i thought this would be an interseting topic for jews, christians and muslims.
''Those who believed, the jews, the christians, and the sabiaens
- any who believe in God and the last day and work righteous, shall
have their reward with the lord, on them shall be no fear nor shall
they grieve''
somebody please explain this, how can this all be?. i thought islam was ''true religion, why would they have a surah about jews, christians and sabiaens getting salvation when the quran says it was them that played around Gods true message, and the sabieans ? ? ? , why would they get salvation they left ''true religion'' known as islam. how the quran first say they corrupted Gods message and preached falsehood, then have a surah about them getting salvation. ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Hello scared one,
Others on the forum helped me with this question too on this thread. Ansar provided a good link which explains that the verse was abrogated by a verse revealed later. The writer explains it much better than I can:
http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=2912&ln=eng
Peace
Firstly, I have a dislike for websites that use a direct IP in the URL. However, I browsed this forum and came to a curiosity. I always, and correct me if I am wrong but "Haraam" is something that a Muslim "avoids" doing. However, this comes to a bit of a grey area for what are we actually saying by stating something as haraam. is it:Others on the forum helped me with this question too on this thread. Ansar provided a good link which explains that the verse was abrogated by a verse revealed later. The writer explains it much better than I can:
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=e...e&QR=2912&dgn=4
1. Something a Muslim should avoid at all costs.
2. Something that should be avoided when practicle.
Also, again this site reffered to me as a Kaafirs, Getting tired of that racist remark.
Muezzin,
I didn't feel the topic worthy of a new thread. Seeing as the question had already been answered I thought I might as well continue here. Know what I'm sayin' like, yeah?
hey guyz
what does that all have to do with surah 2:62, i want to hear your opinions on it. or explain it or intererpet more.
Greetings Muhammad,
Thank you for all your help to this point. Though we have different world-views it's been fascinating to discover the reasoning behind your beliefs.
I'm sorry to go on about it, but I'm still unclear on the abrogation issue with regard to verses 2.62 and 3.85. I've read the articles I've been directed to, and the explanations kindly provided by yourself and Ansar, but I still have some questions.
OK, let's have a look at the first verse (2.62):
Those who believe (in the Qur'an).
And those who follow the Jewish (scriptures),
And the Christians and the Sabians,
Any who believe in Allah
And the Last Day,
And work righteousness,
Shall have their reward
With their Lord on them
Shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
This appears to mean that four different groups of people have nothing to fear. They all share belief in Allah and the Last Day, but they follow different scriptures. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is not mentioned (but he is implied by the translator's mention of the Qur'an). So someone who follows Jewish scriptures (and does not necessarily believe in the Prophet (pbuh)) appears to have nothing to fear. I can't see from this verse that belief in Allah necessitates belief in Muhammad (pbuh). This view is derived from the disjunction between each group that is mentioned, i.e. the implication seems to be that the four groups do not believe all the same things, despite the fact that they share the same fundamental beliefs. So to say that these different groups have nothing to fear seems (to me) to be contrary to the more generally known position of Islam, stated clearly in verse 3.85:
If anyone desires
A religion other than
Islam (submission to Allah)
Never will it be accepted
Of him; and in the Hereafter
He will be in the ranks
Of those who have lost.
It looks as if Allah has adjusted the original position. Since Allah is supposed to have absolute foreknowledge, why would such a change be necessary?
I read verse 2.62 as referring to contemporaries of Muhammad (pbuh); there doesn't seem to be anything in the text to indicate it refers to people of past nations. So verse 2.62 seems not to have belief in Muhammad (pbuh) as a necessity to gain paradise and avoid hellfire, while verse 3.85 does seem to do so.format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
Now, there is probably an explanation for this, but it does appear to be a contradiction. I find many things in the Qur'an that appear to be contradictions, and many of them are explained (and apparently resolved) on the LI main page. The articles there are usually quite long and hard to understand, making references to various possible interpretations. It's difficult to grasp how a book that is reputed to be so clear, by an author with absolute wisdom and foreknowledge, could require long-winded clarification on a point that appears to be a simple contradiction. I'm sure there's still something I'm missing here.
Finally, on another point you mentioned:
Does this mean Muslims claim not to know about the existence of dinosaurs? I'm not sure about the Islamic position.And if we were talking about existence of dinosaurs for example, I think there would be little to discuss in light of Islamic evidence, therefore the discussion would cease whether the phrase were used or not. If one decided not to talk about it, it wouldn't be due to the fact that there was something to hide but simply due to lack of knowledge.
