Qur'an-Alone Commentary (Sura 9)
-
peace MM,
I studied the first part of chapter 9 in significant detail for the following article, written quite a while ago
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/disproved_traditional_salat.htm so I decided to look over what you wrote.Here are my notes in BRIEF on 91-12
6511 - Quran is permanent messenger from that verse - how? I'm not saying it isn't but I dont know why you used that verse.
"What Muhammad (SAW) decides is what Allah (SWT) decides (3336)." - 3336 does not say that, Muhammad is not equal to the word messenger.
"greater HJJ" is not correct, it is the superlative akbar/greatest/peak.
"idolaters" is not correct, although understandable translation, it is mushrikeen, those who associate partners, i.e. polytheists.
it seems you missed out 94-5. I assume since its a commentary you dont quote/comment on all verses.
Your translation of 911 is not right, deen does not mean faith. Also, you do not comment on one of the most perplexing and contradictory understandings found in translations, which I discuss in the above article.I think your commentary is a good idea for people who want to read a traditional translation better corrected by a "quran alone" viewpoint but it is not suitable for those wanting to read an accurate translation, as per AQ. Useful as a "bridging" commentary perhaps.
-
I assume from the strength of your BRIEF notes that the URL you supplied is the point of your post.
6511 - Quran is permanent messenger from that verse - how? I'm not saying it isn't but I dont know why you used that verse.
It was Edip Yuksel who represented 6511 with that comment (you can find it in his ?19 Questions for Muslim Scholars?). As a studier of the Qur?an it is best to look also at the implications of verses as well as their basic wording.
6511
?A Messenger who recites to you the clear communications of Allah so that he may bring forth those who believe and do good deeds from darkness into light; and whoever believes in Allah and does good deeds, He will cause him to enter gardens beneath which rivers now, to abide therein forever, Allah has indeed given him a goodly sustenance.?
A studier of the Qur?an knows that the Messenger was sent to deliver a Message. Everything he did was ideally according to the Qur?an (although Muhammad (SAW) was not perfect). The purpose of the Message according to 6511 was to allow the Messenger to bring people from ?darkness into light?, and therefore the Message is the necessary component needed to do that. Thus, even though Muhammad (SAW) is not with us in this day and age, we still have the Message which allowed him to be a Messenger. Therefore the Qur?an is a permanent ?messenger? for those who believe and judge according to it. That is the pith of the ayah (that the Qur?an is all we need). Please see 6157.
Other translations
http//www.islamawakened.com/quran/65/11/default.htm
"What Muhammad (SAW) decides is what Allah (SWT) decides (3336)." - 3336 does not say that, Muhammad is not equal to the word messenger.
Now I never said that Muhammad (SAW) was equal to the word ?Messenger?. If you look at the context of my argument I am referring to Muhammad (SAW) in his role as Messenger (see also notes for 2124 regarding 465). I hope this is not a justification for your final comments. I will add ?as Messenger of religious teaching? in parentheses to address the complaint.
You say ?greater Pilgrimage? is not right
http//www.islamawakened.com/quran/9/3/default.htm
A minority of the translators agree with you but it does not affect the commentary (yours would make sense).
"idolaters" is not correct, although understandable translation, it is mushrikeen, those who associate partners, i.e. polytheists.
What is the difference between an idolater and a polytheist? We know that a polytheist is one who worships more than one god. Is one a polytheist if one believes in more than one god but still does not worship them? In context of this ayah, does that describe these people (polytheists)? What is the difference between an idolater and an idol-worshipper? Is an idolater someone who believe in idols but does not worship them? The context answers these questions (as it will in other cases).
?it seems you missed out 94-5. I assume since its a commentary you dont quote/comment on all verses.?
?
Please read the first line of my post where it says ?relevant ayat?. This also proves that you did not read beyond the first few ayat thus invalidating your assessment (last line).
?Your translation of 911 is not right, deen does not mean faith.?
Deen means system. We know that in Islam those who believe in Allah (SWT) (i.e. have faith) live by His way
?And this is the path of your Lord, right ; indeed We have made the communications clear for a people who mind.?
6126
(and various other ayat).
?Also, you do not comment on one of the most perplexing and contradictory understandings found in translations, which I discuss in the above article.?
The article is the point of your post. I will look at that soon and see if it is relevant (from what I saw it relies upon heavily contextual ayat which is dangerous (see 936 for a reason)). Sura 9 was an example against an enemy that could not be trusted. I do not think it can be used to disprove traditional salaat (e.g. the apparent meaning of 95 is clarified by 96 (it also clarifies the other ayat which you used to attempt prove that the Qur'an is intolerant).
I think your commentary is a good idea for people who want to read a traditional translation better corrected by a "quran alone" viewpoint but it is not suitable for those wanting to read an accurate translation, as per AQ. Useful as a "bridging" commentary perhaps.
I cross-check the translations anyway. Those who read it will be encouraged to check the ayat themselves and that is the point. It will of course be useful as a bridging commentary although Shakir agrees with two other reliable (traditional) translators Pickthal and Y. Ali. I think there are minor discrepancies between traditional and newer translations (after we realise what the Qur?an is saying). Shia like the translation I have used, whereas Sunnis like Y. Ali. I see no reason to use modern translations.
Peace.
-
Deen = system,
and u said mohamed was a religious teacher !
i don't believe he was a religious teacher,but he was abolishing religion.
he was more a head of states, as he did wars , he was a general of an army, a politician, but not a religious teacher.
This is how i see it. -
Deen = system,
and u said mohamed was a religious teacher !
i don't believe he was a religious teacher,but he was abolishing religion.
he was more a head of states, as he did wars , he was a general of an army, a politician, but not a religious teacher.
This is how i see it.As I said, they are linked (the social system of Islam is based on faith in Allah (SWT)). Do you deny?
Deen means system. We know that in Islam those who believe in Allah (SWT) (i.e. have faith) live by His way
?And this is the path of your Lord, right ; indeed We have made the communications clear for a people who mind.?
6126
-
How do you know that "uphold/maintain the salat" in context of 95 etc. does not mean to allow the Muslims (in the polytheist society) to practice Islam (i.e. accept it as a part of daily life IN THE POLYTHEIST SOCIETY though not obligatory)? Does this not explain why Allah (SWT) instructs us to clear/vacate THEIR path (i.e. their religion)? If you look further at the context within 929-36 you can see that people are being debarred from the path of Allah (SWT) and that the idolaters were attacking Muslims first.
Peace.
P.S. This reminds me that I missed the important point of "jizya"/compensation. Visit the URLs provided in the first post for the most up-to-date versions of these commentaries.
-
As I said, they are linked (the social system of Islam is based on faith in Allah (SWT)). Do you deny?
Deen means system. We know that in Islam those who believe in Allah (SWT) (i.e. have faith) live by His way
?And this is the path of your Lord, right ; indeed We have made the communications clear for a people who mind.?
6126
I know, you're right in a way, but what if the meaning of " this is the way of your lord" means the constitution of the quran ? not only the belief in allah, how do we worship god ? he doesn't need us to keep saying his name , but apply the consitution he gave to mankind so we progress.the way of our lord is the way he chose for us to live by, just like saying the messenger mohamed, we follow him by following the quran. so we worship or serve god by living according to the quran. after all, it's a constitution that he gave us and not a religious document. faith is personel, but islam is general. and they're both the way of our lord, but still, islam is more general, it applys to those who don't have faith too .
-
peace MM,
If you change your statement to "What Muhammad (SAW) decides is what Allah (SWT) decides (3336), as Messenger of religious teaching? it will still be incorrect at worst, and misleading at best.
Muhammad is an imperfect human being, and refers to the person in the human-sphere. Whatever Muhammad decides may or may not be what Allah decides.
Messenger is a role-centric term and is only possible with a message, and refers to the person in the divine role-sphere. Whatever the messenger decides is what Allah decides.
See the difference?
It is irrelevant what translators say if it is clear in the Arabic as a superlative akbar.
The difference between idolater and polytheist can be seen using a dictionary.
This also proves that you did not read beyond the first few ayah thus invalidating your assessment (last line).
I consider 94-5 important. You did not, hence no commentary. What you consider relevant is of course subjective. It does not invalidate my assessment however, taking a snapshot just means it is less likely my assessment is correct, it does not invalidate it.
(it also clarifies the other ayat which you used to attempt prove that the Qur'an is intolerant).
I'd be interested to see where I attempted to prove AQ intolerant.
(the social system of Islam is based on faith in Allah (SWT)). Do you deny?
Can you cite an evidence for such a view? Chapter 9 itself clearly shows those mushrikeen who did not violate the treaty happily living amongst mumineen. Are they part of the social system or not?
...to allow the Muslims (in the polytheist society) to practice Islam...
This makes no sense to me. Please clarify.
-
If you change your statement to "What Muhammad (SAW) decides is what Allah (SWT) decides (3336), as Messenger of religious teaching? it will still be incorrect at worst, and misleading at best.
Muhammad is an imperfect human being, and refers to the person in the human-sphere. Whatever Muhammad decides may or may not be what Allah decides.
Messenger is a role-centric term and is only possible with a message, and refers to the person in the divine role-sphere. Whatever the messenger decides is what Allah decides.
See the difference?
My amendment only confirms what you just said. If it does not then you will need to explain why it does not.
The difference between idolater and polytheist can be seen using a dictionary.
Do you have an English dictionary that is more reliable in its purpose than the Shakir translation is in its purpose? What is the precise difference between the two (in English)?
Wikipedia
?Idolatry is usually defined as worship of any cult image, idea, or object, as opposed to the worship of a monotheistic God. It is considered a major sin in the Abrahamic religions whereas in religions where such activity is not considered a sin.?
?Polytheism is the belief in and/or worship of multiple deities, called gods and/or goddesses. These are usually assembled into a pantheon, along with their own mythologies and rituals.?
So I suppose you can be a mono-idolater, but this is still taking a god besides God and committing the same sin as polytheists. For what it is worth to a believer of the Qur?an, idolaters are (in some cases) mono-polytheists.
I consider 94-5 important. You did not, hence no commentary. What you consider relevant is of course subjective. It does not invalidate my assessment however, taking a snapshot just means it is less likely my assessment is correct, it does not invalidate it.
How is 94-5 relevant to the Qur?an-alone perspective (unless you are arguing with other Qur?an-aloners)? Did I not say ?relevant to the argument? (i.e. clearly meaning between Qur?an-alone as a whole and Sunni/Shia etc. as a whole (since I said ?the argument?))?
I'd be interested to see where I attempted to prove AQ intolerant.
It is necessary for you to do so regarding 95, 929 etc. in order to justify your concept of salaat. Hence my final question. Those who do not persecute Muslims ON ACCOUNT OF RELIGION (608 etc.) nor compel them in any way (2256 etc.) are not the enemies of Islam. Thus a non-Muslim society is expected to allow Muslim residing there to practice their religion (i.e. ?uphold salaat? as a part of their community). If that is twisting it, then no matter how you define "salaat" there is still apparently some compulsion in those ayat. It was clearly restricted to those times as per 913 and 936.
Can you cite an evidence for such a view? Chapter 9 itself clearly shows those mushrikeen who did not violate the treaty happily living amongst mumineen. Are they part of the social system or not?
?This Book, there is no doubt in it, is a GUIDE to those who guard (against evil). Those who BELIVE IN THE UNSEEN and keep up prayer and spend out of what We have given them.?
Qur?an 22-3
Tolerance is also a part of the social system, so of course non-Muslims are.
Peace.
-
peace MM,
94-5 is relevant to me because it is part of one of the most perplexing and contradictory positions of the Traditional translations/understandings, as discussed in the article.
It is necessary for you to do so regarding 95, 929 etc. in order to justify your concept of salaat. Hence my final question. Those who do not persecute Muslims ON ACCOUNT OF RELIGION (608 etc.) nor compel them in any way (2256 etc.) are not the enemies of Islam. Thus a non-Muslim society is expected to allow Muslim residing there to practice their religion (i.e. ?uphold salaat? as a part of their community). If that is twisting it, then no matter how you define "salaat" there is still apparently some compulsion in those ayat. It was clearly restricted to those times as per 913 and 936.
Either you have misunderstood what I wrote in my article or I am misunderstanding you above, as I do not see where you are getting my view from. When it says "if they repent and uphold the salat" it doesn't change addressee midway. No-one I have read has said this, and it is impossible in the Arabic AFAIK. You are right when you say "...then no matter how you define "salaat" there is still apparently some compulsion in those ayat." Exactly, and this is a great point to ponder upon. This is discussed in detail in the article.
Tolerance is also a part of the social system, so of course non-Muslims are.
I agree.
