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
Ejaz

A response to the wahhabi documentary! (Islamic Pulse)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

There is no verse in the Qur'an that has anything to do with proving the legal permissibility of verbally cursing in this world, except one or two verses (one of them being the one above) and the most they can prove - if we try - is the permissibility (not Istihbab, let alone Wujub) of doing la'n of disbelievers (not Muslims), and not anything more than that. For anything more than that you will have to return to the hadith and have to engage in the discussions that exist over there. But even then, you would have to determine that if it says for example, the Imam would do la'n of some individuals, would that necessarily mean verbally saying "Allahumma-l'an" or would it be a description of something else that he would have said such as "O Allah, send your punishment on so and so, or make him taste hellfire" which are instances of la'n.

 

Perhaps you forgot to see the following verse:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَ مَا أَنْزَلْنَا مِنَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ وَالْهُدَىٰ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا بَيَّنَّاهُ لِلنَّاسِ فِي الْكِتَابِ ۙ أُولَٰئِكَ يَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّهُ وَيَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّاعِنُونَ {159}

[Shakir 2:159] Surely those who conceal the clear proofs and the guidance that We revealed after We made it clear in the Book for men, these it is whom Allah shall curse, and those who curse shall curse them (too).
[Pickthal 2:159] Lo! Those who hide the proofs and the guidance which We revealed, after We had made it clear to mankind in the Scripture: such are accursed of Allah and accursed of those who have the power to curse.
[Yusufali 2:159] Those who conceal the clear (Signs) We have sent down, and the Guidance, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book,-on them shall be Allah's curse, and the curse of those entitled to curse,-

Agha Poya has mentioned this in the tafseer of this verse:
 

Quote

Those who withhold what has been revealed to them of the book, be they Jews (who knew the truth about the Holy Prophet - refer to verse 40, 75 to 79, 89 to 91, 101, 105, 109 and 124 of this surah; and the holy Kabah - Psalms 118: 22 and Matthew 21: 42) or be they the Muslim hypocrites (who know the true interpretation and application of verses - Ahzab: 33; Shura: 23; Nisa: 54 and 59; Ali Imran: 61 and 103;Tawbah: I 19; Rad: 43, Hud: 17; and Ma-idah: 3, 55, 67 in connection with the event of Ghadir Khum) are cursed by Allah and by the angels and by those who follow His right path. In verses 86 and 87 of al Nisa also the angels and the believers join Allah to curse the wicked. In verse 56 of al Ahzab, Allah and His angels bless the Holy Prophet; and Allah commands the believers to send blessings on him. Unless we join Allah and His angels to curse the enemies of the Holy Prophet, our asking Allah for sending blessings on him will be incomplete. Therefore, the followers of Muhammad and Ali Muhammad bless the Holy Prophet and his Ahl ul Bayt and curse their enemies. Justice demands that we identify the devil as a devil, and curse him even if he is disguised in the garb of a Muslim like Yazid and others. Cursing and expression of dislike and disgust for any evil or evildoer is essential to remain on guard against wickedness, as has been made clear in the above-noted verse and verse 7 of al Fatihah, therefore, tabarra has been prescribed as one of the fundamentals of the religion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Urwatul Wuthqa said:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَ مَا أَنْزَلْنَا مِنَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ وَالْهُدَىٰ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا بَيَّنَّاهُ لِلنَّاسِ فِي الْكِتَابِ ۙ أُولَٰئِكَ يَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّهُ وَيَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّاعِنُونَ 

What would be the tafseer and ta'veel of phrase وَيَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّاعِنُونَ? 