Thanks again for all your help - maybe I'll get my head round all this one day.... :confused:
Peace
Greetings,format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
The islamqa article adequately explained the position of the verse and its stance on those who believed in Allaah.
You have to grasp that this verse does not refer those [mentioned in the verse] after the advent of the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) but it refers to the Jews [before the advent of the Prophet] who held fast to the Torah and the Sunnah of Prophet Moses (Peace be upon him) until Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus, son of Mary) was sent. When Prophet Isa Ibn Maryam came, those who still adhered to the Torah and the Sunnah of Prophet Moses and did not follow Isa Ibn Maryam were destroyed. The Christians mentioned are the Christians who held fast to the Injeel (Gospel) and the laws of Isa Ibn Maryam (peace be upon him), they were the ones who believed him and there are deemed as believers. This continued until the arrival Prophet Muhammad (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Anyone who had been following the previous laws ordained should drop it and follow the last Messenger sent to mankind.
The verse was canceled with the next ayaat [verse] as reported by ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him):
And whoever seeks a religion other than Islaam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.
It does, the verb amano means believed, it is used in the past tense. It's a perfect tense.I read verse 2.62 as referring to contemporaries of Muhammad (pbuh); there doesn't seem to be anything in the text to indicate it refers to people of past nations.
Peace!
Please bear also in mind that generally speaking, a kaafir is another word for Non-Muslim.
It has no racist connations as root implied but is is simply to distinguish [generally speaking] between Muslim and Non-Muslim. If one claims that it is racially insulting, then by his standard, I should be offended to be called a non-Christian.
lets get back to the subject about surah 2:62, i dont wanna hear about this anymore i could get you guyz kicked off the site. what the hell does that have to with meaning of surah 2:62?.format_quote Originally Posted by kadafi
Please bear also in mind that generally speaking, a kaafir is another word for Non-Muslim.
It has no racist connations as root implied but is is simply to distinguish [generally speaking] between Muslim and Non-Muslim. If one claims that it is racially insulting, then by his standard, I should be offended to be called a non-Christian.
Please refer to this post by the esteemed member czgibson.lets get back to the subject about surah 2:62
Jews and Christians are referred to as kaafirs and root thinks the term is offensive.what the hell does that have to with meaning of surah 2:62?.
I have split the thread 'Existence of God' so that we can discuss the verse [2.62] in this thread Insha'Allaah.
Thanks for your compliment, Osman, but I can't take credit for the article - I only linked to it!format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
Please refer to this post by the esteemed member czgibson.
ok i see
but tell what you think of this surah. or explain what it means logically, i don't wanna hear anything about them being kafars, i wanna know what you think about the surah saying that they(jews n christians n sabians(ones that left true religion in other terms meaning islam, for a polytheistic religon dealing with the believe of God, or leaving true religon to be jew or christian(corrupted bros),)
please talk about the surah more. stop the talk about kafars, being kafars, or what it means. its driving me crazy, lets just say everybody that believes in the oneness of God is a believer including the christans(in non-religous terms their monotheists even though they believe in the trinity of him cause they believe in God the difference is look at hinduism a polytheistic religon some or most of you didnt know that hindus believe in God but they have a polytheistic view of him they believe he is in the form of many gods meaning all the gods together make up him, thats why sometimes they say they the hindus have alot of dieties in their religon and didnt you know that their were monotheistic hindus another group of hindus that believe in God and that he is just one all of the hindus would be monotheists if they associate with the skihs, muslims, or jews(just like how the christians and jews), and that they would almost have the same belief as christianity or any other monotheistic religon, in religon terms we only call them monotheists(the christians) cause of their relationship with the jews and that they share some beliefs with islam and judaism,( an example is all these three claim abraham as their patraich, belief in the last day, think that their book of teachings is Gods message to humanity) muslims being ranked no. 1.
Last edited by scared one; 08-23-2005 at 01:26 AM.
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...ord2=christianmuslims being ranked no. 1.
also, I apologise if I annoy some:
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...rd2=non+muslim
Last edited by root; 08-23-2005 at 11:47 AM.
Greetings kadafi,
I am still frustrated that I can't understand this verse. I'm really trying not to be annoying about this, but with every response I seem to get more confused. What am I missing? Obviously I lack belief in god, but since this issue is concerned with actually determining what one of god's laws is, I don't think that can be why I'm failing to understand this.
