One Word - One Definition?
-
Peace Natu,
I agree with you that the Quran has one message and that we should be able to agree on the concepts and ideas of the Quran.
But I disagree with your one word idea. I don't know much arabic but I think that the meaning of words are sometimes decided by the context in which the words are used, I don't know if you can deal with this using Excel. Also I don't think that a word for word translation will help show corruption because a word for word translation will not be an accurate meaning and will be confusing to an English reader! I've seen a few word for word translations of controversial verses and they don't help or support the translators reason for using a word-for-word translation!
The music with Quran, cool idea! I want to hear a good beat because you've got the best lyrics from the best MC! We might need to get Eminem or Dr Dre on the line!
I agree Yuksel.org rocks! I also think that free-minds.org and 19.org rock! God will reward the ones who race towards rightousness.
Nural
-
My man Nural, get involved with Wakas and his project or root words, he responded to my post on one word-one definition and invited me to contribute some research. Seems like an excellent idea. BTW, even if one word one meaning isn't the right way to go about things, looking at the root words will definitely get us a clearer view, ask Wakas.
Peace.
Natu on the line. -
Dear Natu,
Below is the response to Edip Yuksel's criticism of Aidid Safar's book that I picked up from [email protected] sometime ago. I agree with you that the precision and the perfection of the Quran, in one way, is represented by one word one meaning, lest the Quran is full of contradictions, and can be understood in anyway one like it to be understood, not unlike the sunni's hadithic attempts to interprete it.
A.
++
Edip Yuksel insists on serving Stone Idol carved by the Arabs
From Farukhos@
Date Saturday, July 19, 2003 131 PM
Subject Answering Edip Yuksel's Critics
Salamun Alaikum everyone.
The intelligent thing to do when confronted with anything new would be to study it carefully and then make up our minds if it is true or false. For example when the 19 theory was first put out, we studied it and gave it the due respect. But only upon further study did we realize that it was just a hoax.
A new book has come out. Its called "The Arab Conspiracies Against Islam". Edip Yuksel, a long time member of the Rashad Khalifa outfit and a believer of many things have made rather negative and also contradictory comments about this book. His comments are also premature and without much thought.
Its worth seeing his reply and provide some rebuttal.
Edip Yuksel starts his reply by titling it as follows
"Conspiracy Against Conspiracies or Words in the Wonderland" by Edip Yuksel. Edip's response is marked after three arrows in Italic.
Today, I had the chance to browse part of the 200 plus page "article" mailed to me by Danish. The author of The Arab Conspiracies Against Islam, Aidid Safar, expresses his position with an eloquent and powerful argument. I agree with some of his arguments and disagree with the most. I find some of his arguments being inconsequential word choice, such as the meaning of DYN being way of life rather than religion, which I think, ultimately means the same thing.>>>
In almost the same breath Edip describes the Article with these words eloquent, powerful, agreeable, disagreeable, inconsequential and "means the same thing". These are contradictory terms reflecting an undecided yet hasty thought process.
"Deen" is not and cannot be religion. Religion is pagan and is invariably tied to ritualistic behaviour especially worship rituals that must be repetitive. That is religion.
The Cambridge Dictionary says about religion
(Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary) religion noun
1 the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship the Christian religion
2 INFORMAL an activity which someone is extremely enthusiastic about and does regularly Football is a religion for these people.
This description is accurate. Religion is also tied to the belief in "spooks" which comes disguised as spirituality. For example traditionally angels and the devil are "believed" to be part of the spiritual world. All this has gone into defining religion, across all "religions" in the world.
Deen on the other hand cannot be worship of a God or gods, and it is not a ritualistic repetitive Process of worshipping anything. Deen is a way of life, an orderly way of doing things. The Cambridge Dictionary says an "order" can also be a system.
From Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary) order (SYSTEM) noun
For example when God says, Maliki yaum-mid-deen it just cannot mean Master of the Day of Religion". That is ridiculous. It can only mean, "Master of the day of Order", an understanding correctly expressed by Mr Pervez and also Syed Abdul Wadud. That is the day when everything between the heavens and the earth (fii samaa waa ti wa maa fil ardh) will come to Him, and submit to Him, willingly or unwillingly. Everything will fall into line. This includes the stars and the mountains.
Everything will ultimately follow the order that is set by God. Hence God is the Master (Malik) of setting things in order or "Deen". And when applied to the actions required to be performed in our daily life, it means the way we should conduct our lives, an ORDERLY way of doing things right. A way of life.
Deen is indeed a way of life while religion does not mean the same thing.
Aidid Safar has explained clearly in his book that the word shiaan (shiah) is the correct word for "ritual and worship" aka religion. Aidid has quoted 3779-87, which says clearly that the people of Abraham (who were serving stone idols) were in a shiiaatihi or religion. Many translators including Rashad say shiaatihi means sect. This is incorrect. The people around Abraham were ritually "serving" idols. That was their religion or shiaan. There is no indication in the Quran that they were broken up into sects (meaning sects within a larger religion).
However, his argument aiming to eliminate Salaat and Hajj rituals are radical, yet fragile and unsupported. His arguments against rituals occasionally appear strong when they are compared to the traditional corrupt interpretation of some verses. In other words, the strength of his position mostly relies on the weakness of mushrik Sunni and Shiite (mis) translation of Quranic verses.>>>
Here again Edip contradicts himself. Edip himself beliefs in 5 times (or is it 3 times) a day ritual prayer (wrongly understood as salat) and Edip himself believes in performing the haj rituals. How then is Edip different from the "weakness of mushrik Sunni and Shiite (mis)translation of Quranic verses" which uphold the same beliefs ?
The mushriks believe in salat as prayer and performing the pilgrimage ritual. Edip believes in the same thing. Is it Edips contentions that when the mushriks pray ritually (3 or 5 times a day) they are mistranslating but when he prays 3 or 5 times a day it is not mistranslating? When the mushriks perform a pilgrimage to a stone building, it is a mistranslation but when he does the same pilgrimage (perhaps with a different set of movements) then it is not mistranslating?
On the contrary the facts put forward by Aidid Safar are a complete and total departure from the commonality of BOTH Edip Yuksel and the mushriks. Aidid Safar has proven completely that there is no ritual prayer and no ritual pilgrimage. Therefore as a point of accuracy Aidid Safar is not influenced positively or negatively by the commonality between Edip Yuksel and the "mushrik mistranslations".
Currently, I do not have time nor desire to evaluate all of his arguments, since it might take a similar book to demonstrate the numerous errors, speculations, and unjustified inferences.>>>
Dear Sir, no one asked you to evaluate anything. But it would be good for your own well being if you try harder to analyse Aidid Safar.
But, I would like to briefly note the following>>>
Aidid asserts that SaLLY means not prayer, but commitment. There is some truth in this statement.>>>
Pray tell what is the meaning of "some truth"? Truth is truth. There cannot be some truth or half a truth. It is either true or not true. But again as a point of accuracy, Aidid Safar has stated that there is NO one English word to capture the full meaning of salat. Hence Aidid has said that the meaning of salat would include commitment, obligations, ties, links, bonds, undertaking responsibilities etc.
Aidid has also provided the linguistic examples of "sabiq and musalli" where a horse that comes in a close second is a musalli. Other examples given are salat is the hinge on the door. One more is salat is the vertebrae that links an animals tail to its backbone. All this mentioned in Aidids book. The meaning portrayed is clearly that salat is a word that ties, binds, holds, commits, obliges one thing to another.
And Aidid also states clearly that nowhere in the Quran are humans required to salat to God. The closest is "fa solli li robbika" which means "therefore (uphold) your commitments FOR God". There is never a verse in the Quran, which says, "you shall Salat TO God".
The word SaLLY, when it is not used together with the verb IQaMa, usually means support and encouragement.>>>
This is an exercise in uncertainty. What is meant by "usually means"? Is there a "not usually" also, when it could mean something else? Then do we go about separating the usually occurrences from the not usually occurrences?
We are reminded of the "fat on the back" versus the "fat on the stomach/front". Even a veterinary surgeon would not know where the "fat on the back" ends and the "fat on the stomach" begins.
What about "idzaa qum tum ila-s-solaati" in 56? How or why would one "stand" or "uphold" TOWARDS (ilaa) prayer? Or is it "stand TOWARDS support or encouragement"? Please do not forget the ila. It is NOT an inconsequential word.
For instance, I translated the verse 7443 in my Turkish translation, Mesaj "They will say We did not support". Similarly I translated the verse 7531 in Mesaj "He neither accepted the truth, nor he supported." I also translated the word Salla to mean support in verses 2157; 999,103; and 3343,56. Furthermore, I agree with Aidid that in verse 5106 the word Salla may not mean the salaat ritual.>>>
That is quite a lot of agreement, seven verses in all. Yet you say, "his argument aiming to eliminate Salaat and Hajj rituals are radical, yet fragile and unsupported." Well at least for seven verses Aidid Safar is supported by Edip Yuksels translation too (or closes to it anyway).
However, when the word Salat is used with verb IQaMa it refers to a timely ritual preceded by ablution. His arguments on those verses are not convincing.>>>
Dear Sir, and the cow jumped over the moon. Where in the Quran does it say that "when the word Salat is used with verb IQaMa it refers to a timely ritual preceded by ablution"? Please show us what is the word in the Quran for ablution? This is a new discovery for me and please inform me so that I too may know the correct word in the Quran for ablution.
Until today I am searching for the word wuduk in the Quran which the mushrik mistranslators say is ablution but I still cannot find this elusive word. Please tell us what is the word in the Quran for ablution?
In page 19 he provides a list of words claiming that their meanings have been distorted. Though I agree with him partially, for instance that the meaning of SaLLY has been distorted in verses I listed above, and the meaning of the word MaQaM (in re Abraham) is mistranslated as footprint; however he goes extreme in his fight against the conspiracy theory and reaches to bizarre conclusions.>>>
The Quran states clearly that the Arabs conspired against the Prophet and Rasul. They took to secret counsel. They whispered among themselves. They schemed against the Messenger. All this is in the Quran. They plotted, planned, and schemed against the messenger. They conspired against the Messenger.
For instance, Aidid want us stop "worshiping God" and start "serving God" on the basis that God does not need our worship. But, he ignores the validity of the same question for serving God. Surely, God does not need our service either. When a wrong question is asked you can be sure that the answer will also be wrong. We worship God not because God needs our worship, but because we need it.>>>
This is twisting the words around. God does not need anything from us. And Aidid Safar is quite clear about this too. Never in the book does Aidid say that God needs our "service". But it is we who need to serve God. It is we who must uphold His commandments. In the Quran the human being is obliged to aqeemud deen or "establish the way" prescribed by Him.
In 6162 the human being is commanded "Say, my commitments, my actions, my life and death are for God, the Lord of the Universe".
God does not need our salat, our actions, our life and death but yet all these are FOR God. Again please note that we do not serve up on a platter our life and death TO God. They are always FOR God (LILL-LAAH). We never serve up our lives and deaths TO God. Similarly we never perform a salat TO God. Our salat is always FOR God.
If you say TO God, then you need rituals like "praying" 5 times or 3 times a day TO God. Or doing "worship" to God exactly like how the mushriks pray TO their deities.
Aidid asserts that the word el-BaYT (singular form) which has been traditionally translated as THE HOUSE, usually referring to the public building raised by Abraham and his children in Mecca, should be translated as SYSTEM. He claims that HaJJ, the annual PILGRIM to the House in Mecca, should be understood as CHALLENGE OR DISCOURSE. He is suggesting new meanings to old words. I would welcome such a radical move if he had provided a substantial Quranic and logical reason to do so.>>>
You have failed to comment on the verses where Aidid has indeed explained hajj and bayt. It would have been better to analyse the verses quoted. Try this, in 2226 the Quran says Abraham was given a place in God's 'Bayta'. Are you saying Abraham was sharing the "house" with God?
Where did you get the idea God' is staying in Mecca? Are you suggesting God's house is a symbol similar to those in the temples?
The traditional meanings of the word BaYT and HaJJ explain all the verses where they occur without forcing our imagination, but the so-called "fundamental meanings" suggested by Aidid are usually beyond my imagination.>>>
Excuse me sir, just earlier you said the traditional meanings would be those put out by the sunni and shiah mushrikins. Now you are saying that the traditional meanings explains everything. You cannot call them mushrikin one minute and then agree with their explanation another minute.
Let me explain 2127 is about raising the foundation of the House. Like Aidid, I can imagine this to be about laying the foundation of a new system.>>>
I am unsure here. You agree this Bayti here is system? You seem to know Arabic well but why do you ignore the prefix "Minal" before the word "Bayti" in this verse? Abraham did not raise the foundation "OF" the system, but he raised the foundation "From" the system. The system was already there!
2158 is about visiting the House. I cannot imagine this to be about "challenging or discourse to Gods system" (al-BaYT in the context of Hajj does not carry a negative connotation, but is associated to Abraham and God in the Quran.>>>
There is no such thing as the word "visiting" in this verse. The mushrikin mistranslators have said "visiting". Which one are you following?
595 asks us making sure that offerings reach the KABa.>>>
There is no word for offerings. Please research hadyan carefully. Aidid Safar has dealt with this word quite well. This is shooting from the hip without checking.
I cannot imagine it to be about "to determine the ankles" or "guides maturity the ankle" meaning "they must determine the maturity of the deer on its ankles" as suggested by the author. I do not even understand what the author means by these words.>>>
That is your loss. This is getting to be boring. Here is a little hint. There is a word baliigha there. Please pay close attention to the word baliigha which means maturity. Please note that there is no hajj in this verse. I hope your Turkish translation has not slipped in a hajj in this verse. Rashad certainly has. That is called creating new words out of thin air.
There is no pilgrimage or even any hajj here. If you believe this verse talk about pilgrimage, please tell us what is the meaning of baliigha you have used in your Turkish translation? And how does Rashad handle the word baliigha? Simple. He lets the earth swallow it up. The word baliigha has disappeared from Rashads translation of 595. Very convenient.
What does your Turkish translation say? I hope you dont say "It is a mature Kaabah" or something like that!!
597 tells us that God has consecrated the Kabah, the sacred House as a safety for people. But, Aidid wants us to understand it as "God has set the ankles (kabata) the sanctioned in the system (baytil-harami) to be upheld for mankind". If the word "ridiculous" or "nonsense" has a reference in human language and in real life, then Aidids translation of this phrase is one of them.>>>
597 did not say "the ka'bah, the sacred House as a safety for people". This is Edip's conspiracy to twist the verse like the rest of the Arabs. Why don't you read the verse properly? It says, "Ja-'alal-lahhul-ka'bataal-baytal-harama-qiyaman-linnas". Where does it says 'safety for the people? Is the word qiyaman-lin-nas meaning "safety for the people" to you?
In 52, wildlife conservation is a decree from God. Please read it together with 595 and 597 to see the link. Determining the maturity of the animal which someone deliberately killed after agreeing that the animal is prohibited (hurumun) for hunting (soidi), by looking at its standing on "its ankles", is a guidance from God to safeguard animal conservation. This is part of the harmony in the sanctioned system 'Baytal-harama", a decree prescribed by God mentioned in 52 and punishing illegal hunting in 595. In 597 it simply says it was set by God to be upheld for mankind (qiyaman-lin-nas). Systematic hunting is imposed "For" the benefit of people as a test to the hunters. Please read 594-98.
But now please try this. If you think bayt is house, then the people are only guaranteed safety if they squeeze inside (dakhalahu) this house (397). So let the entire world become believers, go on "pilgrimage" to the "house" and then squeeze inside it to get safety. This is like people wanting to get into Noahs "house" to be forgiven. Noahs physical house becomes a temple of forgiveness.
835 tells us that the prayer of the mushriks by the House was merely hypocrisy (muka) and repulsion from truth (tasdiya). But Aidid Safar wants us to understand it as "their commitment to the system," The author does not care about INDA (nearby) or other propositions. He ignores or distorts their meaning to fit his theory.>>>
"Indal bayti" means "by" the system not "Near" the system. The word 'inda' appears all over the Quran and my dear Edip Yuksel, remove your ego. All I can see, perhaps others too, Aidid Safar's work is a checkmate. The game is over for everybody. Every one of us has to repent and ask forgiveness from our Lord for associating Him with a stone house. Don't waste your time defending the rock idols carved by the hands of the Arabs.
Let me show you one example. Allah says Inaladeena indalaahil Islam which means the only deen "by" God (indallaah) is Islam. Also "indatal shuhuri 'idatal-lah" which means "the counts of months "by" Allah is twelve. Perhaps you want everybody to believe "The Only deen "Nearby" Allah is Islam" or "The counts of months "nearby" Allah is twelve. I dont get your point. Where did you get the idea the word INDA means 'nearby'?
1793 informs us about the demands of disbelievers from Muhammad, including his having a luxurious/adorned house (mansion). Though Aidid does not translate this verse, according to his "fundamental meaning" we should understand that mushriks expected Muhammad have a luxurious (zukhruf) system! Perhaps, Aidid will change the meaning of ZUKHRUF too, since he does not need much justification as long as it serves his pre-conceived conclusions.>>>
"baytin MIN zukhruufin" means "system made FROM glitter / perfection / beauty". In 1793 the rejectors say they will not believe even if the Prophet does all sorts of things, like causing a spring to gush forth, bring gardens, the angels or even God Himself. Even if the Prophet brings a system made from perfection (baytin min zukhruufin), climbs to the sky, or brings a book down from the sky, they will still not believe.
2812 tells the story of Moses being returned to his home/family and quotes his sister saying "May I show you a people of a HOUSE (family/home) that can raise him and take care of him for you?" >>>
The sister of Moses said, "adullukum alaa ahli baitin yakfuluunahuu lakum wahum lahuu naasihuun" which means let me indicate to you upon members of a "system" who will take care of him for you, and they will be good for him". Obviously she was promising them a good set of babysitters. That is all. There is no rocket science here.
According to Aidid this is an Arab conspiracy. The "fundamental meaning" suggested by Aidid, Moses sister is talking about a people of a SYSTEM. In Aidids imagination, all the individual BAYTs (house/building) are destroyed to build a SYSTEM with no rituals. BYUT (Houses), on the other hand, are spared. They are houses!>>>
I believe Aidid has given sufficient examples where buyut differs from bayta and bayat.
In Aidids fundamentally non-Arabic semantic world, Pharaohs wife prayed not for a place in paradise/ garden (jannah) but a system in paradise (6611).>>>
So according to you Pharaohs wife asking "robbi ibni lii indaka baytan fil jannati" would mean "Lord build for me a house beside You in the Garden". Pharaoh's wife was perhaps thinking that the Lord also lives in the Garden. And she would like her house in the Garden to be built right beside the Lord. Imagine how lucky Pharaoh's wife is going to be (In 6611 God already made her an exemplary mathalan - woman!! ). God is going to be her neighbour! They will play tennis together.
I hope Edip realizes how ridiculous this sounds if a woman who is quoted BY GOD Himself as an example for us (mathalan) asks that God become her neighbour in Paradise!! There is no evidence in the Quran that God even lives in Paradise or that God can even live in the Garden or that we will even have houses in Paradise. Why would we need houses in Paradise when God says we will suffer no heat, cold or hunger in Paradise?
"Robbi ibni lii indaka baytan fil jannati" means Lord make / favour ("ibnii") for me by Your side a system in the Garden She is merely asking that God favour her with a good position in the Garden by His reckoning. That is all. No rocket science needed again. Unless of course you insist that God lives in a Garden and that you can be His next door neighbour. Imagine getting up in the morning (well if you have a house you must sleep at night and get up in the morning right?) and chatting with God your neighbour over the fence?? That is cool.
I suppose, Aidid has all the skills to change the meaning of every word in the Quran, including the word Jannah.>>>
Aidid has lots of common sense.
The house of the lady transforms to the ladys system dwelled by Joseph (1223),>>>
The lady in 1223 had certain "jahil" habits or habits from the days of ignorance, similar to what is stated in the Quran as the ignorance of the "ahlul bayt" in 3333-34. Aidid has quoted this in the book. In 3333 Allah tells the wives of the prophet to give up their jahiliyah or ignorant characters or habits. Then in the next verse He says "Innama yuriidullaahu liyuzhiba ankumu rijsa ahlal bayti wayuthahhiraakum tathiiran" which means "Surely Allah wants to take out / cleanse you of the dirt / filth of the ahlul bayt (people of the system).
God merely wants to cleanse the prophets wives of their old ignorant or jahiliyah habits, which they had when they were part of the jahiliyah system or bayt.
In 1223 the lady who seduced Yusof was also part of this type of jahiliyah system where rich ladies seduced handsome young men to entertain their desires. How do we know this? Please see 1231-33. In 1231 the lady commanded Yusof to "go out" to the women. This was not to go out and serve them tea. This was to do something else. They all said, "Yusof is a handsome angel". Then in 1232 the lady commands Yusof to "perform" something (in front of all the women). Yusof refuses. What was this performance required of Yusof. The next verse says
Yusof complained to God "My Lord, the prison is a better place than what they invite me to do. Unless you divert their evil from me, I may desire them and I will be from the the JAHIL (minal jaahiliin)" SURAH 1233.
This was the system or bayt the women were indulged in. Similar to the jahiliyah system of the ahlul bayt in 3333-34.
and Gods system needs to be cleaned by people (2125; 2226).>>>
Gods system is perfect. Gods command about the solaah is also perfect. But just like upholding the solaah, it is up to the human to cleanse or maintain in good order the system designed for us by God. God has created a perfect earth but it is up to us NOT to corrupt the earth.
Since Edip believes "bayta' is a house, please tell us if Ibrahim was sharing the house with God in 2226?
The Quran too is perfect. We have to uphold the Quran and not give lies to it.
Again, according to Aidids dictionary, God caused the Prophet get out of his system with the truth>>>
Excuse me, I suppose your understanding is that "God took you out of your house with the Truth" kamaa akhrajaka rabbuka min baytika bil haqq.
Question Why would God want to take the Messenger out of the house? Is there something bad in the house? And why does God need to use the truth to get him out of his house? Was there some falsehood inside the house or was the Messenger using some falsehood as an excuse NOT to come out of his house to do something God wanted him to do? Perhaps Edip can answer this question.
From 81 till 86 talks about believers who have come to believe God and obey the Rasul. They are those upon whom is forgiveness and they have earned a high station by their Lord (84). And in 85 that is also how God took out (kamaa akhrajaka) the Messenger from his own system with the truth and made him believes and obeys God. It was a migration from an old bayt or system to a new one.
In short, in Aidids Wonderland, place of worships (masaajid) transforms to submissions (yes, plural!); timely prayers transform to timely commitments; "worshiping God" is rejected and replaced by "serving God"; the Sacred House Kaba vanishes into "the ankles the sanctioned in the system" (the ankles are literally the ankles of deer and goats!); verbs and proverbs are ignored whenever they do not conspire with Aidid against Arab Conspiracies; nouns and verbs act like transsexuals in a "fundamental" way where the meanings are freshly assigned by Aidid to justify his bizarre theories. This is another abuse and exploitation of the Quran Alone message. Aidid is not the first nor will be the last brave warrior who will use the powerful message of the Quran Alone against tradition to justify esoteric and absurd claims. In an overpopulated world any conspiracy theory and any absurd idea will find some followers. We should let the Arab conspirators and non-Arab counter-conspirators deal with each other. As long as there are wind mills there will be Don Quixotes and their admirers. Peace for all of them! Thank God, I do not own any wind mill.>>>
I believe Edip Yuksel is the owner of a large windmill called the Theory of the 19. There certainly is a lot of wind in that mill. If you believe that solat is prayer, please let us have some basic info. For example, what is the literal meaning of solat in your understanding?
Every arab word must have some meaning. So what is solat? If you say solat is "prayer" please show us.
- Who do you pray to, because God just forgot to mention that you should solat TO Him.
Please show just one verse from the Quran.
- What do you do in this solat prayer? What would you say? Why would you do or say what you do and say? Did the Quran tell you to face the stone house in Mecca when your pray?
Please show just one verse from the Quran.
If you believe the Kaaba is Gods house, and that you must go to this Kaaba, then what do you do once you get there? Please explain from the Quran because if true then we must all do it too. Such information if presented intelligently and properly will be of great benefit to mankind. Who would want to miss out on a pilgrimage to the desert to walk around a cubical piece of stone.
Farook Hossein
Footnote Edip Yuksel is the successor of the late Rashad Khalifa the founder of the Code 19 sect. Rashad's claim of the miraculous numerical code was proven to be a hoax.
-
Salaamun alaikum Ali Imran,
"Deen" is not and cannot be religion. Religion is pagan and is invariably tied to ritualistic behaviour especially worship rituals that must be repetitive. That is religion.
You then went on use Cambridge Dictionary to get a definition. The problem is, Cambridge Dictionary isn't our criteria. Our criteria is al-qur'aan. What does al-qur'aan say about 'deen' and 'religion' ? Nothing. There's no such contrast in al-qur'aan itself.
Deen on the other hand cannot be worship of a God or gods, and it is not a ritualistic repetitive Process of worshipping anything. Deen is a way of life, an orderly way of doing things. The Cambridge Dictionary says an "order" can also be a system.
Cannot be ? Please take a look at 9/33, 48/28 and 61/9. See the phrase 'ad-deen kullihi'.
Aidid Safar has explained clearly in his book that the word shiaan (shiah) is the correct word for "ritual and worship" aka religion. Aidid has quoted 3779-87, which says clearly that the people of Abraham (who were serving stone idols) were in a shiiaatihi or religion. Many translators including Rashad say shiaatihi means sect. This is incorrect. The people around Abraham were ritually "serving" idols. That was their religion or shiaan. There is no indication in the Quran that they were broken up into sects (meaning sects within a larger religion).
Ok, so Ibrahim himself was part of a religion then ? That's what it means when he's said to be part of 'shiati NUH' ? (37/83)
The Quran states clearly that the Arabs conspired against the Prophet and Rasul. They took to secret counsel. They whispered among themselves. They schemed against the Messenger. All this is in the Quran. They plotted, planned, and schemed against the messenger. They conspired against the Messenger.
Can you please provide the evidence ? There's no such verse stating 'arabs conpired against the prophet'.
597 did not say "the ka'bah, the sacred House as a safety for people". This is Edip's conspiracy to twist the verse like the rest of the Arabs. Why don't you read the verse properly? It says, "Ja-'alal-lahhul-ka'bataal-baytal-harama-qiyaman-linnas". Where does it says 'safety for the people? Is the word qiyaman-lin-nas meaning "safety for the people" to you?
You're right. It doesn't. 'qiyaaman linaas' is the predicate of this verse and it refers to that which establishes/is establishing.. Allah has set al-kaaba OF al-bait OF al-haraam AS something which establishes/an establisher for mankind. So if kaaba was 'the ankles', it would definitely NOT fit in this context.
thanks and peace.
-
Peace MQ,
The posting was meant for Natu, who is accessible to Edip's commentary on Aidid's book, but is not privy to subsequent debate on it. I am in no position, and never intended, to answer your questions on behalf of Aidid, or Farook. I think you should address your questions directly to them as I don't think they are strangers to you. Nevertheless, below is my personal comment. As I am still struggling with this BB cut and paste thing, I instead numbered the issues that you raised and insert my comment accordingly.
-
Cambridge Dictionary (CD) is used not as the criterion to define deen, but to express its meaning, usage and abusage in English language as this debate is in English. To me the meaning of dean, whether its religion or orderly way of life, or whatever the terms are in other languages, is clear cut in the Quran. Its really up to you to choose which one.
-
I have no problem using the concept orderly way of life instead of religion in all the verses quoted. Whats the issue?
-
There is no shiati Nuh in 3783.
-
481 is one.
-
True, if you took 597 by itself, it could sound strange. But the verse should be read together with 595-96, and 51-2. The verses are about hunting and 597 introduces ankle as the indicator in the context of hunting for the righteous and orderly way of life, at least according to Aidid Safar. I expect a better argument from you.
A.
-
-
Salaamun alaikum Ali Imran,
Aidid's contribution to Quranic thought was amazing. I have looked through the known history of Quranic thinking and cannot find this level of Quranic understanding anywhere. I suspect Parwez knew about the true meaning of the house (see his Islam A Challenge to Religion Chapter on 'man and war') but he never opened up about it. So, I'd be one of the last people to denounce 'Arab Conspiracies' as I've benefitted from it myself. However, this doesn't mean we can't look at it criticially. Indeed, during the editorial process itself, I did forward some comments but they were clearly rejected. I respect Aidid's decision, but whenever these views come out, I'd have to show that there are arguments against. No offense intended and certainly nothing personal. Now, on to the issue
- Cambridge Dictionary (CD) is used not as the criterion to define deen, but to express its meaning, usage and abusage in English language as this debate is in English. To me the meaning of dean, whether its religion or orderly way of life, or whatever the terms are in other languages, is clear cut in the Quran. Its really up to you to choose which one.
- I have no problem using the concept orderly way of life instead of religion in all the verses quoted. Whats the issue?
My point was, in Arab Conspiracies, Deen was contrasted to religion to show how the true message became corrupted. Deen became religion, if you like. The problem is, this process of corruption doesn't have a Quranic basis.
The Quran has 2 things
-
ad-deen (al-islaam)
-
ad-deen kullihi (every other deen, found in 48/28, 9/33 and 61/9)
-
There is no shiati Nuh in 3783
Please see context, as Lhrazi says above. Point is, the word 'shiaa' has been used for a Prophet. As has the word 'millat' , 'manasik'. Every word has a positive connotation as well as a negative one.
- 481 is one
As you well know, 'arabs plotting' doesn't exist in the verse. I'm not sure if you think that the word 'qaum' or 'taaifat' refers to a racial entity ?
- True, if you took 597 by itself, it could sound strange. But the verse should be read together with 595-96, and 51-2. The verses are about hunting and 597 introduces ankle as the indicator in the context of hunting for the righteous and orderly way of life, at least according to Aidid Safar. I expect a better argument from you.
5/95 O you who believe, do not kill the wildlife which you are restricted (Hurumun). If anyone kills on purpose, he shall expatiate with an equivalent livestock to be judged by two equitable men from among you to point out the maturity the ankles (kabati) or expiate by feeding the poor or impose self-abstinence (from hunting), so that he feels the consequences of his actions. God has pardoned his previous offences. Whoever reverts to his offence, God will avenge from him. God is almighty, avenger
God has set the ankles (kabata) the sanctioned system (baytil-Harami) to be upheld for mankind, and the restricted months (shahrul Harama), and guidelines (hadya), and the indicators (qolaa-ida). This is to let you know that God, He knows everything in the heavens and the earth and what is beneath the earth. And surely God is fully aware of everything. (597)
My comments;
a. 'to point out the maturity the ankles' doesn't exist in the verse. To point, or signal something is called ''auha' or 'isyara'.
b. 'the ankles' the sactioned system' isn't a sensible phrase. it's 'the ankles of the sanctioned house' which is the correct translation but of course makes the translation unintelligble.
c. 'to be upheld' is also not in the sense. 'qiyaaman' is something which upholds you, not which you uphold.
those are my comments. i have made these comments before to Aidid himself during the editorial process. This comment was merely to set the record straight, hope you don't mind.
peace.
-
I am really getting sick of these pseudo intellectuals poping up in internet some with number 19 the other one blaming it all on Arab conspiracies. The message of Qur'an is easy to understand and follow and we are aware the people who will be on the right path would be the ones who take the best meaning out of the message.
God safe us from all the fitna.
-
Peace.
I managed to read the thread, and it seems one word one definition is working out. Though I'm not adamant on it yet.
mquran What do you think of ritual prayer and pilgrimage? Seems you accepting and being critical of Aidid, which I really like.
Peace.
Natu on the line. -
Salaamun alaikum Natu,
Aidid Safar is a pioneer for me. When the hajj discussions started in mid-2002, Aidid triggered a massive 'evolution' in Quranic thought. One thing which struck me at the time was the amazing conceptual power of al-quraan emerging. Suddenly, if someone asked you, 'why do you believe this is to be God's teachings' , the answer was much clearer. If you read books by political thinkers like Aristotle, Plato, Locke, Hobbes etc, you will find that their thoughts simply do not measure up. Aidid catalysed this for me. He succeeded where the Sunnis and even Parwez failed.
However, the beauty about our 'camp' is that no man is the final word. While Aidid succesfully deconstructed the ritualistic hajj, I feel his own interpretation of 'house' , 'masjid' ,'kaaba' etc didn't fit the Quranic criteria.
To me 'salaat' is generally a link one builds wih God's system. For ppl without belief, salaat essentially means to be in alignment with Gods system. For believers, its about establishing a focus on your covenant with Allah twice daily in order to keep moving in His direction.
Hajj is the process of establishment of God's system on earth and umra is its culturation. Once we have done this, we call humankind 'with' the hajj (22/26) and they will come to us because they will benefit for themselves. (22/27).
hope that helps or least suffices for now )
thanks and peace
-
Peace mquran
"For believers, its about establishing a focus on your covenant with Allah twice daily in order to keep moving in His direction."
It all makes sense to me now, if it doesn't take you too long, please could you tell me where this'twice daily' thing comes in and what its about. i just want to look into it myself. Thanks
Peace.
Natu on the line. -
Salaamun alaikum Natu,
The verse which tells me 'twice daily' is 11/114
And establish regular prayers at the two ends of the day and at the approaches of the night...
To me, this signifies that at ends of the day, we begin salat until night appears.
My salaat consists of washing myself, reading inspiring passages from the book such as those reflecting my own situation etc. I then focus on my own tasks ahead and ask Allah's help.
hope that helps.
-
Peace.
That helps a lot, thanks mquran. Although, I have heard somewhere that this verse contains 'through' the two ends of the day. So up until now I had the impression that 11114 was basically telling us to uphold our commitments throughout the day and night, whenever we are awake. Don't know if the word 'through' is there or if I've mixed verses up. Thanks for your help.
Peace.
Natu on the line. -
-
As a general comment, from what I have now researched and come across, it is clear to me that the one word one definition system is perfectly valid, and is the only real way to translate the Quran into different languages. Only then can we discuss differences in points of view through interpretation. So right now I'm waiting for Aidid Safar to get his translation complete, what is already available of it already is quite impressive (I think). Although I do accept that his footnotes are perhaps unneccessarily over-emotional, in terms of classing people who have made misinterpretations as enemies of God and Muhammad, I don't think many translators have this at the top of their to do list, and as far as classing people as idol worshippers or believers, I thinks that task is best left to the creator wink . I strongly recomment readers to check his translation out at http//aididsafar.com, it has solved a lot of problems for me, hope it does for others aswell.
Mquran - thanks for your help, for analysing analysis of analysis. ? , you get what I mean. I look forward to hearing from you regarding the word 'through'. I would be very grateful if you would provide a one word one definition translation of 11114, becuase Aidid hasn't got round to making one yet, and, well, lets say i'm a little impatient.
Any arguments to swing my position away from one word one definition would still be welcome lol, we shall never stop learning.
Peace.
Natu on the line. -
Salaamun alaikum Natu,
Al-Qur'aan tells us that Allah doesn't run out of words. Therefore, if He meant something else, He would have used another word. This is my take on the situation.
As for translations, I'm not too happy with it being the end point of one's Quranic education. Allow me to explain why.
Lets take the word 'deen'. From the Quranic contexts we can see that 'deen'
-
is a signifier to the 'aaliha' (gods) whom one gives 'ibada' (worship) to (10/109)
-
is about following certain ahkaam (laws)..12/40
-
is realised when one believes and acts rightesously (24/55)
and so on.
So the word 'deen' becomes like 'x' in 'x= 2y + 4z ...'. A loaded word in one's mind to be used at decoding the world and our selves.
This is what I think we need to be going for.
thanks and peace.
-
-
Peace mquran.
Correct me if I'm wrong, do you believe in the one word one definition method, but you also assert that the same definition canbe applied in different ways in different verses of the Quran? This make more sense to me instead of trying to force the same 'definition' on all verses of the Quran. But the one thing I do not approve of in the totally changing the meaning of a word to suit previous knowledge. For example, I really like what people have do to define rasool and nabi, using the Quran.
Peace.
Natu on the line. -
peace be upon you Natu, all,
I hate to break it to you but I'm afraid Aidid Safar's translation, like ALL others, will contain good points as well as bad points. Some of the errors in his translation/understanding have been pointed out several times. Please see the following thread for some examples
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=840Without going further than the first few signs/verses (ayatin) of his translation, I would comment on the following
rahman = gracious? ? see 1945 or this article
AAalameena = plural ~ beings/creations, see 4432, 26165
yawmi al ddeeni = "the day of the order", I understand why he chose this. Its a power-relation, I would have said its closer to "obligation" however.
If he's going for one word = one definition, then he messed up straight away with mustaqeema = "observant" (16) & muttaqeena = "observant" (22). They are from different roots, QWM & TQW respectively. Unless he means two different words can have the same meaning as long as its one meaning for each, but then why would the reading use two different words that mean the exact same thing?
salat = singular, thus it should be "commitment" NOT "commitments". Each has a different meaning.A simple word of advice would be to verify what you read, its a slower process but I can guarantee you, its much more fruitful.
Wakas
references used for this post
http//mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/think-786/Quran_study_tools.htm
http//www.openburhan.com/index.html -
Peace Wakas and all
I understand your concerns wakas, that I'll start following Aidid Safar. I appreciate your help, but when I read aidid's translation of 11 I realised that he has made a mistranslation already, becuasde I had previously read an article on quran-islam.org. The reason I am more comfortable with Aidid's literature is that I have read and understood many criticisms made of it. Initially I thought, well, he's alone by the looks of other peoples views, but thats shouldn't mean that he is wrong. I looked into it and I now believe I have found greater truths in his translation that perhaps in some others. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying his translation is right, (its just daft to say that about any translation in fact), its just that I approve of Aidid's approach becuase he initiated the defining of words using the quran itself, much like Rashad Khalifah made some kind of formal initiation of 'God alone' (although there were ahl-al-quranb people before). The reason I am pleased with what this guy is doing is because when I first found the real islam, I was tending to believe anyone who brought out a verse from the Quran, and I relied on them becuase I was a non-arab, but now I have access to dictionaries and translations (still looking to get lexicon), and I am more independant in my research. So don't be under the impression that I am taking 'Aidid Safar' as the truth, I wouldn't take anyone as the truth, except God, who is the one that inspires the truth to me when I look for it.
Wakas - have a read of my first post at http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3141
Peace.
Natu on the line.
