Zakat and Sadaqat
-
peace all,
1CELOSTNOWFOUND, I disagree with some of what you have said. I believe we have already discussed some of the issues, e.g. in this thread
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=15934.msg184885#msg184885What you conclude from some verses simply cannot be concluded without further evidence, some examples
From 960 you say sadaqat is obligatory, but why cant the verse be referring to the distribution of it, and not a law on the compulsory nature of sadaqat?
From 9103, you claim sadaqat now must be taken (implying a blanket rule for all), when the context clearly refers to a specific people, discussing sincere repentance, purifying by way of taking sadaqat from them.From different verses from the Quran, we see that sadaqat means charity/charities. 960 says that it is a 'farida' (ordinance/commandment) from God - how does this not imply that sadaqat is obligatory? What makes you think that it is "only the distribution" that is obligatory?
If it is not obligatory, then that would mean that nobody has to give anything to charity, because 'zakat' has nothing to do with charity anyways.
-
Peace Joker,
I'm just using that as a grammatical example. It would actually be, according to my interpretation, "keep the salaat/connection, and keep the zakaat/purity (of it)." Again, that's just my interpretation, right or wrong. I have some other ideas concerning it too, but this seems to be the most reasonable...
Peace,
Ahmad
As Wakas has already said, 'atoo' doesnt mean 'keep'. It could however mean 'establish the bond/contact prayer (salat) and make development/bring betterment/purify' - it could refer to self-growth (only a thought).
-
As Wakas has already said, 'atoo' doesnt mean 'keep'. It could however mean 'establish the bond/contact prayer (salat) and make development/bring betterment/purify' - it could refer to self-growth (only a thought).
I don't see how this would make a difference. I wasn't quoting a Qur'aanic passage, I was just giving an illustrative view of my interpretation... Saying "keep the salaat" is the same overall idea of saying "establish the salaat", as long as the prime subject is the same. It can still be reworded to fit the same standard of practice (i.e. "establish the connection and make it pure/purify it". It's still saying the same thing I was saying in the beginning...
-
I don't see how this would make a difference. I wasn't quoting a Qur'aanic passage, I was just giving an illustrative view of my interpretation... Saying "keep the salaat" is the same overall idea of saying "establish the salaat", as long as the prime subject is the same. It can still be reworded to fit the same standard of practice (i.e. "establish the connection and make it pure/purify it". It's still saying the same thing I was saying in the beginning...
laugh
OK..for the salat, maybe, but not for the zakat. You injected "(of it)" into the verse.
Here are some better translations (IMO) for 'atoo zakat' make development/bring betterment/purify/grow'. Do you think that it could refer to self-growth and development of the nafs (self) or character? -
OK..for the salat, maybe, but not for the zakat. You injected "(of it)" into the verse.
Here are some better translations (IMO) for 'atoo zakat' make development/bring betterment/purify/grow'. Do you think that it could refer to self-growth and development of the nafs (self) or character?This is a possibility too... peace
-
OK..for the salat, maybe, but not for the zakat. You injected "(of it)" into the verse.
Here are some better translations (IMO) for 'atoo zakat' make development/bring betterment/purify/grow'. Do you think that it could refer to self-growth and development of the nafs (self) or character?It's important to note that 'zakat' would be written differently if 'of it' was implied.
Do you think that it could refer to self-growth and development of the nafs (self) or character?
I do, especially considering 2421. I think 232-4 is also very interesting.
-
Relevant verse
2174 Surely, those who conceal what God has sent down of the book, and purchase with it a cheap price; they will not eat into their stomachs except the fire, and God will not speak to them on the day of Resurrection, nor will He purifythem/make them develop/make their 'self' grow (zakiheem), and they will have a painful retribution.
-
Peace Wakas
peace all,
1CELOSTNOWFOUND, I disagree with some of what you have said. I believe we have already discussed some of the issues, e.g. in this thread
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=15934.msg184885#msg184885What you conclude from some verses simply cannot be concluded without further evidence, some examples
From 960 you say sadaqat is obligatory, but why cant the verse be referring to the distribution of it, and not a law on the compulsory nature of sadaqat?
From 9103, you claim sadaqat now must be taken (implying a blanket rule for all), when the context clearly refers to a specific people, discussing sincere repentance, purifying by way of taking sadaqat from them.If you go back to our previous discussion, you perhaps will note you often cite your view, then back it up by an incorrect/extrapolated interpretation of a verse you reference. Of course, you might feel you do not do this, in any case, I will leave it to the readers of the forum to determine.
Our previous dicussion that you refer to ended quite abrubtly. I hope for a more productive discussion here. I will read the background info that you have posted & will comment once I have done so.
With reference to 960,
is in the nominative case, making it subject of the sentence.
is in the accusative case, making it the object of the only subject in the sentence, which I have pointed out above.
Therefore to my understanding, the order must refer to the sadaqat itself. This does not mean that it does not refer to the distribution. It's just that it refers to the sadqat (subject) directly & by extension to the distribution, which is in the genitive case.
I would welcome someone more learned in the grammatical structure of arabic to comment on this.
As for 9103, I only pointed it out to show that there is an order regarding sadaqat in the quran. I agree that the context is as you have stated above, but as far as I understand it, is an instruction.
Imraan
-
Good one. So not evolving our nafs leads to 'aazab'/punishment/torment - ultimately.
Note nafs is not mentioned here but it is in 3518.
Also a good verse. However, my other translations (develop, purify) are also a possibility.
So we can definitely conclude that 'zakat' doesnt mean 'charity'.
@ all
what is your translation of 'atoo/ata zakat'?
-
peace Imraan,
I would welcome someone more learned in the grammatical structure of arabic to comment on this.
As would I.
As a side note, please do not take my brevity as a negative. I, like you, am sure are limited for time, thus I have a preference for being straight to the point.
-
In (44), we find that the gift that is given to a woman upon marriage is described as saduqaat. Clearly this is not a charity. It is given as a fulfilment of her right to such a gift. Also we find in (128, when Yusuf?s brothers come to him in a time of need they say ?Give us that which will be a fulfilment of a right that is due to us for Alllah rewards those who cause the fulfilment of a right that is due.? This fits much better in relation to the consistency of the concept than saying ? Treat it as charity to us for Allah rewards the charitable?.
Imraan
Salaam Imran, all
You started well in believing that charity "sadaqaat" is oblgatory, but then found this verse (44) to be not in line with the understanding of charity, but a fulfilment of a right, and then compared it to 1288, to show that a fulfilment of a right falls under charity.
The problem with this comparison is that in 1288 it is really a charity Yusuf was not obliged in trade to give them more than their capital, but they ere asking for charity as well because "hard time has hit us and our family"; in short they were poor.
Coming to verse 44, what is given to "women" for marriage is "ajrwage" and not sadaqa. Women are not mentioned with people who have a right to charity. So, where's the fault?It's in translating "nisaa'" as "women". Women is one meaning. The other is here in this verse4127
"And they ask your legal instruction concerning "nisaa'". Say God instructs you concerning them and what's recited to you n the book concerning- Mothers of fatherless children whom you want to marry and not pay them what is prescribed for them,
- And the oppressed, weak children,
- And the orphans, that you stand firm for their justice...
These three categories can be put under the meaning of nisaa', and they have right to "sadaqa". Then you do not have to stretch yourself to prove the unprovable!
With reference to 960,
is in the nominative case, making it subject of the sentence.
is in the accusative case, making it the object of the only subject in the sentence, which I have pointed out above.
Therefore to my understanding, the order must refer to the sadaqat itself. This does not mean that it does not refer to the distribution. It's just that it refers to the sadqat (subject) directly & by extension to the distribution, which is in the genitive case.
I would welcome someone more learned in the grammatical structure of arabic to comment on this.
As for 9103, I only pointed it out to show that there is an order regarding sadaqat in the quran. I agree that the context is as you have stated above, but as far as I understand it, is an instruction.
Imraan
There is a difference between the grammatical virtual accusative and the real "object". In general, I am not a fan of giving too much weight to grammar when dealing with qur'aan, because qur'aan does not always subject its words to grammar, and because grammar, although can explain what the writer wants to say, but can also be abused to impose a meaning considered by whoever added grammar to the qur'aan.
However, when scanning the word "farida" as used in the qur'aan, we find that it means "a right due to those people mentioned in a given verse", which by extention makes the charity a duty. The inheritance verses, for example, do not speak of charity, yet they speak of a "farida" to the heirs due to them by God order.
-
Peace Samia
Thanks for your quick reply to my PM.
Salaam Imran, all
You started well in believing that charity "sadaqaat" is oblgatory, but then found this verse (44) to be not in line with the understanding of charity, but a fulfilment of a right, and then compared it to 1288, to show that a fulfilment of a right falls under charity.
The problem with this comparison is that in 1288 it is really a charity Yusuf was not obliged in trade to give them more than their capital, but they ere asking for charity as well because "hard time has hit us and our family"; in short they were poor.
Coming to verse 44, what is given to "women" for marriage is "ajrwage" and not sadaqa. Women are not mentioned with people who have a right to charity. So, where's the fault?It's in translating "nisaa'" as "women". Women is one meaning. The other is here in this verse4127
"And they ask your legal instruction concerning "nisaa'". Say God instructs you concerning them and what's recited to you n the book concerning- Mothers of fatherless children whom you want to marry and not pay them what is prescribed for them,
- And the oppressed, weak children,
- And the orphans, that you stand firm for their justice...
These three categories can be put under the meaning of nisaa', and they have right to "sadaqa". Then you do not have to stretch yourself to prove the unprovable!
There is a difference between the grammatical virtual accusative and the real "object". In general, I am not a fan of giving too much weight to grammar when dealing with qur'aan, because qur'aan does not always subject its words to grammar, and because grammar, although can explain what the writer wants to say, but can also be abused to impose a meaning considered by whoever added grammar to the qur'aan.
However, when scanning the word "farida" as used in the qur'aan, we find that it means "a right due to those people mentioned in a given verse", which by extention makes the charity a duty. The inheritance verses, for example, do not speak of charity, yet they speak of a "farida" to the heirs due to them by God order.
Am I correct in saying then, that in your opinion, "farida" in 960 would be applied to "sadaqaat"?
I will think about the rest of your post & reply when I have a little more time.
Imraan
-
The problem with this comparison is that in 1288 it is really a charity Yusuf was not obliged in trade to give them more than their capital, but they ere asking for charity as well because "hard time has hit us and our family"; in short they were poor.
In last visit their younger brother was retained. This is what has hit them and their family. And they have come to Egypt for this purpose alone in compliance to their father's direction
And Particle Fa shows the reaction/effect, therefore. They have not come for commercial transanction. That is merely as excuse for access. That is why they say little money have we brought and asked equivalent weight for the money and in subtle manner they have asked him to return their brother. And from the answer of the person whom they were considering Aziz/Ruler/Minister/Governor is abundantly clear that they had asked for their brother not "charity of grains".
-
Salaam Mazhar
They first told their story that "Misfortune hath touched us and our folk, and we bring but poor merchandise", giving the excuse of bringing bad merchandise for what? Loss of their brother? Is this a logical link?
Then "so (as a result), fill for us the measure and be charitable unto us" because they lost their brother or because their marchendise was not up to the standard?
Actually they wanted him to have mercy on them and are not in a position to blantly ask him for anything other than charity. After he sympathizes with them, only then can they ask for anything.We all know they neither came for charity nor did they come for trade.
-
Peace Samia
Thanks for your quick reply to my PM.
Am I correct in saying then, that in your opinion, "farida" in 960 would be applied to "sadaqaat"?
Imraan
You are welcome
In the way I understand the verse, yes, "farida" refers to the due right of these people in sadaqaat.
-
peace Samia,
In the way I understand the verse, yes, "farida" refers to the due right of these people in sadaqaat.
So, whilst the people mentioned have a due right in sadaqaat, you cannot conclude based on grammar/logic/anything that 960 is making giving of sadaqat obligatory?
That is what we are trying to clarify.
-
Salaam Mazhar
They first told their story that "Misfortune hath touched us and our folk, and we bring but poor merchandise", giving the excuse of bringing bad merchandise for what? Loss of their brother? Is this a logical link?
Then "so (as a result), fill for us the measure and be charitable unto us" because they lost their brother or because their marchendise was not up to the standard?
Actually they wanted him to have mercy on them and are not in a position to blantly ask him for anything other than charity. After he sympathizes with them, only then can they ask for anything.We all know they neither came for charity nor did they come for trade.
Assalamo Alaikum Sister,
There is no such thing in the whole episode which could reflect poverty. The only thing is the shortage/less supply of food grains at that point of time that is why system of rationing has been introduced, one man one camel load, no more sale for men of family not present on the scene/depot of sale. This time 9 men have come but they are making it clear that they have brought little capital therefore asked to give the one camel load in return; indicating to him their real purpose, and some say these words do not mean "you give more grains to us free of price as charity", rather they are asking him to remit their brother. And the response of Yousaf alahissalam confirms this that today you are asking for him but what you did with Yusuf and his brother when you were overpowered by emotions?
-
Imran,
you have said "Sadaqaat has at its root the meaning of truth. A careful study of the concept clearly shows that it is the fulfilment of a right that is due".
This connection is found in 6141
6141 He is the One Who initiated gardens; both trellised and untrellised; palm trees, and plants, all with different tastes; and olives and pomegranates, similar and not similar. Eat from its fruit when it blossoms and give its haqq on the day of harvest; and do not waste. He does not like the wasteful.
As far as I know 'haqq' means 'truth', 'right', 'that which is due', etc.
Also what we learn from this verse is that we are indeed to give to charity/share whenever we recieve income/harvest/etc. -
peace Samia,
So, whilst the people mentioned have a due right in sadaqaat, you cannot conclude based on grammar/logic/anything that 960 is making giving of sadaqat obligatory?
That is what we are trying to clarify.
No, grammar has nothing to do with the meaning of the verse.
Obligation can only be implied, that those people have due right in the sadaqaa. If they have right, they have to get it.
