Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About eIqra

  • Rank
    Level 1 Member
  • Birthday 01/01/1970

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Previous Fields

  • Gender
  1. Ulemas are 99.9 percent biased towards their own fiqas/creed/sect which they have beforehand and see the quran through their own lens. In the Name of the High assalam o alaykum well, the statement above, is a biased form in and of it-self there is no absolute way to ascertain that ones perspective is un-biased, and hence when we speak of the Prophet being, ummi, we speak so with the under-standing, that he was an empty vessel filled to the brim with Divine Revelation. this is a concept that is even shared with other religions, though make an effort to make sure that they "empty" them-selves first, since even our own experiences and perspectives do shadow how we approach any text, let alone the Quran Quranic Hermeneutics is what we call it, and at least some of the primary qualifications to indulge with before we engage in the tafsir of the Quran are 1- familiarity with the Quranic Language, arabic grammer 2- familiarity within the context it was revealed 3- familiarity with the interpretation of those who were addressed or through whom the revelation became manifest 4- self consistency within the Quranic interpretation as a form of a miracle and ijaz that speaks on how engages in interpretation regards, eIqra
  2. actually the context of the two verses is quite seperate and distinct (yes - you might be thinking, here is eIqra again, introducing his ambiguities), nevertheless, 16:21-22, are Meccan verses and were specifically with reference to the Meccan dis-belivers, since within the context of "muslims" we do ascribe to the belief of "tawassul", where we invoke other than 'Allah' with the intention that it is 'through Allah' that our supplications via the intermediary are accepted, where-as in 16:21-22, addressed to the Meccan dis-believers, quite explicit from this verse 016.022 YUSUFALI: Your Allah is one Allah: as to those who believe not in the Hereafter, their hearts refuse to know, and they are arrogant. PICKTHAL: Your Allah is One Allah. But as for those who believe not in the Hereafter their hearts refuse to know, for they are proud. SHAKIR: Your Allah is one Allah; so (as for) those who do not believe m the hereafter, their hearts are ignorant and they are proud. where-as the Christians do not deny the Here-after: mind you, that the Christians are referred to as 'The People of the Book' i am rather surprised that the Jama'at fails to under-stand the succint distinction between a believers seeking intermediary and those who are dis-believers. our seeking Muhammad as an intermediary, despite him being a mortal does not make him a "god", or deny that Muhammad is dead, any less than Isa being alive, despite his mortality, contradict this principle of seeking intermediaries. does the Jama'at actually believe at all in the karamat of the awliya, or the seeking of intermediary of the Prophet Muhammad, despite his being "dead"? so to conclude that It includes Jesus as Christians worship him and offer prayers to him. He had, therefore died and was not living at the time these verses were revealed. it cats doubts, on how 1 - when this principle is extended to the muslim other, also negates their belief in seeking Muhammad as an intermediary, since muslims believe in tawassul 2 - what applies in terms the logic that you are impressing, and while we know that Muhammad is dead, we are as much guilty of being in terms of belief, 'Close to the Meccan Disbelivers', since sura # 16, is a Meccan revelation 3 - leaves open ended questions on how the Jama'at views Islamic principles, like in (1) 4 - fails to make a clear distinction between the Meccan disbeliever and the People of the Book, and not to forget "us" muslims, belief on muslims regards, eIqra
  3. In the Name of the Most High assalam o 'alaykum Shaykh Usman in the last response, there were citations of several Quranic verses, and to share what was evident, these verses, as they are in your post, "Surely, the case of Jesus with Allah is like the case of Adam. He created him out of dust, then He said to him, 'Be', and he was." (3:60) "never thou wilt find a change in the way of Allah" (33:63) "therein shall you live and therein shall you die and therefrom shall you be brought forth" (7:26) "And for you there is an abode in the earth and a provision for a time" i.e. God has fixed earth as the life long abode of man (2:37) 3:60 - refers to the creation of Adam, though the entire context of the verses, makes it more intelligent (at least to me) 003.059 YUSUFALI: The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was. PICKTHAL: Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is. SHAKIR: Surely the likeness of Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was. 003.060 YUSUFALI: The Truth (comes) from Allah alone; so be not of those who doubt. PICKTHAL: (This is) the truth from thy Lord (O Muhammad), so be not thou of those who waver. SHAKIR: (This is) the truth from your Lord, so be not of the disputers. 