Yeah, thats a good question.
Instead of asking 'Why do you not accept Islam' ask 'Why do you reject Islam'? Which is kinda different as the intelligent ones amongst us will have gathered . . .
Peace!
A brother on an another inspired me with this idea of askin' the non-muslims why they reject Islam
What are your reasons that enables you not to embracing Islam?
Thanks in advance!
Yeah, thats a good question.
Instead of asking 'Why do you not accept Islam' ask 'Why do you reject Islam'? Which is kinda different as the intelligent ones amongst us will have gathered . . .
As a Christian, it is not so much a case of rejecting Islam as it is accepting the Biblical Christ. There is a leap of faith involved but it is not a blind one. Islam provides a version of Jesus which is opposed and opposite to that of the Gospels. Logically both may be wrong but both can not be right. Accepting the Christ and message of the Bible, means automatic rejection of other claims.
Islam is nothing more than a religous beleif the same as Judaism and christianity but in a slightly different flavour.
yes the slight difference in flavour being islam was the latter being the last and final message to the whole of mankind.format_quote Originally Posted by root
the similarity being they all came from the same god.
i dont understand, you accept the prophets that came before isa (jesus peace be upon him) yet you reject the prophet which came after. likewise the jews rejected two which proceeded the former.format_quote Originally Posted by Sinner
i still don't understand how the conclusion that isa (as) was sent as a prophet and was taken to be the son of god or god himself. (astaghfirullah)
Although I would be satisfied with the Muslim definition of God, I could never accept the Quran which is too much of a compilation of Middle-Eastern religious traditions, which contains verses I would be ashamed to ascribe to God, and which is sometimes written in a rather bad literary style.
seems you have a problem with the translationformat_quote Originally Posted by mansio
Is this the English translation because i very much doubt the classical arabic version can be described as bad?format_quote Originally Posted by mansio
Don't misunderstand me. I said the style of the Quran is SOMETIMES bad, not always.
In many instances the style is magnificent and that would be enough to rank its author among the great writers.
We are discussing about a book supposedly written by God. That book should be perfect from beginning to end as God is perfect.
trueformat_quote Originally Posted by mansio
so what imperfection do you see in the quran (it could just be a misunderstanding on your behalf)
The Prophets spoke of Christ -i dont understand, you accept the prophets that came before isa (jesus peace be upon him) yet you reject the prophet which came after. likewise the jews rejected two which proceeded the former.
Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures,
What the disbelivers had to say of Jesus -
Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
What the Angel had to say -
Luk 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God.
Luk 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Luk 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Luk 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
What the devils had to say -
Mat 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
What Jesus disciples had to say -
Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood
hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
What the Scribes said -
The scribes standing by ask: "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Jesus responds: "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Luke 21, 24).
Jesus says he is the Lord of the Sabbath, that is to say, God -
Luk 6:5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
Many prophets came after Jesus, he warned that they would, it is just a question of which ones one is willing to accept or reject.yet you reject the prophet which came after
Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Paul writes -
Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
If Paul was so wrong about Jesus, why did the Apostles accept Paul as one of their own and claimed that his writings were Scripture? Was Jesus such a bad prophet that he choose disciples who would distort his own teachings and accept false teachers within a few years after he was gone? I don't think so.
Last edited by Sinner; 03-25-2005 at 05:43 PM.
Mansio,
I'd be very interested to know which verses you find difficult to attribute to God.
Sinner,
Actually, the Islamic view of Christ as a Prophet is a stronger message in the New Testament, than the view that he is God.
I'd be happy to discuss this with you in the thread on Christ in the three abrahamic faiths.
Very intresting topic.
Yes I'd like to know too Mansio
Here are a few verses that shocked me :
2-228)... but men have precedence over them (the women)...
4-34)... and those (women) you fear their rebellion, admonish them, leave them alone in their rooms and beat them...
23-1) How happy the believers 5) who guard their chastity 6) except with their wives or their slave-girls...
[ The latter actually written the "belongings of their right" which means the slaves or captives a Muslim can acquire at war (his right hand holding a weapon) or on a market (his right hand holding a purse) ]
5-33) Such is the reward of those who make war against God or against his Messenger, and of those who spread corruption on the earth : they will be killed or crucified, or their hands and their opposite feet will be cut off, or they will be expelled from the country...