This verse is mentioning the worldly life and the evidence for this is the very next verse:

إِلَّا الَّذِينَ تَابُوا وَأَصْلَحُوا وَبَيَّنُوا فَأُولَٰئِكَ أَتُوبُ عَلَيْهِمْ ۚ وَأَنَا التَّوَّابُ الرَّحِيمُ 

Please do not think that I am arguing here, its just a query. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

What about ziarat ashura, the last part is added? 

said Dawud bin Kathir"I was in presence of Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام)," , and asked he for water and when he drank water made tears and his eyes filled with tear. He then said: "O Dawud, God damns the murderer of Hussein (عليه السلام), a servant who  drinks water and remembers Hossein, and damns  his murderer, except that God writes for him  one hundred thousands  blessing, he will blot out a hundred thousand sins." He raises a hundred thousand degrees for him, as if he had released a hundred thousand servants and will resurrect with a brilliant face on the resurrection day.It should be noted that in the book of Kamil Al-Zyarh, p 107 there is chapter named chapter "The reward of the person who drinks water and commemorates Imam Hussein (عليه السلام) and sends  cursing to his murderer

https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/question/fa13589

Shabbi says Abdullah bin Zubair, while relying on the Ka'bah, said: "By the Lord of this house, the Messenger of Allah has cursed  that one and the one who is born of his loin." [19] In the case of a person claimed by Abdullah bin Zubair, the Hakim  Neishabouri in a hadith in Mustardak, he describes him as the commandment of bin A's and his children: "The Messenger of Allah cursed the Hakam ibnAs and his sons." [20] Marwan and his father were cursed by the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)): "The Prophet of God, cursed the father of Marwan and Marwan cursed  in his loin." [21]

Abdullah ibn Umar said :didn't Prophet said in battle of Uhud «اللّهُمَّ الْعَنْ أباسُفْیانَ...» 

[22]. ترمذی، محمد بن عیسى، سنن الترمذی، ج 5، ص 227، مصر، شرکة مکتبة و مطبعة مصطفى البابی الحلبی، چاپ دوم، 1395ق.

Tirmidhi ,Sunan Tirmidhi  v 5 p 227

Prophet Muhammad (pbu): Allah curses  a man who makes himself like a woman, and a woman who makes herself like a man, who slaughters an animal other than the name of Allah, who curses his parents, who practices tradition of the people of Lot or takes bribes. [16] He also said: "Allah damns wine, winegrower, cup bearer, seller and customer of it" [17], and also said: "Allah damns the receiver of usury, the donor and the author, and witness of it"

https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/question/fa33035

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2019 at 12:50 AM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

At the same time, not once did any Shi'a scholar claim that by unity we meant compromising our beliefs. This is also reflected in Iran, for example with the commemoration of Fatimiyyah which marks the attack on the house of Fatima (s). The Shias have their beliefs and they hold on to them, and yes it is not hidden that the Shi'as have issues with certain companions of the Prophet (p) and that the narrative we accept is one of usurpation of the caliphate. However, going on to say that Taqiyyah Mudarati is a type of Nifaq (hypocrisy) is also absurd. Muslims generally and practically do Taqiyya Mudarati all the time when living in the West, when engaging with non-Muslims or even when Salafis have to engage with Shi'as in the West (Taqiyya does not only concern speech, but even actions, and we all know that many Salafis consider the blood of Shi'as to be permissible to be spilled - however they cannot carry this out because of Taqiyya as their lives and the lives of their families will be endangered in the West, and they will face serious consequences if caught, end up in jail, lose their governments benefits and so on). This is specifically true for Salafis, who according to their Fiqh are more severe and aggressive than any other Islamic school of thought (even against other Sunni schools), yet they do Taqiyya Mudarati all the time in front of the disbelievers and even other Muslims who they disagree with, so that they can live in harmony without causing trouble for themselves. Their own fatwas say you cannot befriend polytheists and disbelievers, yet they do Taqiyyah all the time while living in the West pretending to be friends with the disbelievers - otherwise they know very well according to their Fiqh, they are living in Dar al-Harb/Dar al-Kufr, they do not consider the disbelievers to have any sanctity, their women can be taken as slaves, their husbands can be killed and so on and there is actually no problem with that for them. If they are following the law of the land, it is only due to Taqiyyah. These double standards should also be highlighted in polemics.

Their polemicists have replied. It seems like they got sensitive learning about their own beliefs that the blood of disbelievers including Shias is permissible to be spilled and that they do taqiyyah. 

267787692_ScreenShot2019-05-15at5_52_32PM.png.5c3b9fe571ac21026ee0025839e86d42.png

 

The polemicists is claiming that majority of big Salafi scholars actually don't believe the blood of disbelievers is permissible, and that only daesh scholars believe such a thing. Is this true?