003.061 YUSUFALI: If any one disputes in this matter with thee, now after (full) knowledge Hath come to thee, say: "Come! let us gather together,- our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves: Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie!" oddly enough, the preceeding verses refer to 3:55, which has been the subject of dispute, though these two verses, strike a similitude only as far as "Creation" at that stage, and even the english Commentary on your Jama'at web site, placed it within the context of 'Divinity'. the Commentary refers to 'Adam' in the sense of being the progenitor of the Human Race, and hence this similitude, i.e Adam was also born without a parent as was Isa. (look up the Commentary to the verse under discussion). it can't refer to death, because of the striked similitude, because Isas mention is done is previously in 3:55. in-fact, come to think of it, the mere fact, that 3:55 preceedes it, and there is no mention there-of, of the "death" of Isa, when the Christians are Najran approach the Prophet, it only goes to say, that perhaps the act of Creation of 'Adam' and that of 'Isa' sequenced together vis a vis Creation, are kept seperate and distinct, without invoking the "death of either of them". you also quote, 33:63, which i found to throughly mis-represented, as i picture the verses before it 033.061 YUSUFALI: They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy). PICKTHAL: Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter. SHAKIR: Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering. 033.062 YUSUFALI: (Such was) the practice (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime: No change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah. PICKTHAL: That was the way of Allah in the case of those who passed away of old; thou wilt not find for the way of Allah aught of power to change. SHAKIR: (Such has been) the course of Allah with respect to those who have gone before; and you shall not find any change in the course of Allah. it does not refer to the "natural" scheme of things that one speaks of, rather the innateness of Justice, that is the central theme of the Message of the prophets, peace upon them all. then you quote 7:26, how-ever you forget to mention, that the preceeding verses also state 007.019 YUSUFALI: "O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and enjoy (its good things) as ye wish: but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression." PICKTHAL: And (unto man): O Adam! Dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden and eat from whence ye will, but come not nigh this tree lest ye become wrong-doers. SHAKIR: And (We said): O Adam! Dwell you and your wife in the garden; so eat from where you desire, but do not go near this tree, for then you will be of the unjust. and then as we know 007.022 YUSUFALI: So by deceit he brought about their fall: when they tasted of the tree, their shame became manifest to them, and they began to sew together the leaves of the garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: "Did I not forbid you that tree, and tell you that Satan was an avowed enemy unto you?" PICKTHAL: Thus did he lead them on with guile. And when they tasted of the tree their shame was manifest to them and they began to hide (by heaping) on themselves some of the leaves of the Garden. And their Lord called them, (saying): Did I not forbid you from that tree and tell you: Lo! Satan is an open enemy to you? SHAKIR: Then he caused them to fall by deceit; so when they tasted of the tree, their evil inclinations became manifest to them, and they both began to cover themselves with the leaves of the garden; and their Lord called out to them: Did I not forbid you both from that tree and say to you that the Shaitan is your open enemy? and also within the same vein you also cite 2:37, but forget the verses preceeding it, 002.036 YUSUFALI: Then did Satan make them slip from the (garden), and get them out of the state (of felicity) in which they had been. We said: "Get ye down, all (ye people), with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be your dwelling-place and your means of livelihood - for a time." PICKTHAL: But Satan caused them to deflect therefrom and expelled them from the (happy) state in which they were; and We said: Fall down, one of you a foe unto the other! There shall be for you on earth a habitation and provision for a time. SHAKIR: But the Shaitan made them both fall from it, and caused them to depart from that (state) in which they were; and We said: Get forth, some of you being the enemies of others, and there is for you in the earth an abode and a provision for a time. though, you conclude, that i.e. God has fixed earth as the life long abode of man but it doesn't contradict that Adam and Eve, did live, eat in where they were (certainly not on earth), and were then sent down. of-course Adam and Eve, were still humans when they were in a place other than earth, were they not? and if you actually read the entire explanation from al-Zamakhsari on 3:55, with regards to t-w-f, which, your Commentary abruptly ends, without adding the bold piece, Mutawaffi ka, means, I will protext them from being killed by the people and will grant thee full lease of life ordained for thee, and will cause thee to die a natural death, not being killed by anybody. the only dis-agreement we seem to have then, even if i take your understanding of t-w-f is 'timing' (though i don't think that t-w-f means death at all - read along, why, since i gave you another reason down the post - least you start thinking that i agree with your Jama'ats belief. i am simply taking your belief and extending it forward). no one is denying that Isa not going to return, which according to ahadith, he has a special place. did not MGA take the exclusive mantle of Messiahship=Mahdi, and buttress this solely, exclusively based on ahadith (i had requested as well, references from the Quran where the idea of a "Mahdi" is concerned, insha 'Allah we'll hear from you) and re-considering your statement, i.e. God has fixed earth as the life long abode of man "fixed on earth" the other posited position could be that perhaps, yes, Isa is not longer with the "earthly" realm, as were 'Adam and Eve' before they were sent down on earth. this is sheer speculation, which again, i refer to the 2 Self Disclosed Attributes of God, when Isa is mentioned in al-Nisa, 4:158/159 (correct me if the verses are wrong), i.e Mighty and Wise. these two attributes are rarely used together in the Quran, and when they are ... i had asked you to look it up, and perhaps with due diligence you will, insha 'Allah so before, i am pounced on the word "speculation" look-up the 2 Attributes of God, al Aziz and al Hakim and let me know where these two are used not independently, but together. they point to an event during the Battle of Badr, where Divine Help, transcended human comprehension, here are the verses 003.124 YUSUFALI: Remember thou saidst to the Faithful: "Is it not enough for you that Allah should help you with three thousand angels (Specially) sent down? PICKTHAL: When thou didst say unto the believers: Is it not sufficient for you that your Lord should support you with three thousand angels sent down (to your help)? SHAKIR: When you said to the believers: Does it not suffice you that your Lord should assist you with three thousand of the angels sent down? 003.125 YUSUFALI: "Yea, - if ye remain firm, and act aright, even if the enemy should rush here on you in hot haste, your Lord would help you with five thousand angels Making a terrific onslaught. PICKTHAL: Nay, but if ye persevere, and keep from evil, and (the enemy) attack you suddenly, your Lord will help you with five thousand angels sweeping on. SHAKIR: Yea! if you remain patient and are on your guard, and they come upon you in a headlong manner, your Lord will assist you with five thousand of the havoc-making angels. 003.126 YUSUFALI: Allah made it but a message of hope for you, and an assurance to your hearts: (in any case) there is no help except from Allah. The Exalted, the Wise: PICKTHAL: Allah ordained this only as a message of good cheer for you, and that thereby your hearts might be at rest - Victory cometh only from Allah, the Mighty, the Wise - SHAKIR: And Allah did not make it but as good news for you, and that your hearts might be at ease thereby, and victory is only from Allah, the Mighty, the Wise. 003.127 YUSUFALI: That He might cut off a fringe of the Unbelievers or expose them to infamy, and they should then be turned back, frustrated of their purpose. PICKTHAL: That He may cut off a part of those who disbelieve, or overwhelm them so that they retire, frustrated. SHAKIR: That He may cut off a portion from among those who disbelieve, or abase them so that they should return disappointed of attaining what they desired. in-fact, 3:55 when read together with 4:158/159, t-w-f, can't mean "death", since causing some one to die, is no feat for God, since even angels do that as well, i.e taking the souls of human beings. think, why, why, the 2 Self Disclosed Attributes of God are mentioned in a seperate and distinct vere in sura al-Nisa. (i can't stress this enough, and repeat this as dhikr). importantly, the sample i cited above is just one example, God invokes these 2 attributes together, when God refers to the 'Womb', when Abraham make a prayer after building the Ka'aba, "When God Witnesses for Him-self", and several other instances. i will also urge that one read up on the meanings of these two attributes, and particularly when they are sinked together. in any case, i praise God that He blessed us with the opportunity to engage each other walLahu Alam, eIqra
  4. on the Sura al Anbiya 021.034 YUSUFALI: We granted not to any man before thee permanent life (here): if then thou shouldst die, would they live permanently? PICKTHAL: We appointed immortality for no mortal before thee. What! if thou diest, can they be immortal! SHAKIR: And We did not ordain abiding for any mortal before you. What! Then if you die, will they abide? i under-stand this rather differently than you do (though i agree with you as well), and notice the construct of the verse, that 1 - "min qablika" of Muhammad, no one lives permanently. now let me phrase this as follows, "Isa, before Muhammad, was "granted not ever lasting life". one can construe several meanings from it 1.a - for sure, it did not state, "min qablika" that "every man has died". all it emphasizes is that we are not immortals, and that as understood by you and me is correct. we differ only on the "timing". at some point in time we will die. don't you even grant that belief to the other beleivers, i.e the shi'ites and the ahlal sunna? how-ever, based on this verse, and the construct of the verse, "min qablika" and as your Commentator - translator put it, for man, God, who "granted not ever lasting life", does not contradict either your belief or even the other muslims belief - because they all agree that Isa is dead or will eventually die, respectively. 2.a if the verse would have stated, that "min qablika" every mortal was/had died, there was no room for any other interpretation (though one has to understand the context of the verse, and not pull it out of thin air 3.a and since the verse concludes, with 'if Muhammad would die, then how could you be mortals', only emphasizes and rather sheds more light, that within the engagement with his interlucotors, it was by way of example. 4.a this was also a Meccan sura, and is not the place to speak to dis-believers about another Prophet. lastly, on Isa being an exception: i need not to further comment. his birth was an exception in "human, mortal terms", his "speaking from the cradle" was an exception in "human terms", but that still makes him "human". the fact that the death of Isa's timing is disputed doesn't make him any less of a mortal, or does it? but to the Jama'at, timing is everything: it is the entire edifice of your iman, belief. regards, eIqra
  5. In the Name of the Most High wa 'alaykum as salams (and not AOA or WAS) i think that our discussion on 3:55 is over, since you are digressing into other avenues. as to this issue, Isa is/was a human being. as to the other points in this previous post (detail posts, as you term them!) 1 - humans needing food - the sustenance of those who were in the cave after hundreds of years? they were mortals as well. besides, i "don't" claim to know where Isa is, or where he isn't! let me jolt your memory again, the 2 Divine Attributes of Self Disclosure that are used within the context of God and Isa, you don't follow the context 2 - life of Noah, over a thousand Years (?) 3 - food can also mean spiritual sustenance there-at 4 - about Isa being sent to the Children of Israel: sure, his return as is in the ahadith literature, both shi'i and ahlal sunna is to focus on the Jews and the Christians (how can one not know of this, while reading the ahadith literature). you know very well, how the ahlal sunna and the shi'i resolve this by interpreting sura al Nisa verses (157/158) that removes such ambiguity. so there is no need to talk of abrogation. let me turn the question around, how did MGA resolve the issue, since he claimed to be the "Messiah" and the "Mahdi"? even if he is sent to the Children of Israel, are the children of Israel no longer living? what do you speak of? did MGA as a Messiah also address the Jews, i.e in terms of proselytizing? for once, would you please start answering my questions. i seem to get a barrage of cut and past material, but little "substance in terms of responding". (quite different from substance in terms of cut and paste, and i give you credit for that) 5 - now as to verse 3:145, as you translated, the (all) is a paranthetical inducement to believe that "all" have passed away. this is just aspect of tahrif, is it not? Yusuf Ali states, 003.144 YUSUFALI: Muhammad is no more than a messenger: many Were the messenger that passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will ye then Turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah; but Allah (on the other hand) will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) with gratitude. in-fact the use of the (all) implies, that there is no room for "all" at all. so let's move forward. 6 - you also stated, "There is yet another verse of the Holy Quran which clearly lays down that it is incompatible with the limited powers of a human being and his mission as a Prophet of God to ascend bodily to heaven.", but what was this in response to? this was a question posed by the non-believers, and what do the preceding verses? this is what the dis-believersasked of him, the Prophet 90 - spring gush from the the earth 91 - gardens of trees, vines, rivers and water flow 92 - sky to fall in pieces, angels face to face 93 - actually, it is not "heaven", it is "skies" - "as -sama" (but we'll go with heaven if you insist) and God "put" these words in Muhammads mouth 17:95 Say: "If angels were walking about on earth as their natural abode, We would indeed have sent down unto them an angel out of heaven as Our apostle." i think that the Quran, stating in 95, to the exclusion of others, makes a very revealing argument, and the point that it only responds to this, necessitates that the others are a possibility, if "they are only from God". remember your audience here are the "disbelievers", and God responds to them, and rules out 95, but does not rule out the other aspects. do you call these further ambiguities? if there are further ambiguities to my positions, and let's say that you are always right 1 - how come that i have to bring forth the context of the verses, like i did just above 2 - correct on mis-translated terms, like parenthetical inducements, like "all" 3 - Isa's role to the children of Israel, as if the Children of Israel have died 4 - the people of the Cave, living sleeping (or what-ever you wan't to call it, walLahu Alam), for more than a period that would cause the body to die? br Usman, why are you being so "judgemental"? why do you take delight in concluding as such? i have began to notice this in the last several posts. the Jama'atis that i know of, are not of this calibre and show adab to the other person. after-all, after being victims of the other, they are more profoundly aware of not treading a path that is really the path of satan. let me posit an example, and this is an ethical story. one of the Companions was caught drinking, and the Prophet prescribed a light rebuke, how-ever some Companions engaged in "verbal" confrontation. this made the prophet very very angry, and you know what he said, "Don't make it easy for Satan to Induce him". "words" have a very powerful effect, and despite the correctness of ones belief, that is, of-course your belief, as you maintain as such, let's keep the discussion at bay, and not engage in "judgemental" comments, after-all, i am no Companions, and Satan certainly can induce me, and all your efforts to sway would be lead to waste. even the road to guidance, despite good intentions, is fraught with satanic whisperings, and God knows best, and we seek refuge in God from his waswasa. let me ask you a rather personal question: since you are busy indeed, and are also engaged in this discussion, on "what" basis did you make the switch to the path of MGA and give bayah to his Caliph? i personally feel that individuals have a certain propensity and are drawn to certain perspectives, and are comfort in certain zones. i know many closet ahlal sunna who are convinced of the path of the path of the ahl al bayt, yet are still ahlal sunna, and also vice versa. they have embraced the best of both worlds, i.e the spiritual treasures. you need not to answer my question, if it is too personal. i will not have the chance to return to this board for some time as well, due to family situation at home. i hope that you under-stand, and i hope that you do keep my family in prayers, for i have not read of your concern towards my family. walLahu Alam, God knows better yours in faith, eIqra
  6. there is no Quranic evidence, none what so-ever of a "Mahdi" in the Quran. Isa, yes their and of Muhammads Contemporaries, abu Lahab, Zayd and .... so where is "Mahdi" in the Quran? i have read quite extensively on this issue, both ahlal sunna and shi'i literature. there is no, absolutely no explicit, none what so-ever reference to "a" Mahdi, "the" Mahdi, or the MGA Mahdi titled that he claimed in the Quran. you know it and i know it.[/b] Isa is there, so lets stick to Isa. here, let me give you ... 1 - Isa is alive and will return with Mahdi 2 - Isa is dead and the Mahdi/Messiah is also dead and gone 3 - Only Mahdi is going to come, who is also the Messiah 4 - Isa died well before the Mahdi came, and now the Mahdi is also dead and gone 5 - Isa died like all other prophets 6 - the Quran doesn't speak of Isa's death explicitly, yet it assigns a unique role to his end life as to his beginning life where do you fit in? i am not concerned, nor am i bound to the strappings of MGAs position. my Islam and belief does not hang on the thread of accepting MGA - one thing is for sure, i don't reject him, i just dis-agree with him: accept that, and for one i consider his followers muslims, as any other one who utters the Credo of Islam muslims weakness has been in trying to stratify the boundaries in what makes them unique from each other: even other religions did so after their founders passed away. if, God can grant salvation to the People of the Book, whose teachings are so distorted, yet in sura al Maidah it offers them and promises rewards for their good deeds if they adhere to their Books, why is there such a fuss? perhaps, it is the zealousness of those who convert from x to y and y to z. i hope and pray that there is no combustion, and i meant this in a kind way. i am sure that you can make better of your time, with tazkiya an nafs exercises, on muhasiba and other sicknesses of the soul. there is a lot that we need to correct in our-selves: let's take advantage of the time, while we are still alive insha 'Allah we will, eIqra
  7. it is the context, check this site out Tawaffa for Beginners http://www.ahmedi.org/node/21 .... in any case, regards, eIqra is this one of your moments? i think that you are entitled to one, since it adds a sense of relaxation, doesn't it? when you do make contact, say eIqra said, "Hi, and we are having a ball of a time"! but, what does it mean? is it meant in the sense of mocking some one? truly, i want to under-stand, why you write as such? insha 'Allah you can clarify? eIqra
  8. In the Name of the Most High assalam o alaykum ... it depends on the context, even after-it. we agree on spiritual elevation: and i repeat it for the -third- time, what is the purpose of raf'a in the here-after, especially when you are dead, and especially when the enemy is scheming against you? think of it, and please read my responses. how many times do i have to repeat them? i understand that you are busy, but stop being so -impulsive- and spurting out this bursts of energy which either you have mentioned, i have responded to, and ... then brought back into the discussion. i am really tired of repeating my-self, and i am sure that you are as well (i have to acknolwedge that, since you are indeed a very busy person, may God give you the 'ajr for it, insha 'Allah!) what i am saying is that: given your "translation, interpretation" does not mesh in with the other aspect of the theme within the verse. is that so hard to understand. let's strike an example, eIqra is convinced by br Usmans way of presentation and his method of exhortation being so eloquent, yet he walks to work. huh !?! if you insist on death, then take that meaning all along. connect it with the "yet" piece. now do you know what i mean? do you understand that simply taking the "word" alone does not offer me anything, nothing. put it in a context and let the context ride that meaning. see how terribly i constructed the walking sample i am rather intrigued by one who doesn't mind using a non arabic language (read urdu - to say kuta margaya or to say kuta ki wafat ho gai is not wrong urdu, it is poor urdu) to strike parallels yet, refuses to accept the given under-standing and the nuance of the arabic language it-self. see even the Commentator to the Quran (the one on-line) resorted to al-Zamakshari, to beg his position in the first place. al-Zamakshari does not stop there, but then, the Commentator doesn't wish you to know that, does he? when you say, 'no third meaning' can be taken from the Quran: the lexical meanings are there. why do you deny it? i gave you concordances, and all i have received from you are your own words of translation: they are mere "interpretations". did you know that al-Zamakshari, whom the Commentator quotes, gives the "third" meaning !?! if you mean to say, that t-w-f means death for the soul: souls never die, they are taken away, they are gathered, or God takes them back. within the context of 3:55, again, within the context of 3:55, it is the body that dies, and since you insist that the raf'a'a was spiritual and not bodily, t-w-f has to be taken in the 'taking sense', not in the death sense, since that would imply rafa'a of the soul + body, which is the position of the ahlal sunna, and which the Jama'at vehemently denies. so you see t-w-f = death as you under-stand, thus soul + body rafa'a = spiritual elavation hence, contradiction between t-w-f as death of soul + body and raf'a'a as spiritual. either you say [1] t-w-f = death as you understand, thus soul + body raf'a'a = physical elevation hence, physical elevation and being alive, which you totally deny (and even mock the beliefs of the ahlal sunna - which i think can be understood, but that later) OR [2] t-w-f = taking the soul, preserving it, fulfilling an Oath (read not death) rafa'a = spiritual elevation hence, no death, and the rafa'a to take hold the body has to live, and hence the spiritual elevation has to be witnessed by those who wish to denigrate you your position is [3] t-w-f = death as you under-stand, thus soul + body rafa'a = spiritual elavation hence, contradiction between t-w-f as death of soul + body and raf'a'a as spiritual. now, do you get the meaning of the other aspect of the verse? there is one more evidence, but let's stick with this one, where this theme is repeated again, some where else in the Quran, but with a different Self Disclosure of God! i bid you well, and kindly pray for my family and especially my wifes recovery, eIqra
  9. In the Name of the Most High assalam o 'alaykum br Usman, here are a few questions with respect to 3:55, 1 - how do you assert that Isa died, and was raised spiritually (which would make more sense if he was living and while was in the midst of those who had dis-believed in him, and cleansed him, not cleared him) from this verse and this verse alone? 2 - how do you assert that the spiritual elevation was of any benefit even after the Crucifixtion, even though he had not died on the Cross (which was not a Jewish Custom)? according to 3:55 there is no mention of Crucifixtion, other than just "planning". where do you get this notion from? 3 - and most importantly, how do you re-concile the context, the theme of the previous verses, that 3:55 actually refers to the Crucifixtion? see the verses before and after, have absolutely no relevance to Crucifixtion (and hence no death as you want us to believe, and have been maintaining within the 3:55 discussion that it is with reference to Crucifixtion: i want to make sure that i under-stand this very well, and don't mis-represent you. does the Jama'at project this belief based on 3:55 and 3:55 alone? this is very critical for my under-standing, even though you have repeated it several times within the thread, especially the 4 prophecies): it only refers to Isa calling for help and Gods condemnation to the dis-believers 003.056 YUSUFALI: "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." kindly help me out, regards, eIqra
  10. In the Name of the Most High assalam o alaykum this is what i wrote in post # 83, can i be more clearer than that? br Usman, is this some sort of a test? how many times, do you want me to repeat this statement of mine, i.e a prophecy, which refers to a future event, and hence Isa's return so, now make up your mind, with the statement that i bolded and under-lined: what conclusion can you draw from it? we are not on the same page. you consistently, consistently, don't even pay attention to what i am writing. what is the matter? but this is not our subject of dis-agreement: the subject of dis-agreement for now, is that according to the Jama'at, 3:55 stands to prove Isa's death. i say, it does not. perhaps you can argue that there are other verses, but not 3:55, absolutely not. the question you pose is mutually exclusive to the discussion we are having: again the entire edifice of the Jama'at and MGA's claim rests on 3:55 - this one single verse, the 4 prophecies, the false attribution of Jewish belief that an accursed death is by Cross, the meaning of t-w-f within the verse, the false translation of "cleanse" to "clear". either choose to respond to these questions i have or just leave the matter aside and call it a day. the reason, perhaps why you are asking the question, is to side track the discussion on 3:55, and God knows what is in your heart. so your statement, that, "Still I dont know with whom I am discussing this issue", i can assure you that the whom is me. this question is irrelevant to the discussion on 3:55. this only goes to show, how you have not engaged in reading my material. am i wrong? was not post # 83, here all along? give me one reason now why i should continue to engage in this mono-logue? i can't think of any, i am mentally exhausted, and really, your time can be better spent else where. if you want to start a seperate thread by all means by my guest. given that only my-self has engaged you, i think that you can count on many interlucotors, God bless you always and keep my family in your prayers, eIqra
  11. br Usman, as a side note and a bit of humour, you seem to have no qualms using urdu as a language here while trying to impress upon us the meaning of the arabic language. i find that quite insightful. so much for arabic lexicrographic works, which you ignore regards, eIqra
  12. when we were discussing, [ "And peace was on me the day I was born, and peace will be on me the day I shall die and the day I shall be raised to life (again)" (19:34) Similar words appeared for Yahya. It was said of him: "And peace was on him the day he was born, and the day he died, and peace (will be on him) the day he will be raised upto life (again)" (19:16) ] you stated, and i responded would dis-agree, there is a great difference. here is the difference 1 - one says so of him 2 - it was said of him big difference right? here is the mystery: One is uttered by God and the other by .... and you responded, my calling you and taking you to ask - was rather simple, as i explained in the previous post. your sarcasm, was not be-fitting, and i explained this clearly. again, you take this "comment" of mine out of context, and spin it to the two verses above. let's stick to the two verses, rather than being distracted. instead of reading the two verses and paying attention to what i responded, let me also add another thing to it: there is a difference in "tense" in the two, there is the difference of 'Isa saying it, and in the last instance, there is the difference of being said about Yahya. so: no, these are different contexts, said in different settings. Isa's refers to a future tense and hense a Prophecy. does not Isa say, and peace will be on me the day I shall die and what is said about Yahya and the day he died now do you under-stand the difference? let me know, perhaps it is my childishness that is getting in the way.and you are probably right, i am child in a certain way, still struggling to understand the intricacies of a foreign language, let alone arabic or english, and i make no hiding of this bare fact. so let me ask you br Usman, what do you with a child who is un-able to grow, learn and under-stand? do you have children of your own, while you make a statement like that? i am sure that in your infinite wisdom, you can impart me something of value, for it is causing much grief to you. it will perhaps spare me some grief as i deal with raising three children, insha 'Allah "prophecy"? regards, eIqra
  13. i asked you a simply question, what you meant to say, in 'Do you get Confused'? this is a sarcasm of sorts, and really, yes - is a matter of shame if you invoked it in that matter. your response there-after, was taken completely out of context, and was spun to turn this into a -personal- argument. i did not engage and simply reminded you as a believer, that such adab is not correct. perhaps "ashamed" is not the right word, but "regretful" is, and i apologize if it came that way. how-ever, it gives no one any right to make this personal? explain your-self, when you stated, 'Do you ever get confused'? i asked this, and the response was ignored. regards, eIqra
  14. In the Name of the High assalam o alaykum ... then we ought to rest our case. as to my belief: a prophecy refers to a future event. as per my under-standing of the Quranic literature, the return of Isa is to happen. pick an english dictionary, read my posts, look uo prophecy: a prophecy refers to a future event. i am not side lining or avoiding the issue, the question posed: i stressed on the term Prophecy, and a prophecy is a term that refers to the "future", does it not? does not MGA also prophecize matters, and of-course, doesn't that mean that it is for the "future"? how clear can i be? i used the same term that is so comfortable within your circles. i refer to your "language" within the Jama'at, which is so conveniently used, that MGA prophecized this and prophecized that. a prophecy is for the future. i did respond to sections of your post, and i did so in detail, since you were all over the place. now, you bring forth the same evidence, over and over again. Hanna E Kassis: google him. why do i have to spoon feed everything? this is the paralysis that has be-set the 'umma'. last night when i was reading through the Commentary of your elders, most if not much of your analysis came through there, and in certain instances verbatim. i raised several issues, several question and even addressed several of the concerns and questions that you had posited. you can returning to them over and over again. sorry to dissapoint you, and i will continue to do so, i am bad student and rather slow learner. keep it up though, but don't be frustrated, it is the effort that matters not the result: the judgement lies with God, and praise be to Him for that. t-w-f has multiple meanings: you seem to be in denial for that, clearly, for indeed the entire edifice of the Jama'ats belief rests on the premise, as death in 3:55. that is the the only verse, the single verse, that the Jama'at takes as evidence that Isa died and hence your "accusation" against me that i am not the least interested in Quranic evidence far from it: i have a job, three children, and a wife who just had a stroke: i take this serously and sit and share what i know. don't you question my intentions, and every other place where i have questioned you, i have done so, with the preface that only God knows what is the heart of the believers such self-righteous behaviour is really what turns me off, with every single convert from one persuasion to the other, whether from x or y or y to a, and i don't make pronouncements of "busy like hell", and that "i am running away". you live in the comfort of our Country, and i have to manage these affairs by my-self, alone with the Grace of God. so you can sit in the comfort of your arm chair and perform cut and pastes without even investigating the other on-line sources i shared with you. why should i be interested? well, perhaps, i was "hoping" that the Jama'at would be enlightened to share their evidence other than the ones that they have on their web site. our discussion on 3:55, on the distorted translation, of not taking rafa'a as elevating when he is in this world etc etc, only goes to show, that the Jama'at has a very narrow way of looking at matters. this is called "dogma". so, how dare you question that i am not the least interested. the entire sharing on this thread proves other-wise, and proves other-wise for you as well. i have not accused you of such behaviour. so what you reserve to expect from others, reserve it for others as well: this is the least a "muslim" can expect from others, since the mantle of "momin" has been the sole designation of of your Jama'at. i bid you well, and pray that God relieves you from the "busy as hell schedule", no pun intended here, and i know for a fact that the members of your Jama'at certainly do not ascribe to terms like "running away": sounds like a mulla-autocracy contagiousness, again no pun intended. show some adab. i might be older than you are and hence ask of you to pray to God due to the collectivity of my sins, and since you are younger to me, i pray that you don't commit the same mistakes i did, may God elevate your station. but don't accuse me of not taking the Quranic interpretation loosely. far from it. i would rather be accused of something else, perhaps idiocity, a remark-able sense of stupidity, or the failure to understand matters (and this is even in the Quran). at least "cherish", "cherish" the fact, that there are few and far between folks like me, who have engaged you, spoken with you, despite my own personal burdens, and the other rubbish that they attribute to MGA. the issue br Usman, you are taking this too "personally". in instances, where i have referred for you to read my posts, i am begging you to read the evidence that i shared. there is no reason to indulge in personal ruminations, especially, since we have not even met, yet alone spoken. so how can you make such grand statements, that i am the least interested? tell me, who else is on this forum, who is engaged with you? who else, defends you from the ruminations of a filthy language? who else has defended your "muslimness"? who else has taken the time to read the cut and paste evidence. (i am yet to read the response that i penned from Shaltut?) why would i do this? do i have a personal gain to this? am i pushing a certain personal agenda or a sectarian agenda? neither shi'i or ahlal sunna, since they don't ascribe to the beliefs that you ascribe to them (in the case of the shi'ites the Jama'at has much tolearn, and Rizvis work is a secondary work!) you admit that you never knew of Hanna E Kassis? did you even read the article from the professor @ Catholic University who is a Turkish Muslim? do you even know that Fatoohi has also written a work on the subject? i can go on and on and on, but i have no reason to make it personal. i asked simply that you read through what i wrote, and so far, even if i ask you to read 3:55 and my explanation, i make it clear that the 4 prophecies that you speak of, starting from 1 through 4 are not true and are contested. why do you have an issue and disturbance in accepting that? even your translation of 3:55 was incorrect - there was not even mention of "cleansing", it was translated as "clear". when there are obvious issues in translating verses, which are so obvious even to the non native arabic speaker, you really wish to entrust me to believe that t-w-f is, as what you want me to believe, especially, when changing it from "cleanse" to "clear" signifies that Isa was removed from their presence, i.e of the Jews. and again, i asked, where did you get the information that the Jews consider dying on the Cross as an accursed death? there are so many "holes", open ended questions that are not responded to, and i wam expected to "believe", and take solace in thy's interpretation you know, the Jama'a'at are not the only ones who are "mumin": this is not a tribalism of sorts. God grants to Whom He wills, to the Jama'atis and the non Jama'atis. of course, God Guides Whom He pleases ..... in need of prayers, eIqra p.s: this might very well be my last post. i have more pressing matters, particularly since we have exhausted all our efforts and discussion. may God bless you and give you abundant spiritual blessings, from our family to yours.
  • Create New...