18-85) (Dhû l-Qarnayn) followed a way. 86) As he reached the setting of the sun, he found it setting in a boiling (or muddy) spring...
67-5) We have adorned the sky of the world with lamps, with which We made what is needed to pelt the devils...
Some childish stories from Jewish folktales about Solomon listening to ants, sending birds into battle, or from Christian stories about Jesus making birds of clay, speaking from the cradle ...
I would spend two or three days quoting all of them.
Thanks for your post, mansio. I think you understood these verses, you would see that they are not that difficult at all.
In some cases, after I explain them to you, you may find that it was the translator who did not do an accurate job, in other cases it may be a simple matter of not understanding the tafsir (exegesis) of the verses.
both of these are explained here:format_quote Originally Posted by mansio
http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=1071
Let me briefly mention some points:
The first verse you quoted:
2:228 Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; and men have a degree (of advantage and protection) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise
1. The meaning of Darajat and Qawwamun in this sense is quite obvious. Men have been given physical strength and energy, which enables men to guard women against some of the dangers to which they may be exposed in society and to take care of some of their needs. But the Qur'an explictly states that men and women are equal:
I shall not lose sight of the labor of any of you who labors in My way, be it man or woman; each of you is equal to the other (3:195)
2. There two interpretations of the word IDRIBUHUNNA: one is to leave them, the other is to beat them
Even if we accept the second interpretation, there are some important points to be observed:
I think that adequately answers that misconception.n this connection, it must be immediately noted that there is no warrant here in this verse for wife battering. The suggestion to use beating is made specifically to deal with nushuz on the part of the wife, that is, to deal with her deliberately nasty behavior that poses a threat to the marriage. Beating is to be done after due admonition and suspension of sexual relations and therefore by husbands who have some moral standards and have sufficient control over their sexual passions. Moreover, this beating is not to go on and on but is to be tried as a last step to save the marriage. Once it is clear that it is not working it is to be abandoned in favor of some other steps involving relatives of the husband and the wife mentioned in the next verse (4:35). There is therefore, absolutely no license here for the type of regular and continual wife beating that goes on in some homes, where each time the husband is angry with his wife or with someone else he turns against her and beats her up. In most such cases, the husband has no moral superiority over the wife: the only rule of Shari'ah that he cares about is this suggestion about beating. He also does not have the kind of control over his sexual passions needed to separate the wife in bed and often beats her the day before or the day after making love to her, an action specifically condemned by the Prophet.(4)
In regard to the suggestion about beating, the following further points should also be noted:
a)*According to some traditions the Prophet said in his famous and well-attended speech on the occasion of his farewell pilgrimage that the beating done according to the present verse should be ghayr mubarrih, i.e. in such a way that it should not cause injury, bruise or serious hurt. On this basis some scholars like Tabari and Razi say that the beating should be largely symbolic and should be administered "with a folded scarf" or "with a miswak or some such thing". However, it is not clear how such a beating can help overcome nushuz* of the wife, a point that supports the first meaning of dharb. If dharb is translated as "beating", as most commentators do, then "beating" should* be effective in its purpose of shaking the wife out of her nushuz. This means that it should provide an energetic demonstration of the anger, frustration and love of the husband. In other words, it should neither seriously hurt the wife nor reduce it to a set of meaningless motions devoid of emotions.*As for the argument that the Prophet intensely disliked beating, we can say that his intense dislike was for the type of beating done outside the limits set down by God.*
b)*The wife has no religious obligation to take the beating. She can ask for and get divorce any time. The suggestion applies only in the case when the husband is seriously disturbed by a prolonged nasty behavior on the part of the wife but neither he nor the wife is as yet seriously thinking of breaking up.
c) If the husband beats a wife without respecting the limits set down by the Qur'an and Hadith, then she can take him to court and if ruled in favor has the right to apply the law of retaliation and beat the husband as he beat her. In our view the saying attributed to the Prophet on the authority of `Umar that a husband will not be asked on the day of judgment about why he beat his wife is not a part of the authentic teaching of Islam.
d)*Some Muslim jurists are of the opinion that beating is permissible but not advisable. They base their view on the fact that the Prophet intensely disliked the action. But to say that beating is only permissible but never advisable is to say that there is never any good in it but the husband can nevertheless resort to it if he wants to; in other words he can beat up his wife without any good reason. This, however, is a view that cannot possibly be attributed to the Book of God. We can expect the Holy Qur'an to mention beating only if there was some wisdom in that mention. Therefore, if we translate dharb as "beating" we must not be apologetic but ask what is the wisdom behind the Qur'anic suggestion. There could be, it seems, two possible points of wisdom in the suggestion of dhard in the sense of "beating".*
First, the beating done within the limits defined by the Qur'an may indeed bring the husband and wife to some kind of understanding. This is not because of the pain involved, which in any case cannot be too much if the guidance in the Qur'an and Hadith are to be observed. Rather, the husband and wife may come closer together after beating because of the emotions involved. The wife may experience the depth of hurt and disturbance her nushuz is causing and if there is any love left among them may decide for that reason to change her conduct. It seems from observations of human behavior that a show of male physical energy can sometimes bring a woman out of a prolonged bad mood (5)*even though this energy may be seemingly directed against her in the form of angry words or a slap, provided in this manifestation of energy there is an undercurrent of love and desire for the woman and no real harm is done to the woman. In the situation with which the present verse is dealing, it is understood that in his heart the husband does have some love and desire for the wife. For, he has the option of divorcing her but he is not taking that option. Of course, there are husbands who neither love their wives nor divorce them, but keep them to punish them or exploit them. But we are not dealing with this situation here, since the assumption is that ill-will (nushuz)*is from the wife's side.*
Second, the mention of beating may have the wisdom, ironically, to protect wives against what is called wife battering. The Qur'an does not always combat undesirable behavior by legal prohibition but by some other means. Experience also shows that legal prohibition of an action may not always be the most effective method to stop it. The Qur'an by requiring that before any beating there should be admonishing and suspension of sexual relations is providing a more effective measure against wife battering, since battering is the result of uncontrollable anger or aggression and this anger or aggression can be tamed during admonishing and suspension of sexual relations. No statistics exist, but I feel confident that if we research the behavior of men in different religious groups over a long enough period and a vast enough area of the globe, we will find that the incidents of cases of wife battering and other forms of cruelty to women have been less, both in terms of numbers and seriousness, among Muslims than in other groups.
This has effectively been addressed here:23-1) How happy the believers 5) who guard their chastity 6) except with their wives or their slave-girls...
[ The latter actually written the "belongings of their right" which means the slaves or captives a Muslim can acquire at war (his right hand holding a weapon) or on a market (his right hand holding a purse) ]
http://www.understanding-islam.org/r...97&sscatid=441
I answered this one in one of my articles.5-33) Such is the reward of those who make war against God or against his Messenger, and of those who spread corruption on the earth : they will be killed or crucified, or their hands and their opposite feet will be cut off, or they will be expelled from the country...
Let's examine the verse in context:
5:33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
5:34 Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
Points to note:
1. The punishment is for those who wage a war against ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER!
2. Killed OR crucified OR exile from the land. Obviously this depended upon the severity of the situation.
3. UNLESS THEY REPENT
So the Qur'an is very clear in this regard, and this verse pertained to those who fought against the Prophets of God, whom God has selected and placed on earth to spread His message.
And the punishment for such people in the next life would be hundreds of times worse if they didn;t recieve punishment in this life.
Missionaries like to bring this one up a lot. It's been refuted so many times in web sites. Perhaps I will write an article about this one too.18-85) (Dhû l-Qarnayn) followed a way. 86) As he reached the setting of the sun, he found it setting in a boiling (or muddy) spring...
Points to note:
1. The verse says WAJADA meaning it APPEARED to Dhul Qarnayn
2. The arabic word used is maghrib which can also be taken in as the time of sunset, not the place of sunset
3. These phrases, sunset and sunrise are used in everyday laguage. But scientifically we know that the sun does not set or rise. But we find in all newspapers the times of sunrise and sunset. Are all the newspapers wrong and unscientific?! No, this is just the way the language evolved.
More info:
http://www.geocities.com/noorullahwe...l-qarnain.html
http://www.faithfreedom.com/anti_isl...ulqarnain.html
http://www.beyond-the-illusion.com/f...ch/jochen.html
The above is a very poor translation.67-5) We have adorned the sky of the world with lamps, with which We made what is needed to pelt the devils...
67:5 And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.
