Free-Minds.org is another Sect...like Suni and Shia Sects.

Layth

Salam Guest,

Yes, I do agree that we should choose our sources very carefully and efficiently when dealing with our religious belief. However, your conclusion may not be all inclusive i.e. you negated the option that could be derived from 1439.

1439 - Praise be to GOD for granting me, despite my old age, Ismail and Isaac. My Lord answers the prayers.

Abraham had only one wife (one marriage) from which came both Ismail and Isaac
Ismail was born while the wife was still fertile (say age 43). This age would be consistent with 1439
Wife becomes barren after Ismail is born
Abraham builds the foundation of shrine at about the age 55 with 12 years old Ismail
Around age 55, Abraham and his wife gets the good news of Isaac. That?s when the God removed the infertility of Abrahams wife just like God parted the sea for Mosses and his people
This proves that Ismail and Isaac had the same mother

I believe this explanation does not violate any Quranic verses nor does it leave any key options out. Please let me know if you find anything wrong with this idea. Thanks!

I have looked at this more closely and cannot agree that Ismail and Isaac were born of the same mother.

Verse 1439 is a prayer of thanks being made by Abraham (if you start from 1435 you will note he refers to a plural of sons - which means Isaac has already been born). The prayer Abraham makes is giving thanks that, while he has reached old age, he has been blessed by God with Ismail and Isaac. Such understanding is further supported by 1554 where Abraham, upon being approached by the angels, is suprized that he could have a son (Isaac) and replies that 'old age has just come upon him - masani alkibar' (i.e. before this he was not in 'old age', which means Ismail was born to him while he was either young or middle aged).

More importantly, on the issue of why Ismail and Isaac could not be of the same mother, the mention of Abraham's wife that she is 'infertile' (Aqeem) is the main reason. While Ayman tries to argue that the infertility is caused by her being in old age, this is an erronous statement/observation since the word "aqeem" is applied to both men and women (4250) and is a condition of being unable to have children regardless of age (the word which is used to describe women who have become barren is "Aqir" which Zakaria used when speaking about his wife).

So, what we have with Abraham when he was given news of Isaac is denial because

Abraham was incapable/too old;
Abraham's wife was incapable/too old;
Abraham's wife was infertile;

So I cannot agree that Ismail and Isaac were direct brothers (they were step-brothers).

Reggards,

guest

Peace Layth,

Salam Guest,

I have looked at this more closely and cannot agree that Ismail and Isaac were born of the same mother.

Verse 1439 is a prayer of thanks being made by Abraham (if you start from 1435 you will note he refers to a plural of sons - which means Isaac has already been born). The prayer Abraham makes is giving thanks that, while he has reached old age, he has been blessed by God with Ismail and Isaac. Such understanding is further supported by 1554 where Abraham, upon being approached by the angels, is suprized that he could have a son (Isaac) and replies that 'old age has just come upon him - masani alkibar' (i.e. before this he was not in 'old age', which means Ismail was born to him while he was either young or middle aged).

More importantly, on the issue of why Ismail and Isaac could not be of the same mother, the mention of Abraham's wife that she is 'infertile' (Aqeem) is the main reason. While Ayman tries to argue that the infertility is caused by her being in old age, this is an erronous statement/observation since the word "aqeem" is applied to both men and women (4250) and is a condition of being unable to have children regardless of age (the word which is used to describe women who have become barren is "Aqir" which Zakaria used when speaking about his wife).

So, what we have with Abraham when he was given news of Isaac is denial because

Abraham was incapable/too old;
Abraham's wife was incapable/too old;
Abraham's wife was infertile;

So I cannot agree that Ismail and Isaac were direct brothers (they were step-brothers).

Reggards,

Quote from Layth ?Verse 1439 is a prayer of thanks being made by Abraham (if you start from 1435 you will note he refers to a plural of sons - which means Isaac has already been born).?

Yes, I agree. When Abraham made this prayer not only Isaac was born, he grew up, Ismail is married with children, they became righteous, and so on. Abraham is recalling his past in his old age and thanking the God. This does not invalidate my logic rather it supports my logic and claim. The verse 1439 stands on its own. It is not dependent on any other verse or conditions. Abraham got two sons in his old age period. He said it and the God testifies to it (1439). And your statement ??.which means Ismail was born to him while he was either young or middle aged)? contradicts the God?s testimony in 1439.

If I apply your logic ?The conversation of Abraham with the angels always refers to one wife?? to my understanding, we get same mom for both Ismail and Isaac.

Ahmad_Bilal

The Torah should not have any stories about Solomon or David, simply because their time was after the Torah; Moreover, The Crucifixion of Jesus should not be part of the Bible, because at that Time Jesus was raisin to God. We are only asked to believe in the Torah that were given to Moses and the Bible that was given to Jesus. And these are the Two books that God spoke about to Prophet Mohamed and ordered Him to believe in.

Also, do not forget that God asked Abraham to do many hard to believe things, such as Sloughing His own Son and abandoning his wife and infant child in the desert with no adequate supply of food or water (which are confirmed by the Quran and Torah).

When reading the Other books, we only need to believe in what are confirmed by the Quran.

I agree, to an extent. But at the same time, I don't think God necessarily told Abraham to slaughter his son. This has been researched already too.

http//www.quran-islam.org/articles/abrahams_sacrifice_(P1164).html

It just seems, at least to me, unthinkable that God would give Abraham a command to kill his son or to abandon his wife and infant child in the desert with no adequate supply of food or water. It just doesn't seem compatible with God's attributes mentioned in the scripture.

What is the singular word for ""?

I think "zurriyah" can be used as a singular or plural in some cases. This passage, though, says "zurriyaat", which implies plurality. Then, it goes on to repeatedly mention "them", another plural, showing that it's referring to more than one person. Since these are referred to as Abraham's "zurriya", this could only apply to Hagar if she was also a descendant of Abraham, which she wasn't (according to the Torah). Therefore, this passage must either be implying that Abraham sent more than one child to this deserted area, or it's implying that Ishmael had children that he took with him to this remote area. And based on the fact that the scriptures only refer to Abraham as having 2 children (sons), the latter seems more likely.

Layth

Salam Guest,

You seemed to have ignored my reference to 1554 which established that Abraham had just reached "old age" when he was given news of Isaac.
The wording in 1439 makes clear that Abraham never links the birth of his two sons with his old age (which you are alluding to). Had Ismail and Isaac both been born while he was in old age (which contradicts 1554 anyway), the wording would have been "fil alkibar" and not the wording that the Quran used "ala alkibar".

Regards,

No longer a Sunna-rejecter

belH,

Did God create the universe with his three or more hands, or his might/resouces/power (5147)?

Were David, Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael resourceful or did they have multiple hands (3817; 3857)?

Why does God show us the punishment for theft put into action by Joseph if this is not what he wants us to do? Does God want to confuse us? Is He telling us this story for fun?

Where does it say that the punishment used by Jospeh is out-of-date/not for us to implement as you have conjectured?

The two thieves, male and Female, Have Four Hands (which is more than three hands)

538 The male thief, and the female thief, you shall cut-off/cut their means/resources as a punishment for their crime, and to serve as a deterrent from God. God is Noble, Wise.

Nice try, belal. I knew that you would come up with this arguement. It clearly states "THE male thief" and "THE female thief" emphasizing not only that the punishment is for both males or females, but that one should cut/cut-off their multiple resources, and not their respective three or more hands.

Furthermore you are punishing one person at a time. Mentioning male and female shows that we are to punish both sexes the same way/treat them equally. Since you punish one person at a time, how can you cut their three or more hands?

This verse would not really make much sense if we use your logic, since you are advocating to cut off both hands of the thief. The punishment however happens for each person at a time/seperately - how then can you cut off the three or more hands of such a thief?

Also, does the verse that follows make sense if we use your logic?

539 Whoever repents after his wrongdoing and reforms, then God will accept his repentance. God is Forgiving, Compassionate.

How nice! With no more hands left!

728 When they commit evil acts, they say, "We found our fathers doing such, and God ordered us to it." Say, "God does not order evil! Do you say about God what you do not know?"

729 Say, "My Lord orders justice, and that you be devoted at every institution of obeisance/submission (masjid), and that you call on Him, while being faithful to Him in the system; as He initiated you, so you will return."

Abdun_Nur

Salaam,

if you'd like to read my view,

http//servantofthelight.com/content/view/72/102/

Q_student

belH,

538 The male thief, and the female thief, you shall cut-off/cut their means/resources as a punishment for their crime, and to serve as a deterrent from God. God is Noble, Wise.

It is not deterence rather examplary recompense for what they have done.
Deterence is before committment of the crime. Once crime is comitted it is PUNISHMENT not deterence.
Only 19ers and Khalafites can think to "prevent" the crime AFTER it has been Committed.
What a unique prevention.
Regards

belH

538 The male thief, and the female thief, you shall cut-off/cut their means/resources as a punishment for their crime, and to serve as a deterrent from God. God is Noble, Wise.

I will ask the Question again, I hope you can see it this time

how would you go about enforcing the thief to work and repay what was stolen, especially if he needs to work to repay 50 billion dollar?

