"Faith or Deception" by Anwar Shaikh
10444...@compuserve.com
Book Review by Akbar Ahmed Feroz in Britain's largest
Urdu/English weekly, NATION of May 3-9, 1996.
The book: FAITH AND DECEPTION by Anwar Shaikh. This is Anwar
Shaikh's latest publication, release only a few weeks ago.
The book review:
Anwar Shaikh's new work - a challenge to Muslim scholars and
Intellectuals.
Anwar Shaikh's latest book, Faith and Deception, is highly
damaging to Islam. Had the Muslim scholars taken up his
challenge as presented in his previous works, "Eternity" and
"Islam - The Arab National Movement", the need for this book
would have been superfluous; but the Muslim intelligentsia
ignored him on the pretext that the Koran does not allow
debate with ignorant. This attitude was also fueled by their
desire to silence him through a process of disregard and
neglect. So unique is the philosophical and scholarly
magnitude of "Faith and Deception" that its author cannot be
labeled as ignoramus.
The Muslim scholars have found solace in linking Anwar
Shaikh with Salman Rushdie, who is just a novelist, having
no scholarly background whatever; he is no more than an
Insulter of the Prophet. Anwar Shaikh is the first person
who has not only challenged the validity of Islam but also
presented an alternative spiritual code consistent with
reason and liberty. There is not a word of disrespect in his
works to insult the Prophet Mohammed (SAW). In fact, he
admires him as a great man.
Anwar Shaikh totally rejects the doctrine of revelation and
preaches that man is rational and needs no divine guidance.
According to Shaikh, the universe is mysterious by nature
and the underlying mystery acts as a fillip to arouse
curiosity leading to knowledge, which is the exact
antithesis of blind faith. Discussing his point of view in
"Faith and Deception", the author argues that life starts
with free will, which eventually raises animal to the loft
status of man, desiring to be free and conscious of his
human rights. Anwar Shaikh has propounded a new philosophy
of Free Will which has intelligence and morality as its
components. He believes that a man is man, only when he can
exercise his free will; not only his happiness and
development of personality are related to the exercise of
free will, but the secret of his future life also lies in
the operation of free will. As a continuation of this
discussion, he argues that a man has a potential to become
divine. Thus he propounds his philosophy: Man is God and God
is Man, (Nauzbillah) but insists that the realization of
this truth depends on the exercise of one's free will with
rational and moral precision. This is what leads him to
pronounce that Faith is a form of Deception because it
opposes the exercise of free will by inducing opposition to
reason, morality and free thinking.
Shaikh believes that man is endowed with the urge of
dominance, which goads him to be acknowledged as superior to
others and the extreme form of this urge instigates him to
be treated and worshipped as God by his fellow men. This is
how, the aspirant deprives other people of their chance to
become divine by imposing his own divinity on them through
the stratagem of revelation i.e., Prophethood.
As I feel obliged to make this report about "Faith and
Deception", the Muslim intellectuals have the duty to meet
Anwar Shaikh's challenge without resorting to lame excuses.
I believe that Islam is a rational religion. This is the
reason that is does not admit violence in religious matters
(11:255); instead it advocates peaceful argument to
vindicate the truth (11:105). I must remind the Muslim
thinkers and priests that Anwar Shaikh is a serious
challenger to the veracity of Islam.
Equating him with Rushdie and his likes, is a mockery of
truth and proof of escapism.
I must add that the real subject of "Faith and Deception" is
an inquiry into the mysterious nature of the universe with
the view to establishing the Truth and the criticism of the
Koran is only supplementary. Yet, it is hair raising and
requires an immediate and rational response from the Muslim
scholars. Violence shall tarnish the image of Islam and may
prove highly detrimental to its cause.
Muslim organizations have a duty to rise to Anwar Shaikh's
challenge. They cannot sweep it under the carpet. If they
do, as they have done in the past, they shall not qualify as
the guardians of Islam but exactly the opposite.
It is also the need of the hour to expose those lobbies or
groups who may be behind the scene of such anti-Islam
publications.
Courtesy, The Nation
SVENHOLM
A few comments to:
> Book Review by Akbar Ahmed Feroz in Britain's largest
> Urdu/English weekly, NATION of May 3-9, 1996.
> The book: FAITH AND DECEPTION by Anwar Shaikh.
This reviewer has lofty hopes when he says:
> As I feel obliged to make this report about "Faith and
> Deception", the Muslim intellectuals have the duty to meet
> Anwar Shaikh's challenge without resorting to lame excuses.
But he totally inaccurate, not to say that he is lying, when he says:
> I believe that Islam is a rational religion. This is the
> reason that it does not admit violence in religious matters
> (11:255); instead it advocates peaceful argument to
> vindicate the truth (11:105).
This reviewer is living with a blatant lie and a myth. The
Sura 11 he quotes is a very early sura when the prophet was
at the beginning of his career and had almost no power. His
preaching changed dramatically when he had murdered
his critics, all opposition was smothered, and his power
was consolidated. Then, when he was older, he resorted to
flagrant violence, just as so many despotic leaders, before and
after him have done. Here are the relevant verses from a very,
very late sura:
[9:5] "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the
idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and
besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if
they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their
way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."
[9:29] "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter
day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have
prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who
have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknow-
ledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
[9:73] "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the
hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell,
and evil is the destination."
[9:113] "It is not (fit) for the Prophet and those who believe that
they should ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even though they
should be near relatives, after it has become clear to them that
they are inmates of the flaming fire."
[9:123] "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are
near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that
Allah is with those who guard (against evil)."
I am just wandering what the Muslim intelligentsia will
do with the challenges presented by the likes of Anwar Shaikh.
Ali Dashti, and many others before him, paid a dear price
for telling the Truth as they saw it. The violence and the
absurdity is, to put it mildly, reeking on the surface of the
Muslim scripture.
regards,
SVENHOLM
..........................................................
"Belief can blunt reason and common sense."
Ali Dashti: TWENTY THREE YEARS.
A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammed.
...........................................................
Jeremiah McAuliffe
SVENHOLM <m-1...@mailbox.swipnet.se> wrote:
>This reviewer is living with a blatant lie and a myth. The
>Sura 11 he quotes is a very early sura when the prophet was
>at the beginning of his career and had almost no power. His
>preaching changed dramatically when he had murdered
>his critics, all opposition was smothered, and his power
>was consolidated. Then, when he was older, he resorted to
>flagrant violence, just as so many despotic leaders, before and
>after him have done. Here are the relevant verses from a very,
>very late sura:
No, this is inaccurate--- it is incorrect to talk about Muhammad's
personal power or lack thereof. It IS correct to talk about a
group of people who do not comprise a State, and a group
of people when they DO comprise a State, i.e. a governmental
body and a government's responsiblities.
All violence by those first Muslims can be understood within the
framework of a State at war with other States, and within the
framework of the cultural milieu in which they lived.
At times in life, war and violence IS rational, nay, demanded
by all right-thinking people. God in the Qur'an tells us that
war is ordained even though we don't like it (you imply there
is a certain joy when we Muslims must be violent.) In addition,
the wars of that Muslim State in Medina were wars of defense
and for their very survival against oppressors.
(Aren't you glad people went to war against Hitler?)
So, if you want to quote Qur'anic passages out of context,
and with disregard for situatedness then do so, but, this could
easily be considered a form of intellectual dishonesty. No, it
IS intellectual dishonesty if you have been informed that
interpretation of the Qur'an always takes into account
context.
SVENHOLM
Jeremiah McAuliffe wrote:
>=20
> So, if you want to quote Qur'anic passages out of context,
> and with disregard for situatedness then do so, but, this could
> easily be considered a form of intellectual dishonesty. No, it
> IS intellectual dishonesty if you have been informed that
> interpretation of the Qur'an always takes into account
> context.
Yes, but the dishonesty is ON YOUR PART. You should have=20
read my formulation carefully. I have clearly stated that the=20
sura is a very, very late one. In fact Muir, Noldeke, Grimme=20
and Tradition put the chronology of the sura as last or last but=20
one. And the context is that by this time, as I said: the critics=20
were long murdered, and the opposition was smothered long=20
ago. By this time he had established himself as the paramount=20
ruler. WHICH context is then more relevant here? To look at
the context Koran urges understanding when the Prophet was=20
powerless, and when the Prophet had no longer enemies, and=20
when he was all powerful Koran urges the use of =93violence. If=20
you had looked into the matter you would have found that the=20
=93violence=94 verses abrogate the earlier verses which were =93tolerant=94=
=20
only in their context. And in [9:29, 5, 73, 113, 1123] Koran=20
urges the use of violence NOT for self-defense but for =93belief=94.
And according to Koran this is to be valid for all times.
To be honest I think this is VULGAR.
SVENHOLM
Jeremiah McAuliffe
SVENHOLM <m-1...@mailbox.swipnet.se> wrote:
>one. And the context is that by this time, as I said: the critics=20
>were long murdered, and the opposition was smothered long=20
>ago. By this time he had established himself as the paramount=20
>ruler. WHICH context is then more relevant here?
This sounds like a good question that someone other than I
will have to answer, or not answer as the case may be. I have raised
some similar questions regarding some hadith. No one was able to
answer those, indeed, I was criticized for even raising the issue.
(Why are those numbers as the end of the lines?)
To look at
>the context Koran urges understanding when the Prophet was
>powerless, and when the Prophet had no longer enemies, and
>when he was all powerful Koran urges the use of violence.
Well wait, isn't this precisely the choice of interpretation of it:
"Power" or "State" as the essential approach to understanding
the references to violence?