 

284159944_ScreenShot2019-05-15at5_52_44PM.png.c3363573a76f87bfc8f4b5399c67c53f.png

Again, claiming that majority of Salafi scholars don’t believe that the blood of disbelievers is halal, and he uses the 'ahd excuse.

Edited by Abu Nur
Removed link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bu Noor Al Bahraini
On 5/13/2019 at 7:24 AM, OrthodoxTruth said:

There are Sunni prayer houses all over Tehran but not a major mosque. Is there even a minor Shia mosque in Riyadh, Abu Dhabi or Manama? No, despite the fact that Shias make up 15-20% of Saudis, and 60-70% (before it was 100%) of Bahrainis. Besides, Sunni prayer places in Tehran are usually unmolested (expect the Wahhabi ones), whilst Shias do not even have a mosque in many major cities of the aforementioned countries and sometimes, like in case of Bahrain or Arabia, there’s one Shia mosque for tens of thousands of worshippers. 

This is untrue. I am Bahraini. There are multiple large Shia mosques and hussiniyyahs in Manama, Bahrain as well as other cities. Even situated right next to large Sunni mosques. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

The polemicists is claiming that majority of big Salafi scholars actually don't believe the blood of disbelievers is permissible, and that only daesh scholars believe such a thing. Is this true?

I have left polemics many years ago as it does not heed any results and my energy and time is better spent elsewhere. Most Muslims today could give two damns about these discussions and more fundamental discussions regarding religion, God, metaphysics, spirituality, ethics and law need to focused on - these guys do not have anything substantial to offer in those areas as they are stuck in history and their lives are an inconsistent mess, predicating classical interpretations on the modern world. These guys will comfort the Sunni laity by quoting the theoretical and/or taqiyyah/maslaha-based opinions of their Salafi scholars saying that the disbelievers in the West are in an 'ahd with us and hence the laws of a harbi do not apply on them. However, these things like "you have to follow the law of the land" (:hahaha:) are said due to maslaha, to keep people at bay and to be able to live and survive, otherwise they know there is no 'ahd here. An 'ahd is done by a Wali Amr and the Imam of the Muslims on behalf of the Muslims. Who is their Wali Amr who has done such an 'ahd with the disbelievers of the West on behalf of all the Muslims of the world? King Salman? The paradigms have all changed. Are they recognizing modern nation states - democracies or kingdoms - as jurisprudentially justified, let alone be representative of the Muslims? In addition, such an 'ahd cannot occur for more than a number of years (usually a decade) before falling back to the primary ruling of wujub of offensive war, so even if there was any 'ahd it is long expired (please show us where this 'ahd is in the first place and what were the conditions of this 'ahd - an 'ahd cannot even allow certain conditions such as the permissibility of the disbelievers to insult Islam and the Muslims or things which allow them to weaken the Muslims and blaspheme against the Prophet and so on - the West thrives on being able to say and do all these things). Even if we were to agree with them and say there is some sort of hypothetical 'ahd which Shar'an necessitates peace, such an 'ahd has long been broken by many of the Western countries due to their foreign and domestic policies and warfare against Muslims and Islam as a whole (both inside and outside their countries). 

Ibn Taymiyyah:

 أن ناقض العهد و المرتد المؤذي لا ريب أنه محارب لله و رسوله فإن حقيقة نقض العهد محاربة المسلمين و محاربة المسلمين محاربة لله و رسوله 

As for one who violates an 'ahd and an apostate who causes disturbance, there is no doubt that they are Muharib against Allah and His Messenger. The mere reality of violating a contract ('ahd) is doing Muharabah against the Muslims and Muharabah against the Muslims is Muharabah against Allah and His Messenger.

Also they make it sound like as if Da'esh scholars had some different Fiqh revealed to them from the heavens. Da'esh scholars and their Fiqh is primarily based on classical opinions in Sunni Fiqh, derived from the same traditions and verses of the Qur'an. It would be absurd (I.e. taqiyyah) for a Sunni to say that Da'esh ijtihad is not valid, justified and hujjah.

As for his point about living in the past - yes that is an issue if you bring past opinions of Shi'a scholars as arguments, because Shi'a do not believe in taqleed al-mayyit in jurisprudence, let alone theology (where they generally do not accept taqlid at all). Past opinions are irrelevant if ijtihad has been done and scholars have arrived at new conclusions - both in jurisprudence and theology. For example, I could care less what Majlisi or Ne'matullah Jazairi had to say about the Sunnis - it is very clear their living contexts and as well as Akhbari methodology heavily influenced their opinions and comments on this subject.

4 hours ago, Urwatul Wuthqa said:

What would be the tafseer and ta'veel of phrase وَيَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّاعِنُونَ? 

This verse is mentioning the worldly life and the evidence for this is the very next verse:

إِلَّا الَّذِينَ تَابُوا وَأَصْلَحُوا وَبَيَّنُوا فَأُولَٰئِكَ أَتُوبُ عَلَيْهِمْ ۚ وَأَنَا التَّوَّابُ الرَّحِيمُ 

Please do not think that I am arguing here, its just a query. 

No, I didn't forget - I wasn't trying to explain every single verse in the Qur'an (there are about 26 in total). This has a similar explanation as what I had written earlier. La'inun does not mean someone who just sits there and verbally sends la'nah. Linguistically it means Allah expels and dismisses those who conceal the truth, He removes them from His mercy, and so does a group of creation (we do not know if this is angels, humans, or both) who expel and dismiss such individuals as well. If you want to take it as a verbal pronouncement of "Allahuma-l'an" then you would have to assume the same meaning for both Allah and this group of creation (the meaning is nonsensical in the case of Allah since he does not verbally supplicate for them to be removed from His own mercy).

Wasalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

La'inun does not mean someone who just sits there and verbally sends la'nah. Linguistically it means Allah expels and dismisses those who conceal the truth, He removes them from His mercy, and so does a group of creation (we do not know if this Is angels, humans, or both) who expel and dismiss such individuals as well. If you want to take it as a verbal pronouncement of "Allahuma-l'an" then you would have to assume the same meaning for both Allah and this group of creation (the meaning is nonsensical in the case of Allah since he does not verbally supplicate for them to be removed from His own mercy).

Thank you for your response, I would like you to also shed some light on the following verse:

ثُمَّ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يَكْفُرُ بَعْضُكُم بِبَعْضٍ وَيَلْعَنُ بَعْضُكُم بَعْضًا 

29:25 but then, on Resurrection Day, you shall disown one another and curse one another -

Here is the complete verse:

Surah Al-Ankaboot, Verse 25:

وَقَالَ إِنَّمَا اتَّخَذْتُم مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ أَوْثَانًا مَّوَدَّةَ بَيْنِكُمْ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا ثُمَّ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يَكْفُرُ بَعْضُكُم بِبَعْضٍ وَيَلْعَنُ بَعْضُكُم بَعْضًا وَمَأْوَاكُمُ النَّارُ وَمَا لَكُم مِّن نَّاصِرِينَ

And he said: You have only taken for yourselves idols besides Allah by way of friendship between you in this world's life, then on the resurrection day some of you shall deny others, and some of you shall curse others, and your abode is the fire, and you shall not have any helpers. (English - Shakir) 

What is the meaning of la'nah here? And how do they la'n each other? Practically throwing one another out of the mercy of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) or they will be praying "Allahumma al'an"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what would be your explanation for a hadith which mentions something like that the persons sending la'nah on each other, their la'nah ascend to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)  and He will decide, the lanah will fall on one who deserves it. 

I will try to find that hadith and will share it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Light

Portion of hadith from Tafsir Imam Hassan Askari (عليه السلام)

"The two curses get elevated and they seek Permission of their Lordazwj regarding the falling upon the ones who sent them. So Allahazwj Mighty and Majestic Says to the Angels: “Look! So if it was such that the cursing ones is (himself) deserving of the curse, and the one intended with it isn’t deserving of it, then descend both of these together upon the cursing one. And if it was such that the indicated one is deserving of it and the cursing one isn’t, so divert both of these towards him. And if it was such that both of them were deserving of it, then divert the curse of this to that one, and divert the curse of that one to this one.

And if none of the two are deserving of it due to their Eman, and that the annoyance made them needy to that, so divert both the curses to the Jews, the concealers of the attributes of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and his description, and the mention of Ali (asws) and his features, and (divert the curses) to the Nasibis, the concealers of the merits of Ali (asws), and the repellers of hisasws merits”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Urwatul Wuthqa said:

Thank you for your response, I would like you to also shed some light on the following verse:

ثُمَّ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يَكْفُرُ بَعْضُكُم بِبَعْضٍ وَيَلْعَنُ بَعْضُكُم بَعْضًا 

29:25 but then, on Resurrection Day, you shall disown one another and curse one another -

According to a hadith from Al-Kafi, the meaning of la'n here is as follows:

"Then, on the Day of Judgment, some of you would be denying others and would be cursing each other [29:25] - ‘Meaning, they would be disavowing from each other’"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Urwatul Wuthqa said:

Allah and His angels bless the Holy Prophet; and Allah commands the believers to send blessings on him. Unless we join Allah and His angels to curse the enemies of the Holy Prophet, our asking Allah for sending blessings on him will be incomplete. 

This argument of Agha Poya seems valid as compared to yours @Ibn al-Hussain

7 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

If you want to take it as a verbal pronouncement of "Allahuma-l'an" then you would have to assume the same meaning for both Allah and this group of creation (the meaning is nonsensical in the case of Allah since he does not verbally supplicate for them to be removed from His own mercy).

How does He (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bless (yusalloon) the Prophet? It is only for us to recite the durood like this "Allahumma sallay ala Muhammad wa Aal e Muhammad". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Urwatul Wuthqa said:

According to a hadith from Al-Kafi, the meaning of la'n here is as follows:

"Then, on the Day of Judgment, some of you would be denying others and would be cursing each other [29:25] - ‘Meaning, they would be disavowing from each other’"

This actually strengthens my point.

1 hour ago, Urwatul Wuthqa said:

This argument of Agha Poya seems valid as compared to yours @Ibn al-Hussain

How does He (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bless (yusalloon) the Prophet? It is only for us to recite the durood like this "Allahumma sallay ala Muhammad wa Aal e Muhammad". 

Personally I cannot take the simple commentary of Agha Puya too seriously, and I can't take it too seriously. It may be half-decent for general public, but in terms of academic standards it is nothing special and should not be used in technical exegetical discussions.

Who said the verb yusalluna means verbal pronouncement of the Salawat? The same fallacy is being made here. He is taking a specific instance of salawat we commonly recite today and because of the affinity that later developed between the two entities - primarily in Fiqhi discussions over the centuries - he is applying it on this verse as if yusalluna in the Qur'an actually means this verbal formula. You can start going through Quranic interpretations of both Sunnis and Shias and will realize this is a huge problem in many tafseer works - they taken general meanings where we know a specific instance of something is being intended (like the verb ghanimtum in 8:41 which is specific to spoils of war, but some jurists try to argue for any thing you acquire) or other times a specific instance of the meaning of word is applied on the Qur'an when the Qur'an is just speaking in general terms and could mean any instances of that conceptual meaning.

They create a linguistic problem for themselves and then they start doing far-fetched explanations by saying, "well the word yusalluna is being used metaphorically for God because God can't supplicate, and it really just means mercy - but it is being used in the meaning of seeking forgiveness when used for the angels, and when it gives a command to the believers it is asking them to supplicate for sending blessings on him." God knows which Arab listener of the verse understood this meaning when the Prophet (p) recited this verse for them. When you tell someone, "my brother and I call our parents every evening to check up on them, you should call your parents as well," - the command I am giving you is me expecting you to do the same thing that my brother and I are doing, linguistically you do not understand two different things in this context.

So Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is expecting and asking us to do exactly what He (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is doing (even if the way we do it may be very different). Yusalluna in its original root word means absolute praise (ثناء) and appreciation of someone. Some of its instances are tahِiyyah, meaning, sending greetings and saying salam to someone and one of its instances that was taught to the people was the Salawat we recite today. if sallu 'alayhi in the command meant supplicate, it makes no grammatical sense, al-du'a alayhi (supplicate upon him)? If you send salam on someone, or even supplicate for the well-being or the bestowal of blessings upon someone, you say sallayto 'alayhi and this is rooted in one's praise, appreciation and love towards someone.

