Is it possible to Prove the Qu'ran is the very Words of God?

[Hugo]

"Refuted" by misquoting a few words? I am surprised you call that a refutation, Hugo. While you highlight allegations discussed in the book, you fail to mention the conclusions Dr Al-Azami has made concerning them, which of course would be the author's main reason of mentioning them in the first place.

I am not aware that I misquoted anything but none of us is perfect. But I think my point was that just because Dr Azami reaches a conclusion does not make it beyond question, irrefutable since all he can do is sift the evidence and it is obvious that someone else might come to a different conclusion with exactly the same evidence.

While I have not read Dr Al-Azami's book, I have a reasonable idea of what it is about - I know that it refutes many western allegations against the Qur'an and I've read some small details in this regard from others who have read it. Thus, I don't need to have read the entire book to realise that an ambiguous statement in the preface does not reflect the detailed research and clear conclusions drawn in the main body of the book. I'm sure you must have read many a book to research a topic, yet I wonder for how many of them you concluded your research solely from the preface? I cannot understand why you so readily do this for a book about the Qur'an.

I have read Azami's book cover to cover, the reason the preface was mentioned was that he made a statement about "the most accurate Qu'ran in the world" and I asked you what were the implications. It really makes no difference if its in the preface or anywhere else the words are unmistakable and either what he says is a fact or he not me is distorting them.

There is no new premise introduced - one only believes in the Preserved Tablet if he accepts the truthfulness of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which is more or less what the whole thread seeks to establish. So the first step is to establish the truth of the Qur'an (and Sunnah) and the belief in the unseen follows, not the other way round.

No this is not correct, the thread asks "is it possible.." and so the truthfulness or otherwise of the prophet is irrelevant logically in establishing the 'truth' of the Qu'ran, since if such logic works it must work for anyone who is truthful must it not and Prophet Mohammed need not be thought a liar because he says he had a revelation but like all revelations they are hearsay.

I'm not sure what made you think this. The Qur'an makes it very clear that, Say (O Muhammad): "I am only a man like you...18:110. What is being referred to is a claim of prophethood. So with regards to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) all possibilities fall into those three categories. If you believe there are others, feel free to mention them.

But can you see the dilemma, a man claims he had a revelation and seeks to prove it as you do here by saying he is mentioned in the revelation - it is circular. You mentioned three possibilities: truth, lying or delusion so which of these would you cite as removing this dilemma.

The Qur'an mentions many incidents and stories, all of which have a purpose and contain lessons and guidance - there is nothing odd about this. The fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had to wait a period of time until the verses were revealed is further evidence of his truthfulness because if he was making up the Qur'an, he would have cleared the name of his beloved wife immediately.

I agree that any story can be transformed into teaching and one presumes that was the ultimate purpose of any revelation. But take another case that of the Zayd in 33:37 who divorced his wife so we get the eternal teaching (and here there is no doubt as to what it is) that one can wed the wives of adopted sons? Does this not strike you as very odd to say nothing of the fact that we can barely understand this verses unless we have the hadith which tells us about the incident so we seem driven to the inescapable conclusion that God engineered this situation to teach this obscure not to say bizarre point of law?

Similarly, Allah initially gave some rulings that were later abrogated, but He knew and intended.

I see your point but if I make an analogy on abrogation and ask you is it abrogation if I decide to have Beef this week and Lamb the next and so on. My point I suppose is that one cannot perhaps assume that God acts as we do so the analogy my not be a good one but there remains this nagging doubt about these temporal things such a Zayd above and also I find it very hard to accept that God, the God who made everything should act in such a piecemeal fashion, that if you like God could not think of a better way of doing it.

As for your comments on the Shariah, it would be less convincing that the Shariah was a divine law if it was constantly changing to meet the needs of society. The fact that the law was perfected during the lifetime of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and has remained unchanged is evidence of its superiority over all other laws.

Does it not strike you as contradictory or at least a bit inconsistent that we have abrogation and then all of a sudden nothing can change? So we can change the Qu'ran because of convenience or circumstance (I cannot think of any other words) but when we have what is unquestionably man made we cannot? Let me give an example, a husband may not commit adultery, that is have relations with another man's wife BUT he can have relations with his slave girls who could at least be in principles married before they became slaves? Is this in YOUR view a superior law?

Because such copies were neither verified nor authorized under the consensus of the Companions and consequently they could be written according to a specific dialect which would lead to confusion and bickering, or they could even contain the odd scribal error which could also lead to confusion. So Uthman ordered that all parchments other than the official copy should be disposed of as a necessary step to preserve the unity of the Muslims on the proper recitation of the Qur'an.

Yes I agree that this is one of the accounts but my point was not why he did it so much as just to show that different versions existed - else why was consensus needed.

Yet you ignore the oral preservation of the Qur'an: it has reached us through chains of narration going back to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), where in each generation so many people narrated it that there is no question of its authenticity. It was not transmitted by a few persons in one generation to a few persons in the next. It was handed over by the entire generation to the next generation. The generation of the Companions witnessed the revelation and compilation of the Holy Qur'an during the life of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and then handed it over to the next generation and so on.

But surely, you MUST know that the principle reason for Uthman's copy was that different oral form were arising - that is the trouble with oral transmission and why the text had to be written down and standardised. If the oral transmission was as faultless and secure as you say why bother to write it down? Surely, if God handed it down as an oral form (presumably he need not have done it like that) it should have been kept that way? I fully understand it was recited and learned if for no other reason that otherwise hardly anybody could have a copy and most were illiterate. That is was used as the basis of law is not in dispute but it was not enough was it?These facts might make it special but cannot make it more than that.

Which Bible are you referring to? Is it the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, Ethiopic, Coptic or the Syriac? Thus, how can you claim that the Bible is similar to the Qur'an in preservation, when so many different versions exist? We could get into a full-fledge discussion on this topic alone, though that would be getting way off-topic.

I think you are muddled here between languages, denomination and versions and it seems you further assume that a Bible say in Greek would have an entirely different message to one in French or that any two English versions would be again totally different - such an idea is an absurdity. Do you think say that Dawood's and Arberry's translations of the Qu'ran are so different that you could not reconcile them?

 

[Hugo]

take my word not to be the 'Torah' rather the 'magic' that Moses brought.. in other words people didn't want an eloquent book but wanted a red sea split, or a cane that does wonders.. Now, as stated on the previous page, each messenger was given the 'miracle' that best suits his people, for Moses, who was in Egypt, sorcery was rampant, so he brought them that which goes beyond what they can do, Jesus, was around the time of medicine and his gift was healing, prophet Mohammed came to a people of great eloquence and thus the last and final message.. in the Quran it clearly states that even the people of old who were given magic or who were given healing, still managed to belittle or 'crucify' their messengers, for the prophet not to be aggrieved by the disbelievers! Verse has nothing at all to do with a book, rendering yet another of your efforts sorely futile!

May I offer some translations as I assume these translators are at least as good as you are at 6th century Arabic.

Dawood 28:48-49 And now that they have received the truth from Us, they ask: "why is he not given the like of what was given to Moses?" But do they not deny what was formerly given to Moses? They say: "Two works of sorcery complementing one another!" And they declare: "We will believe in neither of them" Say bring down from God a scripture that is a better guide than these and I will follow it, if what you say be true"

Yusuf Ali: But (now), when the Truth has come to them from Ourselves, they say, "Why are not (Signs) sent to him, like those which were sent to Moses?" Do they not then reject (the Signs) which were formerly sent to Moses? They say: "Two kinds of sorcery, each assisting the other!" And they say: "For us, we reject all (such things)!" Say: "Then bring ye a Book from Allah, which is a better guide than either of them, that I may follow it! (do), if ye are truthful!"

Mohsin Khan: But when the truth (Muhammad with his Message) has come to them from Us, they say: "Why is he not given the like of what was given to Musa (Moses)? Did they not disbelieve in that which was given to Musa (Moses) of old? They say: "Two kinds of magic [the Taurat (Torah) and the Qur'an], each helping the other!" And they say: "Verily in both we are disbelievers." Say (to them, O Muhammad): "Then bring a Book from Allah, which is a better guide than these two [the Taurat (Torah) and the Qur'an], that I may follow it, if you are truthful."​

I think the words 'scripture' in v49 make it clear the we are talking about don't you think? If not then these two verses are talking about two entirely different things so the Qu'ran would then be logically defective and render the phrase "...than these two.." meaningless. I cannot find a quality or indeed any translation that would support your view.

