Possible explanation for why Uthman decided Sura 9 should have no Basmallah
-
Yes, I do read the Quran, and I have heard this explanation before. But it's exactly what I described - pre-emptive sectarian violence, as well as genocide and forced conversion. It may have sounded reasonable to a 7th Century medieval audiance but it doesn't meet modern standards of human rights. I don't at all want to be judgemental of our ancestors, but it isn't a satisfactory teaching for the modern world, so I can't consider divinely guided.
the new modern standrads for human right !!! ??? usa and Europe who they're calling communities for human rights issues, they are the first who they broke the laws of human rights and they interfered in everyone's business let alone that their laws of human rights based first of all in the human rights from Islam laws.
-
Wakas - Actually, when verses contradict each other so directly it doesn't mean you interpret them differently. You can only interpret them differently when they are unspecific and leave room for doubt. When they contradict each other without leaving room for doubt, that means you have to question their veracity, or at the very least take the Shia approach of saying only God understands their true meaning and that they are too complicated for human minds. But then that isn't really helpful as if a book is to complex to be understood, that it is the fault of the writer, not the reader.
Thanks for the vague and non-evidenced based rebuttal.
-
the new modern standrads for human right !!! ??? usa and Europe who they're calling communities for human rights issues, they are the first who they broke the laws of human rights and they interfered in everyone's business let alone that their laws of human rights based first of all in the human rights from Islam laws.
Well actually, there were empires in the Middle East before there were empires in Europe so you can't go saying the Europeans were the first to break laws of human rights.
If you say Human Rights laws originate from Islam and God's teachings, then yes, I agree, but muslim empires do not have a very good history of putting these into practise - they've all practised slavery.
Wakas - one vague and non-evidenced based post deserves another. But if you do want me to be specific, the text in verse 4 and verse 5 do not leave room for doubt. Verse 4 (free minds translation) says "continue the pledge with them until its expiry". Hence Verse 5 means that when the treaty expires, wage war. That is aggression.
-
Well actually, there were empires in the Middle East before there were empires in Europe so you can't go saying the Europeans were the first to break laws of human rights.
If you say Human Rights laws originate from Islam and God's teachings, then yes, I agree, but muslim empires do not have a very good history of putting these into practise - they've all practised slavery.
No, You're wrong because there were Jewish who they killed the prophets then after them there were christian who they were killings and crusifying people in the name of God let alone stealing and make people slaves then after hundreds of years we have heard that arab in the middle east were also making people slaves but not for a long time when Islam came , changed this situation.
-
Wage "war" upon whom? Any and everyone? Let me simplify for you
Let's say a group of people contains people who are upholding the treaty, and people who are not. Pretty simple so far.
91-3 refers to those who broke the treaty. How do we know this? Because 94 says EXCEPT those who did not. So, when it continues with 95 with "fa/so/then" which is a "resumption particle" according to corpus.quran.com who could it possibly be referring to? Could it possibly be the people NOT an exception to the rule? Well, not only is this common in everyday language, but becomes blatantly obvious from the context of 95. I note you did not answer whom the "repent" refers to. Could it possibly refer to the same people the word "repent" refers to in 93? It is those who broke the treaty in 93.
In other words, the Arabic, the logic, cross-reference and flow of the verses only points to one answer.
Also, you make a blatant error in 95 by saying it is when the treaty expires, it says when the restricted months are passed!
-
Wage "war" upon whom? Any and everyone? Let me simplify for you
Let's say a group of people contains people who are upholding the treaty, and people who are not. Pretty simple so far.
91-3 refers to those who broke the treaty. How do we know this? Because 94 says EXCEPT those who did not. So, when it continues with 95 with "fa/so/then" which is a "resumption particle" according to corpus.quran.com who could it possibly be referring to? Could it possibly be the people NOT an exception to the rule? Well, not only is this common in everyday language, but becomes blatantly obvious from the context of 95. I note you did not answer whom the "repent" refers to. Could it possibly refer to the same people the word "repent" refers to in 93? It is those who broke the treaty in 93.
In other words, the Arabic, the logic, cross-reference and flow of the verses only points to one answer.
Also, you make a blatant error in 95 by saying it is when the treaty expires, it says when the restricted months are passed!
That's because it says in 94 "you shall continue the treaty with them until its expiry". Then "So when the restricted months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them". These statements are right next to each other! Continue the treaty until its expiry, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them.
If it means "only some polytheists" then it is really, really badly written, and thus not divine. It should say "fight those who fight you" like it does in Sura 2. But it's not just this - the whole tone of Chapter 9 is awful and sectarian. It's written in the "vengeful god" style of the old testament.
-
That's because it says in 94 "you shall continue the treaty with them until its expiry". Then "So when the restricted months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them". These statements are right next to each other! Continue the treaty until its expiry, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them.
If it means "only some polytheists" then it is really, really badly written, and thus not divine. It should say "fight those who fight you" like it does in Sura 2. But it's not just this - the whole tone of Chapter 9 is awful and sectarian. It's written in the "vengeful god" style of the old testament.
Please read 913. It puts a different light on 95
913 Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and intended to expel the messenger, especially while they were the ones who attacked you first? Do you fear them? It is God who is more worthy to be feared if you are those who acknowledge.
I can't believe you would reject a whole sura just because it doesn't sound like something Jesus would say. How did you expect the early Muslims to survive when they were being ambushed by the Meccans all the time, risking total destruction??? That is who this verse is referring to...
Maybe there's a better religion for you, where you can all play with bunny rabbits and frolic in the dandelions and daisies all day. You're really not Muslim.
-
Thank you for conclusively proving my point.
That's because it says in 94 "you shall continue the treaty with them until its expiry". Then "So when the restricted months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them". These statements are right next to each other! Continue the treaty until its expiry, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them.
On the one hand you admit it is "you shall continue the treaty with them until its expiry" in 94 but on the other hand admit it is "so when the restricted months have passed" in 95.
So clearly it is not referring to the same thing, and ergo not the same people!Perhaps it is you who is easily confused, and not The Quran.
-
Well no, it's not clear because it's not giving the background context you're talking about. It's a strong argument against Quran Aloners that this passage seems to assume so much knowledge - what is all the fighting about? What are the treaties that have been broken? What kind of treaty violation justifies such extraordinary violence?
I accept that your explanation of the verses makes the most sense. However they're still bad verses. It says "kill the pagans" and leaves you to look around for what 'rules of war' it is supposing. In the modern world that would be bad. In the middle ages it was a terrible thing to do. And the rest of the chapter very much has the vengeful God tone which reminds one of crowds of frenzied people waving around banners saying "Death to those who insult the Prophet". It puts anger first and purpose second.
It also does not state that ALL the people who have not "signed a treaty" are guilty of crimes which justify the waging of war against them. This is the fundamental problem. Other parts of the Quran are so much more specific. It says, in your version, "KILL THE POLYTHEISTS" except those with whom you have a treaty. Is that really your idea of the voice of God?
It goes on to rant about the crimes committed by bad people, but anyone can do that. Anyone can say "Those gypsies/Jews/Muslims/blacks/whites/Asians murdered children, stole land, killed the Prophets/Saints/Dewas", anything you like. It's very good at whipping up emotions but it is not directly relating crime and punishment. It does not justify saying "Kill the gypsies/Jews/Muslims/blacks/whites/Asians, where you find them, except those you have a treaty with, until they give zakat and make salat". That's just whipping up a lynch mob.
Yes other bits of the Quran may specify better the rules of war, and you can say the reader is meant to understand how to cross reference. But the tone of chapter 9 is not a "wait a minute, before you run off to slaughter polythists, turn your texts to sura X ayat Y and remember not to hurt innocent people". The tone of chapter 9 is more like verse 14 - "Fight/kill them, God tortures them with your hands and He shames/disgraces them and He gives you victory/aid on (over) them, and He cures/heals (the) chests (innermosts of) a believing nation."
-
Salam to everyone.
I apologize if I have made a mistake "liquiddharma", but it seems to me that you are not a muslim but a hindu, from you name "liquid" "dharma", as "dharma" in sankrit is the word for "religion", and the verse 95, is usually quoted by hindus who want to bash quran, and muslims, i have no problem with you being a hindu or arguing against quran, but some brothers and sisters may confuse you with being a muslim. If I am mistaken I sincerely apologise. Peace -
Peace Seattletruth,
Thanks for sharing.
Maybe the missing Basmallah doesn't have to do with code 19, considering the ordering of the Quran was relatively arbitrary anyway, just like the names for the suras.
The ordering of the great reading is not arbitrary like the names of the chapters. We can see the same order in all the manuscripts. The order is not chronological or by subject matter but strangely enough in line with other amazing things about the great reading the order does work beautifully.
On the other hand, early manuscripts of the great reading had no chapter titles and the only separators were the Bismallahs. So we know for a fact that chapter titles are manmade additions.
This explanation does hold some weight though, because
it also explains why sura 8 (which is the ONLY sura that is under 100 verses long, up til sura 13) was still placed at front of the Quran.I wouldn't put much weight on the chapter being under 100 verses long. On the other hand, there are two additional observations that you
didn't mention- What is currently chapter 9 clearly continues the same theme of war in chapter 8.
- It also follows the same rhyme as chapter 8.
As for the Hadith that you quoted, like all Hadiths it can only reflect the discussions going on during the 9th centrury Abassid period. So all that this Hadith tells us is that even as late as the 9th century there were discussions on whether chapter 9 is part of chapter 8 and the issue was not settled yet like it is nowadays.
Funny enough, I remember reading Ayman's post in which
he said that there is no reason to assume that sura 9 isn't just a continuation of sura 8. Well, he could be part right.The only way for anyone to believe that chapter 9 is a separate chapter from chapter 8 is to make a silent and false assumption that manmade chapter titles and geometric shapes forming the separators decorating the chapters were inspired by the god. So to me there is absolutely no doubt that chapter 9 is part of chapter 8 and that the great reading has only 113 chapters.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Thanks for sharing.
The ordering of the great reading is not arbitrary like the names of the chapters. We can see the same order in all the manuscripts. The order is not chronological or by subject matter but strangely enough in line with other amazing things about the great reading the order does work beautifully.
That's great but who cares about the manuscripts? How do I know who wrote the manuscripts? What if it was some devil who wanted to cast doubt on the text? The Quran NEVER tells us about masahif. Rather it tells us about dhikr, the memorised. Memorised recitations are vocalised so we wont have ambiguities like you suggested for ar-rum. What you insinuated before is that God gave us a text which can EITHER say 'the romans defeated' or 'the romans WERE defeated'. That's absurd.
The only way for anyone to believe that chapter 9 is a separate chapter from chapter 8 is to make a silent and false assumption that manmade chapter titles and geometric shapes forming the separators decorating the chapters were inspired by the god. So to me there is absolutely no doubt that chapter 9 is part of chapter 8 and that the great reading has only 113 chapters.
Precisely. The basmalah is the indicator of the start of a new chapter. There can be no new chapter without the basmalah.
-
You're right that The Quran does assume some things sometimes, e.g. basic logic from the reader.
As it clearly states, it is for those who think.
Basic logic says that "kill the polytheists" is advocating genocide. Since you haven't bothered to answer my points I presume you agree but don't want to give up on a very convenient way of thinking, that the Quran is without fault even when faults are glaring at your very eyes. As you say, it is for those who think. But thinking works both ways.
Salam to everyone.
I apologize if I have made a mistake "liquiddharma", but it seems to me that you are not a muslim but a hindu, from you name "liquid" "dharma", as "dharma" in sankrit is the word for "religion", and the verse 95, is usually quoted by hindus who want to bash quran, and muslims, i have no problem with you being a hindu or arguing against quran, but some brothers and sisters may confuse you with being a muslim. If I am mistaken I sincerely apologise. PeaceDon't worry, you don't have anything to apologise for, it's your first post so you can't have offended anyone already. I am a muslim who happens to like some sanskrit words. I associate the concept of "dharma" in Buddhism and Hinduism, meaning "the way things are", with the the concept of surrender which is Islam, as in dharma is the flow of the universe surrendering to Allah, the creator.
-
Peace Abdalquran,
That's great but who cares about the manuscripts?
The great reading is constantly described as a "kitab", a written document. So certainly the written word is important and in fact we are clearly told that the god teached by the PEN not by the SOUND (see chapter 96).
How do I know who wrote the manuscripts?
How do you know who transmitted something from memory? If anything memory is much more likely to fail to preserve something than written words. Try it yourself. Memorize something without writing it and then 1 month later try to recall it. Now write down something and 1 month later try to recall it. I guarantee that your recollection will be much more accurate of what you wrote since what you wrote would still be the same exactly the way you wrote it while your memory will not.
What if it was some devil who wanted to cast doubt on the text?
What if some devil changed the way something sounds or even changed words. Everything you say is equally or more applicable to memory.
The Quran NEVER tells us about masahif.
The great reading clearly tells us that it is a written document. In fact, this is emphasized in the very beginning on page 2
22 This is the book no doubt in it guidance for the forethoughtful.
Rather it tells us about dhikr, the memorised.
Dhikr doesn't mean "memorized", it means rememberance. There is a huge difference between memorization and rememberance. Anyone can blindly memorize something without understanding a word of it. In fact, there are many people in the world who memorized the great reading without understanding a word of it. So the god clearly never tells us to memorize it.
On the other hand, rememberance requires understanding and not necessarily memorization. For example, one can write something down so that he remembers it later. So writing is a way to remember. Rememberance comes with understanding that triggers an action on your part. So for example, when you remember that the great reading tells you to speak gently and not scream then you lower the tone of your voice. On the other hand, wrought memorization without understanding doesn't accomplish anything.
Do you think that the many bearded Taliban who memorize by heart the great reading and yet discard it and follow Hadiths, remember anything of it when they are stoning people or killing innocent civilians or throwing acid on the faces of girls who go to school? They memorize but don't remember.
Memorised recitations are vocalised so we wont have ambiguities like you suggested for ar-rum. What you insinuated before is that God gave us a text which can EITHER say 'the romans defeated' or 'the romans WERE defeated'. That's absurd.
By the same token when the text says "obey the messenger" this can either say "obey the Hadiths" or "obey the message".
In fact, just look at the often many vastly different interpretations of most passages in the great reading and you will see that vocalization doesn't eliminate ambiguity as you imagine. People are going to have different interpretations no matter what. Vocalization is an interpretation device. The context is what reduces ambiguity. In the case of the Romans the context and the rest of the great reading describing Trinitarians as unappreciative rejecters clearly indicate that there is no way that those who have faith would be happy for a victory by the Roman Trinitarians.
Context is what matters. So for example, without vocalization case endings, then the following passage from 3528 can be interpreted as "the god fears the knowledgeable from his servants" or "the knowledgeable from the god's servants fear god"
Now even if the vocalization case ending had said "the god fears the knowledgeable from his servants" then this would still be wrong given the context and common sense. So the vocalization case ending is irrelevant and people will use the context anyway to determine the meaning.
This and the fact that the great reading was clearly meant to be recited without vocalization case endings is why EVERYONE, for example, recites the beginning of chapter 55 as follows
Alraham allam alquran
NOT
Alrahmanu allam alqurana
Precisely. The basmalah is the indicator of the start of a new chapter. There can be no new chapter without the basmalah.
Exactly. So it is certainly true that the great reading has 113 chapters.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Exactly. So it is certainly true that the great reading has 113 chapters.
I agree... The bigger question is... When, and why, did people start assuming that Sura 9 is its own sura, not simply a continuation, as Uthman was supposedly lead to believe?
Does anybody have any evidence from old Uthmanic manuscripts if Sura 9 was started on a new page?
-
Peace Abdalquran,
The great reading is constantly described as a "kitab", a written document. So certainly the written word is important and in fact we are clearly told that the god teached by the PEN not by the SOUND (see chapter 96).
The great WHAT is described as a kitab? The great READING? How do you read something Ayman? Do you read stuff without vowels? So yes, the READING is commited to writing. The basis is the reading itself, not the kitab.
It?s interesting you quote 96/4 above but ?forgot? its context. 96/1-5 starts with iqra? or READ/DECLARE. So you read first then you talk about the pen.
How do you know who transmitted something from memory? If anything memory is much more likely to fail to preserve something than written words. Try it yourself. Memorize something without writing it and then 1 month later try to recall it. Now write down something and 1 month later try to recall it. I guarantee that your recollection will be much more accurate of what you wrote since what you wrote would still be the same exactly the way you wrote it while your memory will not.
What if some devil changed the way something sounds or even changed words. Everything you say is equally or more applicable to memory.Agreed but the as in the case of sound memorisation, Allah himself used the term. Dhikr is what Allah chose to protect and this is repeated twice. The word ?masahif? isn?t even mentioned. So the best option is to go for the most prevalent sound memorisation. In the case of the Quran, it unambiguous.
The great reading clearly tells us that it is a written document. In fact, this is emphasized in the very beginning on page 2
22 This is the book no doubt in it guidance for the forethoughtful.
So ?dhalika? came out of nowhere? Or maybe you?re quoting out of context again? Dhalika refers to Alif Laam Meem. The word ?al-kitaab? does not automatically mean al-quran.
Dhikr doesn't mean "memorized", it means rememberance. There is a huge difference between memorization and rememberance. Anyone can blindly memorize something without understanding a word of it. In fact, there are many people in the world who memorized the great reading without understanding a word of it. So the god clearly never tells us to memorize it.
Firstly, lets not bring understanding into it, that?s a red herring. We?re talking about preservation. You believe God preserved his words in a text which can either say ?A? or ?not A? (defeated or was defeated) so you shouldn?t be picking on people who memorised but cannot understand. Even WITH the written text you don?t know which is which.
As for ?dhikr? being ?rememberance?, then you need to answer the following
-
What is the difference between ?dhikr? and ?tadhkirah? (80/11)? Why are both of them translated exactly the same?
-
In 94/4, it says ?wa rafa3na laka dhikrak? , here it means ?we raised for you your eminence?. So it?s not talking about some message or something here.
On the other hand, rememberance requires understanding and not necessarily memorization. For example, one can write something down so that he remembers it later. So writing is a way to remember. Rememberance comes with understanding that triggers an action on your part. So for example, when you remember that the great reading tells you to speak gently and not scream then you lower the tone of your voice. On the other hand, wrought memorization without understanding doesn't accomplish anything.
That may be but I would now have to say, among the Quraniyoon (who ostensibly understand the Quran) how many have memorised it? What if they misunderstood the rememberance? There would be no recitation to go back to. There?s no point in going to the text itself because the text doesn?t know what it?s saying (defeated or was defeated)
Furthermore, Quran says in 41/40-42, in mentions that adh-dhikr cannot have falsehood enter it from any direction. Now if this is rememberance, how do you verify it? Are you going to say that your personal understanding is protected by Allah? How do we know whose understanding is protected?
As you can see, ?dhikr? refers to the words of the text itself. THAT is protected. Your understanding (and for that matter, mine) is not.
Do you think that the many bearded Taliban who memorize by heart the great reading and yet discard it and follow Hadiths, remember anything of it when they are stoning people or killing innocent civilians or throwing acid on the faces of girls who go to school? They memorize but don't remember.
Yeah and if I ask them what does the Quran SAY? If I ask them to recite what they memorise, can they produce an ayah saying ?follow hadith?? Never! In fact, for all their anti-quranic ideologies if any one of them said ?I have an ayah of the quran saying follow hadith? , THAT person would be stoned to death. That is the power of dhikr.
By the same token when the text says "obey the messenger" this can either say "obey the Hadiths" or "obey the message".
Again, the QURAN can never SAY ?obey hadith?. It can only say ?obey the messenger?. How people interpret is another matter.
In fact, just look at the often many vastly different interpretations of most passages in the great reading and you will see that vocalization doesn't eliminate ambiguity as you imagine. People are going to have different interpretations no matter what. Vocalization is an interpretation device. The context is what reduces ambiguity. In the case of the Romans the context and the rest of the great reading describing Trinitarians as unappreciative rejecters clearly indicate that there is no way that those who have faith would be happy for a victory by the Roman Trinitarians.
I?m sorry but that is nonsense for the following reasons
-
The text itself is al-furqan. If al-furqan doesn?t know what its saying, that doesn?t allow it to be al-furqan.
-
Interpretational differences arise not because of the text but because of the readers. That?s why your ?rememberance? interpretation makes no sense at all unless you?re claiming you?re the sole owner of the right interpretation. Your understanding is not protected, dhikr is.
-
If for you , the Quran required some historical tale in order to be clarified, then you?re no better than the sunnis. The Quran is a complete mystery unless some historian elucidates it. And by the way, you should know that historians CONSTANTLY change their views.
Context is what matters. So for example, without vocalization case endings, then the following passage from 3528 can be interpreted as "the god fears the knowledgeable from his servants" or "the knowledgeable from the god's servants fear god"
Now even if the vocalization case ending had said "the god fears the knowledgeable from his servants" then this would still be wrong given the context and common sense. So the vocalization case ending is irrelevant and people will use the context anyway to determine the meaning.
How do you know that? What if the word ?yakhshaa? didn?t mean fear? In fact, there?s already a word which alludes to fear which is khawf. According to the sunnis, the word ?khushu? refers to being focussed on something. Maybe God focusses on the the knowledgeable from his servants?
For me, there is no problem of course because the dhikr is clear.
And please lets not talk about ?common sense?, you want us to believe that God sent down ?ayatun bayyinat? which requires some roman historians to determine what it SAYS. Some ?ayatun bayyinat?!
This and the fact that the great reading was clearly meant to be recited without vocalization case endings is why EVERYONE, for example, recites the beginning of chapter 55 as follows
Alraham allam alquran
NOT
Alrahmanu allam alqurana
I have never in my life met anyone who recites 55/1-2 as ?ar-raham allama al-quran?. This passage is a favourite of the sunnis and they always recite it as ?ar-rahmaan?.
-
-
Thanks for the vague and non-evidenced based rebuttal.
bravo
-
Thankyou for the non-reply. welcome
-
Peace Abdalquran,
The great WHAT is described as a kitab? The great READING? How do you read something Ayman?
You read it from a written document (?kitab?).
Do you read stuff without vowels?
Yes, I sure do. Have you ever read Arabic? Have you ever read an Arabic newspaper? In fact, not just newspapers but all Arabic literature is written without vowels. Yet people are able to routinely read them and understand them. I don?t know about you but I am perfectly able to read an Arabic newspaper with no vowels without having to memorize it!
So yes, the READING is commited to writing. The basis is the reading itself, not the kitab.
It?s interesting you quote 96/4 above but ?forgot? its context. 96/1-5 starts with iqra? or READ/DECLARE. So you read first then you talk about the pen.Read from what? Reading is always from a written document. The reference to teaching by the PEN further confirms this. So reading and book are interrelated.
Agreed but the as in the case of sound memorisation, Allah himself used the term. Dhikr is what Allah chose to protect and this is repeated twice. The word ?masahif? isn?t even mentioned. So the best option is to go for the most prevalent sound memorisation. In the case of the Quran, it unambiguous.
I didn't say anything about 'masahif'. You are the one who keeps bringing it up. So don't keep bringing up a strawman and then argue against your own words. I clearly said "kitab" (book/written document) not ?masahif?, whatever that means.
The word "dhikr" means reminder and not memorization. As such, the written words can serve as a reminder. I already explained the difference between memorization and remembrance and yet you insist on using the wrong illogical word of "memorization". Again, anyone can memorize sounds without understanding anything of them. What you are saying implies that two parrots which memorize the sounds of a passage of the great reading without understanding and keep parroting it to one another would be doing ?dhikr?.
Do you really think that when the god tells us that the purpose of ?salat? is his ?dhikr? this means memorization?! So according to you memorizing the word ?allah? and repeating it over and over again is what is meant by ?dhikr? of the god! I am surprised that anyone who honors the great reading would espouse such ridiculous notion that ?dhikr? means memorization. This ridiculous notion comes from illogical Sunni baggage and this is why the Taliban memorize like a parrot the great reading without understanding.
So ?dhalika? came out of nowhere? Or maybe you?re quoting out of context again? Dhalika refers to Alif Laam Meem. The word ?al-kitaab? does not automatically mean al-quran.
No "this"/dhalik doesn't refer to the Alm. It refers to the book.
The relationship between the reading and the book is pretty simple and if it wasn?t for preconceived irrational Sunni ideas then no one would be having a hard time understanding such basic concepts. Simply, the "al-kitab" is the written document out of which we read the great reading "quran". In order for the reading "al-quran" to happen there must be a book/"al-kitab" to read out from. This is simple and logical. I hope that you are not one of those foolish people who believe in Mohamed Shahroor's nonsensical theory about the reading and the book being different parts of revelation.
Firstly, lets not bring understanding into it, that?s a red herring. We?re talking about preservation. You believe God preserved his words in a text which can either say ?A? or ?not A? (defeated or was defeated) so you shouldn?t be picking on people who memorised but cannot understand. Even WITH the written text you don?t know which is which.
It is not a red herring. It is what ?dhikr? is all about. You want to throw understanding out of the window and imply that the purpose of ?salat? is memorization! When you remember and understand then this results in a positive change in behavior.
As for ?dhikr? being ?rememberance?, then you need to answer the following
- What is the difference between ?dhikr? and ?tadhkirah? (80/11)? Why are both of them translated exactly the same?
It is the same relation between all words of the forms ?fi3l? (doing) and ?taf3ilah? (make happen). They are roughly the same but ?tadhkirah? has more of the meaning of making remembrance happen.
- In 94/4, it says ?wa rafa3na laka dhikrak? , here it means ?we raised for you your eminence?. So it?s not talking about some message or something here.
It doesn?t mean ?eminence?. Had you read the passages after 8011 then you would have got your answer. Please read 8011-16 and you will see that it is using the same wording about the ?dhikr? in RAISED written documents
That may be but I would now have to say, among the Quraniyoon (who ostensibly understand the Quran) how many have memorised it?
What does it matter? Memorizing a book without understanding and reminding you to act appropriately is useless.
What if they misunderstood the rememberance?
This doesn?t mean that the remembrance is not preserved. Naturally, the remembrance is only preserved for those who are in the right frame of mind to remember. If you are not trying to remember then the remembrance doesn?t matter.
There would be no recitation to go back to. There?s no point in going to the text itself because the text doesn?t know what it?s saying (defeated or was defeated)
Now you are changing from memorization to recitation. Recitation is just like reading except it is reading out loud.
The text is just ink and paper and it doesn?t know anything. It takes a human to understand and remember the message. It is a message to humans.
Furthermore, Quran says in 41/40-42, in mentions that adh-dhikr cannot have falsehood enter it from any direction. Now if this is rememberance, how do you verify it? Are you going to say that your personal understanding is protected by Allah? How do we know whose understanding is protected?
I guarantee that as anyone of us reads the great reading with less preconceptions and ponder more on its signs, he or she will improve their understanding and will remember better. So the remembrance is indeed preserved. Thus, even with all the sectarian corruptions and lies, the truth in the great reading still shines through and one is able to improve his understanding of it. The Hadiths, Code 19, and all such lies actually provide a contrast of truth against falsehood and inadvertently contribute to proving that the reminder in the great reading is preserved.
As you can see, ?dhikr? refers to the words of the text itself. THAT is protected. Your understanding (and for that matter, mine) is not.
No. It refers to the remembrance that the text evokes. Thus, even if someone like Khalifa takes out 9128-129 and inserts letters and appendices, with the proper mindset that allows you to remember you would filter all the falsehood out. In fact, when you remember then you will see that the highly inconsistent falsehood stands in stark contrast to the consistent truth of the reminder.
Yeah and if I ask them what does the Quran SAY? If I ask them to recite what they memorise, can they produce an ayah saying ?follow hadith?? Never! In fact, for all their anti-quranic ideologies if any one of them said ?I have an ayah of the quran saying follow hadith? , THAT person would be stoned to death. That is the power of dhikr.
So is that what you think? That the threat of being ?stoned to death? is what preserves the remembrance!
No, the power of ?dhikr? is if that person remembers the god then he will realize his mistake and repent and follow the straight path. The power of ?dhikr? requires that the person understands and remembers. The fact that this Taliban already 100% memorized the great reading but this had no effect on his behavior or following of the straight path tells us for certain that ?memorization? is not ?dhikr?.
Again, the QURAN can never SAY ?obey hadith?. It can only say ?obey the messenger?. How people interpret is another matter.
But it is not another matter. The ?dhikr? is preserved only for people who try to remember. If you don?t try to remember then there is no ?dhikr? to begin with to preserve or not preserve.
I?m sorry but that is nonsense for the following reasons
- The text itself is al-furqan. If al-furqan doesn?t know what its saying, that doesn?t allow it to be al-furqan.
The text doesn?t know anything since it is just ink and paper. For any message to be effective you need a sender, a text or a medium and a receiver. It is only when those three components work together in harmony then the receiver knows what the sender is saying. So in the case of the Taliban guy who memorized the sounds but doesn?t try to understand and remember, the great reading doesn?t serve as ?al-furqan?. On the other hand, for the guy who tries to remember, the great reading indeed serves as ?al-furqan?.
- Interpretational differences arise not because of the text but because of the readers. That?s why your ?rememberance? interpretation makes no sense at all unless you?re claiming you?re the sole owner of the right interpretation. Your understanding is not protected, dhikr is.
?Dhikr? is not an end. It is a means. As such the ?dhikr? is indeed protected as a means to improve our understanding and guide our direction towards the straight path to the truth.
So you can never say, for example, I achieved perfect ?dhikr? and now let me stop ?dhikr?. If you stop then you risk getting lost no matter what you achieved beforehand. On the other hand, people can perfectly memorize the great reading and not be an inch closer to the straight path.
- If for you , the Quran required some historical tale in order to be clarified, then you?re no better than the sunnis. The Quran is a complete mystery unless some historian elucidates it. And by the way, you should know that historians CONSTANTLY change their views.
Who said anything about history? This is reality, not history. The Romans are still Trinitarians to this day and you can go to Rome and verify it for yourself. Is it a coincidence that just after speaking about the Romans, we are told to walk the land and examine the traces left by those before us (see 309)?
Well, if you examine the traces left by the Roman Empire then you will see that from the time of the Nicene until now they have been Trinitarians.
Why would the believers be happy when Trinitarians win given that they are condemned in the great reading as unappreciative rejecters? Please explain.
On the other hand, the event of the believers becoming happy when the Romans win is only explained by some false sectarian history about two battles the Romans had with the Persians and the tribe of Mohammed.
How do you know that? What if the word ?yakhshaa? didn?t mean fear? In fact, there?s already a word which alludes to fear which is khawf. According to the sunnis, the word ?khushu? refers to being focussed on something. Maybe God focusses on the the knowledgeable from his servants?
For me, there is no problem of course because the dhikr is clear.
And please lets not talk about ?common sense?, you want us to believe that God sent down ?ayatun bayyinat? which requires some roman historians to determine what it SAYS. Some ?ayatun bayyinat?!Please show me where I said that it requires some Roman historians? The believers can?t be happy when unappreciative rejecters win, no matter what anyone says. Them being happy when unappreciative rejecters win would go against everything we know from ?al-furqan?.
I have never in my life met anyone who recites 55/1-2 as ?ar-raham allama al-quran?. This passage is a favourite of the sunnis and they always recite it as ?ar-rahmaan?.
Of course, ?ar-raham? is a typo but it inadvertently made you admit what everyone who recites the great reading knows. As you said, it is recited as ?ar-rahmaan? not as ?ar-rahmaanu?. So despite everything you said, even you admit that everyone ignores the vocalization short vowel ?u? at the end of the word on top of the letter Nun.
Peace,
Ayman