If
>you had looked into the matter you would have found that the=20
>violence verses abrogate the earlier verses which were tolerant
Uh, from where do you get the "abrogation" part of this? I've
never heard such a thing and would argue that it is an incorrect
understanding. Remember, the Qur'an MUST be taken as a whole.
You should grasp an ethos from the Qur'an.
=94=
>=20
>only in their context. And in [9:29, 5, 73, 113, 1123] Koran=20
>urges the use of violence NOT for self-defense but for =93belief=94.
>And according to Koran this is to be valid for all times.
>
9:29 is the State. I'm not sure what your other numbers are as you
didn't use the standard chapter:verse format.
>To be honest I think this is VULGAR.
If it is as you say, but not if as I say: i.e. within the
idea of an Islamic State-- 9:29 refers to rebels within the
Islamic State who do not "pay tribute". Wasn't this clear
to you when you read it?
SVENHOLM
Jeremiah McAuliffe wrote:
>=20>=20
> This sounds like a good question that someone other than I
> will have to answer, or not answer as the case may be. I have raised
> some similar questions regarding some hadith. No one was able to
> answer those, indeed, I was criticized for even raising the issue.
> (Why are those numbers as the end of the lines?)
The numbers probably got in through transmission. They have=20
no meaning. I am sorry about that.
> Well wait, isn't this precisely the choice of interpretation of it:
> "Power" or "State" as the essential approach to understanding
> the references to violence?
Are you sure you know what you are trying to explain? For what
I know, there are injunctions to be tolerant or to be violent. The=20
injunctions are issued to the Prophet or to the Believers. The FINAL
or the LATEST injunctions, to both the Prophet and to the Believers,=20
are to use force and violence to achieve their end. And I do not think=20
it was just incidental that the injunctions for tolerance were issued=20
when the Prophet enjoined almost no power.
In this question the Koran is, however, explicit:
=94And be not slack so as to cry for peace and you have the upper=20
hand, and Allah is with you, and He will not bring your deeds to=20
naught.[47:35]
> Uh, from where do you get the "abrogation" part of this? I've
> never heard such a thing and would argue that it is an incorrect
> understanding. Remember, the Qur'an MUST be taken as a whole.
> You should grasp an ethos from the Qur'an.
I just assumed that you were familiar with this well known fact.
[9:5] is probably the most notorious verse in the Koran. It is
often called the Sword Verse, and a very early study says that
it abrogates more than 100 other verses (which were, of course,
tolerant in nature). I am looking at the Koran from the historical
and psychological point of view.=20
> 9:29 is the State. I'm not sure what your other numbers are as you
> didn't use the standard chapter:verse format.
Here are the numbers [9:29] [9:113] [9:73] [9:123]. In the references
I am adding a few more of the same nature.
> If it is as you say, but not if as I say: i.e. within the
> idea of an Islamic State-- 9:29 refers to rebels within the
> Islamic State who do not "pay tribute". Wasn't this clear
> to you when you read it?
No, I will not buy this. By and large, the command to use force in=20
these verses is UNQUALIFIED and PEREMPTORY. There are several
other, earlier, verses where the command to fight and use violence
is qualified, but not here. In fact some historians, e.g. Watt, show
that the rapid expansion of Islam in the earlier years was helped by=20
these injunctions.
SVENHOLM
...............................................................
References:
[9:5]. So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the=20
idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and=20
besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if=20
they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their=20
way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9:29].Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day,=20
nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited,=20
nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given=20
the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority=20
and they are in a state of subjection.
[9:113]. It is not (fit) for the Prophet and those who believe that they=20
should ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even though they should=20
be near relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are=20
inmates of the flaming fire.
[9:73]. O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites=
=20
and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the=20
destination.
[9:123].O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to=
=20
you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with=20
those who guard (against evil).
[66:9].O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites,=
=20
and be hard against them; and their abode is hell; and evil is the resort.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
SVENHOLM <m-1...@mailbox.swipnet.se> wrote:
>>Jeremiah
>> Well wait, isn't this precisely the choice of interpretation of it:
>> "Power" or "State" as the essential approach to understanding
>> the references to violence?
>
>Are you sure you know what you are trying to explain?
Yes. The difference between having personal power and the
the power of a government. You want the passages in
question to be understood in terms of Muhammad's rise in personal
power. That is incorrect. They are to be in reference to
government action.
For what
>I know, there are injunctions to be tolerant or to be violent. The=20
>injunctions are issued to the Prophet or to the Believers. The FINAL
>or the LATEST injunctions, to both the Prophet and to the Believers,=20
>are to use force and violence to achieve their end.
Yes. These pertain to government action. They are towards the
end of Muhammad's mission because that is when a Muslim
state was in existence. I really don't see why this is such a
difficult point for you to understand.
The purpose of Muslim fighting is defensive and to put an
end to oppression and injustice (which are forms of aggression.)
Given that there is to be no compulsion in religion (which defeats
the whole validity of a religious choice) fighting cannot be used to make
people Muslim.
>> Uh, from where do you get the "abrogation" part of this? I've
>> never heard such a thing and would argue that it is an incorrect
>> understanding. Remember, the Qur'an MUST be taken as a whole.
>> You should grasp an ethos from the Qur'an.
>
>I just assumed that you were familiar with this well known fact.
It ain't that well known!
and a very early study says that
>it abrogates more than 100 other verses
BFD. I would take exception to such a study-- if it did indeed
conclude as you are implying. Such a conclusion would be
contrary to everything I've read about Islam (I mean, from standard
Muslim literature.) You *could* cite this "early study" properly.
I am looking at the Koran from the historical
>and psychological point of view.=20
Then you are reading the book incorrectly. Do you read
fiction like non-fiction? A book of poems like a science text?
Of course not. While there is history and psychology in the
Qur'an, it is not a book of history or psychology. It is a book
about the Transcendent-- our awareness of the Transcendent
and our response to the Transcendent. You'll never understand
it if you don't read it with an ear towards the subject matter!
>Here are the numbers [9:29] [9:113] [9:73] [9:123]. In the references
>I am adding a few more of the same nature.
>
>> If it is as you say, but not if as I say: i.e. within the
>> idea of an Islamic State-- 9:29 refers to rebels within the
>> Islamic State who do not "pay tribute". Wasn't this clear
>> to you when you read it?
>
>No, I will not buy this.
Now stop one minute. This is the text at that verse.
If you're gonna be like that Svenholm I won't waste
my time. I didn't ask if you would buy it, I asked if it
was clear or not. If not then you aren't reading very
carefully, because it is right there in black and white.
By and large, the command to use force in=20
>these verses is UNQUALIFIED and PEREMPTORY.
Crap. EVERYTHING in Islam is qualified-- even such a
clear thing as "don't eat pork" is qualified by "well, unless
you really have to and aren't intending to sin".
Context is everything. I'm sure that is not difficult for
you to grasp. In addition, as I already wrote to you, but
I'll repeat: the Qur'an presents an ethos. You can pick
things out of the Qur'an and violate the ethos by
doing so. If you are going to read the Qur'an you
have to grasp it as a whole, and refer to context, and
the main topic-- the Transcendent.
If you are going to ignore this, or discount it because
then these things will mean as I am telling you, well then,
there isn't any point in talking. Is there?
You've been around here enough to already know this
stuff. It is basic to the Muslim approach to the Qur'an.
Jeremiah McAuliffe, ali...@city-net.com
http://www.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html
SVENHOLM
J> Jeremiah McAuliffe, ali...@city-net.com >wrote:
S> SVENHOLM <m-1...@mailbox.swipnet.se > wrote:
J> Well wait, isn't this precisely the choice of interpretation of it:
J> "Power" or "State" as the essential approach to understanding
J> the references to violence?
S> Are you sure you know what you are trying to explain?
J> Yes. The difference between having personal power and the
J> the power of a government. You want the passages in
J> question to be understood in terms of Muhammad's rise in=20
J> personal power. That is incorrect. They are to be in reference to
J> government action.
No. You do not. Here the injunctions are concerned with, by and large,=20
(inter)personal, private behaviour. You also forget that then,=20
and after, as witnessed by the Sharia laws, that in matters of=20
injunctions or behaviour, the Prophet is the State. And what are your=20
grounds to assume that the violence that is condoned here is on the=20
level of a "state" and not dictated by the position of personal=20
"power"? In my opinion there other verses which condone violence,=20
and which would be more fitting on the level of the State.=20
But whether the injunctions are considered to come from the "power"=20
of the Prophet or from the "state", does that in any way affect the=20
nature of the injunctions? And you have conveniently deleted=20
verse [47:35] which categorically advocates "violence" when in a=20
position of "power".
J> For what
S> I know, there are injunctions to be tolerant or to be violent. The
S> injunctions are issued to the Prophet or to the Believers. The FINAL
S> or the LATEST injunctions, to both the Prophet and to the Believers,
S> are to use force and violence to achieve their end.
J> Yes. These pertain to government action. They are towards the
J> end of Muhammad's mission because that is when a Muslim
J> state was in existence. I really don't see why this is such a
J> difficult point for you to understand.
Because you are talking *crap*. And, why do you not see that the=20
injunctions are in terms of personal ethics, personal behaviour of=20
individuals, and also in *normal* interpersonal situations. Is that the=20
concern of the state? If you want to consider the actions of the State=20
then the code of behaviour is, to summarize from Schact(1):
"The basis of the Islamic attitude towards unbelievers is the law of war;
they must either be converted (though not by force) or subjugated or
killed (excepting women, children, and slaves); the third alternative,=20
in general, occurs only if the first two are refused. As an exception,=20
Arab pagans are given the choice only between conversion to Islam=20
or death."=20
J>The purpose of Muslim fighting is defensive and to put an
J>end to oppression and injustice (which are forms of aggression.)
Here, the injunctions are *not* formulated as a form of defense,
nor is there anything in the context to justify defense or acts to end
oppression.
J> Given that there is to be no compulsion in religion (which defeats
J> the whole validity of a religious choice) fighting cannot be used to m=
ake
J> people Muslim.
Your assumption in ignorance! Show me a verse which gives this option.=20
And, if you cannot find the relevant context which makes it valid only in=
=20
it=92s limited context, then I will oblige you with the correct contextua=
l=20
explanation.
J> Uh, from where do you get the "abrogation" part of this? I've
J> never heard such a thing and would argue that it is an incorrect
J> understanding. Remember, the Qur'an MUST be taken as a whole.
J> You should grasp an ethos from the Qur'an.
S> I just assumed that you were familiar with this well known fact.
J>It ain't that well known!
S>and a very early study says that
S>it abrogates more than 100 other verses
J> BFD. I would take exception to such a study-- if it did indeed
J> conclude as you are implying. Such a conclusion would be
J> contrary to everything I've read about Islam (I mean, from standard
J> Muslim literature.) You *could* cite this "early study" properly.
It is obvious that your knowledge about Islam is severely limited.
Had you been in Kufa, and had Ali Ibn Abu Talib seen you there
he would have asked you: "Can you distinguish the abrogating
verses from those which are abrogated?". If "No", then he would
have seized you by the ear, and twisted it severely and said, "You=20
are never to venture to speak in our mosque again!" I cannot imagine
that a muslim can afford to be that ignorant, least in his ignorance=20
he commits a sin, and thereby forfeit his chances to win the titillating=20
prizes that have been promised him. See (2) for references.
S> am looking at the Koran from the historical
S> and psychological point of view.
J> Then you are reading the book incorrectly. Do you read
J> fiction like non-fiction? A book of poems like a science text?
J> Of course not. While there is history and psychology in the
J> Qur'an, it is not a book of history or psychology. It is a book
J> about the Transcendent-- our awareness of the Transcendent
J> and our response to the Transcendent. You'll never understand
J> it if you don't read it with an ear towards the subject matter!
The same attitude and the same ignorance here too! Like you
never came across the "historical" and "psychological" contexts
in the Koran. I suppose you want references, or justifications
for taking this point of view? And you cannot see that "the
Koran is a very rich source for the understanding of
Muhammad=92s inner life, not to mention his marital life"?
J>> If it is as you say, but not if as I say: i.e. within the
J>> idea of an Islamic State-- 9:29 refers to rebels within the
J>> Islamic State who do not "pay tribute". Wasn't this clear
J>> to you when you read it?
>S>No, I will not buy this.
J>Now stop one minute. This is the text at that verse.
J>If you're gonna be like that Svenholm I won't waste
J>my time. I didn't ask if you would buy it, I asked if it
J>was clear or not. If not then you aren't reading very
J>carefully, because it is right there in black and white.
Do not lose your patience here. It is not merely the case of
reading that particular phrase. Because in most of the verses I have
cited:
By and large, the command to use force in
(these verses) is UNQUALIFIED and PEREMPTORY.
J> Crap. EVERYTHING in Islam is qualified-- even such a
J> clear thing as "don't eat pork" is qualified by "well, unless
J> you really have to and aren't intending to sin".
J> Context is everything. I'm sure that is not difficult for
J> you to grasp. In addition, as I already wrote to you, but
J> I'll repeat: the Qur'an presents an ethos. You can pick
J> things out of the Qur'an and violate the ethos by
J> doing so. If you are going to read the Qur'an you
J> have to grasp it as a whole, and refer to context, and
J> the main topic-- the Transcendent.
J> If you are going to ignore this, or discount it because
J> then these things will mean as I am telling you, well then,
J> there isn't any point in talking. Is there?
No. The crap is your=92s. The verses in question, by and large are=20
unqualified. Sure, I am going to ignore your opinion, unless you=20
can positively show that to be true. You are obviously=20
very ignorant about this issue. In the Koran "is explained the=20
permitted and the forbidden, the restricted and the injunctions,=20
the beginning and the end, the absolute and the limited, the varieties=20
and the similarities, the concentrated and the diffuse, the particular=20
and the *general*, and the abrogating and the abrogated." Much of=20
it is crap, of course. But, not *everything* is to to be understood in=20
context only. Does it matter which muslim scholar has said that?
SVENHOLM
..............................................................
References:
(1) Joseph Schacht: An Introduction to Islamic Law. Oxford,1964.
(2) The reference to the super abrogating verse is:
Abu Hibatullah: =91l-Kasim, ibn Sallama, al-Nasikh wa=92l-mansukh.
1379/1960 Cairo.
A very scholarly treatment on the subject is by:
John Burton: The Sources of Islamic Law
(Islamic Theories of Abrogation).
He has considered solely muslim sources. If you are really=20
interested in the subject he has several references in his book.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
S> Are you sure you know what you are trying to explain?
J> Yes. The difference between having personal power and the
J> the power of a government. You want the passages in
J> question to be understood in terms of Muhammad's rise in
J> personal power. That is incorrect. They are to be in reference to
J> government action.
SVEN:
No. You do not. Here the injunctions are concerned with, by and large,
(inter)personal, private behaviour.
MIAH:
Yes, I do. (So there!) Upon what foundation do you see this
as referring to private behavior without reference to its situatedness
as private behavior under a government as I've said? This is, to
my understanding, the standard Muslim understanding. It is my
understanding *as a Muslim* of how this topic (i.e. "kill the infidel!")
is to be understood. If you would like, I'll post a bibliography of
books I have and have read that lead me to say this with such
certainty. You'll know, in essence, who has taught me Islam.
In addition, wouldn't ANY believer in the God of Abraham,
Moses, and Jesus intuitively say that your understanding of these
issues would not be what God wanted? That is, after all, what
the Qur'an is about: the Transcendent; our awareness of and
response to the Transcendent. In response to aggression one fights
to defend oneself. One fights to end evil and injustice. Period. All
sincere believers know this. Don't they?
In addition, I'll repeat for the third time: the Qur'an presents an
ethos-- a totality-- a vision. You CAN NOT take one part out
of the total context-- context here referring to that ethos presented
by the Qur'an. Please stop ignoring this point. You write "here", but
"here" must mean the whole Qur'an-- not a verse excerpted out of it.
SVEN:
You also forget that then,
and after, as witnessed by the Sharia laws, that in matters of
injunctions or behaviour, the Prophet is the State.
MIAH:
Frankly, part of this seems absurd. The Prophet is dead. He cannot
"be the State". Perhaps you refer to the centrality of the sunna in
derivation of Law? In that case we get into the problem of the
hadith literature. This has spawned calls in some circles for the
complete rejection of the hadith literature. I too see the literature as
problematic, but mostly because it seems that quality work on it stopped
for a few hundred years, and is only now starting up again.
The Sharia, as it stands, seems quite Medieval to me-- not *necessarily*
in its conclusions-- but on a level of assumptions and presuppositions. It
needs to be re-viewed, imho. In addition, you do something here I can't stand
in Muslims. You say "the Shariah" like it is some monolithic tome we can all
just look into. Not accurate. We might ask: *who's* understanding of the
Sharia are you referring to?
You imply by "Prophet is State" that an Islamic State is necessarily a one-man
rule. Questionable, and there is tons of literature on the topic, with which I am
only glancingly familiar. I would suggest that in going into such an area one would
always have to keep in mind the concept of "shura" or consultation.
SVEN:
And what are your
grounds to assume that the violence that is condoned here is on the
level of a "state" and not dictated by the position of personal
"power"?
MIAH:
as said-- I am a Muslim and this is what I believe. Again, I can
show you a bibliography. I've been taught Islam largely through
books.
SVEN:
But whether the injunctions are considered to come from the "power"
of the Prophet or from the "state", does that in any way affect the
nature of the injunctions?
MIAH:
To defend oneself, and fight oppression, injustice and evil? No,
it does not change the nature of the injunctions. These are duties
incumbent upon the Muslim.
SVEN:
And you have conveniently deleted
verse [47:35] which categorically advocates "violence" when in a
position of "power".
MIAH:
Please don't ascribe such base motives to me. I did not do it
"conveniently"....
Could you take the verse a bit more out of context? Really Svenholm!
You are becoming somewhat transparent! The verse doesn't even
specifically mention "violence" or anything else you have implied. It DOES
clearly refer to unbelievers who debar others from the path of God in the
verse immediately preceding it, and then, in verse 35, tells us, in essence,
keep fighting to a full victory-- don't stop just cause you have the upper hand.
Now, Svenholm, please recollect who they were fighting at the time (the other
use of "context" referring to historical situations) and how aggressive and bent
on the destruction of Muhammad they were. Remember the economic boycotts,
the torture, the assasination attempts, etc. etc. If the Muslims do not stop until
they have established their own security against these aggressors.
So, what's your problem with that?
SVEN:
J> Yes. These pertain to government action. They are towards the
J> end of Muhammad's mission because that is when a Muslim
J> state was in existence. I really don't see why this is such a
J> difficult point for you to understand.
Because you are talking *crap*.
MIAH:
Well, excuse me! But I really don't think so. Are you talking
propoganda?
SVEN:
And, why do you not see that the
injunctions are in terms of personal ethics, personal behaviour of
individuals, and also in *normal* interpersonal situations.
MIAH:
Rather, the question is why you, as a non-Muslim, see it the way
you do? In normal interpersonal behaviors we are to still fight against
injustice and defend ourselves. However, we don't wage wars as
individuals, nor do we "take justice into our own hands" and behave
as vigilantes. Please recall: "permission is given to fight" (in the sense of
war) only upon certain conditions, and only after the State was established.