 

[جوري]

I am not aware that I misquoted anything but none of us is perfect. But I think my point was that just because Dr Azami reaches a conclusion does not make it beyond question, irrefutable since all he can do is sift the evidence and it is obvious that someone else might come to a different conclusion with exactly the same evidence.

Indeed.. question is can you distinguish the difference between evidence and heresy? I don't think you are able to go past the superficial, given the your repeated blunders, ending with your last post to Muslim woman, where you clearly neglect centuries old tafsir to find a translation to suit your frame of mind!

I have read Azami's book cover to cover, the reason the preface was mentioned was that he made a statement about "the most accurate Qu'ran in the world" and I asked you what were the implications. It really makes no difference if its in the preface or anywhere else the words are unmistakable and either what he says is a fact or he not me is distorting them.

The reason you mention the preface is the same reason you mention a title of the page and conclude it is what it is about and I have highlighted in my previous posts.

No this is not correct, the thread asks "is it possible.." and so the truthfulness or otherwise of the prophet is irrelevant logically in establishing the 'truth' of the Qu'ran, since if such logic works it must work for anyone who is truthful must it not and Prophet Mohammed need not be thought a liar because he says he had a revelation but like all revelations they are hearsay.

Only your revelations are heresy, a perfect revelation from which there is no error or imitation to govern and has governed man's life and very successful empires is the word of the divine.

But can you see the dilemma, a man claims he had a revelation and seeks to prove it as you do here by saying he is mentioned in the revelation - it is circular. You mentioned three possibilities: truth, lying or delusion so which of these would you cite as removing this dilemma.

If you can't prove the other two then the one remaining must be the truth!

I agree that any story can be transformed into teaching and one presumes that was the ultimate purpose of any revelation. But take another case that of the Zayd in 33:37 who divorced his wife so we get the eternal teaching (and here there is no doubt as to what it is) that one can wed the wives of adopted sons? Does this not strike you as very odd to say nothing of the fact that we can barely understand this verses unless we have the hadith which tells us about the incident so we seem driven to the inescapable conclusion that God engineered this situation to teach this obscure not to say bizarre point of law?

I am not sure I am following what your grievance is with the verse?

Name of Questioner Randa - Egypt Title Islam’s Stance on Adoption Date 05/12/2001 Name of Counsellor IOL Shari`ah Researchers Topic Adoption Question Dear scholars, could you please furnish me with a fatwa on the Islamic stance on adoption? Your earliest response will be very much appreciated. Jazakum Allahu Khayran!

Answer In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear sister in Islam, thank you very much for having confidence in us, and we pray to Allah to guide you to have deep understanding of the teachings of Islam.

Adoption in the sense of changing one’s identity and lineage for a false lineage is prohibited in Islam; but at the same time, it is allowed for Muslims to adopt a child in the sense of taking him/her under his/her wing for providing both physical and spiritual care for him/her. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “The best house of Muslims is one where an orphan is cared for.”

Islam's stance on adoption rests on the necessity of keeping the biological parents of the child always in picture. Keeping the original name of the child, and letting him know who are his real parents are some of the conditions stipulated by the Shari`ah when legalizing fostering. The reasons are; in Islam, children have automatic rights to inheritance, they can not marry their Mahrams (unmarriageable persons) and they can marry from their foster family if no suckling took place. The issue of hijab in the house is also given due regard between the non-related sisters and brothers, etc. All these rules have to be taken into consideration in this case.

Shedding light on the issue of adoption, we'd cite for you the following article:

"Before Islam, the Arabs practiced adoption, naming the child after the person adopting him or her, as if the adoptive parents and the child were related by blood.

Islam prohibits adoption but allows Muslims to raise children who are not theirs. Muslims can fully raise these children, look after them, and support them, but the children must be named after their real fathers. It is not a sin if a person is named after the wrong father by mistake.

For some of the same reasons, Islam prohibits any method of conceiving or delivering babies other than the traditional and natural method. Artificial insemination with sperm from a man the woman is not married to, surrogate mothers, the donation of sperm or eggs, and mothers' milk banks are all prohibited. These methods produce illegitimate children.

In a case when the father is not known, as with abandoned babies, the child should still not be named after the person raising him or her. In a case such as this, the children may be called brethren in Islam (Mawali).

Allah Almighty says: “Allah has not assigned unto any man two hearts within his body, nor has He made your wives who you declare (to be your mothers) your mothers, nor has He made those who you claim (to be your children) your children. This is but a saying of your mouths. But Allah says the truth and He shows the way. Proclaim their real parentage. That will be more equitable in the sight of Allah. And if you know not their fathers, then (they are) your brethren in the faith, and your clients. And there is no sin for you in the mistakes that you make unintentionally, but what your hearts purpose (that will be a sin for you). Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” (Al-Ahzab: 4-5)

In fact, Islam changed other pre-Islamic traditions related to this issue as well. The raised child cannot inherit from the people who raised him/her, and is not forbidden from marrying what used to be called relatives by the bond of adoption.

Before adoption was prohibited, the Arabs had prohibited the man from marrying the divorcee of his adopted son. Islam prohibits a man marrying the divorcee of his son. However, in Islam, a man can marry the divorcee of the man he raised, who is not his son by blood; this is declared explicitly in the Qur'an. People would have felt uncomfortable in practicing this new permission, if Allah had not selected the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to demonstrate its acceptability; it’d be a very heavy duty before people, even for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

Zayd Ibn Harithah (may Allah be pleased with him) was adopted by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) before Islam prohibited adoption. He used to be called Zayd ibn Muhammad (son of Muhammad) until adoption was prohibited, when he was again called after his real father.

Zayd married Zaynab bint Jahsh, the cousin of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Later on, he had problems in his relationship with her. Allah Almighty inspired to the heart of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that she would get divorced and he would marry her, something that was hard for him to face other people with. Whenever Zayd complained to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that his marriage was going from bad to worse, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) always told him to stay with his wife, which is a postponement of what the Prophet learned was going to happen.

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would not have tried to postpone such matter had it been explicitly said to him as an order from Allah Almighty or as a revelation from Him. It was only an inspiration to his heart. He never hesitated in applying any command from Allah no matter what the issue was.

Zayd eventually divorced Zaynab, and neither one of them knew what Allah Almighty had inspired His Prophet to do. After the waiting period (`Iddah) of Zaynab was over, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was told to marry her. He sent Zayd himself to ask Zaynab to marry him. Zaynab said that she would not take such a step without a revelation from Allah Almighty. When she went to the Mosque the verses that commanded the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to marry her were revealed, and she married the Prophet.

Allah Almighty says : “And when you said unto him on whom Allah has conferred favor and you have conferred favor: Keep your wife to yourself, and fear Allah. And you did hide in your mind that which Allah was to bring to light, and you did fear people whereas Allah had a better right that you should fear Him. So when Zayd had performed the necessary formality (of divorce) from her, We gave her unto you in marriage, so that (henceforth) there may be no sin for believers in respect of wives of those they raised, when the latter have performed the necessary formality (of release) from them. The commandment of Allah must be fulfilled. There is no reproach for the Prophet in that which Allah makes his due. That was Allah's way with those who passed away of old - and the commandment of Allah is certain destiny. Who delivered the messages of Allah and feared Him, and feared none save Allah. Allah keeps good account. Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the Messenger and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allah is Aware of all things.” (Al-Ahzab: 37-40)

The unbelievers and the hypocrites used this event to attack the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and Islam, saying that the Prophet married the divorcee of his son. Even today, this incident is used by the unbelievers to misinform people about Islam and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). These people do not realize the importance of the rule introduced by Islam through this incident. For them adoption is acceptable, and so they find these revelations difficult to grasp or accept.

Adoption is widely practiced in many non-Muslim western societies. Babies are taken from their parents and named after those adopting them. The children grow up having no idea who their real parents are. In a mobile society like the U.S.A. for example, an adopted boy may end up marrying his sister from his original parents without knowing that she is his sister. These cases have actually happened.

This harmful consequence is one of the reasons that Islam places such importance on the use of the child's real name. A person's name is important in Islam because many social rules like marriage, inheritance, custody, provision, and punishment, are contingent upon the blood relationship. This is a reason for women to retain their own names after marriage as well.

Adoption in non-Muslim societies is practiced for many reasons. Non-Muslim societies have many illegitimate babies as a result of extramarital sexual relationships. Very young mothers of these babies do not keep them because they cannot support them and devote time to raising them. So these young women give the children to other parents who have no children, or abandon them in the streets where people can pick them up. Worse than that, some of these babies are killed, put in trash bags, and then thrown in garbage cans.

In other cases, these children are sold to parents who cannot have children. Another reason for adoption in these non-Muslim societies is that many women do not like or want to get pregnant, for fear of ruining their beauty.

Many of these people claim that adoption is a humane service. They do not realize that Islam preserves the humane part of this practice by allowing people to raise children that are not theirs, while it prevents the negative consequences of adoption which can harm society by calling the child after the adoptive parents."

Excerpted, with slight modifications, from: http://www.stanford.edu/group/ISSU/Info/hussein/hussein.html

May Allah guide you to the straight path and direct you to that which pleases Him, Ameen.


You can also read:

Giving an Adopted Child a Share of One’s Property

Refuting Claims Regarding the Prophet’s Marriage to Zaynab Bint Jahsh

I see your point but if I make an analogy on abrogation and ask you is it abrogation if I decide to have Beef this week and Lamb the next and so on. My point I suppose is that one cannot perhaps assume that God acts as we do so the analogy my not be a good one but there remains this nagging doubt about these temporal things such a Zayd above and also I find it very hard to accept that God, the God who made everything should act in such a piecemeal fashion, that if you like God could not think of a better way of doing it.

You are right, the analogy isn't good, given the god you believe in has done is in even a lesser fashion, changing his mind, then self-immolating.
I am at a loss really of where you get the courage to make such a statement given your own beliefs!
Who are you to say how god should do it, if your god is no more than a mere human who couldn't find a tree to feed him in the earth he created?

Does it not strike you as contradictory or at least a bit inconsistent that we have abrogation and then all of a sudden nothing can change? So we can change the Qu'ran because of convenience or circumstance (I cannot think of any other words) but when we have what is unquestionably man made we cannot? Let me give an example, a husband may not commit adultery, that is have relations with another man's wife BUT he can have relations with his slave girls who could at least be in principles married before they became slaves? Is this in YOUR view a superior law?

A slave girl of some Ansari came and said, "My master forces me to commit fornication." Thereupon, the following verse was revealed: [But force not your maids to prostitution (when they desire chastity)] (Abu Dawud #2304).

Read more: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...ily/FYELayout&cid=1157365799992#ixzz0d5rzynQl
​

Yes I agree that this is one of the accounts but my point was not why he did it so much as just to show that different versions existed - else why was consensus needed.

rather, a very painstaking task of compilation with two witnesses before the entire Quran was made into one book and not mere scrolls. If you have proof of different versions then bring them?

But surely, you MUST know that the principle reason for Uthman's copy was that different oral form were arising - that is the trouble with oral transmission and why the text had to be written down and standardised. If the oral transmission was as faultless and secure as you say why bother to write it down? Surely, if God handed it down as an oral form (presumably he need not have done it like that) it should have been kept that way? I fully understand it was recited and learned if for no other reason that otherwise hardly anybody could have a copy and most were illiterate. That is was used as the basis of law is not in dispute but it was not enough was it?These facts might make it special but cannot make it more than that.

If you'd have read the book as you allege, you'd have learned of the reason why it was compiled, after the savage murders hafiths sent to teach hypocrites!

I think you are muddled here between languages, denomination and versions and it seems you further assume that a Bible say in Greek would have an entirely different message to one in French or that any two English versions would be again totally different - such an idea is an absurdity. Do you think say that Dawood's and Arberry's translations of the Qu'ran are so different that you could not reconcile them?

absurd?

[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cK3Ry_icJo[/MEDIA]


all the best
​

 

[جوري]

May I offer some translations as I assume these translators are at least as good as you are at 6th century Arabic.

Dawood 28:48-49 And now that they have received the truth from Us, they ask: "why is he not given the like of what was given to Moses?" But do they not deny what was formerly given to Moses? They say: "Two works of sorcery complementing one another!" And they declare: "We will believe in neither of them" Say bring down from God a scripture that is a better guide than these and I will follow it, if what you say be true"

Yusuf Ali: But (now), when the Truth has come to them from Ourselves, they say, "Why are not (Signs) sent to him, like those which were sent to Moses?" Do they not then reject (the Signs) which were formerly sent to Moses? They say: "Two kinds of sorcery, each assisting the other!" And they say: "For us, we reject all (such things)!" Say: "Then bring ye a Book from Allah, which is a better guide than either of them, that I may follow it! (do), if ye are truthful!"

Mohsin Khan: But when the truth (Muhammad with his Message) has come to them from Us, they say: "Why is he not given the like of what was given to Musa (Moses)? Did they not disbelieve in that which was given to Musa (Moses) of old? They say: "Two kinds of magic [the Taurat (Torah) and the Qur'an], each helping the other!" And they say: "Verily in both we are disbelievers." Say (to them, O Muhammad): "Then bring a Book from Allah, which is a better guide than these two [the Taurat (Torah) and the Qur'an], that I may follow it, if you are truthful."​

I think the words 'scripture' in v49 make it clear the we are talking about don't you think? If not then these two verses are talking about two entirely different things so the Qu'ran would then be logically defective and render the phrase "...than these two.." meaningless. I cannot find a quality or indeed any translation that would support your view.

why should I work with a translation when I speak Arabic, and have given you the tafsir that is centuries old.
since when are translators scholars?

if you edited a medical paper I have written, will that make you a doctor to enter in parenthesis the words of your choice?

let's look at it word for word
فَلَمَّا= when
جَاءهُمُ= came to them
الْحَقُّ= truth

مِنْ عِندِنَا= from Our presence
قَالُوا =they said

لَوْلَا = why not
أُوتِيَ =given
مِثْلَ= the like
مَا أُوتِيَ= what was given
مُوسَى= moses

أَوَلَمْ= did they not
يَكْفُرُوا= disbelief
بِمَا= what was
أُوتِيَ= given
مُوسَى= moses
مِن قَبْلُ= before (of old)
قَالُوا = they said
سِحْرَانِ= two magics
تَظَاهَرَا= assisting (supporting)
وَقَالُوا= and said
إِنَّا بِكُلٍّ= we are of both
كَافِرُونَ= disbelieving
فَلَمَّا جَاءهُمُ الْحَقُّ مِنْ عِندِنَا قَالُوا لَوْلَا أُوتِيَ مِثْلَ مَا أُوتِيَ مُوسَى أَوَلَمْ يَكْفُرُوا بِمَا أُوتِيَ مُوسَى مِن قَبْلُ قَالُوا سِحْرَانِ تَظَاهَرَا وَقَالُوا إِنَّا بِكُلٍّ كَافِرُونَ {48}
قُلْ


mind showing me where the 'Torah' is in said verse?

the tafisr I have given is the one that has always been before you found a translator to suit your fancy!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

why should I work with a translation when I speak Arabic, and have given you the tafsir that is centuries old. Since when are translators scholars?

The work of the translator is to render as exact a meaning as they can of some text and some might argue that it is in fact better if they are not theological scholars because they are then less inclined to bend meanings. Your analogy about editing is false as translation is not editing and it is obvious that to translate a medical paper you do not have to be a doctor.

Let's look at it word for word
فَلَمَّا= when
جَاءهُمُ= came to them
الْحَقُّ= truth
مِنْ عِندِنَا= from Our presence
قَالُوا =they said
لَوْلَا = why not
أُوتِيَ =given
مِثْلَ= the like
مَا أُوتِيَ= what was given
مُوسَى= moses
أَوَلَمْ= did they not
يَكْفُرُوا= disbelief
بِمَا= what was
أُوتِيَ= given
مُوسَى= moses
مِن قَبْلُ= before (of old)
قَالُوا = they said
سِحْرَانِ= two magics
تَظَاهَرَا= assisting (supporting)
وَقَالُوا= and said
إِنَّا بِكُلٍّ= we are of both
كَافِرُونَ= disbelieving
فَلَمَّا جَاءهُمُ الْحَقُّ مِنْ عِندِنَا قَالُوا لَوْلَا أُوتِيَ مِثْلَ مَا أُوتِيَ مُوسَى أَوَلَمْ يَكْفُرُوا بِمَا أُوتِيَ مُوسَى مِن قَبْلُ قَالُوا سِحْرَانِ تَظَاهَرَا وَقَالُوا إِنَّا بِكُلٍّ كَافِرُونَ {48}
قُلْ

What is interesting here is that you do not translate V48 which in every translation (7 in all) I looked at the meaning in the preceding verses is elucidated by it - why have you ignored it - is it because it weakens your case?

mind showing me where the 'Torah' is in said verse?