Were they? Does this not mean that the Jewish religion would not exist today?format_quote Originally Posted by kadafi
So sura 2.62 only concerns some Christians? Then why does it say "the Christians"?The Christians mentioned are the Christians who held fast to the Injeel (Gospel) and the laws of Isa Ibn Maryam (peace be upon him), they were the ones who believed him and there are deemed as believers.
So is sura 2.62 a ruling delivered before the arrival of Muhammad (pbuh)? Surely not?This continued until the arrival Prophet Muhammad (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Anyone who had been following the previous laws ordained should drop it and follow the last Messenger sent to mankind.
The verse was canceled with the next ayaat [verse] as reported by ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him):
And whoever seeks a religion other than Islaam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.
How can a book that is perfect have a cancelled verse? If the verse is cancelled, it no longer applies, true? Why would the book of The Truth from God contain an assertion which, it is admitted later in the book, does not obtain?
But both translators of the Qur'an you and I have quoted looked at the verb amano and put it in the present tense. Why would they do this? Perhaps the verb form used has implications of both the past and the present in the original Arabic. The grammars of English and Arabic are certainly different; when you say it's used in the past tense and it's a perfect tense, this is confusing for me, because these are two very different things in English.It does, the verb amano means believed, it is used in the past tense. It's a perfect tense.
Even if the grammar difference could explain some of the confusion, it still doesn't resolve this question: if the verse is generally known as referring to people of past nations, why would the translator(s) choose to put all of the verse in the present tense?
At this point I have to ask, is this a common point of confusion for people? I know scared one is keen to see it discussed and clarified. Is it easy to see why people could get confused by this?
I'm sorry to fire questions at you like this, I don't mean to be rude - just trying to understand. Blimey, I think I've used more question marks than full stops in this post! :laugh:
It seems my reading of the Qur'an is going to take longer than expected.
Peace
Last edited by czgibson; 08-23-2005 at 05:18 PM.
The following has been mentioned in the tafseer of Shaykh Ash-Shanqeeti:
[The saying of the Exalted, "verily! Those who believe and the Jews and the Christians, and the Sabians, whosoever believes in Allaah and the Last Day and does righteous deeds shall have their reward with their Lord": as-Suddi said, ‘the verse was revealed with regards to companions of Salmaan al-Faarisee about whom he informed the Prophet (SAW) that ‘they prayed, fasted, believed in you and bore witness that you had been sent as a Prophet.’ So when Salmaan had finished extolling them the Prophet (SAW) said, "O Salmaan they are from the People of the Fire." This weighed down heavily on Salmaan and then Allaah revealed this verse. So the Imaan of the Jews referred to those Jews who held fast to the Tawrah and the sunnah of Moses until Jesus was sent. When Jesus (AS) came then whosoever held fast to the Tawrah and the sunnah of Moses (and did not follow Jesus) was destroyed. The Imaan of the Christians referred to those who held fast to the Injeel and the laws of Jesus – these people were the believers who accepted him. This held true until Muhammad (SAW) came, so whosoever did not follow Muhammad (SAW) and did not leave what he had been following was destroyed.’With regards to the claim that this verse is abrogated (mansukh), I would disagree since it has not been established amongst the abrogated verses and abrogattion only takes places with respect to laws, not beliefs. Rather this verse may be taken as an example of Takhsees (specification) because its meaning is restricted by other verses in the Qur'an, so that the interpretation of 2:62 is that it refers to either previous nations or those living today amongst Christians and Jews and Sabians who have never heard the true message of Islam.
This does not negate what Alee bin Abee Talha reports from ibn Abbaas that after this verse was revealed Allaah revealed the verse, "whosoever desires a religion other than Islaam then it shall not be accepted from him and in the Hereafter he shall be of the losers." (3: 85) Here ibn Abbaas is informing that the only thing accepted from someone will that which is in conformity to the Sharee`ah of Muhammad (SAW) after he had been sent. As for those who came before him, then whosoever followed the Messenger of his time then he was upon guidance and the victorious way. So the Jews referred to are the followers of Moses who used to judge by the Tawrah in their time.
Assalama alakam rahmatullah wabaraktu
Ansar Al Haq and the rest done a very good job but let me break it easier for the brother.
That surah 2.62 is trying to say that muslims christians jews and sabians will recieve there reward, but go to paradise? I dont know about that, reward and paradise are 2 different things. But it is true i think if the christians jews who havent grasped the true message of Islam , Allah swt will show them forgiveness. That means understanding the true Islam not CNN Or BBC islam. Now rewarding can be interperted different from Paradise. But if the christians jews and sabians know about Islam and deny it then that is totally different. You see Allah swt knows some people wont recieve the true message of Islam so you cannot blame these people. Yet people still should look towards islam since its the fastest growing religion in the world.
But then you have to take into consideration that the quran was during Muhammad sws time so the prophet must be relying to the christians and jews and sabians of Old. So you can interpert it in 2 different ways but most likelyYou have to Follow The Prophets time because it was his time that the quran was developed. I mean if you look at the bible it has been interperted and rewritten by kings and priest overtime so you lost the true concept of christianity, Yet remember Anyone can enter paradise by Allahs Mercy and forgiveness. Just because in the quran if people interpert it as oh If your jewish or christian your not going to heaven. No thats wrong because by Allah swt mercy and forgivenss Only Allah decides who enters and who doesnt. Allah swt just gave us an image of what it would be like in the quran.
Firstly, Jazaka'Allahu kjhairun brother Muhammad for your responses
Greetings,Were they? Does this not mean that the Jewish religion would not exist today?
Hehe, no, it refers to the Jews who died in the state of rejecting Isa Ibn Maryam (Peace be upon him). Their belief will be rendered useless since they rejected the Messiah.
The Christians referred here are the Christians who fully adhered to the Injeel and followed the laws of Isa Ibn Maryam. Does that constitute to [all the Christians]? Similiary if I say, [the Muslims who went to Makkah]; does that indicate that I implying the whole Muslim community?So sura 2.62 only concerns some Christians? Then why does it say "the Christians"?
No, it is not.So is sura 2.62 a ruling delivered before the arrival of Muhammad (pbuh)? Surely not?
as-Suddi said, ‘the verse was revealed with regards to companions of Salmaan al-Faarisee about whom he informed the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) that ‘they prayed, fasted, believed in you and bore witness that you had been sent as a Prophet.’ So when Salmaan had finished extolling them the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, "O Salmaan they are from the People of the Fire." This weighed down heavily on Salmaan and then Allaah revealed this verse.
The issue of nask [abrogation] has been explained by brother Saheed bin Waheed in an article. This saves me so allow me to cite him:How can a book that is perfect have a cancelled verse? If the verse is cancelled, it no longer applies, true? Why would the book of The Truth from God contain an assertion which, it is admitted later in the book, does not obtain?The English word “abrogation” literally signifies annulment, nullification or cancellation. However, in Islaamic terminology that is used in Glorious Qur’aan, it means expiration of the period of the validity of a practical injunction”. Following are the root letters and words derived from them, with their use in Glorious Qur’aan at four occasion
Readers must know that in Arabic, commonly a noun or a verb has three radical letters. But some nouns and verbs have four or five radical letters. However, many additional letters are added to them in usage.
A radical letter is that which remains intact through all the changes and derivations of the word. An additional letter is that which is subjected to changes in different forms and derivations, as is the case above.
The words, which have three radical letters, are called ath-thulathi (trilateral). Therefore, the occurrence of Naskh نسخ (abrogation) is related only to injunctions that are not eternal and are equal with regard to the possibility of their existence or non-existence.
Abrogation can never be taken to mean that Allaah commanded or prohibited something and then thought better of it and decided to cancel His former command. This is impossible because it involves attributing ignorance to Allaah (Allaah forbid). Also it is not possible for Allaah to command or prohibit something and then without any change in time, subject or conditions to abrogate His injunction since that would lead to attributing imperfection to Allaah. Allaah is FREE of any imperfection whatsoever.
What the Naskh نسخ/Mansookh منسوق signified is that Allaah knows that a certain injunction will remain valid for people up to certain time and then cease to be applicable. When that specific time is reached, a new command is sent which seems to either abrogate or change the former injunction but which, in fact, does nothing but mark the expiration of its validity. Since the former command did not have a specific period of validity attached to it, we take the new injunction as a cancellation of the former.
Example:
An employer might command one of his employees to do certain task with the intention of asking him to do some other task after one year, without, however, disclosing his intention to the employee. After the completion of the year, when employer ask the employee to do the other job, the employee might think that employer have changed or amended his orders, even though it is not the case, in fact, employer has not made any changes or amended his plans. Like all other changing phenomena around us, these apparent changes or amendments in the divine injunction are part of Divine Wisdom, whether we know its significance or not.
Therefore, the literal meaning of Naskh نسخ is replacement of one thing by another thing. Technical meaning from Islaamic point of view is “Lifting the Law of Shariah by reasons of Shariah.”
That is why Allaah (SWT) says in Glorious Qur’aan 16:101:وَإِذَا بَدَّلْنَا آيَةً مَكَانَ آيَةٍ وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا يُنَزِّلُ قَالُوا إِنَّمَا أَنْتَ مُفْتَرٍ بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ
And when We change a Verse (of the Qur’ân,) in place of another - and Allâh knows best what He sends down - they (the disbelievers) say: "You (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم are but a Muftari! (Forger, liar)." Nay, but most of them know not.The translators mistranslated it and it demonstrates that the Glorious Qur'aan can never be fully translated. Any translation of the Qur'aan immeditately ceases to be the literal word of Allaah.But both translators of the Qur'an you and I have quoted looked at the verb amano and put it in the present tense. Why would they do this? Perhaps the verb form used has implications of both the past and the present in the original Arabic. The grammars of English and Arabic are certainly different; when you say it's used in the past tense and it's a perfect tense, this is confusing for me, because these are two very different things in English.
Even if the grammar difference could explain some of the confusion, it still doesn't resolve this question: if the verse is generally known as referring to people of past nations, why would the translator(s) choose to put all of the verse in the present tense?
I forgot to conjugate when I mentioned [past] and [perfect] tense. What I meant was past perfect tense in the sense that those who adhered to the Scriptures in the past [will be] deemed as believers.
Amano means believed. For example, in Soorat Nisaa, verse 55, Allaah (exalted is He) said:
Faminhum man amana bihi waminhum man sadda AAanhu wakafa bijahannama saAAeeran
The translators transled it as:
YUSUFALI: Some of them believed, and some of them averted their faces from him: And enough is Hell for a burning fire.
PICKTHAL: And of them were (some) who believed therein and of them were (some) who turned away from it. Hell is sufficient for (their) burning.
SHAKIR: So of them is he who believes in him, and of them is he who turns away from him, and hell is sufficient to burn.
*note that SHAKIR translated it as [believes] whilst others translated is as believed
With regards to the claim that this verse is abrogated (mansukh), I would disagree since it has not been established amongst the abrogated verses and abrogattion only takes places with respect to laws, not beliefs. Rather this verse may be taken as an example of Takhsees (specification) because its meaning is restricted by other verses in the Qur'an, so that the interpretation of 2:62 is that it refers to either previous nations or those living today amongst Christians and Jews and Sabians who have never heard the true message of Islam.
This verse is indeed mansuukh since the next ayaat abrogates it. The next ayaat testifies that the religion of Islaam abrogated all other religions. Furthermore, the ayaat 2:62 does not refer to those living amongst the People of the Book who have never received the true Message. This is because the ayaat refers to those who held on the original Torah and the Injeel which cannot be found today. Furthermore, those who have never received the true Message are subjected to the ayaat:… And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning).” [al-Israa’ 17:15].
Actually akhee, the abrogation ayaat does not only refer to the ayaats in the Glorious Qur'aan but also to the past revelations (i.e. Scriptures). Naaskh/mansuukh refers to laws, and this is in perfect accordance with the ayaat since the past revelations were also laws. This is because there is no belief mentioned in the ayaat since the belief of the [followers of Isa ibn Maryam] or Prophet Moses are the same as the belief [tawheed - islamic monotheism] as this Ummah. What only abrogated were the laws that they were commanded to follow. If the ayaat was not abrogated and not subsituted with something better (i.e. the Shariah of Prophet Muhammad), then it would mean that the ayaat could still be applicable today which is not.
Ibn Tammiyah (May Allaah have mercy on him) said (and this is an abstract from a treatise produced by dr. Saleh as-saleh):
Verily! Those who believe and those Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Rabb, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.“The aayah (above) tells about the followers of these four
[Qur'an, Soorat Al-Baqarah (2:62)].
unaltered milal (Paths) before abrogation [by the advent of Prophet Muhammad’ complete message].” It, therefore, addresses those who believed in tawheed and followed the Path of Allah as was known to them. Those who continued on this belief and did not alter the Scriptures must follow the Qur’an and the Message of Islam as explained by Prophet Muhammad . Furthermore, the order of the above ayah, as Ibn ‘Abbaas explained, was canceled by ayah 3:85, which states:
And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him,You can find the treatise at [it's pdf format]:
and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers. [Qur'an, Surat Aal-’Imraan 3: 85]
The Call For The Unity Of Religions
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks