirusabeel mentioned, it was the battle of Badr going on.
What was the father doing at a war zone? I dont think he was just peacefully whorshipping idols.
He was fighting against muslims.
What would you do if a war broke out and some family members have been choosing the opposite side and were fighting against you? you would avoid them as long as you can and then you would fight them.
So he did the same.
To gain a better understanding of what the Qur'an is, please see the following work:
Thank you for the links.
format_quote Originally Posted by MidnightRose
Additionally, Ibn Kathir was not the first to do what you mentioned.
I didn't say that right, my fault. I meant that the scholars (any scholar) were the first to link the Quran verse (9:123) to the Historical event (the battle of Badr), the Quran didn't mention the battle of Badr.
format_quote Originally Posted by Ümit
there are also verses that were revealed during a specific event in the history and only applies to that specific event but which still is an example for us today. in other words, yes it applies to only that event in history, but we still can take lessons from it.
I still haven't seen any indication that clearly states that a certain verse only applies to a certain event.
Let's stay with verse 9:123. Show me where it says the verse only applies on the day of Badr.
We know the verse was revealed on the day of Badr and there is no argument about that but there is no indication the verse was revealed because of this event nor that the verse only applies on this day only.
format_quote Originally Posted by Ümit
A clear example of this:
al-Baqarah 2:65-66:
........
This verse clearly refers to one specific event in the history
Ok, I accept that. That's a good example based on a very clear verse from the Quran.
Now compare that to verse 9:123.
9:123 seems to be aimed as a timeless with no limitations verse until the scholars did they research, they figured when it was revealed and came to the conclusion that it was meant as a one day only verse.
format_quote Originally Posted by Ümit
Scholars like Ibn Kathir do not make assumptions. They collect historical information and use that to provide us background information about the verses.
I call the following statement an assumption:
format_quote Originally Posted by Ibn Kathir
Allah revealed this Ayah in his case (about the son killing his father)
See Ibn Kathir assumes he knows what Allah intended to do, that is what I call an assumption.
How does Ibn Kathir knows why Allah revealed this verse and how the verse should be used?
format_quote Originally Posted by Ümit
What you are missing is the lesson that you should take from that one-time-only-event. The event was one time...the message behind it is timeless.
So what is the timeless message behind the son killing his father for praising idols (even at war)?
What did we learn from that?
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
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks