The why and how of the bond mentioned in the reading

zubairus

peace,

Could anybody assist to explain to me his understanding of why and how of the bond mentioned in the reading.I was going through the message and came across the translation. A page where the issue is already explained could as well be of help.
Ref4101 to 103
peace

zubairus

No longer a Sunna-rejecter

http//mypercept.co.uk/slw.htm
http//www.mypercept.co.uk/articles/quran_on_salat.htm
http//www.mypercept.co.uk/articles/disproved_traditional_salat.htm

brook

Salaam.

From "http//mypercept.co.uk/slw.htm"

As you will hopefully see, the concept of slw (i.e. to turn/go towards) is very broad and can be applied to many things. That is why in al quran, we see it being applied in a general, specific and varied manner, e.g

those who set-up partners can repent and uphold the salat if they trangressed in the system

Can salat mean 'prayer' in this verse? Does The God force people to perform 'prayer' or they will be killed? How would idolaters (i.e. those who set-up partners) pray? Does this make sense to you? Please see these verses in conjunction with 2256.

The salat can be neglected, in favour of following desires

Can SALAT mean prayer in 95, 911-12? Yes, it can. It actually does. Proof is verse 11 itself (Asad) If they repent, take to prayer and render the purifying dues they become your brethren in faith ...

Those who "take to prayer" are your brethren in faith ( ); that is, they have accepted Islam.

I understand from 912 that the idolaters have to either accept Islam or die because they are the ones who started the war for the simple reason that the Muslims say "There ise no God except Allah."

Since Muslims will never stop saying "There is no god except Allah!" and so the idolaters' reason for war will stand until they lose the war and give up idolatry, the only way for the war to come to an end is that the idolaters lose the war and become Muslim, and thus "take to prayer".

Peace,
Hasan Ak?ay

zubairus

Peace
4101 And if you go forth in the land, then there is no harm that you
shorten from the bond, if you fear that the rejecters will try you.
The rejecters are to you a clear enemy.
4102 And if you are with them and you hold the bond for them, then
let a group from among them stand with you and let them bring
their weapons; and when they have prostrated then let them be
behind you; and let a group who has not yet bonded come and
bond with you, and let them be wary and let them bring their
weapons with them. The rejecters hope that you would neglect
your weapons and goods so they can come upon you in one blow.
There is no sin upon you if you are impeded by rainfall, or if you
are ill, that you place down your weapons. And be wary. God has
prepared for the rejecters a humiliating retribution.
4103 So, when you have completed the bond, then remember God
while standing, or sitting, or on your sides. So, when you are
relieved, then hold the bond. Indeed, the bond for the believers is
a timed schedule

I still seek for an understanding of why and how of the bond with SPECIFIC REFERENCE to the above.

A detail explanation will be appreciated.

Peace.

ZUBAIRUS

A

Wakas

peace Hasan,

I recommend the other link referenced for a detailed discussion on that part of chapter 9
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/disproved_traditional_salat.htm

Questions remain unanswered.

peace zubairus,

Can you perhaps clarify what exactly you are having difficulty with in that verse? Thanks.

brook

Salaam Wakas. From (http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/disproved_traditional_salat.htm)

912 proves "they" are not brothers in terms of Muslims or believers or in terms of conversion because it continues on from 911 with And/wa and states "And if they break their oaths after making them...". Its clear the verses have been referencing "they" with transgressors/polytheists throughout, especially the verses before 911. If they have converted, why are they still being held to account for their oaths? What is going on?
One answer, and perhaps the only one that can be put forth, to resolve this confusion from the traditional viewpoint, is that these oaths refer to the "oath of Islam" that was apparently undertaken during the alleged conversion! Firstly, there is no formal/ceremonial public "oath of Islam" ever mentioned in 'the reading'. Secondly, if this is the view held then they are expecting a great deal from the small word taboo "oath of Islam" is a noun, whilst turn/taboo is a verb, so which is it? It cant be both. And last but by no means least, nowhere in 'the reading' does it state fight those who break their "oath of Islam", i.e. those who become disbelievers after accepting Islam. In fact, people are free to believe then disbelieve if they wish .

The wording of this verse strongly implies that they (polytheists/transgressors) are not considered to be anything other than polytheists/transgressors "...and THEY assail in YOUR obligation/system (deen)...". This clearly shows they are being discussed as separate groups and it was NEVER considered their "deen".

If they have converted, why are they still being held to account for their oaths? Here their oaths is different from their conversion. Their oaths is the terms of the truce, rather than permanent peace, that they signed with the State of Islam. Namely, according to verse 4,

that
(1)they shall fulfill their obligations towards you; that is, they shall refrain from attacking you,
(2)they shall refrain from aiding anyone against you.

dolaters are denied a permanent peace because "God disawows all who ascribe divinity to aught beside Him, and so does His Apostle" (Verse 3).

nowhere in 'the reading' does it state fight those who break their "oath of Islam", i.e. those who become disbelievers after accepting Islam. In fact, people are free to believe then disbelieve if they wish . Their oaths is not the oaths of Islam; otherwise, they would deny idolatry (7172). Their oaths here are the 2 truce-terms above.

Pecae,
Hasan Ak?ay

brook

If they have converted, why are they still being held to account for their oaths? No, they have not converted.

What is going on? They drew up a temporary peace agreement with the muslims in the Masjidil'l Harm (97) on the day of Hajji'l Akbar (93-4). The duration of the agreement expires when the four sacred full moons are over (95).

The oath mentioned in verse 12 refers to that agreement, according to which the idolaters will be left alone with their idolatry, on condition that they refrain from attacking the muslims and aiding anybody against them.

However, when the four sacred full moons are over, the muslims will resume the war and carry it on until the idolaters either convert or get killed because it was the very idolaters who started the war (913) for the simple reason that muslims said "Our lord is Allah!" (2240).

Muslims can feel safe and live in peace only when the idolaters' reason for attacking Islam loses validity; that is, when they are either killed or made muslims' BRETHREN IN DEEN (911).

On the other hand, the word oath is mentioned in verse 97 too. But this time it refers to the oath in 7172-173, according to which God never concedes to idolatry (see also 1826); so He has nothing to do with the peace agreement signed in the Masjidi'l Harm on the day of Hajji'l Akbar.

Peace,
Hasan Akay

zubairus

Peace brother Wakas,

I have a feeling an indepth understanding of the verses could reveal to an extend the how of the bond.
Look at the following issues.
-It is group act which call for speach
-a group to stay at the back of other group which implicate the issue of direction.
-the question of prostration which seems must be noticed.

These among others are the issues I wish could be explained.

Regards

ZUBAIRUS

Wakas

peace Hasan,

However, when the four sacred full moons are over, the muslims will resume the war and carry it on until the idolaters either convert or get killed because it was the very idolaters who started the war (913) for the simple reason that muslims said "Our lord is Allah!" (2240).

Firstly, it is only those polytheists who attacked them, not polytheists in general. This can be blatantly seen from the context. Believers living side by side with polytheists, no problem whatsoever.
Secondly, evidence for this so-called "convert" hypothesis?
Thirdly, evidence for this so-called link with 2240?

Muslims can feel safe and live in peace only when the idolaters' reason for attacking Islam loses validity; that is, when they are either killed or made muslims' BRETHREN IN DEEN (911).

Evidence they attacked "Islam"?
Evidence for made muslims?
Evidence for akhw meaning brethren (in terms of faith)?

On the other hand, the word oath is mentioned in verse 97 too. But this time it refers to the oath in 7172-173, according to which God never concedes to idolatry (see also 1826); so He has nothing to do with the peace agreement signed in the Masjidi'l Har?m on the day of Hajji'l Akbar.

Evidence for so-called link with 7172-173?

You have pretty much repeated what others have said, see the original thread. The questions in the article are simple, the answers however...... well, that's the tricky part.

Wakas

peace z,

-It is group act which call for speach

(yes, it calls for something auditory/visible/tangible)

-a group to stay at the back of other group which implicate the issue of direction.

(could imply requires concentration and/or facing a speaker, not necessarily a specific direction being the main point)

-the question of prostration which seems must be noticed.

(yes, it must be a actionable/tangible thing, this has been discussed in significant detail in the forum)

brackets are my comments.

zubairus

Peace brother wakas

Peace
4101 And if you go forth in the land, then there is no harm that you
shorten from the bond, if you fear that the rejecters will try you.
The rejecters are to you a clear enemy.
4102 And if you are with them and you hold the bond for them, then
let a group from among them stand with you and let them bring
their weapons; and when they have prostrated then let them be
behind you; and let a group who has not yet bonded come and
bond with you, and let them be wary and let them bring their
weapons with them. The rejecters hope that you would neglect
your weapons and goods so they can come upon you in one blow.
There is no sin upon you if you are impeded by rainfall, or if you
are ill, that you place down your weapons. And be wary. God has
prepared for the rejecters a humiliating retribution.
4103 So, when you have completed the bond, then remember God
while standing, or sitting, or on your sides. So, when you are
relieved, then hold the bond. Indeed, the bond for the believers is
a timed schedule
A

Look into this please. ....... let them be behind you., facing the same direction with you or the opposite? I will opt for the latter. What do you think?

Sorry for bothering you on an issue already discussed.Could you please share with me in a clear term your own understanding of how the said prostration is accomplished and what it is meant to serve?

Regarding the first issue i e the bond itself, we shall come to it later

Peace.

ZUBAIRUS

Wakas

peace,

Look into this please. ....... let them be behind you., facing the same direction with you or the opposite? I will opt for the latter. What do you think?

Sorry for bothering you on an issue already discussed.Could you please share with me in a clear term your own understanding of how the said prostration is accomplished and what it is meant to serve?

ZUBAIRUS

Well, firstly, I do not regard SJD to mean physical prostration, but we can leave this issue aside as we discuss the possible directional element in the verse.

From the usage of WRY in this form in AQ, it can mean either "beyond/after/behind". Please see PRL. The following is from M Asad's translation

Muhammad Asad - End Note 130 (4102)
Lit., "when they have prostrated themselves, let them be behind you". This idiomatic expression is not to be taken literally in classical Arabic usage, the phrase kana min wara'ika (lit., "he was behind thee&quot signifies "he protected thee" or (in military parlance) "he covered thee", and is not meant to describe the physical relative position of the two persons or groups.

Now, if still a problem, let us consider the possible directional element possibilities. Please list them and then we can go through them.

zubairus

Peace brother wakas

Peace
4101 And if you go forth in the land, then there is no harm that you
shorten from the bond, if you fear that the rejecters will try you.
The rejecters are to you a clear enemy.
4102 And if you are with them and you hold the bond for them, then
let a group from among them stand with you and let them bring
their weapons; and when they have prostrated then let them be
behind you; and let a group who has not yet bonded come and
bond with you, and let them be wary and let them bring their
weapons with them. The rejecters hope that you would neglect
your weapons and goods so they can come upon you in one blow.
There is no sin upon you if you are impeded by rainfall, or if you
are ill, that you place down your weapons. And be wary. God has
prepared for the rejecters a humiliating retribution.
4103 So, when you have completed the bond, then remember God
while standing, or sitting, or on your sides. So, when you are
relieved, then hold the bond. Indeed, the bond for the believers is
a timed schedule

Actually for now, I am interested in your understanding/interpretation not that of Ahmad, Sorry I do not mean to hurt you.

I will opt for behind. My thinking is this, the people for whom he establish the bond are standing with him facing a direction. Hence, the need for the other group to go behind taking care of the opposit direction. Remember, security is at stake.
Do you think otherwise?

Peace.

ZUBAIRUS

Wakas

peace zubairus,

My point of highlighting what M.Asad said was to show taking it literally is not the only option, thus any directional implication disappears.

So, let us be clear, your observation/question is based on only one theoretical possibility, not the only possibility.

As I said to you "if still a problem, let us consider the possible directional element possibilities. Please list them and then we can go through them.".

I was expecting a list of the theoretical possibilities, but in any case, let us analyse

I will opt for behind. My thinking is this, the people for whom he establish the bond are standing with him facing a direction. Hence, the need for the other group to go behind taking care of the opposit direction.

And what is entailed in upholding this bond, in relation to concentration/senses/etc?

Please consider the consequences of the above in relation to

Remember, security is at stake.

Then let me know your thoughts.

brook

Salaam. I don't know Arabic, so I cannot be sure that I understand 4101-102 correctly.

101

And when you go forth (to war) on earth,
you will incur no sin by doing without your prayers,
if you fear that those who deny the truth will attack you,
for, verily, those who deny the truth are your open foes.

102

And when tou art among them
and about to lead them in prayer,
let (only) part of them stand up with thee,

My questions

(1)Does 102 prove that the Prophet is not with the believers who go forth (to war) on earth in 101?
(2)Who are them mentioned in 102, the believers or those who deny the truth?

Will you please explicate, supplying proof.

Peace,
Hasan Ak?ay

zubairus

Peace brother Wakas,

Among the possible possibilities is what I have mentioned which actually is my understanding at the moment. If you think otherwise, please explain to me your line of thinking.

Remember security is at stake
. What I meant was that the arrangement was necessitated by their security at the time of upholding the bond.

And by this arrangement, the group upholding the bond can maintain a level of concentration.

What do you think?

ZUBAIRUS

Wakas

peace zubairus,

My point is that the bond requires one to pay attention, concentrate etc, so what this means is for those upholding it and the person leading it (in this case), will ALL be paying attention and concentrating, or are meant to be.... so in terms of them being able to lookout for enemy is illogical.

So, IF you agree with the above, what are the consequences for your view? i.e. is it possible it literally means behind them only?

Hence, the need for the other group to go behind taking care of the opposit direction.

Please consider, then let me know.

Wakas

peace Hasan,

There is some debate over who is addressed in 4102, however EVERY person I have read (minority view) who has suggested it is kafireen who are being addressed have failed to apply logic, and thus end up with an erroneous answer.

brook

Thank you for the anwer, Wakas. That has been a great help for me. Will a native speaker of Arabic please explain whether the Prophet was not with the believers who went forth (to war) on earth in 101? Is 102 proof enough?

Peace,
Hasan

zubairus

Peace brother Wakas,

Let us be explicit please.The issue at stake now is the direction element.

My understanding is this

The one leading and the group with him are facing a direction.
The other group are behind taking care of the opposit direction.
This arrangement permits a level of concentration.

Correct my understanding and present yours. Be explicit please.

Peace.

ZUBAIRUS.