I find nothing difficult about this verse. Many Islamic scientific organizations have used it and found some interesting comparisons with particle physics and astronomy.
The fact that you find God's miracles and signs childish has no impact on the divine nature of the Qur'an.Some childish stories from Jewish folktales about Solomon listening to ants, sending birds into battle, or from Christian stories about Jesus making birds of clay, speaking from the cradle ...
I would spend two or three days quoting all of them.
If you can specifically point out something you find difficult I would be happy to explain it.
Salâm Ansar ul-'Adl,
-- Stories with birds throwing stones on attackers, or Solomon listening to ants and mobilizing an army of jinns, men and birds, definitely belong to the realm of tales to untertain children.
-- 67-5)" We have adorned the sky of the world with lamps,
with which We made what is needed to pelt the devils... "
My translation is poor because of the Arabic. Of course if you add words which don't exist in the original, then it becomes "richer". It's no longer a translation but an interpretation.
" assamâ'a ddunyâ " means " the sky of the world ". Some translate it the lowest heaven, the nearest heaven, the world heaven, the nearest sky.
OK then for " the heaven of the world " which is a little better than " sky ".
" waja`alnâhâ rujûman lishshayâtîni " means " We made missiles out of them for the devils ". There's no " to drive away " in the Arabic. It's only implied.
I admit I should have kept " missiles ". I translated the idea behind it instead.
Now my opinion : This verse is about as ridiculous as the above-mentioned stories.
-- I agree with you that the story of Dhû l-Qarnayn and the sunset can be logically explained.
But in the context of a Quran containing a number of fanciful tales, one tale more or one less... And we didn't tackle the possible identification with Alexander the Great !
-- 5-33) The Algerian Islamist insurgents fight a guerilla war against their government. They are responsible for about 120 000 Muslim people dead. When asked why they kill innocent babies they use this kind of argument : better to kill them now than let them become " enemies " of Islam.
As for the cruelty they use in their killings, guess where they could get the idea from.
-- 2-228) " ... as for them (the wives) it depends on what falls to them, according to custom... "
There's no mention of rights in the Arabic.
-- To many men what is written IS written. Don't you think that God could have prevented much trouble by using another word than " to beat " ?
On the other hand beating of the wives and slavery fit perfectly with the culture of the VII century. How come the Quran wasn't written with a sense of prospective ?
Muslim girls posting in Muslim forums often feel they have to assert their equal-rights position with Muslim men, by some motto or quote, as if that could be an issue.
Greetings to all.
Abraha's army set out to destroy the Kaabah. But Allah swt sent upon the birds with baked clay. If you feel that is childish, etc. that is your personal opinion. It seems to me that you may be disconnected from nature. We see these animals and creatures around us in the world. THey are the creation of Allah swt. They are signs of His Glory. This seems like a very weak argument from your side.format_quote Originally Posted by mansio
Okay, can you explain why?Solomon listening to ants and mobilizing an army of jinns, men and birds, definitely belong to the realm of tales to untertain children.
I suggest you don't try to put together your own translation. The Qur'an is not to be done in such a layman's manner. The Qur'anic eloquence is so high and so beautiful that you need to have a good understanding of arabic and the tafsir of words to be able to translate the Qur'an.-- 67-5)" We have adorned the sky of the world with lamps,
with which We made what is needed to pelt the devils... "
My translation is poor because of the Arabic. Of course if you add words which don't exist in the original, then it becomes "richer". It's no longer a translation but an interpretation.
As-Samaa does not necessarily translate as sky. I agree that heaven is a much better translation and remains more accurate when considering the theological, textual, and historical context." assamâ'a ddunyâ " means " the sky of the world ". Some translate it the lowest heaven, the nearest heaven, the world heaven, the nearest sky.
OK then for " the heaven of the world " which is a little better than " sky ".
Ad-Dunya on its own means this world but not in the sense of Al-Ard. This is a mistranslation because you are likening to words that are completely different in arabic, to the same word in english. Ad-Dunya indicates the life of this world/universe or something of temporal nature. But the best phrase for As-Samaa Ad-Dunya would be the 'cosmic heaven'.
Mansio, I don't want to sit here correcting you mistranslations and your opinions built upon these mistranslations. Scholars have devoted their lives to analyze and interpret the Qur'an. You can't expect to do a slap dash job. This is the word of Allah, and I have yet to see a single english translation that has even an 80% accuracy level. Its not something simple." waja`alnâhâ rujûman lishshayâtîni " means " We made missiles out of them for the devils ". There's no " to drive away " in the Arabic. It's only implied.
I admit I should have kept " missiles ". I translated the idea behind it instead.
Now my opinion : This verse is about as ridiculous as the above-mentioned stories.
Now I understand why you are confused. I suggest you either listen to the recitation or read the tafsir. The science of understanding and interpreting the Qur'an is a never-ending science and you can't expect to supercede this detailed subject with just a quick slap together poor translation.
Dhul Qarnain is not Alexander the great. That was the interpretation of Yusuf Ali. Why would you blame the word of God for the mistakes of someone who tried to interpret it.-- I agree with you that the story of Dhû l-Qarnayn and the sunset can be logically explained.
But in the context of a Quran containing a number of fanciful tales, one tale more or one less... And we didn't tackle the possible identification with Alexander the Great !
And I don't see what you see as 'fanciful' etc. I can't imagine how you could believe such an argument. Our very existence is fancful. All of us just sitting here chit chatting on a planet hurtling through a gignatic dark void at high speeds while being bombarded with harmful radiation and space junk - that's fanciful - but it's real.
Life is absurd. Life is ridiculous. But it is fascinating.
If it doesn't fit with your philosophy, well then i'm sorry mansio, but you may just have to change your philosophy! That's the whole point. You understand the greatness and glory of our majestic creator. And you understand the blessings He bestowed upon humanity - and we appreciate them, not ridicule them.
Why do you judge a car based on the inabilities of poor drivers who never learned how to drive?!-- 5-33) The Algerian Islamist insurgents fight a guerilla war against their government. They are responsible for about 120 000 Muslim people dead. When asked why they kill innocent babies they use this kind of argument : better to kill them now than let them become " enemies " of Islam.
As for the cruelty they use in their killings, guess where they could get the idea from.
I already answered this. This is just a common fallacy.
Mansio, this is ridiculous. You are building all these silly notions off mistranslations. Commentators of the Qur'an have devoted their lives to analyzing the arabic and explaining it. Your limited understanding doers not supercede the science of centuries in this regard.-- 2-228) " ... as for them (the wives) it depends on what falls to them, according to custom... "
There's no mention of rights in the Arabic.
Ibn Kathir has said about this verse:
This Ayah indicates that the wife has certain rights on her husband, just as he has certain rights on her, and each is obliged to give the other spouse his due rights
And ALL trnaslators have been unanimous on this verse.
YUSUFALI: And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable
PICKTHAL: And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness
SHAKIR: and they have rights similar to those against them in a just manner,
I understand that you may feel confident with your understanding, but you are unable to comprehend the power in the Qur'anic words and it is a life time to analyze them.
Just look at what non-muslims say about the Qur'an after reading it:
The last quote by Arberry is of special importance because Arberry translated the Qur'an and analyzed the arabic as a non-muslim.G. Margoliouth Introduction toe. M. Rodwell's The Koran, New York Every man's Library, 1977, p. Vll
The Koran admittedly occupies an important position among the great religious books of the world. Though the youngest of the epoch-making works belonging to this class of literature, it yields to hardly any in the wonderful effect which it has produced on large masses of men. It has created an all but new phase of human thought and a fresh type of character. It first transformed a number of heterogeneous desert tribes of the Arabian peninsula into a nation of heroes, and then proceeded to create the vast politico-religious organizations of the Muhammadan world which are one of the great forces with which Europe and the East have to reckon today
Dr. Steingass quoted in T. P. Hughes' Dictionary of Islam, pp. 526-7
A work, then, which calls forth so powerful and seemingly incompatible emotions even in the distant reader distant as to time, and still more so as to mental development - a work which not only conquers the repugnance with which he may begin its perusal, but changes this adverse feeling into astonishment and admiration, such a work must be a wonderful production of the human mind indeed and a problem of the highest interest to every thoughtful observer of the destinies of mankind.
Maunce Bucaille, The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, 1978, p 125
The above observation makes the hypothesis advanced by those who see Muhammad as the author of the Qur'an untenable. How could a man, from being illiterate, become the most important author, in terms of literary merits, in the whole of Arabic literature? How could he then pronounce truths of a scientific nature that no other human being could possibly have developed at that time, and all this without once making the slightest error in his pronouncement on the subject?