Neither the Torah or Qu'ran is mentioned by name, let us suppose the neither of these was intended, then what are these verses and a lot of verses that follow them talking about - what are these scriptures, what are these two works, books, this truth? Every translation I looked at says it is these two so if it is not what is it and why, according to you do so many translators get it wrong?

 

[reema2009]

Originally Posted by Uthmān
Greetings Hugo, We can prove that the Qur'an is the word of God by demonstrating it's miraculous nature - the fact that it cannot possibly have been the work of human hands. This is touched upon in this video: How is the Qur'an Miraculous? The Challenge of the Qur'an. Since this is a slightly different area of discussion, I suggest you create a thread in the Clarifications about Islam section if you wish to continue discussing it. Please do watch the video first though.

Regards

Getting back to the original point and video.
First of all, must state that I consider myself still muslim, I am a revert for 3 years now and practicing, but I am having severe doubts in my faith. I became a muslim because I am very much convinced that there is only 1 God, which you cannot divide or associate with anything. But... the more I think about it using logic, the less clear it becomes to me.

In the video by Bilal Philips, the arguments he uses does not convince me.
Perhaps it was convincing for people around that time, speaking Arab and all, but right now it is irrelevant because like he states himself, people don't speak Arab anymore as fluently. So like he states, all we have is we can rely on history, and on the statements by scholars that the Qur'aan is indeed a miracle. But all of this is using HUMAN ways of concluding things. Bilal Philips then goes on to say, ok so the Meccans did not even try to produce a verse like it, but who knows they didn't? This is human assumption, it is the way it was assumed in history but who knows muslims simply ignored the attempts that were made? If the Meccans did not consider the Quraan worthy of listening to, then who would bother anyway? I don't see this as proof at all that they thought it wasn't possible.

I for myself find this so very illogical, that an almighty God would need a book in one language then make it the message for all mankind but make it virtually inaccessible to all mankind. Suppose you are a non-muslim, living in a non-muslim country and you will hear the Qu'raan without comment, do you think a person would consider it word of Allaah? If this is biggest miracle of all, shouldn't it be equally accessible to all people in the world, without help of people always explaining it? After all, Allaah doesn't need people explaining it, does he? The argument that you should start learning arab doesn't count really, why would anyone start this without being convinced that Allah wants them to already, which makes it a circular argument. I as a linguist am interested in learning other languages, but I am pretty sure my neighbour who works at the local supermarket wouldnt want to learn arab so how would she ever get access to the message meant for all of the world?

But well, after 3 years of reading about hell sometimes I am even afraid to think these things anymore... But I guess when you get to hear that all of your family is going to hell, it's a rather drastic change in perspective and people want to make sure that they can rely on what they believe. So this is why I have started to re-allow myself to think freely lately... still praying and all, and hoping for Allaahs guidance...

 

[Hugo]

I am not sure I am following what your grievance is with the verse?

Zayd Ibn Harithah (may Allah be pleased with him) was adopted by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) before Islam prohibited adoption. He used to be called Zayd ibn Muhammad (son of Muhammad) until adoption was prohibited, when he was again called after his real father.

It is better if you read my post than to waste your time like this. My post had ZERO to do with adoption. It simply asked if the Qu'ran is eternal and contains eternal truths why would God choose to send down a teaching that you can marry your adopted sons ex wife in such a bizarre fashion and if you like engineer this situation in order to do it?

A slave girl of some Ansari came and said, "My master forces me to commit fornication." Thereupon, the following verse was revealed: [But force not your maids to prostitution (when they desire chastity)] (Abu Dawud #2304)

Fine but what then does the verses 4:3 mean?

Picthal - And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course.

We can go on endlessly talking about Azami's book so perhaps Uthman would allow a thread on it. But for now what do you make of the line on page 195 that says:

First, because they never state that Ibn Mas'ud was reading from a written copy we can just as easily assume that he was overheard reciting from memory, and how can we confidently deduce that the erroneous readings were not due to a memory slip?

So much for the oral tradition - when it suits Azami it is perfect and when it does not he allows for slips of memory?

 

[CosmicPathos]

Getting back to the original point and video.
First of all, must state that I consider myself still muslim, I am a revert for 3 years now and practicing, but I am having severe doubts in my faith. I became a muslim because I am very much convinced that there is only 1 God, which you cannot divide or associate with anything. But... the more I think about it using logic, the less clear it becomes to me.

In the video by Bilal Philips, the arguments he uses does not convince me.
Perhaps it was convincing for people around that time, speaking Arab and all, but right now it is irrelevant because like he states himself, people don't speak Arab anymore as fluently. So like he states, all we have is we can rely on history, and on the statements by scholars that the Qur'aan is indeed a miracle. But all of this is using HUMAN ways of concluding things. Bilal Philips then goes on to say, ok so the Meccans did not even try to produce a verse like it, but who knows they didn't? This is human assumption, it is the way it was assumed in history but who knows muslims simply ignored the attempts that were made? If the Meccans did not consider the Quraan worthy of listening to, then who would bother anyway? I don't see this as proof at all that they thought it wasn't possible.

I for myself find this so very illogical, that an almighty God would need a book in one language then make it the message for all mankind but make it virtually inaccessible to all mankind. Suppose you are a non-muslim, living in a non-muslim country and you will hear the Qu'raan without comment, do you think a person would consider it word of Allaah? If this is biggest miracle of all, shouldn't it be equally accessible to all people in the world, without help of people always explaining it? After all, Allaah doesn't need people explaining it, does he? The argument that you should start learning arab doesn't count really, why would anyone start this without being convinced that Allah wants them to already, which makes it a circular argument. I as a linguist am interested in learning other languages, but I am pretty sure my neighbour who works at the local supermarket wouldnt want to learn arab so how would she ever get access to the message meant for all of the world?

But well, after 3 years of reading about hell sometimes I am even afraid to think these things anymore... But I guess when you get to hear that all of your family is going to hell, it's a rather drastic change in perspective and people want to make sure that they can rely on what they believe. So this is why I have started to re-allow myself to think freely lately... still praying and all, and hoping for Allaahs guidance...

I am a bit confused. You are convinced that Quranic miracle is not really a miracle logically speaking. So you are denying what God in Quran has said. But you are still praying to the same God? hmm

The argument you have made is purely an emotional argument, not a rational one. Scientific method reveals beautiful realities and mysteries of the material world. To communicate the message to a layman, a scientist NEEDs to speak in some language which a layman understands. In the same way, in order to be able to UNDERSTAND the REALITIES of the universe, a layman MUST understand at least some of the scientific language and ideas! A layman can live his life without knowing and hence believing in these realities but that does not mean that he had no way of attaining knowledge!

Why not the same argument for Quran????? If someone really wants to understand reality, why does he/she expect it to be spoon-fed to them? Thats sheer arrogance.

Lets apply your argument to atheist bible: The God Delusion by Mr. Dawkins. Lets assume that whoever is sane and reads the book critically, he will LOSE his faith because the book contains universal reality that God does not exist. A person who does not speak English, SHOULD HE MAKE AN EFFORT TO DISCOVER THE REALITY OF LACK OF GOD's EXISTENCE FROM THIS BOOK BY LEARNING ENGLISH?

Bold letters so that I drive home the point I am making.

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings Hugo,

I don't think you understood at all the argument presented and why it leads to a contradiction so I present it again in a shortened form.

Muslims are convinced that the Quran is absolutely unique and unparalleled but it can be argued that Quran challenge has already been met because it asserts that the revelation given to Moses is similar and equal to the Quran.

Now that the Truth has come to them from Us, they are saying: "Why is he (Muhammad) not given the like of what was given to Musa?" Have they not rejected that which was given to Musa before? They claim: "These (Torah and Qur'an) are the two works of sorcery complementing each other!" And they say: "We believe in neither." Ask them: "Bring a Book from Allah which is a better guide THAN THESE TWO, I will follow it, if what you say be true!" S. 28:48-49 Malik
​

This verse presumes that the book of Moses was available during Muhammad’s time, and equal to the Quran in terms of guidance. Note the structure of the argument: assuming the divine origin of the Torah, the author of the Quran argues that because the Quran is "like the Torah", therefore it is of divine origin as well. In this context at least, the Quran seeks to derive its authority from the authority of the Torah. Therefore, it is evident from the above citations that the author of the Quran believed that at least the books of Moses, met the Quran’s challenge to produce something like it.

I was not aware that you were qualified in Qur'anic interpretation. If I remember correctly, you are unable to read Arabic, hence I am quite perplexed as to how you provided us with such a detailed analysis of the above verses, believing yourself to have grasped their true purpose and meaning. This is similar to the invented concept you presented earlier about the Preserved Tablet and deriving a conclusion just by reading one verse, unaware of the other verses and hadeeth about it.

The point I am getting at, Hugo, is that you are letting yourself down by self-interpreting the Qur'an to suit your arguments. It is disrespectful of you to think this is an acceptable way of formulating an argument. This is what Islam-haters do to try and find fault with Islam - they take verses out of context and distort the meanings. I hope you will refrain from repeating this, otherwise one can only make negative assumptions about your intentions. Suffice it to say that those verses have nothing to do whatsoever with the challenge of the Qur'an being met, and if you check the books of Qur'anic exegesis, you will find more details of the meaning there.

 

[جوري]

The work of the translator is to render as exact a meaning as they can of some text and some might argue that it is in fact better if they are not theological scholars because they are then less inclined to bend meanings. Your analogy about editing is false as translation is not editing and it is obvious that to translate a medical paper you do not have to be a doctor.

indeed that is the work of the translator not to add in parenthesis their desired meaning. I had meant translating not editing but was pressed for time as I had to run out the door to correct that nonetheless, if I give you a paper to translate I don't expect that you render in parenthesis ( Continuous blood pressure measurement is necessary because of hemodynamic instability) as a usages of central venous line, when in fact it is the indication of an arterial line placement. and then have some then argue against other physicians with your translation!

What is interesting here is that you do not translate V48 which in every translation (7 in all) I looked at the meaning in the preceding verses is elucidated by it - why have you ignored it - is it because it weakens your case?

because word for word I have translated and given you tafsir al jalalyen, again, see previous analogy. What makes more sense? that I use a translator's rendition in parenthesis or that I go to the source from a scholar? I don't think it is a difficult decision!

Neither the Torah or Qu'ran is mentioned by name, let us suppose the neither of these was intended, then what are these verses and a lot of verses that follow them talking about - what are these scriptures, what are these two works, books, this truth? Every translation I looked at says it is these two so if it is not what is it and why, according to you do so many translators get it wrong?

I think it is visible to the naked eye what the verse is talking about.
Folks arguing with the prophet to bring something akin to what Moses brought (i.e) magic, something outside the 'norm' and the parable is, when Moses was in their midst and brought them 'magic' they still disbelieved!

all the best

 

[جوري]

It is better if you read my post than to waste your time like this. My post had ZERO to do with adoption. It simply asked if the Qu'ran is eternal and contains eternal truths why would God choose to send down a teaching that you can marry your adopted sons ex wife in such a bizarre fashion and if you like engineer this situation in order to do it?
Fine but what then does the verses 4:3 mean?

I fail to see what is 'bizarre' about it, would you like to point out the 'bizarreness'

4:3

Marrying Only One Wife When One Fears He Might not Do Justice to His Wives

Allah's statement,

[فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ تَعْدِلُواْ فَوَحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَـنُكُمْ]

(But if you fear that you will not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or what your right hands possess.) The Ayah commands, if you fear that you will not be able to do justice between your wives by marrying more than one, then marry only one wife, or satisfy yourself with only female captives, for it is not obligatory to treat them equally, rather it is recommended. So if one does so, that is good, and if not, there is no harm on him. In another Ayah, Allah said,

[وَلَن تَسْتَطِيعُواْ أَن تَعْدِلُواْ بَيْنَ النِّسَآءِ وَلَوْ حَرَصْتُمْ]

(You will never be able to do perfect justice between wives even if it is your ardent desire) [4:129]. Allah said,

[ذلِكَ أَدْنَى أَلاَّ تَعُولُواْ]

(That is nearer to prevent you from Ta`ulu), meaning, from doing injustice. Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Marduwyah and Abu Hatim Ibn Hibban, in his Sahih, recorded that `A'ishah said that, the Prophet said that the Ayah,

[ذلِكَ أَدْنَى أَلاَّ تَعُولُواْ]

(That is nearer to prevent you from Ta`ulu), means, from doing injustice. However, Ibn Abi Hatim said that his father said that this Hadith to the Prophet is a mistake, for it should be attributed to `A'ishah not the Prophet . Ibn Abi Hatim reported from Ibn `Abbas, `A'ishah, Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Al-Hasan, Abu Malik, Abu Razin, An-Nakha`i, Ash-Sha`bi, Ad-Dahhak, `Ata' Al-Khurasani, Qatadah, As-Suddi and Muqatil bin Hayyan that Ta`ulu means to deviate [from justice].

Next​

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=4&tid=10435

as for the rest, did this account not suffice?
A slave girl of some Ansari came and said, "My master forces me to commit fornication." Thereupon, the following verse was revealed: [But force not your maids to prostitution (when they desire chastity)] (Abu Dawud #2304).

Picthal - And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course.

see above!

We can go on endlessly talking about Azami's book so perhaps Uthman would allow a thread on it. But for now what do you make of the line on page 195 that says:

First, because they never state that Ibn Mas'ud was reading from a written copy we can just as easily assume that he was overheard reciting from memory, and how can we confidently deduce that the erroneous readings were not due to a memory slip?

So much for the oral tradition - when it suits Azami it is perfect and when it does not he allows for slips of memory?

The orientalist of your choice, said that he had a lesser number of 'suras' yet failed to back it up.. and perhaps a 'memory slip' is exactly why nothing was written down without two witnesses and accompaniment of hafsa's written scrolls.

if you had something of substance Hugo, you wouldn't be building your house on sinking sand and having it engulf you with each successive thread, I think your attempts would be better suited for like minded christians who want to coax themselves into believing that gods become men and charlatans become saints.

all the best!

 

[Muslim Woman]

..I for myself find this so very illogical, that an almighty God would need a book in one language then make it the message for all mankind

God sent holy books to His messengers in their mother tongues. So that they can understand and informed the people . Why God sent Quran in Arabic ? Answer is given there :

And if We had sent this as a Qur'an in a foreign language (other than Arabic), they would have said: "Why are not its verses explained in detail (in our language)? What! (A Book) not in Arabic and (the Messenger) an Arab?"

( 41:44 )


.

Suppose you are a non-muslim, living in a non-muslim country and you will hear the Qu'raan without comment, do you think a person would consider it word of Allaah? .

Say: "It is for those who believe, a guide and a healing. And as for those who disbelieve, there is heaviness (deafness) in their ears, and it (the Qur'an) is blindness for them. They are those who are called from a place far away (so they neither listen nor understand)."

Sis , don't u know Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world ? Even after 9/11 , so many western people embraced Islam . To believe that Islam is the Truth , one does not need to be an expert in Arabic.

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/Peace

....but the Qu'ran itself as has been mentioned in this thread offers three challenges -

Pl let me know about only one book in this earth that has been memorized by millions . Also is there any other book that is considered as holy and millions recite from this book in daily prayers all over the world ?

 

[Hugo]

I was not aware that you were qualified in Qur'anic interpretation. If I remember correctly, you are unable to read Arabic, hence I am quite perplexed as to how you provided us with such a detailed analysis of the above verses, believing yourself to have grasped their true purpose and meaning. This is similar to the invented concept you presented earlier about the Preserved Tablet and deriving a conclusion just by reading one verse, unaware of the other verses and hadeeth about it.

I was not aware that I was offering an interpretation as such just asking a question, pointing out a difficulty for me if no one else. What puzzles me here is that Muslim's often say the Qu'ran is 'clear' yet here you seem to imply that it is not; that one has to be 'qualified', that somehow God cannot speak to me but but has to do it through an intermediary as if (is there?) an official answer to every question and I have no alternative but to accept it? I am aware that there are other verses and indeed I searched for them as well as searched the hadith so please don't try to suggest that this query is unthoughtful.

With regard to the Preserved Tablet if you read my post I asked you what it was, was it a 'real' book, was it to be understood figuratively, why did God need a book to write things in but you did not ask far as I can recall answer.

The point I am getting at, Hugo, is that you are letting yourself down by self-interpreting the Qur'an to suit your arguments. It is disrespectful of you to think this is an acceptable way of formulating an argument. This is what Islam-haters do to try and find fault with Islam - they take verses out of context and distort the meanings. I hope you will refrain from repeating this, otherwise one can only make negative assumptions about your intentions. Suffice it to say that those verses have nothing to do whatsoever with the challenge of the Qur'an being met, and if you check the books of Qur'anic exegesis, you will find more details of the meaning there.

This is to me a strange idea, when I interpret it is suit myself but you are by implication above that. Here you have no real argument but prefer to assume I am disrespectful, an Islam hater, my intentions are not honourable. You say I take them out of context but how can we tell how big or small a context is also I might point out for example in Billal-A thesis below in this thread he offers no context and often cuts off part of a verse but I don't see you jumping on him and telling him he is engaging in self interpretation, he is disrespectful or hateful - why is that?

There is nothing wrong as far as I know with being sceptical or doubtful because to me at least that is they way to light. Is it the Islamic position that questions are forbidden, that every doctrine and bit of teaching has been decided long ago? If that is your position then we have no basis for discussion because it means you cannot listen to what others have to say.

Of course anyone in this board can have base motives be they Christian or Muslim or any other thing - don't you agree or is that impossible for a Muslim?

It is fine to say read a book but only if you can be a little more precise than you have, But surely, in a discussion board you can at least offer some explanations instead of accusations?

 

[Hugo]

I fail to see what is 'bizarre' about it, would you like to point out the 'bizarreness'

If it does not strike you as odd that in an eternal book we get God sending down a very obscure bit of teaching about marrying your adopted sons ex wife where the hadith fills in the complicated details to me is any way a most odd story then we have to agree to differ.

(But if you fear that you will not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or what your right hands possess.) The Ayah commands, if you fear that you will not be able to do justice between your wives by marrying more than one, then marry only one wife, or satisfy yourself with only female captives, for it is not obligatory to treat them equally, rather it is recommended. So if one does so, that is good, and if not, there is no harm on him. In another Ayah, Allah said,

Thank you for this as it makes plain my earlier point and I assume this is based on what Mohammed earlier called 'qualified interpreters', the idea that a man can 'satisfy himself' with female captives is in line with your view of justice and humanity when we have slavery and adultery rolled into one and called 'good' then if you are endorsing and confirming this teaching without question I have nothing more to say as the gulf between us is unbridgeable.

 

[جوري]

If it does not strike you as odd that in an eternal book we get God sending down a very obscure bit of teaching about marrying your adopted sons ex wife where the hadith fills in the complicated details to me is any way a most odd story then we have to agree to differ.

No, it doesn't strike me at all as odd. Usually books come with a teacher!
in fact it brings all your other theories which were weak to begin with down to size as we can see the stylistic difference between the language of the hadith and that of the Quran!

Thank you for this as it makes plain my earlier point and I assume this is based on what Mohammed earlier called 'qualified interpreters', the idea that a man can 'satisfy himself' with female captives is in line with your view of justice and humanity when we have slavery and adultery rolled into one and called 'good' then if you are endorsing and confirming this teaching without question I have nothing more to say as the gulf between us is unbridgeable.

war ethics and the treatments of POW is clearly elucidated in Islam, it is really not subject to your spins or emotionality, given the bestiality that we are accustomed to a la mode of the crusades!

Question and Answer Details​

Name of Questioner

Hartman - Germany​

Title

War Ethics in Islam​

Question

I am not a Muslim. Yet I’m a peace-loving person and I am eager to know whether there are ethics that govern war in your religion, especially as we know and see what happens nowadays: gross violations of all ethics and teachings. Your earliest response will be very much appreciated.​

Date

01/Apr/2004​

Name of Counsellor

IOL Shari`ah Researchers​

Topic

Relations during War​

Answer​

In The Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear brother in humanity, thank you very much for having confidence in us, and we hope our efforts, which are purely for Allah's Sake, meet your expectations.

First of all, we would like to tell you that war is decreed in Islam in self defense. This indicates that aim behind war is to ward off aggression not to impose Islam as a religion. Referring to this, Allah Almighty says: “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily God is most powerful for their aid.” (Al-Hajj:39)

Turning to the main topic of the question concerning war ethics in Islam, we would like to develop the whole issue while dealing with the following main points:

1-Personal Behavior of the Troops:

In war, as it is in peace, the instructions of Islam are to be observed. Worship does not cease in war. Islamic jurisprudence maintains that whatever is prohibited during peace is also prohibited during war. War is no excuse to be lenient with misbehaving troops. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is reported to have said: “Beware of the prayer of the oppressed; for there is no barrier between it and Allah.” Here, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, differentiates between the oppressed believers and non-believers.

2-Whom to Fight:

Fighting should be directed only against fighting troops, and not to non- fighting personnel, and this is in compliance with the Qur’anic verse that reads: “ Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not, aggressors.” (Al-Baqarah: 190)

In one of the battles, a woman was found killed, and this was denounced by the Prophet saying "She did not fight" This will be further detailed under the instructions given to the armies and their commanding chiefs by the Prophet and his Caliphs.

3-The Prophet's instructions to Commanding Chiefs:

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, used to instruct his commanding chiefs saying: “Fight in the cause of Allah. Fight those who deny Allah; Do not be embittered. Do not be treacherous. Do not mutilate. Do not kill children or those (people) in convents.”

4-Abu-Bakr's instructions to Usama's Campaign on Syria:

“Do not betray or be treacherous or vindictive. Do not mutilate. Do not kill the children, the aged or the women. Do not cut or bum palm trees or fruitful trees. Don’t slay a sheep, a cow or camel except for your food. And you will come across people who confined themselves to worship in hermitages, leave them alone to what they devoted themselves for.”

5-Abu-Bakr's Instructions to Yazid ibn-Abi Sufian:

“I give you ten commandments: don’t kill a woman or a child or an old person, and don’t cut trees or ruin dwellings or slay a sheep but for food. Dont burn palm trees or drown them. And don’t be spiteful or unjust.”

6-Maintaining Justice and Avoidance of Blind Retaliation:

None can be more illustrative in this respect than the words of the Qurt’an. Allah Almighty says: “ O ye who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Informed of what ye do.” (Al-Maidah: 8)

7-Medical and Nursing Services:

From the early days of Islam the sanctity of the medical profession was recognized. Christian and Jewish doctors were employed by the Islamic state since the days of the Umayyads, and some of them were even court and personal physicians to caliphs. Under the tolerant attitude of Islam, some of them got the chance to unfold their full scientific potential and thus contributed to the progress of medical knowledge.

Medical help was a right to all men in spite of religion or creed. That this was also extended to those amongst enemy. An example well known in the West is that of Saladin securing medical help to his opponent, Richard Lion Heart of England who was seriously ill during the Crusades. Saladin sent him his own doctor and personally supervised Richard's treatment until he became well.

In quoting this particular example, one dare say that such an attitude was quite different to the behavior characterizing the invading crusaders. When the crusaders entered Jerusalem on July 15th 1099, they slaughtered seventy thousand Muslims including women, children and old men. They broke children's skulls by knocking against the wall, threw babies from roof tops, roasted men over fire and cut up women's bellies to see if they had swallowed gold.

This description was given by Gibbon, a Christian writer, and commented on by Ludbig Wbo wondered how come after those horrible atrocities they prayed at the burial place of Christ for blessing and forgiveness (Draper/History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, Vol. 2, p. 77).

We do not mention this in bitterness or prejudice for every honest Muslim or Christian well knows that Christianity is something and many deeds of the crusaders are something else.

8-Prisoners of War:

For the first time in religious or sectarian history, Islam adopted an attitude of mercy and caring for the captured enemy. Unprecedented by previous legal systems, and long before the Geneva Convention, Islam set the rule that the captive is sheltered by his captivity and the wounded by his injury.

Previously, it was the custom for the captive to work for his food or get it through private means. The Qur’an made it a charity to feed the prisoners saying:

“Lo! the righteous shall drink of a cup whereof the mixture is of water of Kafur. A spring wherefrom the slaves of Allah drink, making it gush forth abundantly. Because they perform the vow and fear a day whereof the evil is wide spreading. And feed with food the needy wretch, the orphan and the prisoner, for love of Him. (Saying): We feed you, for the sake of Allah only. We wish for no reward nor thanks from you.” (Al-Insan: 5-9)

The Prophet instructed his Companions to be good to the captives. In one of his traditions, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, ordered his Companions saying: “ You should be good to the captives.”

Abu Aziz-ibn Umair, one of the captives of Badr battle, recalls:

“Whenever I sat with my captors for lunch or dinner, they would offer me the bread and themselves the dates, in view of the Prophet's recommendation in our favor (in that desert situation bread was the more luxurious item of food than dates)

As soon as any of them held a piece of bread, he would offer it to me. "Feeling shy, I would give it back to one of them but he would immediately return it to me."

Another, Thumama ibn-Athal, was taken prisoner and brought to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, who said: “Be good to him in his captivity.” When the Prophet went home he instructed to collect whatever food there, and ordered it sent to the prisoner.

When the Jewish tribe of Bani Qurayzah were captured, loads of dates were regularly carried to them, with the Prophet's instructions to shelter them from the summer sun and to provide them with water to drink.

From the legal point of view, Muslim opinion is unanimous on the prohibition of subjecting the captives to ill treatment by withholding food, drink or clothing.


9-The Fate of War Prisoners:

This was based upon the teaching of the Qur’an:

“Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.” (Muhammad: 4)

According to Islamic law, the captive belongs to the state and not to his captor. The ruler has the ultimate option, as he sees fit, of granting freedom or doing that after taking a ransom.

Among those whom the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, granted freedom was a poet called Abu-Azza who said to the Prophet: “I have five daughters who have no one to support them, so give me away to them as a charity and I promise never to fight you or help your enemies.

Abul-As Ibn Al Rabiae was freed for a ransom, which the Prophet later returned back to him. Later, the man embraced Islam.

Umarna Ibn-Athal was set free upon his promise not to provide the enemy with food. This gentle treatment touched the man’s heart and was then converted to Islam saying to the Prophet: "There was a time when your face was the most hated face to me, and there comes a day when it is the most loved.”

Sometimes captives were exchanged for Muslim captives in enemy hands. An acceptable ransom that was quite often carried out was to teach ten Muslim children to read and write. It is noteworthy that modern international law allows for setting free a prisoner of war on equivalent lines.

Personnel were set free upon their word of honor not to fight again, and they should not be ordered by their governments to go to battle again. If they break their promise, they might be punishable by death if they are captured again.


10-Nonbelligerents

Islam never fought nations but fought only despotic authorities. Islamic war was one of liberation and not of compulsion. The freedom of the liberated people to decide their religion has already been mentioned, and it was to ensure this freedom that Muslims fought. It is interesting to mention that when Muslims fought the Romans in Egypt, the Egyptian Copts sided with and helped Muslims against the Romans who were Christians like them. This was because Christian Egypt was suffering religious oppression by the Christian Romans to compel them to adopt their religious beliefs.

One of the earliest actions of the Muslims in Egypt was the assurance of religious freedom and the reinstatement of Bejamin as Bishop of Alexandria after years of hiding from the Romans in the western desert.

But religious freedom was but one aspect that Islam gave. Whether Arab or Egyptian, Muslim or Christian, Islam built up that FELLOWSHIP that humanity aspires to, in equality and fraternity .The story is well known of the running contest held in Egypt and won by an Egyptian to the dismay of an Arab competitor who was the son of `Amru Ibn Al-`Aas, governor of Egypt. The Arab hit the boy saying 'how dare you outrun me and I am the son of the nobility." Upon which Umar, the caliph, ordered the three all the way to Madinah, and ordered the Egyptian to avenge by hitting the offending Arab, saying: "Hit him back. Hit the son of nobility." Addressing `Amru, he uttered his famous saying: “O `Amru, since when have you enslaved people while their mothers have born them free.”

10-International Law:

The process of active intervention to stop or remove aggression is a development that modem international law has recognized.

The second world war for example was sparked by Germany's invasion of Poland, and drew into the fighting countries that were not direct parties to the conflict. One of the fruits of war was the creation of the United Nations in order to settle disputes between nations by peaceful means or indeed if necessary by a collective military force. No one should argue therefore that Egypt and the Roman Empire for example should have been left alone to solve their mutual problems. In modem times the rest of the family of nations consider it a duty to do something about it. Fourteen centuries prior to the establishment of the League of Nations and later the United Nations, Islam decreed such responsibility.

The legal principle of intervention to solve dispute was offered by the Qur’anic saying:

“If two parties of believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: But if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of God; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for God loves those who are fair.” (Al-Hujurat: 9)

11-Respect of Treaties and Agreements:

One of the major shortcomings of modern international politics is its meager regard to moral obligation. Time and again, treaties and agreements proved unworthy of the price of paper they had been written on. The most splendid produce of the human intellect in the field of international law might instantly vanish upon the call of greed or creed at this age that we wish to think has brought us to the epic of civilization.

And what is worse is that the most sophisticated achievements of scientific progress are often used as tools in the hands of Godless or God-disregarding policies: instead of being exploited 'in the cause of God.’

From the outset, Islam has emphatically prohibited treachery by taking the enemy by surprise attack. Recent examples of signing a pact or treaty with a nation as camouflage to hidden intent to attack it are quite contrary to Islam, as several quotations from the Qur’an reads:

“ O ye who believe! Fulfil your undertakings…”(Al-Maidah:1)

“Fulfill the convenant of God when you have entered into it, and break not your oaths after you have confirmed them; indeed you have made God your surety, for God knoweth an that you do.” (An-Nahl: 91)

If Muslims sense the treachery of any enemy with whom they had a treaty, they should declare to him the annulment of that treaty before embarking on war again.

“Thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for God loveth not the treacherous.” (Al-Anfal:85)

Although Muslims are bound to go to the help of their Muslim brethren who are religiously persecuted in the land of an enemy; they are not allowed to fulfill this duty if there is a treaty between the Muslim community and this enemy. Priority goes to honouring the treaty.

“But if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them, except against a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance. And (remember) God seeth an that you do." (Al-Anfal:72)

Now, Can any law be more idealistic!?

And above all, this is not a nicety to be taken or left by the state. It is a binding religious dictate overruling emotion and prejudice: otherwise it would be a grave violation of Islam.”

The above quotation is excerpted with slight modifications from www.islamset.com

You can also read:

Islam’s Stance on Prisoners of War

If you have any further comments, please don't hesitate to write back!

May Allah guide you to the straight path, and guide you to that which pleases Him, Amen. ​

Read more: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545840#ixzz0dADotLmg

_____________________________


by the way as a side note: I am not looking nor have ever looked nor recommend that the gaps between Christianity and Islam be abridged. We don't substitute righteousness for falsehood to make friends!


all the best
​

 

[Hugo]

Salaam/Peace

Pl let me know about only one book in this earth that has been memorized by millions . Also is there any other book that is considered as holy and millions recite from this book in daily prayers all over the world ?

Interesting point but I doubt that millions have memorised the whole Bible (well it is at least 10 times bigger) but it is nevertheless, considered holy by billions and those billions have it, know it and love it their own language and used it in worship and study every single day both privately and communally.

 

[جوري]

Interesting point but I doubt that millions have memorised the whole Bible (well it is at least 10 times bigger) but it is nevertheless, considered holy by billions and those billions have it, know it and love it their own language and used it in worship and study every single day both privately and communally.

The bible isn't ten times bigger, it isn't even more than a thousand verse bigger of which the majority of it is the writing of a charlatan who isn't recognized as an apostle by the one who chose the apostles-- I have already quoted before the precise number of suras from the Quran vs. the bible, and for the umpteenth time, asking you to not compare the Quran to the bible. Again, if any object of comparison would be the hadith to the bible, and at least the hadith has a long chain of isnad to verify its verity that seems to be completely lacking in the bible.

You can't take the OT as a part of your scriptures given that firstly, the Jews don't recognize your bible or your god and secondly, since none of the old laws apply to you whatsoever!

why are we back on page three with the same gibber?

all the best

 

[Hugo]

No, it doesn't strike me at all as odd. Usually books come with a teacher! In fact it brings all your other theories which were weak to begin with down to size as we can see the stylistic difference between the language of the hadith and that of the Quran!

No books usually come on their own. But here we read Mohammed looked at and felt love for Zaynab, later he saw her wearing revealing clothing and Zayd it seems disliked his wife and offered to separate himself from her. The story ends we are told when the prophet was with Aisha and had a revelation and is reported as saying "go and tell Zaynab the good news..."

Now as a story its is lets face it is a bit odd but what is really odd to me is that God should have written this revelation before the world began and that is the point that is moot to this thread. If that does not seem odd to you then you imagination may be wanting.

by the way as a side note: I am not looking nor have ever looked nor recommend that the gaps between Christianity and Islam be abridged. We don't substitute righteousness for falsehood to make friends!

With regard to slave girls and men satisfying themselves with them you have made your view plain - you think it right and indeed good and I think it an abomination - nothing more can be said and I leave you to your delusions of what is right.

It is not a gap between Christianity and Islam we have been talking about, it is a gap in your morality that is in question since you endorse slavery and I do not you allow adultery with slave girls and I do no.

 

[جوري]

No books usually come on their own.

I guess that explains your pedantic understanding and approach!

But here we read Mohammed looked at and felt love for Zaynab, later he saw her wearing revealing clothing and Zayd it seems disliked his wife and offered to separate himself from her. The story ends we are told when the prophet was with Aisha and had a revelation and is reported as saying "go and tell Zaynab the good news..."[

care to share a source?

Now as a story its is lets face it is a bit odd but what is really odd to me is that God should have written this revelation before the world began and that is the point that is moot to this thread. If that does not seem odd to you then you imagination may be wanting.

I don't find it odd at all, I think I find a prophet sent to speak to his people against the sins of the flesh by getting drunk and sleeping with his daughters far more odd, or 'king David' taking a concubine on his death bed to be odd.
Lot had sex with his two daughters. One might even conclude that he had God's help in this, as he was both very old and very drunk at the time. There was no punishment for any of them. On the contrary, both daughters were rewarded with sons who founded nations (Gen 19:33-38). Earlier (Gen 19:8), Lot had offered his daughters to be used by a mob. And Peter said that Lot was a "righteous man" (2Peter 2:8).

A married man who has mistresses is not punished for adultery. Examples: Abraham (I Chron 1:32), Saul (II Sam 3:7), Gideon (Judges 8:31), Reheboam (II Chron 11:21), David (II Sam 5:13,20). But a woman who has sex outside of marriage is severely punished.

(from your ten times bigger bible)

A man may forcibly take a woman from enemy captives and make her his wife, after trying her out. (Deut 21:11-13)

When David was old and infirm, he was brought a young maiden so that he would "get heat" (I Kings 1:1-2). It didn't work.



so to answer your Q, I see nothing wrong with marriage if parties agree and you are able to both be just and fair, but I do find something wrong with all that obscenity and scatology in the bible, and find it even more odd that you have the nerve to come here and discuss a marriage or how slaves are treated when I have clearly quoted from the Quran and the hadith, as to their treatment, and I guarantee modern day you'd not find a more just treatment!

With regard to slave girls and men satisfying themselves with them you have made your view plain - you think it right and indeed good and I think it an abomination - nothing more can be said and I leave you to your delusions of what is right.

Quite frankly your opinion is worth nil, you see seem to stand idle and even defend far worse from that which you subscribe to.

It is not a gap between Christianity and Islam we have been talking about, it is a gap in your morality that is in question since you endorse slavery and I do not you allow adultery with slave girls and I do no.

Islam came to abolish slavery slowly as society was economically entrenched in it.. what do you have to say about treatment of other races modern day by your allegedly superior morals?

Name of Questioner

Rahil - United Kingdom​

Title

Status of Slave Women in Islam​

Question

Is it true that Islam permits Muslim men to own slave women, and permits them to have sex with them without marrying them? And that this was carried out by the Prophet’s Companions with his approval? Surely, this is in contradiction of the Qur’an's condemnation of zina. Could you please clarify this issue? ​

Date

21/Aug/2003​

Name of Counsellor

IOL Shari`ah Researchers​

Topic

Misconceptions​

Answer​

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear questioner, thank you very much for having confidence in us and we hope our efforts, which are purely for Allah’s Sake, meet your expectations.

When Islam was reveled to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), slavery was a worldwide common social phenomenon; it was much older than Islam. Slavery was deeply rooted in every society to the extent that it was impossible to imagine a civilized society without slaves.

In spite of this social fact, Islam was the first religion to recognize slavery as a social illness that needed to be addressed. Since slavery was deeply rooted in the society, Islam did not abolish it at once. Rather, Islam treated slavery in the same manner it treated other social illnesses. Islam followed the same methodology of gradual elimination in dealing with this social disease as it did with other social illnesses, for example: the prohibition of alcohol in three steps.

Concerning having slave women, we would like to let you know that it happens to be a practice necessitated by the condition in which early Muslims found themselves vis-a-vis non-Muslims, as both parties engaged in wars. Slave women or milk al-yameen are referred to in the Qur'an as “Those whom your right hand possess” or “ma malakat aymanukum”; they are those taken as captives during conquests and subsequently became slaves, or those who were descendants of slaves.

Thus, it was a war custom in the past to take men and women as captives and then turn them into slaves. Islam did not initiate it, rather, it was something in practice long ago before the advent of Islam. And when Islam came, it tried to eradicate this practice, bit by bit. So it first restricted it to the reciprocal practice of war, in the sense that Muslims took war captives just as the enemies did with Muslims.

But as it aimed at putting an end to such issue, Islam laid down rules which would eventually lead to eradicating the practice. So it allowed Muslims to have intercourse with slave women taken as captives of just and legitimate wars. In so doing, the woman would automatically become free if she got pregnant. What's more, her child would also become free.

Not only that, Islam also ordered a Muslim to treat the slave woman in every respect as if she were his wife. She should be well fed, clothed and given due protection. In the family environment, she had the opportunity to learn about Islam and was free to accept it or reject it. She also had the opportunity to earn her freedom for she could be ransomed.

In the light of the above-mentioned facts, and the nature of the question posed by people, it's clear that some people misunderstand the wisdom behind the permissibility of having female slaves and think that it is meant to unleash men’s desires and give them more enjoyment. Never! That is not the point! It is, rather, means of freeing slaves; and this is clarified above in the fact that if a master got a female slave pregnant, then he could neither sell her nor give her away as a present. And if he died, she would not be considered part of his property. She'd receive her freedom and her baby would also be free.

But, we have to stress that this case should not be confused with that of female servants or maids, for they are free and not slaves. Therefore, it is forbidden to engage in sexual relations with them except through an Islamic marriage.

Slavery has been abolished by international conventions, and goes in line with aims and objectives of Islam, as it has called for centuries ago.

As for marrying slaves, it is something permissible under two conditions: first, if one is unable to pay the dowry of a free woman. Second, if there is fear of committing adultery if one doesn’t get married. This is clarified by the following verse: “And whose is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. This is for him among you who feareth to commit sin. But to have patience would be better for you.” (An-Nisaa’: 25)

This verse shows that Muslim men should abstain from illicit relations and seek enjoyment through marriage to free women or through their female slaves.

In conclusion, Allah has forbidden certain types of behavior and permitted other kinds of behavior as a safeguard to the individual and to the society. Allah has forbidden fornication and adultery. However, in the case of captives whom your right hands posses, it's something necessitated by the special circumstances which were created when the Muslims were at war.”

You can also read:

Islam and Slavery ​

Read more: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544596#ixzz0dAOTiMOS
​

think a little before you write Hugo, and do a little objective comparison so you don't come across as a complete hypocrite ey?

all the best