Question to all Muslims and Quranists
-
Dear all, when there is any critique about themes of Quran. Most often the defense put forward by all Muslims/scholars is that "the text should not be taken out or interpreted out of context". It should be seen in context with verses before and after. I fully understand and concur with this line of reasoning. However, my question is that why this very principle should not hold in regard to very first principle of faith of traditional Islam?
Why this text is used out of context? It is no where to be found in this order in Qur'an. Could someone give logic for this, to this illiterate?
Badar
-
Salam, Peace,
This "formula" was taken from the early "Nazorean" (jewish who convert to christianism but still following the jewish "Law", these "Nazorean" were declaring the unicity of God and were adding "and Jesus is his servant". This was not initially meant to associate Jesus to God but to mark their differences between the Jewish who do not recognize Jesus and the other christians who were already mentionning "Jesus son of God".
As the hadith compilation is composed mainly by "plaggias" (assention, Addajal, Jesus to come back....), this formula is also a "plaggia" from the early "Nazorean".
The formula can be devide as common to all monotheist religion
and the second part "and Jesus is his servant" as a kind of remedy to the false claim of "Jesus son of God".
In the Great Reading we can find this "remedy" in 4171 and 575O people of the Book! commit no excesses in your religion nor say of Allah aught but truth. Issa the son of Mary was (no more than) an Messenger of Allah and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not "Trinity" desist it will be better for you for Allah is One Allah glory be to him (for Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.
Peace
-
The principle of faith (so to speak) is "La ilaaha illa Allaah," and this has been the inspiration to each messenger who has ever been sent
2125 And We sent never a Messenger before thee except that We revealed to him, saying, 'There is no god but I; so serve Me.'
That said, if anybody knows that which Allah has commanded to believe in, then the person has to believe it in. As such, we accept Muhammad as a messenger of Allah, something which the Jews and Christians find loathsome, and indeed mock at.
On the other hand, Christians worship Christ, while Allah tells us that he was a messenger of His. Again, we take Christ as a messenger of Allah.
-
The principle of faith (so to speak) is "La ilaaha illa Allaah," and this has been the inspiration to each messenger who has ever been sent
2125 And We sent never a Messenger before thee except that We revealed to him, saying, 'There is no god but I; so serve Me.'
That said, if anybody knows that which Allah has commanded to believe in, then the person has to believe it in. As such, we accept Muhammad as a messenger of Allah, something which the Jews and Christians find loathsome, and indeed mock at.
On the other hand, Christians worship Christ, while Allah tells us that he was a messenger of His. Again, we take Christ as a messenger of Allah.
Salam,
I totally agree with that but the question was
Why this text is used out of context? It is no where to be found in this order in Qur'an. Could someone give logic for this, to this illiterate?
Peace
-
Right, the question was about context. I was trying to give it a context.
The other part (being not found in that order in the Quran) we are aware of.
As for the origin of the phrase (which I don't find inquired after, at least not explicitly), I don't want to waddle in assumptions. However, I will try to say something staying within the limits of the Quran It is not hard to imagine those who rejected him saying "Muhammad is not a messenger of Allah" (1343), and those who accepted him saying "Muhammad is a messenger of Allah". With time, "Laa Ilaaha illaa Allaah Muhammad Rasul Allaah" probably became a part of the believers' colloquial speech.
Say O people! surely I am the Messenger of Allah to you all, of Him Whose is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth there is no god but He; He brings to life and causes to die therefore believe in Allah and His messenger, the Ummi Prophet who believes in Allah and His words, and follow him so that you may walk in the right way.
-
No one says or writes like this. Remove tashdeed from first Meem, and then you will find it to be two seperate delarative statemets; both two being a proven and established fact, and later declaration pronounces and helps negate any other myth to be associated with his name.
-
No one says or writes like this. Remove tashdeed from first Meem, and then you will find it to be two seperate delarative statemets; both two being a proven and established fact, and later declaration pronounces and helps negate any other myth to be associated with his name.
Established as, what fact? That the belief in "One who is not a deity for worship and adoration"; need to be followed by a completely unrelated statement, to be a believer. Who and how is this, established as a fact? These are facts independent of each other. But how can we justify these verses in this order? when the owner of the book did not put these two verses in this order; let alone this order of verses to be called as a first article of belief. Additionally, if repetition of a statement is an indication of emphasis; then , has been used at least three time (4157,171 and 616) verses one time use of (4829).
Badar
-
If this is mentioned one time would you not consider it an established fact? .
With repscts Mazhar;
are you by any chance a Molvi, an Alim or financed by the Suadies or some other Islamic Religious organisation in some way?
Honesty is Godliness.
peace
-
With repscts Mazhar;
are you by any chance a Molvi, an Alim or financed by the Suadies or some other Islamic Religious organisation in some way?
Honesty is Godliness.
peace
No one pays to the one who talks only about and from the Qur'aan. People pay only to those who tell fascinating stories under the umberalla of sanctity by calling those as hadith of the Messenger, and to those who love to treat the Messenger as an ordinary person like of themselves. One are the traditionalists and the others are so called modernists.
And anyone who "sells" the Message of Qur'aan in the way that it may give way to people to satisfy their desires will find his way into the Hell-Prison. All scholars who showed disrespect for the Messenger s.a.s. will find their abode in the Hell. Respecting and honouring the Messenger s.a.s. is the criteria for judging a person whether or not is he Mutaqee. And anyone who is not Mutaqee has to land in Hell nothwithstanding he is a Maulvi or Saudi or Quranist.
-
A friend who is still struggling with meaning of , as "neither there is,nor shall be a deity for worship and adoration, save, One who, neither is, nor shall be, a deity for worship or adoration".
Asked me as if this is a complete sentence, or may it would be better explained by words before or after. Hence, I searched the great reading few times. This expression is no where to be found in Quran in this order. This likely makes it an expression that could not be attributed to Rabb. My question is whose expression is this and why? And if it not required by our Rabb, how come it became the first article of Muslim faith?
Badar
-
Thanks Dear Mazhar, for your kindness. Please, share some rules of Arabic syntax that lead you to break down this verse in this order.
Badar
Translation may suffice
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/037.%20As%20Safaat/37.35.gif
Indeed they were the people who when it was said for them,
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/037.%20As%20Safaat/37.35a.gif
"there is absolutely no iela'aha except Allah"
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/037.%20As%20Safaat/27.35b.gif
they used to make themselves demonstrate arrogance of grandeur, -
Irrespective of translation original question was this
Dear all, when there is any critique about themes of Quran. Most often the defense put forward by all Muslims/scholars is that "the text should not be taken out or interpreted out of context". It should be seen in context with verses before and after. I fully understand and concur with this line of reasoning. However, my question is that why this very principle should not hold in regard to very first principle of faith of traditional Islam?
Why this text is used out of context? It is no where to be found in this order in Qur'an. Could someone give logic for this, to this illiterate?
Badar
This still remains unaddressed. Both these instance of occurance of first part of Kalma, are not the whole verses. But are expression taken out of context and put with another out of context verse to make the first article of faith. Question remains why and who did it? Can it be defended, based upon logic of not quoting verses, out of context?
Badar
-
Dear all, when there is any critique about themes of Quran. Most often the defense put forward by all Muslims/scholars is that "the text should not be taken out or interpreted out of context". It should be seen in context with verses before and after. I fully understand and concur with this line of reasoning. However, my question is that why this very principle should not hold in regard to very first principle of faith of traditional Islam?
Why this text is used out of context? It is no where to be found in this order in Qur'an. Could someone give logic for this, to this illiterate?
Badar
JUST TO REMIND THIS IS THE QUERY
BADAR