Dr: Steingass quoted in Hughes' Dictionary of Islam, p. 528
Here, therefore, its meets as a literary production should perhaps not be measured by some preconceived maxims of subjective and aesthetic taste, but by the effects which it produced in Muhammad's contemporaries and fellow countrymen. If it spoke so powerfully and convincingly to the hearts of his hearers as to weld hitherto centrifugal and antagonistic elements into one compact and well organized body. animated by ideas far beyond those which had until now ruled the Arabian mind, then its eloquence was perfect, simply because it created a civilized nation out of savage tribes, and shot a fresh woof into the old warp of history.
Arthur J Arberry The Koran Interpreted London: Oxford University Press, 1964,p.X
In making the present attempt to improve on the performance of my predecessors, and to produce something which might be accepted as echoing however faintly the sublime rhetoric of the Arabic Koran, I have been at pain to study the intricate and richly varied rhythms which-apart from the message itself-constitute the Koran's undeniable claim to rank amongst the greatest literary masterpieces of mankind ... This very characteristic feature-"that inimitable symphony" as the believing Pickthall described his Holy Book, "the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy"-has been almost totally ignored by previous translators; it is therefore not surprising that what they have wrought sounds dull and net indeed in comparison with the splendidly decorated original.
If you cannot understand the Qur'anic tafsir and the eloquence, then why on earth would you try to question the wording? Every single word in the Qur'an serves thousands of purposes and is divinely ordained.-- To many men what is written IS written. Don't you think that God could have prevented much trouble by using another word than " to beat " ?
First read the tafsir and then get back to me on this issue.
Narrated Mu'awiyah ibn Haydah:On the other hand beating of the wives and slavery fit perfectly with the culture of the VII century. How come the Quran wasn't written with a sense of prospective ?
I said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your blessings as you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her. (Sunan Abu Dawood Book 11, Number 2138)
Islam elevates women. It may be difficult for you to understand because you are looking at the religion as an outsider, but take a look at this article:
http://magic-city-news.com/article_2694.shtml
And I'll close with this verse:
33:35 For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast, for men and women who guard their chastity and for men and women who engage much in Allah’s praise- for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward”
Assalamualiakum, [FOR IMAM ANSAR AL-'ADL ONLY PLEASE]
I have a very quick question, and i dont usually use the forum, so please bear with me.
I have a very special question for IMAM AL-ANSAR AL-'ADL. i've read a lot of your posts brother, and i think theyre very useful...
My question, or comment, is: Somebody has said that the reason they reject Islam (she has a beard so i dont know to say he or she) :brother: :sister: :confused: is because "they" say everyone should pray in a circle because it makes everyone equal, instead of rows. i know this is insane, but please back this up with solid evidence. of course, i could tell "Sister Bear" that it just doesnt make sense, but please help me out.
Sincerely, wabbaJ
WabbaJ,
Welcome to the forum, and I appreciate your inquiry.
A number of points may be mentioned in response to this absurd notion.
Let us point out the purpose behing praying the manner that we do:
1. Islam is a divinely ordained system. God has given us specific guidelines which will ensure our success in this life and the next. The two sources of Islam are the Qur'an and Sunnah. The Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad pbuh has been to pray in rows facing the Kaabah, which acts as a focal point directing worship of God across the globe and throughout time.
2. The manner is which we pray is pleasing to God and is the smae manner in which the angels pray in heaven. By joining together in rows, the prayer forms an organized pattern, and promotes unity and solidarity.
3. I cannot imagine how praying in a circle grants anymore equality than rows. A circle would have a number of problems. The whole notion of praying towards the Kaabah would have to be discarded. The Imaam would be standing in the center implying some sense of divinity. Rows would still be necessary to accomodate more people, unless one proposses widening the circle, which would only result in a waste of space. Mosques would have to be ten times larger to accomodate the same population.Hence, this notion is ridiculous.
4. If this person rejects Islam solely on the basis of prayer in rows, this would be very strange because this person is willing to accept the Qur'an and Sunnah. If one accepts the Qur'an and Sunnah they accept the Deen and must abide by it.
In short, Islam is the natural way and for one to reject it is to reject their own nature.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks