Peacemaking and Peacemakers in the Great Reading
-
Leaving the above speculation aside can we still translate "yusallimu_ taslima_(n)" in 465 as peace ?
465 No, by your lord, they do not believe until they have you judge what they dispute then they find no unease within themselves from what you decided, and they make peace peaceably.
As always, I offer but a humble, unrefined translation of the words of the god. I'm glad you asked about 465 because it perfectly illustrates the overall point you can "surrender" and hate something, but making peace requires being peaceful at heart.
Does "surrender" (istaslam) not imply that you were putting up a fight to begin with? This was not the case for everyone; for example, Jesus was a peacemaker from the very beginning.
Doesn't it interest you that the god used "muslim" for peacemaker and "mustaslim" for surrender-er? See 3726.
-
Salam all,
I have written an essay on this subject, where I have come to the conclusion that Islam in the Qur'an refers to peace and wellbeing with all existence, this means both God and the creation
"The word al-Din has several meanings depending on the context. In pre-Islamic Arabic it was used mostly for custom, habit, debt, obligation, requital and obedience. It was used for a habitual state that kept returning, so that it could become a custom, and thus became an authority which was obeyed. It probably had several original Semitic sources, as Persians used it for systematic religion, Jews for requital, and Arabs for custom. The Arabs used it for example for rain that always fell at a particular place.
The Qur?an rejects exclusivist religious thought, the idea that only one religion with its specific dogmatism and labels will gain you salvation. The Qur?an shows development is based on a few very rational and universal concepts
2111-112
And they claim, "None will enter Paradise unless he is a Jew or a Christian." This is nothing but their wishful thinking. Say, "Bring your proof if you are truthful." No, whosoever inclines to peace with his whole being for God (aslama wajhahu lillahi), while being a person who improves the state of mankind (muhsinun); he will have his reward with his Developer. There will be no fear over them, nor will they grieve.
The verb aslama has many applications. In pre-Islamic Arabic usage, it referred to giving over or to incline to something that makes something safe or pure, or to act peacefully or safely with yourself, a product, or someone else. It meant to being something or give over something precious to you or to someone else, and you or that person, will keep it safe as salama refers to safety, wholeness and health. The root word goes as far back as 4000 years ago, where it was used in the Proto-Semitic Akkadian language (2000 BCE) for to be unharmed, peace, well-being and welfare. The word wajhahu comes from wajooh, face, which represents a person?s whole being. Thus aslama wajhahu lillahi means to give over your whole being in the struggle for peace for God (you do not endanger or waste God?s creation), and you keep yourself and your surroundings safe and healthy.
Al-Islam is a verbal noun in the Arabic form of If3l. yulim informs, is the verb form IV and the verbal noun in form IV is i3lam information. As the root verb salama means peace and well-being, then al-Islam is the performing/having of peace and well-being. (form IV) which refers to the performing of the root meaning described in a noun.
The medieval scholar Raghib Isfahani explains in his Qur'anic concordance that al-Islam means
The engagement/entering (al-Dukhulu) into (fi) the Peace (al-Silm)."
The full essay can be read here
http//www.deenresearchcenter.com/LinkClick.aspx?link=State+of+Mankind+Quranic+Universalism+by+AYMol+(3).pdf&tabid=36&mid=774&language=nl-NL
-
Peace guys,
I do not think "religion" as the proper translation for "din". I copied from another site and missed the word religion.
How would you advice me to translate the word din ?
Salam warner
Please excuse my butting in, and I have not read all the thread but picked up on this. During my bit of study I looked up the root Dal-ya-nun to be
obedience/submissiveness, servility, religion, high/elevated/noble/glorious rank/condition/state, took/receive a loan or borrowed upon credit, become indebted, in debt, under the obligation of a debt, contract a debt, repay/reimburse a loan, rule/govern/manage it, possess/own it, become habituated/accustomed to something, confirmation, death (because it is a debt everyone must pay), a particular law/statute, system, custom/habit/business, a way/course/manner of conduct/acting, repayment/compensation.
and found the one English word that describes ALL of the above is "SYSTEM". I have not got as far as checking if SYSTEM would make sense in all the verses though.
-
Salaam Arnold Yasin, thanks for the excellent article! I love to read about the etymology of words
Salaam David,
What you're saying is total nonsense. "The root of the verb is 'istaslam'" is like saying "The root of the verb is TO SURRENDER", which is already a verb and not a root at all.
Hahahahahah...that was a good one I laughed so hard when I read it
This reminds me of a quote by Nietzsche
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything"
Now onto your arguments,
Honestly I have no problem with your etymological arguments for islam meaning peacemaking. In fact, I'm leaning towards that understanding after reading the posts in the thread.
But I did notice something off about your relation of Solomon's story in your opening post.
- Solomon asks the leader of Sheba to make her people peacemakers.
- She sends him a gift but does not commit to lasting peace, or even mention peace in correspondence.
- Solomon threatens her.
- In the end, she finally makes peace. Her peace happens to be for the god, which is good but not always the case (4917 above).
My problem with this understanding is that Solomon seems to be making war for peace. This is a bit of an oxymoron, and we have a modern precedent in the recent wars by the US and in Orwell's term 'doublethink', where "war is peace" is a frequently used example. I think that commanding someone to be peaceful, and threatening to invade if they do not, is a bit of a weak justification.
Also, the fact that the hoopoe states that he found the people of Sheba prostrating to the sun and not to God is a strong indicator that Solomon wanted to make war on them to convert them to stop this practice, and not just to make them peacemakers. Because that is what he reacts to. We only hear afterwards in 2733 that they are a warlike people.
Doesn't it interest you that the god used "muslim" for peacemaker and "mustaslim" for surrender-er? See 3726.
This is a really strong argument and inclines me to lean towards your rendering of muslim.
So the only problem I can think of is the one I mention above. Any thoughts?Lastly, what do you think are the implications of verse 4914 when it is translated as peace? Does this mean that the truly faithful are ones who 'made peace' somehow before faith entered their hearts? And what enters the hearts of people who believe but are warlike? I think that's a really interesting topic to consider and delve into. And how does that render Buddhists? They're some of the most peaceful people on earth.
I thank you for increasing my knowledge!
Salaam -
Peace Ths,
Thank you for your constructive feedback. I look forward to a relationship of mutual growth and learning, if the god wills.
Honestly I have no problem with your etymological arguments for islam meaning peacemaking. In fact, I'm leaning towards that understanding after reading the posts in the thread.
The way the word "salam" (peace) arrives at its verbal forms "aslama" (made peace) and "islam" (peacemaking) is what caused me to seriously rethink the definition, after reading this http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598099.msg197347#msg197347. The bottom line is that "salam" does not mean "surrender"; it has the beautifully simple and universal meaning of "PEACE". Everyone knows what peace is, and everyone knows what it takes to make peace. It's just a matter of those who choose to become peacemakers, and those who choose to be apathetic, or worse. Do we have what it takes to be peacemakers, no matter who we oppose?
My problem with this understanding is that Solomon seems to be making war for peace. This is a bit of an oxymoron, and we have a modern precedent in the recent wars by the US and in Orwell's term 'doublethink', where "war is peace" is a frequently used example. I think that commanding someone to be peaceful, and threatening to invade if they do not, is a bit of a weak justification.
Also, the fact that the hoopoe states that he found the people of Sheba prostrating to the sun and not to God is a strong indicator that Solomon wanted to make war on them to convert them to stop this practice, and not just to make them peacemakers. Because that is what he reacts to. We only hear afterwards in 2733 that they are a warlike people.
First of all, your reference to Orwell's 1984 positively made my day; thank you. 1984 is my favorite book by a human - I recommend that everyone read it, which can be done for free here http//www.george-orwell.org/1984. Of course, we both know that the United States' military presence has absolutely nothing to do with peacemaking, and everything to do with imperialism.
As for Solomon, I don't think he was clueless about the people of Sheba, a people with prowess in war. Let's go back a little bit and look at what kind of kingdom Solomon inherited from David. First came Taloot (Saul?), who led his people to fight in the cause of the god against those who had deprived them of their homes, them and their children! What a righteous defense! In this noble cause, David killed the commander Goliath. David and Solomon lived blessed lives, and by the time the forces/troops were under Solomon's control, he sent a letter to the queen of Sheba that she herself described as "karim" (noble). It was noble because he was offering a people with prowess in war a chance to come to him as peacemakers, continuing the trend of his righteous army. It's not like the United States' army, who use "peace" only as part of propaganda. Solomon did truly command a peacemaking force. I see no reason whatsoever for Solomon, a righteous king, to have threatened the people of Sheba unless they were up to no good, especially given their leaders bragging about war chutzpah. He offers them a chance to align with his peacemaking army and they send him a gift (bribe)? Pathetic, isn't it? )
People have proposed that Solomon knew nothing of Sheba's warlike ways, but why wouldn't he? As a king, would he not know about other kingdoms, especially aggressive ones? What he didn't know is that they were worshiping the sun, but he wasn't forcing them to stop, he simply told them never to attack him, and to instead join him as peacemakers.
Today, we don't have peacemaking armies, do we? I guess that's why it's hard to imagine. Between Israel, the United States, Britain, and the rest, who is really fighting for peace these days?
Lastly, what do you think are the implications of verse 4914 when it is translated as peace? Does this mean that the truly faithful are ones who 'made peace' somehow before faith entered their hearts? And what enters the hearts of people who believe but are warlike? I think that's a really interesting topic to consider and delve into. And how does that render Buddhists? They're some of the most peaceful people on earth.
Excellent questions. I absolutely believe that faith only enters the hearts of those who first made peace, in whatever way suited their lives and situations. People who are warlike do not have true faith, according to the passage in 4914. They say they believe, but they're told to make peace if they want true faith. Look at all the "religious Jews" on the Zionist side of the fence in Palestine - obviously they don't really believe because they're aggressors. As for Buddhists, I would say that any group of people that makes peace and promotes peace has the opportunity for faith to enter their hearts, but it's not guaranteed. If they're making peace for their idols, or for human reasons, then faith is not likely to proceed from their peacemaking (islamahum).
4917 They (think) they are gracing you in that they made peace. Say, "You are not gracing me with your peacemaking. No, the god has graced you that he guides you to faith, if you are truthful."
But what about Buddhists, or others, who are "constant in surrender"? They're in trouble, because true peacemakers are not known to be constant in surrender - they will fight when necessary, for the paths/causes of peace.
515-16 A light has come to you from the god; a clear book. The god guides with it those who seek his approval to the paths/causes of peace (subul al-salam).
Thank you for mentioning Buddhists. I want to use this opportunity to talk about a Hindu - Gandhi. What did he really say about non-violence?
Fight violence with nonviolence if you can, and if you cant do that, fight violence by any means, even if it means your utter extinction. But in no case should you leave your hearths and homes to be looted and burnt.
Maybe I missed an ealier post, on what basis did you translate Mustaslimoona as surrender-er ?
Peace Warner,
There was indeed an important post, ironically from the sectarian traditionalist calling himself "Thereformer1". Because there is no good reason to think of "salam" as "surrender", he resorted to plagiarizing an explanation from his fellow sectarian traditionalists. The definition he found in their heap of conjecture was
...
This translates to "islam" in the language means "istislam".
This is like saying "muslim" in the language means "mustaslim".
They are different words; "istislam" means surrendering, and "mustaslim" means one who surrenders.Indeed, the sole occurrence is "mustaslim" is 3726
3724-26 Stop them! They are questioned, "Why do you not give each other victory?" No; today they are those who surrender.
"qif" = stop and "istislam" = surrender. They stop fighting the god and surrender. So why does the great reading ONLY use "mustaslim" for the wicked people at the end time (yawm al-akhir)? Because they spent their lives putting up a fight, and in the end they have to surrender. On the other hand, believers do not fight the god as his enemies, so they enter peace without surrendering. For example, Jesus was a peacemaker from a very young age, so he never had to surrender.
1929-33 They said, "How can we communicate with a child in the cradle?" He said, "I am a servant of the god; he has given me the book and made me a prophet. He has made me blessed wherever I may be, and enjoined me with/to the connection and betterment/purification as long as I live. And to be pious with/to my mother. He did not make me an arrogant tyrant. Peace to me the day I was born, the day I die, and the day I rise to life."
The fact stands not everyone must surrender, because some people are aligned with the god from the very start! ) They must simply persist in peacemaking (islam).
Peace,
-David
-
Peace,
There are several Tafsir/Quran commentaries that say Aslama (form 4) is linked to Istislam (form 10), but there is no real basis for this as form 10 is rarely used. We can see this in the Qur'an itself which rarely uses form 10 of any verb. The different forms do not explain each other, but provide different forms of actions derived from the root definition.
A very good analysis David of verse 3726.
-
Salaam David,
1984 is my favorite book as well. Read it back in high school and loved it ever since. I take every opportunity to peddle that book around!
And I see you're quoting Finkelstein! Hahah..there seems to be excellent literature being displayed in this thread
I sent this thread to some friends, also Arabic speakers, and they were surprised as well by this revelation...it just goes to show you how little we actually question the things we're taught as children.
And I can only wonder when this meaning was altered..
Also, I agree with your interpretation of Buddhism. I, like most everyone else, admire their pacifism. And I see their way as one route to peace in this world - provided everyone saw it the same way. But the sad reality of life is that there will always be the conquerors and thieves, and one must defend oneself to flourish.
-
And I can only wonder when this meaning was altered..
But the sad reality of life is that there will always be the conquerors and thieves, and one must defend oneself to flourish.Peace Ths,
Good question; when did the meaning get distorted? Because the language of the great reading was perfectly clear , it wouldn't make any sense for an aggressive army to invade and occupy lands calling themselves "peacemakers" (muslimun).
2278 He named you peacemakers before and in this.
320 So, if they argue with you then say, "I have made peace with my whole being for the god, as have those who follow me." And say to those who got the book and the commoners, "Would you make peace?"The aggressive force could not call themselves peacemakers. This is proven by archaeological evidence; a papyrus datable to 644CE refers to an "emigration" (higra) and Christian sources of the period frequently call the Arabs "emigrants" (muhagirun) not "peacemakers" (muslimun). See Robert G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam, Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, 13 (Princeton, N.J. Darwin Press, 1997). Pp. 890
So, "islam" (peacemaking) was wrongfully equated to "istislam li-allah" (surrendering to the god) sometime later on, probably to allow continued warmongering and imperialism under the banner of the expanding "Islamic Empire" (Peacemaking Empire... ;D).
Indeed, as you said, there is aggression in this world and it must be fought. Peace doesn't happen naturally, even from the very start (527 +), so we must be peacemakers. Ironically, just after starting this thread (based on Dr. Ayman's original findings) I watched the movie "Hotel Rawanda" and the UN forces used the flimsy cop-out, "We're here as peace-keepers, not peace-makers". We have to make peace in this world, may the god give us victory.
Peace,
-David
-
But the god commands us to jihad even though we may not like it.
In the international media we increasingly hear many untranslated Arabic words. Examples include words such as Islam, Muslims, Islamist, Jihad, Alqaida, etc... By taking such words as proper names or meaningless labels, those who spread corruption in the earth have been able to attach whatever meanings they want to those words. Both Arabic and non-Arabic speakers have been deceived by such tactics.
For example, when the word Jihad is mentioned, the first image that is evoked in the minds of the majority of Arabic and non-Arabic speakers is that of a religious holy war. This meaning has taken hold despite the fact that all Arabic dictionaries say that the word "jihad" simply means "striving". Of course, "striving" is a positive word that doesn't carry violent connotations in the minds of the audience. Being Arabic speakers has not helped people avoid this trap because the proper name blocks the true meaning of a word even in Arabic.
As we have seen, by transforming a word into a proper name, a new meaning has been attached to a neutral or positive word. This phenomenon has worked both ways and thus we also see Arabic words with a negative meaning being used as proper names whose inventors have intended as positive.
For example, ironically the opposite of those who strive ("al-mujahidun" in the great reading is the idle ("al-qaidun" according to passages such as 495. Those who lied to the god and his messenger are said to have been idle ("qaid" in 990. Generally the word "qaid" in the great reading has the meaning of "stop/idle/hinder". Thus, the "qawaid" are what stops a building from falling (2127, 1626) and "qawaid" are also women who stopped desiring marriage (2460). We also hear about the descendents of Israel who disobeyed Moses as being idle ("qaidun" in 524. Even the devil himself is described as hindering ("qaid" humans from the straight path of the god (716). In Arabic, the feminine form has the same meaning as the masculine form but adds intensification. So in the context of striving, "al-qaida" actually is the opposite of the true striving and it means "the intensely idle/the intensely hindering".
Whoever chose the name Alqaida for an outfit that we often hear about on the news as a symbol of "extreme Islamic Jihad", must be completely clueless about the great reading and Classical Arabic. Whoever chose that name was certainly hopelessly ignorant of the connotation of the word in the great reading and the fact that it actually means the opposite of striving ("jihad". Indeed, they scheme and scheme but the god is the best schemer. The god's message continues to be a witness against those who claim to strive for the god in order to commit corruption in the earth.
How do we strive for the god his true striving? The answer is given in 2278
- And strive for the god his true striving. He has brought you and has made no hardship on you in the obligation, the creed of your father Ibrahim. He (the god) named you the peaceful ("al-muslimeen" before and in this, so that the messenger will be a witness against you and you will be witnesses against humankind. Thus, persist in the learning connection and bring betterment and hold to the god. He is your protector, a most excellent protector and most excellent supporter.
We strive for the god his true striving by continuing to learn and teach others about his message, bringing betterment as opposed to corruption in the earth, and holding on to him.
This is not really a conclusion but is a humble step forward in a long journey. It is a step for restoring the true meaning of the striving for the god. We can start by teaching people about the real meaning that was blocked by the proper names. When such barriers are removed, the world will be a better place. Suddenly, "extreme peaceful striving" doesn't sound so bad.
Only thing is that "peaceful" should be "peacemakers". )
-
Peace to David and everyone here
Sulaiman was organizing his army/troop/force which was no peace keeping force as it refers in every use of this word (junod) in the Quran. Sulaiman is a disciplined general and to most his threat to the hoopoe for being absent from the formation with ?torture/punishment or death" will qualify Sulaiman to ruthlessness rather than peacefulness. The queen did not send a bribe or a Trojan horse neither did she wrap herself in a carpet and deliver herself as Cleopatra. She sent him a gift. It?s clear from the Quran there is no hidden agenda. But even if we need to twist it as a bribe let?s ask the simple question, ?what for was the bribe ? " . Simply to protect her kingdom from Sulaimans forces because look at the threat he delivers.. Fortunately, God made her march to him, but imagine what would have happened if she did not go to Sulaiman. Put this whole story in today?s context, imagine the president of USA or for that matter any country doing this to his less powerful neighbor. Do you think Sulaiman qualifies for the Noble PEACE prize for being so peaceful? Let?s not build our own excuses or conspiracy theories to justify Sulaiman?s actions because we need to arrive at a forced meaning for the word ?Islam?.
Sulaiman is a Messenger and has to submit to Gods command and had to deliver the message he was sent with. I believe some of Gods messengers received instructions from God to fight a nation if they do not fall to the will of God, willingly. This is the same in the Torah. When Moses and the Children of Israel come to the Promised Land the people living there already were not hurting Moses or the Children of Israel and they were no threat. But Gods command has come to take the land from them with force. But did you notice what the ?peaceful ones? said. ?Let them leave, then we will enter". But what did the believing ones said? ?Attack?. Which of the two is the better submitter?
Simple as it sounds I noticed grammarians stayed away from this meaning of peacemaker. I probably agree with Ayman that there is a common thread of peace running in all the forms of this root. Maybe it is peaceful resignation or peaceful submission as highlighted in Ramzan Zuberi?s article in the link I provided earlier. Or we may not have the exact word in English which brings out the meaning ?peace? and ?submission? together as the usage of this root represents in the Quran.
-
This is the same in the Torah. When Moses and the Children of Israel come to the Promised Land the people living there already were not hurting Moses or the Children of Israel and they were no threat. But Gods command has come to take the land from them with force. But did you notice what the ?peaceful ones? said. ?Let them leave, then we will enter". But what did the believing ones said? ?Attack?. Which of the two is the better submitter?
Peace Warner,
Leaving aside for a moment that horrid image of Solomon, which I already addressed by recalling the righteous armies of Taloot and David (Solomon's forerunners), let's take a look at the truthful history of Moses and the land.
523 Two men of those who feared and were blessed by the god said, "Enter on them using the gate."
Traditionalists see this entering as an attack, which is clearly negated by 1269.
1269 When they entered on Joseph.
His brothers didn't attack him! Back to Moses, the unrighteous were the only ones who said ANYTHING about fighting! Reminds me of the Zionists, honestly...
524 They said, "Yo Moses, we will never enter it as long as they are in it - so you and lord go and fight, we will stay right here!"
Who said anything about fighting? Read it all in context. It's really funny - they basically come out of nowhere and start making assault plans. Don't use the Bible to say that a righteous army killed thousands of men, women and children just because they weren't bani Israel.
You see aggression and warmongering where there is none - absolutely none. It's no wonder you disgrace Solomon as such. The great reading, however, maintains his honor as a peacemaker and a righteous military leader. As for the "dhibh" regarding "hadhad", did you ever consider that it might not refer to slaughter? See http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13069.msg233662#msg233662 The basic meaning of "sacrifice" is to give something up, not to open something's throat.
Did you know that white Europeans thought they were doing the god's work by enslaving African pagans? Do you really think that the god used to make armies to go and kill people for not serving the god? What kind of god is this? Allah al-salam = the god is peace.
Peace,
-David
-
Salaam David,
Is there an article, on this topic specifically, online that you are aware of? And if not, is there a way we could get this information posted in the articles section?
The reason I ask is because I think that this is a topic of incredible importance, and not just etymological significance.
I was discussing an article online on 'Anarca-Islam', and it was getting bashed immediately by everyone. Mostly because anarchists tend to also be against organized religion, but also several people responded that since Islam means 'submission' it is directly antithetical to anarchism. And it's quite hard to convince people that Islam means peace if every source online states that it means submission.
My interest in anarchism started by my idolizing of Noam Chomsky, whom you've most probably read if you're familiar with Norman Finkelstein. So I've been researching more into it recently, and am as of yet undecided on it, but definitely do not agree that it goes against the principles of Islam.
Anyway a simple article reflecting the etymological arguments is needed. I've gone over brother Ayman's article on Peacemaking, and find that it lacks the etymological argument, which I think is strongest.
-
Salaam David,
Is there an article, on this topic specifically, online that you are aware of? And if not, is there a way we could get this information posted in the articles section?Peace Ths,
In truth, my post was the result of a discussion I had with Dr. Ayman about his articles. I was working on a possible website where I had used "peacefulness" for "islam" and "peaceful" for "muslimun", but he told me that his latest research had concluded that the MAKING of peace is a far better and more meaningful translation. After searching on the forum I saw the etymological evidence myself and also found the evidence overwhelming.
Perhaps Ayman would re-write and refine his article in the articles section. I would love that. We do need to get cracking in both islam (peacemaking) and islah (fixing). This world is broken, it's inhabitants are starved to death by the greed of empires and subject to endless imperial bloodletting and extreme brutality. I really hope the message of peacemaking will become universal, which might be the best way to look at this passage
933 He is the one who sent his messenger with guidance and the true obligation , to make it expose/overtake all other obligations, in spite of the idolaters.
So while they're busy arguing this and that (re Muhammad, Ali, Hassan, Hussayn, Hadith, Sunnah, etc.), sipping tea and coffee and eating sweets, others will be out there trying to make a real difference. For example, I just got an e-mail in my inbox from Yuksel talking about peacemaking. While I admire that message, I wonder how devoted he is when he spends so much time chasing 19 "miracles" and defending a liar like Rashad Khalifa. How much of a peacemaker was Khalifa, constantly bashing "the Arabs" - a group that's been kept down by a long line of tyrannical leaders with Western backing, not to mention an unholy assault by US and Israeli thugs, vandals and marauders.
PEACE ,
-David R. S. Aitken
-
Peace. Follow-up here http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9600545.0
-David