(both types of context)
SVEN:
to summarize from Schact(1):
MIAH:
Well, there ya go. Doesn't *sound* like a Muslim.
Want the bibliography?
SVEN:
It is obvious that your knowledge about Islam is severely limited.
MIAH:
Yes. But that isn't the point is it? How about citing your "early
study" rather than trying to set up a straw man? Its not your
story about Ali, is it?
S> am looking at the Koran from the historical
S> and psychological point of view.
J> Then you are reading the book incorrectly. Do you read
J> fiction like non-fiction? A book of poems like a science text?
J> Of course not. While there is history and psychology in the
J> Qur'an, it is not a book of history or psychology. It is a book
J> about the Transcendent-- our awareness of the Transcendent
J> and our response to the Transcendent. You'll never understand
J> it if you don't read it with an ear towards the subject matter!
SVEN:
The same attitude and the same ignorance here too!
MIAH:
Reduced to name calling Sven? Or giving a self-description?
SVEN:
Like you never came across the "historical" and "psychological"
contexts in the Koran.
MIAH:
Don't know Sven. You just got through admonishing me for
my gross ignorance of my chosen tradition, implying my choice
is a grand mistake. I certainly talk of "context" quite a bit.
SVEN:
I suppose you want references, or justifications
for taking this point of view?
MIAH:
You got that right! Why even ask? Just give 'em if you got 'em.
SVEN:
And you cannot see that "the
Koran is a very rich source for the understanding of
Muhammad inner life, not to mention his marital life"?
MIAH:
I know this literature. Let's see, how many times do I have to
say "context"? I would NOT, however, use the adjective "very rich".
I would also not *reduce* the Qur'an to this. Indeed, would consider
it an error of gross ignorance. You completely ignored
the issue of literary genre. Trained in the natural sciences Sven? Ever
engage in study of the arts? I might call the hadith literature a
"very rich" source about Muhammad's inner or marital life. Even
then, such an adjective impresses me as hyperbole.
SVEN:
J>Now stop one minute. This is the text at that verse.
J>If you're gonna be like that Svenholm I won't waste
J>my time. I didn't ask if you would buy it, I asked if it
J>was clear or not. If not then you aren't reading very
J>carefully, because it is right there in black and white.
Do not lose your patience here. It is not merely the case of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
reading that particular phrase.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Because in most of the verses I have
cited:
MIAH:
Ho, ho, ho! How conveeeeenient.
<said in the Church Lady's whine><a reference to a character
on the US show Saturday Night Live)
You weren't asking about most verses, but one. Really Svenholm!
You are too much! I thought this was *my* shtick-- referring not to
*most* verses (selected out!) but *all* verses that together present
the ethos.
The rest is repetitious....
SVEN:
References:
(1) Joseph Schacht: An Introduction to Islamic Law. Oxford,1964.
(2) The reference to the super abrogating verse is:
Abu Hibatullah: =91l-Kasim, ibn Sallama, al-Nasikh wa=92l-mansukh.
1379/1960 Cairo.
A very scholarly treatment on the subject is by:
John Burton: The Sources of Islamic Law
(Islamic Theories of Abrogation).
He has considered solely muslim sources. If you are really=20
interested in the subject he has several references in his book.
MIAH:
These are your references? Pathetic, bud. Do more reading before
mouthing off. Remember-- happy to send you my bibliography!
I mean, if *you* are really interested. ;-)
Dien Alfred Rice
In article <4ng6nc$b...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, SVENHOLM <m-1...@mailbox.swipnet.se> writes:
> J> Jeremiah McAuliffe, ali...@city-net.com >wrote:
> S> SVENHOLM <m-1...@mailbox.swipnet.se > wrote:
[...]
> S>and a very early study says that
> S>it abrogates more than 100 other verses
The verses considered abrogated are listed, and they are far fewer
than 100, to my understanding. If you know differently, please show
me where it says that from a Muslim source.
[...]
> It is obvious that your knowledge about Islam is severely limited.
> Had you been in Kufa, and had Ali Ibn Abu Talib seen you there
> he would have asked you: "Can you distinguish the abrogating
> verses from those which are abrogated?". If "No", then he would
> have seized you by the ear, and twisted it severely and said, "You=20
> are never to venture to speak in our mosque again!" I cannot imagine
> that a muslim can afford to be that ignorant, least in his ignorance=20
> he commits a sin, and thereby forfeit his chances to win the titillating=20
> prizes that have been promised him. See (2) for references.
Here, Svenholm shamelessly puts his own opinion in the mouth of
Ali ibn Abu Talib (r.a.). Did Ali ever say such a thing? I am
not aware of it. Can you produce any evidence he said anything
like this, Svenholm? I'd like to see you do it, because I
doubt that you can.
Among Muslims, there are those who completely deny the need for
abrogation -- for example, Muhammad Asad is one of those, and
he expresses his view in his commentary of the Qur'an. I personally
tend to lean this way too.
Svenholm's knowledge of the subject appears to be limited.
Peace,
Fariduddien Rice
Dien Alfred Rice
Svenholm replies to Jeremiah....
[...]
> Because you are talking *crap*.
But earlier Svenhom wrote:
> S>and a very early study says that
> S>it abrogates more than 100 other verses
There is no verse in the Qur'an which abrogates more
than 100 other verses. It is thus strange that Svenholm
is the one who is accusing others of "talking *crap*."
I have here "Ulum al-Qur'an" by Ahmad von Denffer.
He quotes Suyuti as saying there are 21 cases of abrogation,
of which many are doubtful.
Of these 21, Shah Waliullah, the great Indian Muslim scholar (d. 1759)
only considered 5 to be genuine cases of abrogation. These are:
Abrogated verses Abrogated by this verse
================ =======================
2:180 4:11,12
2:234 2:240
8:65 8:66
33:50 33:52
58:12 58:13
The last two are to do with the Prophet (s.), who is no longer
with us, so they are no longer directly relevent to us, as far
as I can see. The third one also has no legal implications.
The first two are to do with inheritance and support for widows.
Svenholm's claim of 100 verses abrogated is very fanciful....
whatever book you got that out of, Svenholm, you should throw
it away, because if that is indicative of its standard of
scholarship, its standard is very low.
Peace,
Fariduddien Rice
SVENHOLM
Reply to:
> Jeremiah McAuliffe, ali...@city-net.com
This thread getting to be childish and pathetic, and passing
on more personal epithets is just a waste of time. Also the
main issue is pretty much obscured by now. Here I am going
to summarize the main issue, and maintain what was stated
initially:
THE ISSUE:
The reviewer of "Faith and Deception" by Anwar Shaik
stated: "I believe that Islam is a rational religion. This is the
reason that it does not admit violence in religious matters
(11:255); instead it advocates peaceful argument to vindicate
the truth (11:105)."
To this I had posted that "This reviewer is living with a
blatant lie and a myth." The relevant verses should be
[9:5] [9:29] [9:73] [9:113] [9:123] which come from a
sura which is considered to be chronologically the last,
or last but one.
The overencompassing and the most significant general
context of these verses is that at this period of
time all opposition was smothered and the Prophet had
established himself as the sovereign ruler, and the Muslims
enjoyed complete hegemony over others.
In the verses I cited the Muslims are instigated to use
"violence" against the Jews, Christians, and Idolaters,
SOLELY on grounds of BELIEF. The instigation to use
violence is UNCONDITIONAL and PEREMPTORY as
can be *read* in the text of the verses. Neither are the
verses qualified, directly or indirectly, by any exceptional
conditions in the preceding or subsequent verses. In fact the
possible exceptional conditions, oppression or injustice, do
not exist in this context. The verses in question do not
instigate the Muslims to fight oppression or injustice,
in fact these verses instigate the Muslims to oppress and
subjugate others solely on grounds of their belief.
The instigation to use violence strikes to the root of interpersonal
relations, as it is expressly stated that the "violence" is to be
used "even though they should be near relatives" or "who are
near to you".
Needless to say that in the Koran the instigation to use violence
is directly related to the amount of power and supremacy
enjoined by the Prophet and the Muslim community of the
time. More power, and less fear of retaliation, the instigation to
use violence is more direct and more unconditional.
As I have stated previously, I think this is VULGAR. And why
should this be surprising when Allah, as portrayed in the Koran, is
also a sadistic monster (see Note 1).
The relevant verses are provided once again at the end. As a
further reference look at the posting by Anwar Shaik, the author
of the book by which this thread started. Anwar Shaik's
posting is titled ISLAM AND THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK and he shows
that "There is a general misconception that Islam seeks friendly
relations with the People of the Book, that is, the Jews and the
Christians". And that "In fact, Islam is as hostile to the members
of these religious groups as it is to idolaters such
as the Hindus"
SVENHOLM
=========================
REMARKS
Some remarks on some stuff from MIAH's posting:
> The Prophet is dead. He cannot "be the State".Forget the Koran! Forget what he stood for! Islam can exist
without him. MIAH does not get the sense in which the expression
is used.
> It is my understanding *as a Muslim* of how this topic (i.e. "kill
> the infidel!") is to be understoodPerfect device to hide just about any lie. And the topic is not limited
to the killing of the infidels.
> Well, there ya go. Doesn't *sound* like a Muslim.MIAH thinks that a scholar of the stature of Schact does not sound
like a muslim. Obviously, after his knowledge he could not be one.
Are his conclusions, and his research also faulty because he is
not a muslim?
> To defend oneself, and fight oppression, injustice and evil?In spite of the fact that in the verses in question it is the muslims
who are instigated to oppress and subjugate others on grounds of
their belief. And, in practice, the subjugation and oppression of
others was carried by the Prophet and his followers very very
thoroughly.
> The verse [47:35] doesn't even specifically mention "violence" or anything
> else you have implied. It DOES clearly refer to unbelievers who debar
> others from the path of God in the verse immediately preceding it, and
> then, in verse 35, tells us, in essence, keep fighting to a full victory--MIAH thinks that the instigation for "violence" should contain the very
word itself, then he goes on to manufacture his own interpretation and
the context!
> In addition, I'll repeat for the third time: the Qur'an presents an
> ethos-- a totality-- a vision.And whatever ethos MIAH intends to impose on the Koran, he has to
include the subjugation and oppression of others on the sole grounds
of belief.
> How about citing your "early study" rather than trying to set up
> a straw man? MIAH does not see the reference when it is given. Also he does not
like (informed) strawmen when they contradict his opinions.
> Ho, ho, ho! How conveeeeenient. (and MIAH goes on to talk of
> one verse, most verses, and context)And in spite of the fact that the references to ALL the relevant verses
was given twice. And ALL the verses refered to pertain to the same
issue.
> These are your references? Pathetic, bud. Do more reading beforeBy now MIAH is happy, he has reached the climax of his ability. In spite
of the fact that it is obviuos that the references are given only to cover
what is quoted in the text! After all MIAH thinks that his personal
belief is sufficient to explain the issue in question.
This, of course, makes it tempting to return the epithets, but the
temptation is resisted.
====================
NOTE 1:
Suggestion: Any discussion on this point should better be started on a
separate thread, e.g. ALLAH A SADISTIC MONSTER?, preferably
with an initial post defying the question, perhaps with an explanation
of the Muslim ethos.
====================
THE RELEVANT VERSES:
[9:5] "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the
idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and
besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if
they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their
way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."
[9:29] "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter
day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have
prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who
have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknow-
ledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
[9:73] "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the
hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell,
and evil is the destination."
[9:113] "It is not (fit) for the Prophet and those who believe that
they should ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even though they
should be near relatives, after it has become clear to them that
they are inmates of the flaming fire."
[9:123] "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are
near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that
Allah is with those who guard (against evil)."
SVENHOLM
phs...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Dien Alfred Rice) wrote:
> The verses considered abrogated are listed, and they are far fewer =
> than 100, to my understanding. If you know differently, please show =
> me where it says that from a Muslim source.
I suppose a non-muslim source is unacceptable to you? Anyway, =
the reference which treats the abrogation of [9:5] is:
Abu Hibatullah: =
al-Kasim, ibn Sallama, al-Nasikh wa=92l-mansukh. 1379/1960 Cairo.
In fact he says that this verse abrogates 124 other verses. This may =
sound a lot, but if you consider the various ways a verse can be =
said to be abrogated then it quite possible.
> Here, Svenholm shamelessly puts his own opinion in the mouth of
> Ali ibn Abu Talib (r.a.). Did Ali ever say such a thing? I am
> not aware of it. Can you produce any evidence he said anything
> like this, Svenholm? I'd like to see you do it, because I
> doubt that you can.
Mr Rice you are being unfair to me. Why pass on such epithets to
me without giving me the benefit of doubt. The narrative pertaining =
to Ali comes from the (margins of the) book: =
al-Nishaburi: Asbab al-Nuzul, 13??, Cairo.
> Among Muslims, there are those who completely deny the need for
> abrogation -- for example, Muhammad Asad is one of those, and
> he expresses his view in his commentary of the Qur'an. I personally
> tend to lean this way too.
You say =93some=94 muslims deny the need for abrogation. Thus not all. =
And =93need=94 may not the proper word here because the Koran explicitly =
states [2:106; 16:101] that some verses are abrogated by others. =
Muhammad Asad has the right to have his own opinions, though in his =
translation of the Koran, by the footnote with verse [4:34] he has =
feverishly tried to (partially) abrogate the verse on the basis of =
"inference" (darura) by using a number of Hadith, which is inadmissible =
according to [10:15].
> Svenholm's knowledge of the subject appears to be limited.
Please accept my humble thanks for your kind observation. I am sure Allah =
will be pleased with you. May you collect the titillating prizes
that have been promised you.
> Fariduddien Rice
Peace,
SVENHOLM
faizi shanavas
SVENHOLM <m-1...@mailbox.swipnet.se> wrote:
>Reply to:
>To this I had posted that "This reviewer is living with a
>blatant lie and a myth." The relevant verses should be
>[9:5] [9:29] [9:73] [9:113] [9:123] which come from a
>sura which is considered to be chronologically the last,
>or last but one.
>
>
>In the verses I cited the Muslims are instigated to use
>"violence" against the Jews, Christians, and Idolaters,
>SOLELY on grounds of BELIEF. The instigation to use
>violence is UNCONDITIONAL and PEREMPTORY as
>can be *read* in the text of the verses.
>
>SVENHOLM
>=========================
Assalamu alaikum.
>
>>>>>>Many Muslims including Mr.Rice and I do not believe in the
Mr.Svenholm's interpret the verses. If Mr.Svenholm is correct
in his misrepresentation of meaning of the above verses
when Prophet ruled Mecca he would have killed all those
polythiests and non-Muslims in Mecca and extended his power
to the neignboring countries.
>>>>The words of America Historian and Philosopher, Will Durant,
would have written a history different than what he wrote
in his monumental work,"The story of Civilization." He state:
"In return for a moderate tribute the Christians
of Arabia were taken under Muhammed's protection,
enjoyed full liberty of worship, but they were
forbidden to charge interest on loans. We are
told that he sent envoys to the Greek emperor,
Persian king, and the rulers of Hira, Ghadssan,
inviting them to accept the new faith; apparantly
there was no reply. He observed with philosophic
resignation the mutual destruction in which
Persia and Byzanthium were engaged; but he
does not seem to have entertained any thought
his power outside arabia."
[The Story of Civilization, Volume 4, p. 171]
>>>>If Mr.Sevenholm's the mistrepresention of the verses, that
he quoted, were true meaning, did Prophet (PBUH) practice apostasy
by giving the Christians of Arabia "full liberty of worship?"
Conclusion: The attestation of the respected American
Historian, Will Durant, about the "full liberty of worship" for
Christians in Arabia under Muhammed (PBUH) in Mecca,
exposes Mr. Sevenhom's misrepresention of the Qur'anic verses,
its true meaning, and Islam.
Peace
Tufail
From 71620...@CompuServe.COM Tue May 21 08:22:13 1996
Received: from ivory.lm.com (ivory.lm.com [192.231.221.9]) by shellx.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA00110 for <ar...@best.com>; Tue, 21 May 1996 08:22:00 -0700
Received: from relay6.UU.NET (relay6.UU.NET [192.48.96.16]) by ivory.lm.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA07721 for <religio...@telerama.lm.com>; Tue, 21 May 1996 11:21:57 -0400
Received: from mhade.production.compuserve.com by relay6.UU.NET with SMTP
(peer crosschecked as: mhade.production.compuserve.com [149.174.240.55])
id QQaqrd21587; Tue, 21 May 1996 11:21:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from news@localhost) by mhade.production.compuserve.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id LAA08603; Tue, 21 May 1996 11:20:31 -0400
To: soc-relig...@uunet.uu.net
Path: news
From: AYMusa <71620...@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Re: If God promised to preserve Qur'an...
Date: 21 May 1996 15:20:31 GMT
Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736)
Lines: 6
Message-ID: <4nsmvv$8c5$1...@mhade.production.compuserve.com>
Status: RO
Salaamun alaikum. REad the Qur'an it tells you why God sent messenger
and prophets with Books instead of dropping them from the sky. This
question is described by the Qur'an as typical of the disbelievers.
--
AYMusa
Dien Alfred Rice
In article <4nqiq5$i...@shellx.best.com>, SVENHOLM <m-1...@mailbox.swipnet.se> writes:
> phs...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Dien Alfred Rice) wrote:
>
>> The verses considered abrogated are listed, and they are far fewer =
>> than 100, to my understanding. If you know differently, please show =
>> me where it says that from a Muslim source.
>
> I suppose a non-muslim source is unacceptable to you? Anyway, =
> the reference which treats the abrogation of [9:5] is:
> Abu Hibatullah: =
>
> al-Kasim, ibn Sallama, al-Nasikh wa=92l-mansukh. 1379/1960 Cairo.
> In fact he says that this verse abrogates 124 other verses. This may =
> sound a lot, but if you consider the various ways a verse can be =
> said to be abrogated then it quite possible.
Can you provide a quote? I find it hard to believe that someone
has such a view.... I have never come across anything like it
before....
I am wondering if you got it from a second-hand source, which may
have misrepresented the author's view.
Since the book you refer to was published in Cairo, I assume
it is probably in Arabic.
>> Here, Svenholm shamelessly puts his own opinion in the mouth of
>> Ali ibn Abu Talib (r.a.). Did Ali ever say such a thing? I am
>> not aware of it. Can you produce any evidence he said anything
>> like this, Svenholm? I'd like to see you do it, because I
>> doubt that you can.
>
> Mr Rice you are being unfair to me. Why pass on such epithets to
> me without giving me the benefit of doubt. The narrative pertaining =
> to Ali comes from the (margins of the) book: =
> al-Nishaburi: Asbab al-Nuzul, 13??, Cairo.
Another Arabic reference.... again, I suspect you are getting
this from a second-hand source, which again may have misrepresented
the original author's views.
What is the original book you are getting these from? I doubt
if it is these Arabic books you are citing....
>> Among Muslims, there are those who completely deny the need for
>> abrogation -- for example, Muhammad Asad is one of those, and
>> he expresses his view in his commentary of the Qur'an. I personally
>> tend to lean this way too.
>
> You say =93some=94 muslims deny the need for abrogation. Thus not all. =
No, certainly not all.
> And =93need=94 may not the proper word here because the Koran explicitly =
> states [2:106; 16:101] that some verses are abrogated by others. =
This can also be interpreted as saying that later revelation
(eg. Qur'an) abrogates earlier revelation (eg. Bible).
It does not have to be interpreted as one ayat of the Qur'an
abrogating another ayat, but it can be interpreted as the Qur'an
abrogating the earlier revelations. If I remember right, I think
this is the interpretation Muhammad Asad prefers.
> Muhammad Asad has the right to have his own opinions, though in his =
> translation of the Koran, by the footnote with verse [4:34] he has =
> feverishly tried to (partially) abrogate the verse on the basis of =
> "inference" (darura) by using a number of Hadith, which is inadmissible =
> according to [10:15].
10:15, by the way, is about the prohibition of changing the Qur'an.
It is not relevent here, since no one is claiming to do that, or
claiming that it is legitimate.
Your explantion of Muhammad Asad's commentary on 4:34 as "abrogation"
is incorrect -- it is, instead, explaining the meaning of one of
the words in the verse, to make the meaning of the verse clearer.
In 4:34, there is a word often translated as "beat," but as
Abdurrahman Lomax has pointed out on this newsgroup before,
a better translation could be said to be "strike," as in
"to do something striking" to save the marriage. Muhammad Asad
relates one hadith, which says that this "striking" _should not cause
pain_. Thus, verse 4:34 is _not_ abrogated, but its meaning is
clarified, in that the "striking" is _not to cause pain_, which is
why Islamic scholars recommended doing any "striking" with something
like a folded hankerchief. Clarifying the meaning of a verse
is not abrogation!
I have appended to the end an old post of mine which contains
both the verse and Muhammad Asad's comments on it, so people can
read it for themselves.
Peace,
Fariduddien Rice
==============================================================================
Assalamu alaikum,
Here is Muhammad Asad's commentary on "beating" in verse 4:34.
The most important part is the part marked with a double asterisk
[**] below. This commentary is important because it contains
several hadiths explaining the meaning of this part of the verse.
The meaning of it is, in summary, that this "beating"
_must not cause pain_. My understanding is, to physically
harm your wife, and intentionally cause her physical pain, is
without doubt clearly haram [prohibited]. Instead, classical
scholars suggest, if things reach this stage, a miswak (a short stick
used as a toothbrush, about the same size as today's toothbrushes)
or a folded hankerchief be used. It is clear, since it is
prohibited to cause pain, that this is a symbolic gesture, used
demonstrate to the wife how serious things are at present to the
husband.
Qur'an 4:34, Muhammad Asad's translation, says:
Men shall take full care of women with the bounties which
God has bestowed more abundantly on the former than on the
latter, and with what they may spend out of their possessions.
And the righteous women are the truly devout ones, who guard
the intimacy of which God as [ordained to be] guarded.
And as for those women whose ill-will [*] you have reason to
fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed;
then beat them [**]; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do
not seek to harm them. Behold, God is indeed most high, great!
In his commentary on the above verse, Muhammad Asad writes:
[*] The term _nushuz_ (lit., "rebellion" - here rendered as
"ill-will") comprises every kind of deliberate bad behaviour of
a wife towards her husband or of a husband towards his wife,
including what is nowadays described as "mental cruelty"; with
reference to the husband, it also denotes "ill-treatment",
in the physical sense, of his wife (cf. verse 128 of this surah).
In this context, a wife's "ill-will" implies a deliberate,
persistent breach of her marital obligations.
[**] It is evident from many authentic Traditions that the
Prophet himself intensely detested the idea of beating one's
wife, and said on more than one occasion, "Could any of you
beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her
in the evening?" (Bukhari and Muslim). According to another
Tradition, he forbade the beating of _any_ woman with the
words, "Never beat God's handmaidens" (Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i, Ibn
Majah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Hibban and Hakim, on the
authority of Iyas bin `Abd Allah; Ibn Hibban, on the authority
of `Abd Allah ibn `Abbas; and Bayhaqi, on the authority of Umm
Kulthum). When the above Qur'an-verse authorizing the beating
of a refractory wife was revealed, the Prophet is reported to
have said: "I wanted one thing, but God has willed another
thing - and what God has willed must be best". With all this,
he stipulated in his sermon on the occasion of the Farewell
Pilgrimage, shortly before his death, that beating should be
resorted to only if the wife "has become guilty, in an obvious
manner, of immoral conduct", and that it should be done "in
such a way as not to cause pain (_ghayr mubarrih_)"; authentic
Traditions to this effect are found in Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu
Da'ud, Nasa'i and Ibn Majah. On the basis of these
Traditions, all the authorities stress that this "beating", if
resorted to at all, should be more or less symbolic - "with a
toothbrush, or some such thing" (Tabari, quoting the views of
scholars of the earliest times), or even "with a folded
handkerchief" (Razi); and some of the greatest Muslim scholars
(e.g. Ash-Shafi`i) are of the opinion that it is just barely
permissible, and should preferably be avoided: and they
justify this opinion by the Prophet's personal feelings with
regard to this problem.
[From _The Message of the Qur'an_, translation and commentary
of the Qur'an by Muhammad Asad (1980), footnote 45, p.109
(one of the commentaries on verse 4:34).]
Farid ud-Dien Rice
SVENHOLM
faizi shanavas wrote:
> faizi shanavas <faizi.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Many Muslims including Mr.Rice and I do not believe in the
> Mr.Svenholm's interpret the verses. If Mr.Svenholm is correct
> in his misrepresentation of meaning of the above verses
> when Prophet ruled Mecca he would have killed all those
> polythiests and non-Muslims in Mecca and extended his power
> to the neignboring countries. =
> The words of America Historian and Philosopher, Will Durant,
Mr Tufail,
Finally you have come up with an intelligent reply that was lacking
on this thread. Mr Tufail you do NOT have to take my interpretation =
in this case at all. Just look for yourself:
In [9:5] the Koran says: =93slay the idolaters wherever you find them=94
and =93if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave =
their way free to them=94. The only choice the idolators have here =
is to die or to convert.
In [9:29] the Koran says =93fight=94 the Jews, Christians and Unbelievers
=93until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are =
in a state of subjection=94 Thus they are to be fought SOLELY on grounds
of their belief.
In [9:73] the Koran is UNCODITIONAL when it says =93O Prophet! strive =
hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites=94
Also in [9:123] the Koran says equally UNCONDITIONALLY =93fight those =
of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness=94=
=2E
Same also in [66:9].
And you know that the Jewish tribes did not know of any greater disaster =
then before the Prophet. There were, in fact, very few Christians in Mecca =
or Medina. And idolatory just but vanished. And there is no point of talkin=
g
about the ways by which Islam expanded so rapidly and so quickly. Because
the point is NOT related to the interpretation of the verses in considerati=
on. =
It is a point by itself, and should preferably be treated with other, more
relevant, data.
Peace
SVENHOLM
Dien Alfred Rice
Bismillah ir Rahman ir Rahim
In article <4o0fav$7...@shellx.best.com>, SVENHOLM <m-1...@mailbox.swipnet.se> writes:
[...]
> In [9:5] the Koran says: =93slay the idolaters wherever you find them=94
> and =93if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave =
> their way free to them=94. The only choice the idolators have here =
> is to die or to convert.
Out of context, Mr. Svenholm. This verse does not stand like a
lone palm tree in the desert. It follows on from the verses before
it. This verse is directly related to those idolators who had
treaties with the Muslims, then BROKE THEM. It does not apply
to those idolators who had treaties, and kept them, as the verses
around the one you quote show very clearly.
Is the concept of reading things in context really such a difficult
one? Mama mia!
The same goes for the rest of the verses in your post.
Another thing to keep in mind, is that not only do you have to read
a verse in the context of the verses around it, but also in the
context of the whole Qur'an. The Qur'an is a whole -- it is not
fragments of this and that, which you can pick and choose from at
will. This is why those who reject any _part_ of the Qur'an are
condemned.... you end up with the kind of arguments Mr. Svenholm
has been treating us to. He, for example, apparently accepts
9:5, but does not accept the verses before it which are important
to understanding it.
I am so amazed at how Mr. Svenholm does this over and over and over
and over.... taking verses out of context, so many times!!! He
never seems to stop taking things out of context, in order to
misrepresent the meaning of the Qur'an, twisting the words this
way and that to suit his purposes.
Fariduddien Rice
Mohammad Noorul Islam
Dien Alfred Rice wrote:
> >> Here, Svenholm shamelessly puts his own opinion in the mouth of
> >> Ali ibn Abu Talib (r.a.). Did Ali ever say such a thing? I am
> >> not aware of it. Can you produce any evidence he said anything
> >> like this, Svenholm? I'd like to see you do it, because I
> >> doubt that you can.
> > Mr Rice you are being unfair to me. Why pass on such epithets to
> > me without giving me the benefit of doubt. The narrative pertaining
> > to Ali comes from the (margins of the) book: =
> > al-Nishaburi: Asbab al-Nuzul, 13??, Cairo.
I trust Svenholm (and almost everyone else on here) enough to know
that they will not knowingly lie about something, much less fabricate
references. After Svenholm has given a reference, it is clear that
he was not really putting his "owin opinion in the mouth of Ali".
Dien probably said it in the heat of the moment, but it will be
in accordance with his open-mindedness, that he would take his
words back.
> Another Arabic reference.... again, I suspect you are getting
> this from a second-hand source, which again may have misrepresented
> the original author's views.
> What is the original book you are getting these from? I doubt
> if it is these Arabic books you are citing....
I am sure Svenholm will gladly give you the reference he got this
quote from. I also know that he doesn't understand Arabic (nor do
you, Mr.Rice) and can't directly quote from Nisaburi's writings.
And even if he did, you wouldn't understand, would you? It is also
a possiblity (and a POSSIBILITY only) that Svenholm is quoting
from translation. There is nothing wrong in quoting from a
secondary source. We all do that. I have myself done that a few
times and I am sure Dien has too. So has everyone else.
> In 4:34, there is a word often translated as "beat," but as
> Abdurrahman Lomax has pointed out on this newsgroup before,
> a better translation could be said to be "strike," as in
> "to do something striking" to save the marriage.
I respect Mr.Lomax for his knowledge of Islam, but he himself will
readily acknowledge that he is no final authority on it: neither
is Muhammad Asad. "Strike" does seem to be a good translation of
the verb "daraba". I myself pointed that out to Mr.Svenholm a few
months ago. But to take the English word "strike" and claiming
that all the connotations of this English word also apply to the
Arabic counterpart, is stretching it a bit too much.
But it is indeed legitimate to point out that "daraba" can have
other meanings such as in the phrase "daraba Allah mathal"(allah
sets out an example). It is entirely legitimate to try to find
out what exact connotation of "daraba" is implied here.
Dien and Mr.Asad etc. are free to form their own opinions about
this. But it is clear that many respected commentators understand
"daraba" in 4:34 to mean something similar to "hitting". It is in
this context, that Tabari, for example cites traditions and opinions
that you later reproduced (like the one about the folded handkerchief,
toothbrush, etc).
Let me say here that getting hit with a "toothbrush" (miswaak) is not
very pleasant. This is from my personal experience
of being hit with a miswaak by the mullah, many a times when my
"@ain" sounded more like a 'hamza' or when my "Saad" sounded
more like a "seen". :-)
> [*] The term _nushuz_ (lit., "rebellion" - here rendered as
> "ill-will") comprises every kind of deliberate bad behaviour
> a wife towards her husband or of a husband towards his wife,
Let me just add that although nushuz could be on anyone's part,
the verse 4:34 itself refers to "nushuz-hunna": rebellion on the
women's part only.
> including what is nowadays described as "mental cruelty"; with
> reference to the husband, it also denotes "ill-treatment",
> in the physical sense, of his wife (cf. verse 128 of this
> In this context, a wife's "ill-will" implies a deliberate,
> persistent breach of her marital obligations.
And let me add here that Tabari (whose commentary is the only classical
commentary readily available in the library here) does give an
example of nushuz. Like if the husband calls her to his bed, and
she refuses. A while ago, I posted the opinion of al-Ghazali (whose
writings Mr.Rice deeply admires) that the wife's duty is that when
her husband calls for her, she should not refuse. I will be very
happy to reproduce the whole passage where Ghazali offers this
opinion. (Adab al Nikah, in Ihya al Ulum al Din)
> [**] It is evident from many authentic Traditions that the
> Prophet himself intensely detested the idea of beating one's
> wife, and said on more than one occasion, "Could any of you
> beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her
> in the evening?" (Bukhari and Muslim).
Yes, this should certainly be considered while interpreting the
verse and other verses.
> of a refractory wife was revealed, the Prophet is reported to
> have said: "I wanted one thing, but God has willed another
> thing - and what God has willed must be best".
Well, first of all I find this Hadeeth quite interesting for other
reasons. But once the prophet himself grudgingly agreed with God, I
don't know why his opinion is cited to soften the interpretation of
this verse.
> Traditions, all the authorities stress that this "beating", if
> resorted to at all, should be more or less symbolic - "with a
> toothbrush, or some such thing" (Tabari, quoting the views of
> scholars of the earliest times), or even "with a folded
> handkerchief" (Razi); and some of the greatest Muslim scholars
> (e.g. Ash-Shafi`i) are of the opinion that it is just barely
> permissible, and should preferably be avoided: and they
> justify this opinion by the Prophet's personal feelings with
> regard to this problem.
I tend to agree with Shafi'i here. I personally do not think that
the verse 4:34 exhorts people to beat women violently. 4:34 and
a few other verses should be viewed together with several verses
that improved the state of women in 7th century Arabia. But I do
not think that God's eternal message to humans would be a place
for this kind of a statement. Many others obviously disagree.
--
Mohammad Noorul Islam
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
The Johns Hopkins University
Email: mis...@rowland.pha.jhu.edu
Dien Alfred Rice
In article <4o0fav$7...@shellx.best.com>, SVENHOLM <m-1...@mailbox.swipnet.se> writes:
> In [9:5] the Koran says: =93slay the idolaters wherever you find them=94
> and =93if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave =
> their way free to them=94. The only choice the idolators have here =
> is to die or to convert.
As I stated before, Mr. Svenholm takes verses out of context, which
twists their meaning.
Let's see what taking words out of context can do....
Mr. Svenholm tells about how to treat the idolators:
> Thus they are to be fought SOLELY on grounds
> of their belief.
Here, Mr. Svenholm is ordering us to fight people solely
on the grounds of their belief. He clearly, from his
sentence, supports fighting people on the basis of belief,
because he is clearly ORDERING us to do it.
Of course, I took that sentence out of context, just like
Mr. Svenholm takes his verses from the Qur'an out of context
in order to twist their meaning.
Fariduddien Rice
SVENHOLM
phs...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Dien Alfred Rice) wrote:
> Can you provide a quote? I find it hard to believe that someone
> has such a view.... I have never come across anything like it
> before....
> I am wondering if you got it from a second-hand source, which may
> have misrepresented the author's view.
> Since the book you refer to was published in Cairo, I assume
> it is probably in Arabic.
I find it a little frustrating to put up with your attitude. The book
has an Arabic title, so it is obviously in Arabic. But, if you are so
suspicious then the only way resolve it is to try to get the original
book itself. In any case it is referred to in:
John Burton: THE SOURCES OF ISLAMIC LAW.
Islamic Theories of Abrogation.
There are several other references, but think this should suffice here.
> Another Arabic reference.... again, I suspect you are getting
> this from a second-hand source, which again may have misrepresented
> the original author's views.
> What is the original book you are getting these from? I doubt
> if it is these Arabic books you are citing....
The reference to Ali was used to make a totally different point. So it
hardly matters whether you believe in it or not. You have the original
reference. There are several second-references to that too,
but I will not bother...
>> And need may not the proper word here because the Koran explicitly
>> states [2:106; 16:101] that some verses are abrogated by others.
> This can also be interpreted as saying that later revelation
> (eg. Qur'an) abrogates earlier revelation (eg. Bible).
> It does not have to be interpreted as one ayat of the Qur'an
> abrogating another ayat, but it can be interpreted as the Qur'an
> abrogating the earlier revelations. If I remember right, I think
> this is the interpretation Muhammad Asad prefers.
That is very poor research on your part.
[16:101] says "When We replace one AYA by another, they say,
"You are just making this up."
[2:106] says "Whatever aya We NASKH, or cause to be forgotten,
We shall bring one better than it, or similar to it."
The word AYA in this context is a verse, and the word NASKH
in the CONTEXT of very loud charges of falsification and/or alteration
can be seen to refer to NOT ONLY the aya, but ALSO to the exegesis of it.
I suppose this is very clear! And this is also then the reason that there
are several (Muslim) theories of abrogation. And, considering the
above verses, I do not think Asad's opinion is so very intelligent.
And then, in an exegetical sense, it is not difficult to see that
[9:5] could NASKH a large number of other verses. Burton's book,
mentioned above, explains this in great details. But, very understandably,
he is not a Muslim.
> 10:15, by the way, is about the prohibition of changing the Qur'an.
> It is not relevant here, since no one is claiming to do that, or
> claiming that it is legitimate.
NO Mr Rice. [10:15] says in effect that a Hadith cannot NASKH Koran.
And I believe Asad has tried to do that by his footnote to [4:34]. That
is why it IS relevant here.
> Your explantion of Muhammad Asad's commentary on 4:34 as
> "abrogation" is incorrect -- it is, instead, explaining the meaning
> of one of the words in the verse, to make the meaning of the verse
> clearer.
NO Mr Rice.
In Arabic this same word "beat" is also used when you "beat" an unruly
camel, or a criminal. From the text itself, there is absolutely no need to
assume that this beating is not to cause pain. Moreover, if you want to
take the Prophet's own behavior, then he is known to have caused great
"mental cruelty" to his wives on the slightest of grounds, and he did not
fail to show PERSONAL rancor or perverse glee at the murder of others.
And when Asad mentions "many authentic Traditions" wherein the
Prophet himself intensely detested the idea of beating one's wife" then
he is, in fact, abrogating the verse in question, in an exegetical sense.
It is NOT a clarification.
Peace,
SVENHOLM
......................................
"Mankind is gifted with faculties of perception and ratiocination
which make scientific problems possible, but in matters of religious
and political belief is ready to trample on the evidence of reason and
even of the senses."
SVENHOLM
@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Dien Alfred Rice) wrote:
(Note: this is a reposting, because my posting of 24th somehow got lost)
>> In [9:5] the Koran says: "slay the idolaters wherever you find them"
>> and "if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave
>> their way free to them". The only choice the idolators have here
>> is to die or to convert.
> Out of context, Mr. Svenholm. This verse does not stand like a
> lone palm tree in the desert. It follows on from the verses before
> it. This verse is directly related to those idolators who had
> treaties with the Muslims, then BROKE THEM. It does not apply
> to those idolators who had treaties, and kept them, as the verses
> around the one you quote show very clearly.
> Is the concept of reading things in context really such a difficult
> one? Mama mia!
Mr. Rice if you will only read the verses carefully, then you will
not have to be so childish. If you had read carefully then you
would have discovered that the Koran messes up a great deal
in this sura[9]. The sura opens by granting immunity to the idolators
with whom there is a treaty. Then in [9:3] it is declared that "Allah
and His Apostle are free from liability to the idolaters" And in [9:4] the
Believers are urged to "fulfill their agreement to the end of their term"
with the idolators.
Then in [9:5] it continues, what is said in the previous verse is
partly recanted, it says, obviously after the end of the term of
the treaty, to "slay the idolaters wherever you find them"
This injunction is slightly redefined in the same verse when the
idolators are allowed to go free ONLY condition that they convert.
It seems you would rather be particular about the wording and the
context only when it suits your purpose, and here you would rather
misinterpret and ADD your own qualifications. And please this is
NOT the ONLY verse the issue is about. I suppose you do not want
to be accused of dishonesty?
> The same goes for the rest of the verses in your post.
NO, NOT AT ALL! Mr Rice you are trying to get away with this
cheaply. It seems you have just not bothered to look up the verses.
And now, when we have talked about context, context and context, for
the upteenth time, I suppose you would bother to look up what
we are talking about here. The implications of the concerned verses
DO NOT change in the context.
> Another thing to keep in mind, is that not only do you have
> to read a verse in the context of the verses around it, but also in
> the context of the whole Qur'an.
Yes I hope YOU can keep that in mind too. And when you have
looked at the WHOLE Koran, with whatever you have in mind, and
I doubt you you know what you are talking about, and in a
chronological order, you will notice that in the Koran the
instigation to use violence is directly related to the amount of
power and supremacy enjoined by the Prophet and the Muslim
community of the time.
Here you have a Prophet at the height of his power, all opposition
is smothered, and in the whole Koran he has hardly talked directly
about Love in interpersonal relationships. These are just about
the last verses he can come out with. And these injunctions to use
violence amounts to a "declaration of war" against the unbelievers,
idolators, Jews and Christians.
When you talk of the Muslim ethos then Jihad, in the sense of a
religious war against unbelievers in the mission of Islam is included
by some Muslims as one of the Pillars of Faith. And the verses I have
cited should be part of this ethos.
> I am so amazed at how Mr. Svenholm does this over and over
> and over and over.... taking verses out of context, so many times!!!
Here you turn your pathetic trick around. And inspite of that, you have
not bothered to check the context, and so it has to be explained to you
again and again...
Peace
Dien Alfred Rice
In article <4oarmg$j...@shellx.best.com>, SVENHOLM <m-1...@mailbox.swipnet.se> writes:
> @vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Dien Alfred Rice) wrote:
[...I pointed out Svenholm takes verse 9:5 out of context...]
> Mr. Rice if you will only read the verses carefully, then you will
> not have to be so childish. If you had read carefully then you
> would have discovered that the Koran messes up a great deal
> in this sura[9].
Muslims in general have no problem with this surah, it seems
only Svenholm does. This suggests that the messing up is not
in the Qur'an, but rather in Svenholm's understanding.
> The sura opens by granting immunity to the idolators
> with whom there is a treaty. Then in [9:3] it is declared that "Allah
> and His Apostle are free from liability to the idolaters"
When this is read in context, it is clear that this is referring
to those idolators who have broken their treaties. They broke their
agreement, so the Muslims are then no longer bound to uphold their
end of the agreement either.
> And in [9:4] the
> Believers are urged to "fulfill their agreement to the end of their term"
> with the idolators.
This is with the idolators with which there is still an agreement....
that is, with those idolators who upheld their end of the agreement,
and did not break them.
These verses were revealed in response to a real situation. The Arabs
of that time were broken up into various clans and tribes. A separate
agreement was made with each particular group (clan or tribe). Perhaps
Svenholm thinks that the agreement was made with the "idolators" as
a whole, rather than with several different groups. If Svenholm thinks
this, then this is what is probably leading to his confusion.
So, the Prophet (s.) made many treaties with many different groups of
idolators. Some of these groups then broke their end of the treaty,
whereas other groups did not. These verses simply say that the treaty
is therefore no longer valid regarding those idolators who broke their
end of the treaty. The key is that there were _several_ groups that
treaties were made with, and so several treaties. There was _not_
just one treaty.
> Then in [9:5] it continues, what is said in the previous verse is
> partly recanted, it says, obviously after the end of the term of
> the treaty, to "slay the idolaters wherever you find them"
No, this is not at the end of the treaty. This is with regard to
those idolators who had broken their end of the treaty, and therefore
had effectively declared war on the Muslims again. This is clear
from the context of the previous verses.
Anyhow, in summary, there was not just one treaty, with one group
of people, as it seems Svenholm thinks there was. Rather, there
were several treaties, made with several different groups of pagan
Arabs. Some of these groups broke their treaty, other groups did
not. The treaties with the pagan Arabs who did not break their treaty are
to be honoured, while the treaties with the pagan Arabs who did break
their treaty are considered to be nullified. This is clear from what
we know of the history regarding these verses. These verses are not
abstract, Svenholm; they were revealed in response to a particular
situation. If you try to interpret such verses independent of
history, then you are liable to misinterpret them, as you apparently
have done.
Peace,
Fariduddien Rice
faizi shanavas
SVENHOLM <m-1...@mailbox.swipnet.se> wrote:
>
>Mr. Rice if you will only read the verses carefully, then you will
>not have to be so childish.
>
>Then in [9:5] it continues, what is said in the previous verse is
>partly recanted, it says, obviously after the end of the term of
>the treaty, to "slay the idolaters wherever you find them"
>SVENHOLM
>......................................
*********************
>>>>Assalamu alaikum
Who is childish--Mr.Rice or Mr.Svenholm? Let the readers decide
that.
>>>>>My quotes from American Historian and philosopher
clearly showed that Prophet as head of the state gave full
liberty to Christians of Arabia. My quote from British
Historian, T.W.Arnold showed that Umar, divinely guided
Calif, refused to pray at the Church of Resurrection by
saying," his later followers may demand the church because
Umar prayed there."
>>>>>Now let me quote what the famous British historian,
H.G.Wells wrote in his "The Outline of History." For
Mr.Svenholm's information, who is H.G.Wells? The
Encyclopaedia Britanica describe him as follows:
"Novelisr, journalist, sociologist, and popular
historian who exerted a powerful influence in the
early 20th-century movement toward change in society,
morals, and religious belief."
>>>>>Here is what H.G.Wells wrote about treatment of
his Muslim followers and the treatment of Christian
Patriarch of Jerusulem:
"He [Umar] came to Jerusalem [638], and the manner
of his coming shows how swiftly the vigor and
the simplicity of the first Moslem onset was
being sapped by success. He came the six-hundred-mile
journey with only one attendant; he was mounted
on a camel, and a bag of barley, another of dates,
a water-skin and a wooden platter were his provision
for the journey. He was met outside the city by
his chief captains, robed spendidly in silks and
with richly caparisoned horses. At this amazing sight
the old man overcome with rage. He slipped down from
his saddle, scrabbled up dirt and stones with his hands
and pelted these fine gentlemaen, shouting abuse.
What was this insult? What was this insult? What did
this finarymean? Where were his warriors? Where were the
desert men? He would not let these popinjays escort him.
He went on with his attendant, and the smart emirs
rode afar--well out of his range of stones. He met the
Patriarch of Jerusalem, who had apparantly taken over
the city from Byzanthine rulers, alone. With the patriarch
he got on very well. They went around the Holy Places
together, and Omar, now a little appeased, made sly
jokes of his manificant followers. Equally indicative
of the tendencies of the time is Omar's letter
ordering one of his governors whohad built himself
a palace it again. 'They tell me,' he wrote, 'you
would imitate the palace of the Chosroes, and that
would even use gates that once were his. Will you
also have huards and poeters at those gates, as
Chosroes had? Will you keep the faithful afar off
and deny audience to the poor? Would you depart
from the custom of our prophet, and be as a
magnificant as those Persians emperors, and
and descend to hell even as they have done?'"
[The Outline of History by H.G.Wells p.489-492]
>>>>> Summary:
1. Divinely guided califa, Omar, scolded and
threw stones at the Muslim followers while
he was visiting the Christian Holy Places
with Christisn Pariarch.
2 While Omar's governors kept away from the
range of stones from Omar, Christian
Patriarch was walking so close to Omar
without any fear and anxiety of being
killed.
3. Omar was cracking jokes about Muslims while
walking around the Jerusalem with Christian
Patriarch.
4. Omar not only refuse to pray at the Church
but also did not destroy the Christian Church.
On the other hsand he ordered to destroy his
Muslim governors palace.
5. He rebuked his Muslim follwers there for their
extravagance contrary to the teaching of the
Prophet and condemned them to hell.
>>>>>Conclusion: The above actions of the Omar are contrary
to the Mr.Svenholm's miusrepresentation of the verse 9:5. This
is quoted out of context. If Mr.Svenholm's argument is correct,
Omar would have easily destroyed the Christian church and killed
the Christian Patriarch to please Allah. In fact that would
have been his duty.
>>>>Mr.Svenholm please do not act like a greater interpretor
of the Qur'an than our revered Calif, Omar, and our
beloved Prophet [PBUM].
>>>>So dear friends, you determine who is childish-- Mr.Rice
or Mr.Svenholm.
Peace
Tufail