In your answer, did you mean Jail Him, or did you mean take him into slavery? Furthermore, what Kind of Job would make the Thief earn 50 Billion Dollar, as in Medoff Case.

By the way, non in this thread, whom have been arguing against my understanding were able to answer the question...If you are not able to answer, then admit that your proposed punishment is unrealistic.

Peace

hope4

I will ask the Question again, I hope you can see it this time

how would you go about enforcing the thief to work and repay what was stolen, especially if he needs to work to repay 50 billion dollar?

In your answer, did you mean Jail Him, or did you mean take him into slavery? Furthermore, what Kind of Job would make the Thief earn 50 Billion Dollar, as in Medoff Case.

By the way, non in this thread, whom have been arguing against my understanding were able to answer the question...If you are not able to answer, then then admit that your proposed punishment is unrealistic.

Peace

WOW! How will someone steal 50 billion dolars? Would not be able to carry it let alone steal it. However, will cutting his hand off get back the 50 billion dollars. With 50 billion dollars I am sure he can buy a bionic hand

Peace

Hope

belH

Peace

WOW! How will someone steal 50 billion dolars? Would not be able to carry it let alone steal it. However, will cutting his hand off get back the 50 billion dollars. With 50 billion dollars I am sure he can buy a bionic hand

Peace

Hope

Peace

This is a true story

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff

Jack

By the way, non in this thread, whom have been arguing against my understanding were able to answer the question...

Peace

You don't answer the questions of others, yet we are expected to answer all your queries. Yeah, that's fair. )

belH

You don't answer the questions of others, yet we are expected to answer all your queries. Yeah, that's fair. )

Peace,
Maybe I overlooked some questions due to the overwhelming replies and questions that I had to answer.

well, I will be glad to answer if you have any.

Peace

belH

Salaam,

if you'd like to read my view,

http//servantofthelight.com/content/view/72/102/

Peace,

what is your understanding of 5-33?

Progressive Muslims
533 The recompense of those who fight God and His messenger, and seek to make corruption in the land, is that they will be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from alternate sides or that they be banished from the land; that is a disgrace for them in this world and in the Hereafter they will have a great retribution.
533

Peace

ayman

Peace Layth,

More importantly, on the issue of why Ismail and Isaac could not be of the same mother, the mention of Abraham's wife that she is 'infertile' (Aqeem) is the main reason. While Ayman tries to argue that the infertility is caused by her being in old age, this is an erronous statement/observation since the word "aqeem" is applied to both men and women (4250) and is a condition of being unable to have children regardless of age (the word which is used to describe women who have become barren is "Aqir" which Zakaria used when speaking about his wife).
So, what we have with Abraham when he was given news of Isaac is denial because

Abraham was incapable/too old;
Abraham's wife was incapable/too old;
Abraham's wife was infertile;

Your reasoning ignores 1172 where there is absolutely no mention of infertility but ONLY old age is mentioned as the reason. As for 4250, the god can cause infertility in both men and women in many different ways, including genetic defects, infections, problems resulting from previous pregnancies or miscarriages, old age, etc. Your logic implies that the god only causes infertility in inherent cases such as genetic defects and not in ALL cases including where the onset of infertility may vary such as old age. This is of course limiting of the god and is certainly not correct.

In the case of Abraham?s wife, old age is given as the ONLY reason in 1172. When infertility is mentioned, it is not by itself but is in relation to old age as in 5129. Additionally, please don?t ignore the significance of the fact that old age is given FIRST in 5129 which is perfectly in line with 1172 where only old age is mentioned.

As for Zakaria?s wife, there is no mention of her age so in this case ?aqir? is most likely specifically the inability to have children solely due to some inherent defect. So while ?aqim? is the most general term for infertility (including that caused by old age) as clear from 4250, ?aqir? is the more specific case relating to an inherent infertility problem regardless of age or other environmental factors. So every ?aqir? is a ?aqim? but not every ?aqim? is a ?aqir?. This is why there is never any mention of Zakaria?s wife age.

In summary, you have essentially turned things on their head and made Zakaria?s wife infertile due to old age despite the fact that her age is NEVER mentioned while you have made Abraham?s wife infertile not due to old age despite the fact that her age is ALWAYS mentioned, including in 1172 where ONLY her age is mentioned as the reason.

So I cannot agree that Ismail and Isaac were direct brothers (they were step-brothers).

But without the sensational gossip from the Bible about this matter, no one would ever reach that conclusion based on the great reading alone.

Peace,

Ayman

belH

But without the sensational gossip from the Bible about this matter, no one would ever reach that conclusion based on the great reading alone.

your opinion is just a human opinion, but this is The Creator of Heaven and Earth's Opinion

544 We have sent down the Torah, in it is a guidance and a light; the prophets who have submitted judged with it for those who are Jewish, and the Devotees, and the Priests, for what they were entrusted of the Book of God, and they were witness over. So do not be concerned with the people but be concerned with Me; and do not purchase with My revelations a cheap price. And whoever does not judge with what God has sent down, then these are the rejecters.
544

noble

Peace all, I was otherwise indisposed with a relapse in my health condition, am feeling a bit better now
arguing is not a very good thing for muslims and believers, it actually lowers faith...
belH salam,
Joseph surah is very rich in info
about Islam here
1237 ...Verily, I have abandoned the religion of a people that believe not in All?h and are
disbelievers in the Hereafter (i.e. the Kan'?ni?n of Egypt who were polytheists and used to worship
sun and other false deities).
1238 "And I have followed the religion of my fathers, - Ibrah?m (Abraham), Ish?que (Isaac) and Ya'q?b
(Jacob) , and never could we attribute any partners whatsoever to All?h. This is from the Grace
of All?h to us and to mankind, but most men thank not (i.e. they neither believe in All?h, nor worship
Him).
1239 "O two companions of the prison! Are many different lords (gods) better or All?h, the One, the
Irresistible?
1240 "You do not worship besides Him but only names which you have named (forged), you and your
fathers, for which All?h has sent down no authority. The command (or the judgement) is for none
but All?h. He has commanded that you worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism), that is the
(true) straight religion, but most men know not.

As for the thief ayat interpretation, I tend to agree with progressive1993 interpretations.
Regarding deterrent, stopping someone from stealing, taking from his resources, and other punitive actions will be
deterrent enough.
As for the other 533 ayat you like quoting as your baseline for proving that the cutting off in 538 is physical, I already answered you.
Different context, different audience, different crimes...
Now let us speculate about the wisdom why Allah put these two Ayats close to one another...
but before that I will indulge myself to write something you are not going to like at all...
you see there is a statistic (i worked for a government security agency), and we found out that of those who were obsessed with the most violent interpretations of the reading of the Quran and Hadiths were people who had a history of mental illness or a pattern of disturbed behaviour, had previous criminal convictions and looked at the violent side of "islamic"and "jihadist" interventions and punishments as a self actualisation of a behavior which they already they were accustomed to, such as killing, maiming, inflicting pain, and stealing (yes stealing because there is a jihadi distorted view that when you are in jihad you can steal from your enemy and then the theft punishment does not apply to you).
This is why in a previous post to you I strongly suggested that you consult a psychiatrist, before you hurt yourself or loved ones, or people around you, or decide to join a group and decide to explode yourself somewhere in the middle of a group of humans.
This advice goes also to guest and Q_S by the way.
This obsession you have with 533 and 538 is compulsive and not natural, a normal person would have let go a long time ago and moved on to another subject, arguing that ok fair enough, free-minds have their view, I have mine, tough, but such is that.
On the contrary you have been hammering and hammering, despite all the polite answers...
Whereas if it were in, say a sunni forum, were you to say something they did not like, no questions asked, after tow tries your IP would be banned for ever...
That being said, where was I?
yes the wisdom of 533 and 538 near one another.
Now the Prophet has a young community being built up, they have many enemies, 533 is revealed, it is a harsh ayat, and it is linked to the way the Romans, Assyrians, Persians, and other pagans punish their people, is revealed for many crimes, some even small crimes, this is a threat ayat.
538 is an ayat revealed to the believers and those contemplating joining the fold of Islam. If you join the Believers and become a Muslim, they have to defend you, you become part of their community. Who knows that some people would want to leave their kafeer communities because the punishments for theft is too high, but the ayat 538 which will be made also public seems to be the same as 533 and so only those who are not real thieves will come forward, and so it will filter out thieves...
This is in my opinion the wisdom...
As for Madoff, it is a very bad example... it will be a very bad muslim state that will allow the theft of 50billion $'s, he has many accomplices, and none of them has been charged... he is a scapegoat...
if you dig deep, they do not want him to say where the money went...
conclusion stop being naive
sorry for being harsh... but one needs sometimes a reality check...

Layth

Salam,

On this discussion of theft, there are some points that need to be highlighted

The story of Joseph (a prophet) in dealing with the subject cannot be ignored/overlooked as we are told that in their story are signs (127);
Jospeh's brother returns what was allegedly stolen (the king's mesuring spatula) and is then punished by remaining behind as a penalty (i.e. the argument of the punishment being needed more than the crime overlooks this fact that the property was fully returned to begin with);
The linking that is being done betwen 533 & 538 is wrong as the word used is not the same (qatti3u in 533 and iqta3u in 538 - the emphasis on the "ta" changes the meaning from a severing type of cut to a stopping type of cut (see all other references of "qatta3u" they are almost always physical severing/cutting, while all references of "qata3u" will be of a suspending/stopping meaning);
Having the wrong understanding of "iqta3u" not olnly leads to a wrong implementation/understanding, but, if we wanted to carry the verse out to the letter, this wrong understanding would require a physical severing of both hands of the theif (not one hand) as 538 speaks of the hands in the plural form (not dual) for the male and female theif.

In summary, what is stated on the FM website regarding the issue of theft is completely accurate.

guest

Peace Layth,

Salam Guest,

You seemed to have ignored my reference to 1554 which established that Abraham had just reached "old age" when he was given news of Isaac.
The wording in 1439 makes clear that Abraham never links the birth of his two sons with his old age (which you are alluding to). Had Ismail and Isaac both been born while he was in old age (which contradicts 1554 anyway), the wording would have been "fil alkibar" and not the wording that the Quran used "ala alkibar".

Regards,

This is how you (and others) have translated 1439 in the ?The Message?

1439 ?Praise be to God who has granted me in my old age Ishmael and Isaac. My Lord is the Hearer of prayer.?

Are you saying this is wrong? If so, then how would you modify it? Thanks.

And I did not ignore 1554, just that I do not agree with your statement ?Abraham had just reached "old age" when he was given news of Isaac.? Old age is span of years and therefore there is no contradiction between 1439 and 1554. Also, keep in mind that we are talking about old age with respect to having offspring.

guest

Peace,

Salam,

On this discussion of theft, there are some points that need to be highlighted

The story of Joseph (a prophet) in dealing with the subject cannot be ignored/overlooked as we are told that in their story are signs (127);
Jospeh's brother returns what was allegedly stolen (the king's mesuring spatula) and is then punished by remaining behind as a penalty (i.e. the argument of the punishment being needed more than the crime overlooks this fact that the property was fully returned to begin with);
The linking that is being done betwen 533 & 538 is wrong as the word used is not the same (qatti3u in 533 and iqta3u in 538 - the emphasis on the "ta" changes the meaning from a severing type of cut to a stopping type of cut (see all other references of "qatta3u" they are almost always physical severing/cutting, while all references of "qata3u" will be of a suspending/stopping meaning);
Having the wrong understanding of "iqta3u" not olnly leads to a wrong implementation/understanding, but, if we wanted to carry the verse out to the letter, this wrong understanding would require a physical severing of both hands of the theif (not one hand) as 538 speaks of the hands in the plural form (not dual) for the male and female theif.

In summary, what is stated on the FM website regarding the issue of theft is completely accurate.

And the signs/lessons are

Democracy is flawed i.e. Joseph?s brothers used democracy to kill Joseph which is wrong
Don?t be jealous of other, be content with what you have
Worship One God
Do not lie (brothers lying to their father)
Do not fight God because you cannot win (brothers fighting against the God?s plan)
Do not commit adultery
The God protects the righteous (Joseph saw a sign from God when she said I am all yours)
The God supports the believers ( Joseph kept his brother in Egypt)
Do not commit crime

THERE IS NO LESSON FOR PUNISHMENT OF THIEVES.

No longer a Sunna-rejecter

It is not deterence rather examplary recompense for what they have done.
Deterence is before committment of the crime. Once crime is comitted it is PUNISHMENT not deterence.
Only 19ers and Khalafites can think to "prevent" the crime AFTER it has been Committed.
What a unique prevention.
Regards

How is it that you always bring up "khalifites", "19ers", etc. in each thread that you participate in?
Rashad Khalifa opted for the "mark/cut hands" option, so your post doesnt make sense.

I will ask the Question again, I hope you can see it this time

how would you go about enforcing the thief to work and repay what was stolen, especially if he needs to work to repay 50 billion dollar?

In your answer, did you mean Jail Him, or did you mean take him into slavery? Furthermore, what Kind of Job would make the Thief earn 50 Billion Dollar, as in Medoff Case.

Your question has nothing to do with the contect of the Quran
I have asked you numerous questions, many of which were posed before you asked the above one
Originally the question wasnt directed at me, BUT
I have already answered it. Perhaps you cannot read properly.

If you have not rebbuttal of the following, your arguement is destroyed (please answer/counter each question/point)