Possible explanation for why Uthman decided Sura 9 should have no Basmallah
-
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
-
Peace Abdalquran,
You read it from a written document (?kitab?).
Where?s the proof of that? You can NEVER find in Quran ?quri?a min al-kitab?. NEVER. You call it the ?great reading? because that?s its primary identification.
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!
Sure. Lets say you saw ? ?
Will you read it as ?Al-qss a alqrani?
Or ?Al-qasas al-qurani?The latter is what im talking about by reading. Reciting something out loud which is what the Prophet did.
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.
The pen came AFTER the declaration. Why don?t you read 96/1-5 and not just 96/4. So after he did the ?iqra?, they committed it to paper. That?s why your ancient documents are NOT the Quran.
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.
Thanks for saying that! Because ?kitab? in terms of the quran doesn?t have to be a literal book. All Prophets were given ?al-kitab bil haqq? (2/213) . So its one ?al-kitab? for all them. We can?t take that to mean a literal book so why do you take ?al-kitab? to be a literal book. ?
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?.
I prefer the parrot who will say ?ghulibat ar-ruuom? than you who will say it?s either that or something else.
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.
Nice trick there. Try to quote 20/14 in full. It?s not ?adh-dhikr? there. It?s ?dhikree?. Establish salat for my dhikr. Or establish salat to keep me in mind.
No "this"/dhalik doesn't refer to the Alm. It refers to the book.
If you choose to read in the fragmented way you do sure. The rest of us try to read Quran in full. ALM is the first ayah. Dhalika comes after that and connects al-kitab with ALM.
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.
Absolutely untrue. In my culture, kids only start going to the madrasah at 6 but most kids like me, already knew the juz amma long before that. We memorised it thanks to our parents.
As for Mohamed Shahrour, I do agree with him that al-kitab is not al-quran. That?s logical because if al-quran is tafseel al-kitab (10/37) then al-quran cannot be al-kitab itself. I don?t agree with his conclusions though. I challenge you to produce a verse which shows al-kitab IS al-quran though.
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.
This verse is answered above.
However, you will have to answer for this passage
Verily, those who turn away from Our Ayat are not hidden from Us. Is he who is cast into the Fire better or he who comes secure on the Day of Resurrection? Do what you will. Verily! He is All-Seer of what you do (this is a severe threat to the disbelievers).
Verily, those who disbelieved in AZ-ZIKR it came to them (shall receive the punishment). And verily, it is an honourable respected Book (Falsehood cannot come to it from before it or behind it (it is) sent down by the All-Wise, Worthy of all praise (41/40-42)So here az-zikr is shown to be Allah?s ayat. Are you saying your understanding is now Allah?s ayat? I know your masjid al-haram concept is better than the sunnis but I can still find faults in it. Are you saying no falsehood can be in your understanding? What if somebody else says 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.
I?ll need proof of this. Can you show me another fi3l from the Quran which shows a doing? I can think of ?hikmah? but its fi3lah.
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
YESSSSS ! Precisely, kalla innaHAA tadhkirah. What does the ?haa? refer to? Check out 80/3-4
But what would make you perceive,, that perhaps he might be purified
Or be reminded and az-zikr would benefit him?The ?la3allahu? shows that even with adh-dhikr, its only a POSSIBILITY that this person becomes ?yudhakkar?. Then a few verses down the line it declares that adh-dhikr IS tadkhirah. So they?re not ?roughly the same thing?. Adh-dhikr is in pages which are raised high (no Ayman, you won?t need to walk around with a Quran on your head) . What this means is that the one which people recite the most prevalently is az-zikr.
What does it matter? Memorizing a book without understanding and reminding you to act appropriately is useless.
It?s useful when I need to know that its ghulibat. At that point, your method becomes useless and I need to become Robert Langdon and think some historical event is ?reality?.
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.
So how do I know who has the right ?frame of mind?? Is it because they call themselves ?Quranists? ? Anyone can say they got the right message.
Now you are changing from memorization to recitation. Recitation is just like reading except it is reading out loud.
Memorisation here is by reciting to each other.
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.
But this is NOT about understanding. This is not relaying the message. Dhikr not tadkhirah!
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.
Sigh..once again, how do we KNOW who has the right rememberance? Some of us without hadith or code 19 thought jinns were dinosaurs and lizard men! This is why u need dhikr or the memorised. Because if I only took the rememberance from the dinosaur guy right now I?d be looking for jinn in fossils!
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.
Can you demonstrate how you would disprove Khalifa?s thesis if the verses aren?t actually there for you to disprove?
So is that what you think? That the threat of being ?stoned to death? is what preserves the remembrance!
The threat shows their fanaticism in preserving something they don?t even understand much less practise.
To me, it is God?s great miracle that even though the Sunnis follow very little of the Quran, they protect it more than their own lives. They would DIE for the Quran but not live by it.
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?.
Yes, that would be tadkhirah. They don?t have tadhkirah. 80/11 asserts that for al-a3ma, adh-dhikr can be perhaps be tadkhirah. You don?t need two words to express the exact same thing.
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 don?t know about you but I and many many Quranists I know did not get the Quran from other Quranists. We read the Quran for ourselves which were printed by the sunnis and we got its message. The sunnis merely passed on to us ADH-DHIKR but we got the tadkhirah ourselves. How, because its preserved.
Lets say dhikr is rememberance of the message or whatever. The sunnis would have made athi?ur ?rasool to SAY (not mean) athi?ul hadith. But they can?t do it because its ingrained deep in their minds that the words are holy. They can?t understand what it really means but falsehood will NEVER enter it anyway. That?s God?s promise and you can see it being recited all over the world.
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?.
Yes but dhikr is NOT furqan itself. It transmits the info to the right reciever so that he may RECEIVE furqan.
Shahrur actually describes this very well.
?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.
But how do we know you got the right dhikr? How do YOU know it? Can you please address this question, I?ve asked it like 20 times now.
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.
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?.
Ayman, how is it you?re so brilliant in seeing masjid as some institution and yet for ar-room you don?t question at all? Why double standards?
How do I know ar-room means romans? The fact that you think it automatically means romans never mind THESE romans?
Do you know how many theories float around in Academia about Islamic history? And you think God wants us to join these pointless debates?
I have to say , to call the ruins of an ancient site as reality is very na?ve. Reality is something happening before you. Treating Quran as a historical book is what got you into this mess.
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.
That depends on whether they stop or don?t stop. Most stop at ar-rahmaan sure but if one were to continue reciting, they would know what the case ending would be.
-
Peace Abdalquran,
Where?s the proof of that? You can NEVER find in Quran ?quri?a min al-kitab?. NEVER. You call it the ?great reading? because that?s its primary identification.
Why don't you translate the word "quran"? Everyone knows that reading happens from a written record ("kitab". What you are asking is as illogical as asking for proof that "hearing" is "hearing of a sound"!
Sure. Lets say you saw ? ?
Will you read it as ?Al-qss a alqrani?
Or ?Al-qasas al-qurani?The context is what determines which one it is. For example, even in fully voweled English if you see a word such as "speeding", you will not be able to tell if it is an adjective or a verb without putting it in a sentence.
The latter is what im talking about by reading. Reciting something out loud which is what the Prophet did.
Are you saying that the prophet only recited and never read? If not then what is your point or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
The pen came AFTER the declaration. Why don?t you read 96/1-5 and not just 96/4. So after he did the ?iqra?, they committed it to paper. That?s why your ancient documents are NOT the Quran.
What are you talking about? "Irqa" (read) is present tense imperative while "taught by the pen" is past tense and it can also be a continuous past tense. It basically indicates that the reason for the command to read is that the god taught by the pen.
Thanks for saying that! Because ?kitab? in terms of the quran doesn?t have to be a literal book. All Prophets were given ?al-kitab bil haqq? (2/213) . So its one ?al-kitab? for all them. We can?t take that to mean a literal book so why do you take ?al-kitab? to be a literal book. ?
No "al-kitab" means written document. All the prophets had written documents of the revelation.
I prefer the parrot who will say ?ghulibat ar-ruuom? than you who will say it?s either that or something else.
If you prefer to be a parrot then it wouldn't matter what it says since the parrot doesn't understand it anyway.
Nice trick there. Try to quote 20/14 in full. It?s not ?adh-dhikr? there. It?s ?dhikree?. Establish salat for my dhikr. Or establish salat to keep me in mind.
Are you claiming that the word "dhikr" means "memorization" except when it is attached to a possessive "my" it suddenly means "keep me in mind" (in other words remember me)? Please provide evidence for the rule in Arabic that says that the possessive changes the basic meaning of any word. If you can't, then it is you who is playing tricks.
If you choose to read in the fragmented way you do sure. The rest of us try to read Quran in full. ALM is the first ayah. Dhalika comes after that and connects al-kitab with ALM.
Please translate 21-2 so that everyone can see how what you are saying is nonsensical and ridiculous. Even Khalifa never dared to claim that "dhalika" refers to the "Alm". I can now see that this discussion isn't going to go anywhere.
Absolutely untrue. In my culture, kids only start going to the madrasah at 6 but most kids like me, already knew the juz amma long before that. We memorised it thanks to our parents.
How is it absolutely untrue that the relationship between "reading" and "book/written record" is clear? In any culture even 6 years olds know that reading is out of a book/written record.
As for Mohamed Shahrour, I do agree with him that al-kitab is not al-quran. That?s logical because if al-quran is tafseel al-kitab (10/37) then al-quran cannot be al-kitab itself. I don?t agree with his conclusions though.
As you keep reading any book you get details out of it. This is why the more you read something the more you understand it (the more details/explanation you get). Anyone who has ever read something once and didn't understand it and then read it again and understood it better and got more details knows what I mean.
I challenge you to produce a verse which shows al-kitab IS al-quran though.
You either love building a strawman or you don't have the ability to understand anything I am saying. Please quote where I said "al-kitab IS al-quran". What you are asking is like asking me to produce an entry in the dictionary that says that "the writing" is "the reading". I clearly said that the reading is reading out of a book/written record. I never said that "the reading" is "the book".
This verse is answered above.
If you are referring to your nonsense that the possessive changes the basic meaning of the word then you haven't really answered anything.
However, you will have to answer for this passage
Verily, those who turn away from Our Ayat are not hidden from Us. Is he who is cast into the Fire better or he who comes secure on the Day of Resurrection? Do what you will. Verily! He is All-Seer of what you do (this is a severe threat to the disbelievers).
Verily, those who disbelieved in AZ-ZIKR it came to them (shall receive the punishment). And verily, it is an honourable respected Book (Falsehood cannot come to it from before it or behind it (it is) sent down by the All-Wise, Worthy of all praise (41/40-42)
So here az-zikr is shown to be Allah?s ayat.Why don't you translate the passage like a person who understands it? Why did you leave the word in question "az-zikr" untranslated?
If you read 4141-42 carefully you will see that the "hu" in "inahu" refers back to the "remembrance" and this is clear even from your translation when you remove the period in the middle of 4141
Verily, those who disbelieved in the remembrance when it came to them (shall receive the punishment), and verily, it is an honorable respected book.
So the remembrance is a respected WRITTEN DOCUMENT. It is like when you write something so that it can help you remember later. Of course when someone recites something it can also help remind others. So what I am saying is not exclusive but recitation can also be part of the process of remembering. On the other hand, memorization by heart is clearly not what is meant as far as "dhikr" goes.
Are you saying your understanding is now Allah?s ayat? I know your masjid al-haram concept is better than the sunnis but I can still find faults in it. Are you saying no falsehood can be in your understanding? What if somebody else says the same.
No. We all achieve better understanding as a result of remembrance. The god's signs help you remember. It is just like when you write down directions so that you can remember them later and not get lost. As we remember more we understand more. So it is a continuous process not like memorization which is done and that is it and has no effect.
I?ll need proof of this. Can you show me another fi3l from the Quran which shows a doing? I can think of ?hikmah? but its fi3lah.
YESSSSS ! Precisely, kalla innaHAA tadhkirah. What does the ?haa? refer to? Check out 80/3-4
But what would make you perceive,, that perhaps he might be purified
Or be reminded and az-zikr would benefit him?In 803-4 we are told about a process of purification (from falsehood) and then remembering and the remembrance benefiting the person. Memorization has nothing to do with purification or benefit. A parrot can memorize anything without getting purified from falsehood or gain any benefit from it. So you are refuting your own argument since 803-4 actually negates that "dhikr" means memorization.
The ?la3allahu? shows that even with adh-dhikr, its only a POSSIBILITY that this person becomes ?yudhakkar?.
Yes because unlike memorization which even a parrot can do and therefore can be a certainty with enough mindless repetition, remembrance requires the right mindset. Any evil person can with certainty memorize any part of the great reading with enough repetition. So if "dhikr" meant memorization then the possibility becomes meaningless. It is only if "dhikr" means remembrance that the possibility of a person remembering it in their daily lives and act accordingly becomes meaningful.
Then a few verses down the line it declares that adh-dhikr IS tadkhirah. So they?re not ?roughly the same thing?. Adh-dhikr is in pages which are raised high (no Ayman, you won?t need to walk around with a Quran on your head) . What this means is that the one which people recite the most prevalently is az-zikr.
As clear from 803-4, "tathkira" is a process of remembrance. As you admit, the passage says "IN RAISED PAGES" just like 4141 says "IT IS A RESPECTED WRITTEN DOCUMENT. Clearly, "raised" and "respected" are meant to indicate the status of this written document and not physically raised on your head. The word "pages" like "written document" clearly points to the written text being the reminder.
It?s useful when I need to know that its ghulibat. At that point, your method becomes useless and I need to become Robert Langdon and think some historical event is ?reality?.
No, it is useless and this is why you are unable to answer why the believers became happy.
So how do I know who has the right ?frame of mind?? Is it because they call themselves ?Quranists? ? Anyone can say they got the right message.
You are obviously not in the right frame of mind. If you were then you would naturally know the answer.
Memorisation here is by reciting to each other.
Reciting to each other doesn?t lead to memorization. Many people recite to each other things that they don?t memorize and doing so doesn?t necessarily lead to memorization. On the other hand, reciting to each other ?reminds? people.
But this is NOT about understanding. This is not relaying the message. Dhikr not tadkhirah!
Relaying a message requires understanding. Otherwise, it is like a donkey carrying a load of books.
Sigh..once again, how do we KNOW who has the right rememberance? Some of us without hadith or code 19 thought jinns were dinosaurs and lizard men! This is why u need dhikr or the memorised. Because if I only took the rememberance from the dinosaur guy right now I?d be looking for jinn in fossils!
Who told you that the dinosaur guy didn?t memorize the great reading? Maybe he memorized it better than you. So as you can see memorization is useless as far as being reminded. The remembrance is a process. The reminder is preserved and if you persist in the remembrance process and do it right then you will improve your understanding.
Can you demonstrate how you would disprove Khalifa?s thesis if the verses aren?t actually there for you to disprove?
But they are there not because people memorized them but because the god preserved them in a respected written record.
The threat shows their fanaticism in preserving something they don?t even understand much less practise.
To me, it is God?s great miracle that even though the Sunnis follow very little of the Quran, they protect it more than their own lives. They would DIE for the Quran but not live by it.But ?dhikr? benefits people while as you admit their memorization didn?t benefit them. Besides, they would equally die for the written text but I am petty sure that they have killed others who like them also memorized the great reading by heart, thus erasing this memory.
Yes, that would be tadkhirah. They don?t have tadhkirah. 80/11 asserts that for al-a3ma, adh-dhikr can be perhaps be tadkhirah. You don?t need two words to express the exact same thing.
The ?perhaps? is related to the verb ?yathakr? in 804. The term ?tathkira? describes the whole process.
I don?t know about you but I and many many Quranists I know did not get the Quran from other Quranists. We read the Quran for ourselves which were printed by the sunnis and we got its message. The sunnis merely passed on to us ADH-DHIKR but we got the tadkhirah ourselves. How, because its preserved.
As you admit, it is the written word that we get the message from. We don?t go and tell a Sunni let?s memorize by heart the great reading without understanding it.
The respected written record will serve as a reminder only if you try to remember. If you merely take it and hang it on the wall or just memorize the sounds blindly without understanding then it will not serve as a reminder for you.
Lets say dhikr is rememberance of the message or whatever. The sunnis would have made athi?ur ?rasool to SAY (not mean) athi?ul hadith. But they can?t do it because its ingrained deep in their minds that the words are holy. They can?t understand what it really means but falsehood will NEVER enter it anyway. That?s God?s promise and you can see it being recited all over the world.
But in their minds ?athi?ur ?rasool? means athi?al-hadith?. On the other hand, the respected (raised) written record says otherwise.
Yes but dhikr is NOT furqan itself. It transmits the info to the right reciever so that he may RECEIVE furqan.
Shahrur actually describes this very well.?Dhikr? results in the message becoming ?al-furqan?. Blind memorization doesn?t make anyone receive ?al-furqan?. Do you think that a parrot receives ?al-furqan??!
But how do we know you got the right dhikr? How do YOU know it? Can you please address this question, I?ve asked it like 20 times now.
It is right because it helps you improve your understanding. Blind memorization doesn?t help anyone improve their understanding.
Ayman, how is it you?re so brilliant in seeing masjid as some institution and yet for ar-room you don?t question at all? Why double standards?
How do I know ar-room means romans? The fact that you think it automatically means romans never mind THESE romans?
Do you know how many theories float around in Academia about Islamic history? And you think God wants us to join these pointless debates?
I have to say , to call the ruins of an ancient site as reality is very na?ve. Reality is something happening before you. Treating Quran as a historical book is what got you into this mess.This is the best understanding at the moment. If you have a better theory then please share it and explain why the believers would be happy when the Romans (or whatever you think ?al-room? means) win? Again, the reminder is there to help us improve our understanding.
That depends on whether they stop or don?t stop. Most stop at ar-rahmaan sure but if one were to continue reciting, they would know what the case ending would be.
No matter if you stop or continue reciting, it is ?al-rahmaan? and NOT ?al-rahmaanu? as the false vocalization case ending indicates. Also, now according to you the memorized sound depends on an arbitrary decision of where to stop or not stop!
Peace,
Ayman
-
http//Are you saying that the prophet only recited and never read? If not then what is your point or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing
When one recites he actually reads either from the text written/saved in his memory or straight from the written text before his eyes. None can recite anything untill the matter is recorded/written down somewhere.
-
Peace Mazhar,
When one recites he actually reads either from the text written/saved in his memory or straight from the written text before his eyes. None can recite anything untill the matter is recorded/written down somewhere.
Exactly. So when the god tells us that the purpose of "salat" is to remember him ("aqim alsalat lithikry", we read the written text or recite it from memory and ponder on it so that we are reminded of the god. We don't just mindlessly repeat sounds that we memorized and then expect to be reminded of the god. So "thikr" cannot be mindless sound memorization but it is a reminder.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Mazhar,
Exactly. So when the god tells us that the purpose of "salat" is to remember him ("aqim alsalat lithikry", we read the written text or recite it from memory and ponder on it so that we are reminded of the god. We don't just mindlessly repeat sounds that we memorized and then expect to be reminded of the god. So "thikr" cannot be mindless sound memorization but it is a reminder.
Peace,
Ayman
Salaams Br. Ayman,
why can't the meaning be;
2014
"Verily, I am Allah There is no god but I So serve thou Me (only), and establish regular salaat for My admonition/call.or can it (somethong like)?
Salaat to give and take good advice.
3918
PICKTHAL Who hear advice and follow the best thereof. Such are those whom Allah guideth, and such are men of understanding.good advice is from Allah, if you agree with the translation.
peace
-
Peace brother Simple,
why can't the meaning be;
2014
"Verily, I am Allah There is no god but I So serve thou Me (only), and establish regular salaat for My admonition/call.
or can it (somethong like)?It can't because when we do "thikr" of the god he also does "thikr" of us. In other words, when we remember the god, he remembers us
I don't think that when we "admonish/call" the god he "admonishes/calls" us or when we "memorize" the god he "memorizes" us.
This is why when we do "salat" (whose purpose is reminding us of him), he also does "salat" on us.
Notice that the effect of "salat" (with its purpose of "thikr" is to take us out of the darkness and into the light (out of ignorance and into knowledge). This is the effect of understanding and remembering the truth.
This is also in contrast to forgetting the god as one can see in 967 and 5919. Forgetting is not in contrast to "admonition/call".
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace brother Simple,
It can't because when we do "thikr" of the god he also does "thikr" of us. In other words, when we remember the god, he remembers us
peace
So He only remembers us when we remember Him?
I don't think that when we "admonish/call" the god he "admonishes/calls" us or when we "memorize" the god he "memorizes" us.
Sorry i think we could write the sentance structure in a better way- we are meant to admonish others or reverberate his call for the benefit of others.
This is why when we do "salat" (whose purpose is reminding us of him), he also does "salat" on us.
I know he sends His salaat on us , but where does it imply that we send our salaat on Him?
Notice that the effect of "salat" (with its purpose of "thikr" is to take us out of the darkness and into the light (out of ignorance and into knowledge). This is the effect of understanding and remembering the truth.
This is also in contrast to forgetting the god as one can see in 967 and 5919. Forgetting is not in contrast to "admonition/call".
surely according to that ayah Allah forgets them because they enjoin evil and forbid what is just - as the ayah says.
Ayman