Allamah Tabataba'I in his tafseer also has a similar explanation, although he takes the meaning of Salat to be In'itaf (turning towards someone) - so Allah turns towards the Prophet (p) and so do the angels and it is expected that so do we. How each of these three turn towards him (p) can differ, meaning Allah does so with His Mercy and love, while the angels and humans can do so by expressing their praise and appreciation of him, sending their salams to him, assisting him (p) in his mission, and by supplicating to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) for blessings upon him. The durud just becomes one of many instances of the general meaning of sallu at that point. Hence the next verse describes what happens to those who do the complete opposite of yusalluna

إنّ الذين يؤذون الله ورسوله لُعنوا في الدنيا والآخرة وأعدّ لهم عذاباً مهيناً

There is a very interesting explanation of all of those verses of Surah Ahzab put together, from verse 28 - 33 and 53 - 62, and how this verse of Salawat appears in the middle of these verses, but maybe for another time.

Wasalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Divisiveness IS a major issue. Dave Rubin (podcast host) platforms the alt-light (white nationalists) in the name of "free marketplace of ideas" - deceptively presenting "unity" when he is really presenting divisiveness, considering that the alt-light/alt-right are hate groups (divisive). 

Let's not let the poor presentation in this video take away from the main important message...

If you want to learn about another group's beliefs, you must first go to their well respected individuals, academic institutions, and scholarly sources. Do not initially go to the people who disagree with that group. If you do this, expect to be presented with strawmans and misrepresentations of that group's views (even if unintentional). Society will not progress when we are unable to understand eachother.

If we start looking to what the other side is saying, rather than continuously reaffirming our own biases, we will become unified as a society while still remaining distinct.

If you are extremely confident on any given issue, despite having acquired no knowledge or expertise on this issue, then please consider holding off on giving your opinion. Those with the least expertise on a given issue are typically  the most confident in their knowledge on that issue (Dunning-Kruger effect).

We are far too divided. Focus on who/what you are rather than focusing on who/what you are NOT. Look for the commonalities between our groups, and unite upon this, instead of uniting upon our differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

This actually strengthens my point.

Please elaborate how it strengthens your point while it is mentioning yet another meaning of la'n which is in the sense of tabarra.
 

9 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Who said the verb yusalluna means verbal pronouncement of the Salawat? The same fallacy is being made here. He is taking a specific instance of salawat we commonly recite today and because of the affinity that later developed between the two entities - primarily in Fiqhi discussions over the centuries - he is applying it on this verse as if yusalluna in the Qur'an actually means this verbal formula. You can start going through Quranic interpretations of both Sunnis and Shias and will realize this is a huge problem in many tafseer works - they taken general meanings where we know a specific instance of something is being intended (like the verb ghanimtum in 8:41 which is specific to spoils of war, but some jurists try to argue for any thing you acquire) or other times a specific instance of the meaning of word is applied on the Qur'an when the Qur'an is just speaking in general terms and could mean any instances of that conceptual meaning.

I don't think he has even compared the act of God with our actions whether it is La'nah or whether it be Yusallona. In the case of La'n he has taken the meaning of tabarra and that's what he has explained in his tafseer as under:
 

22 hours ago, Urwatul Wuthqa said:

Justice demands that we identify the devil as a devil, and curse him even if he is disguised in the garb of a Muslim like Yazid and others. Cursing and expression of dislike and disgust for any evil or evildoer is essential to remain on guard against wickedness, as has been made clear in the above-noted verse and verse 7 of al Fatihah, therefore, tabarra has been prescribed as one of the fundamentals of the religion.

Secondly, you cannot say that anyone's (from common person's) act of la'n is just a verbal declaration. I don't really think it is the correct assertion if we consider the meaning of "Yal'an" derived from 29:25. That verbal supplication of la'n is followed by the actions like disliking, not following the commands, not referring to the cursed person, not helping him nor taking help from him in any matter etc. I dislike a character so I do not give the name of that disliked personality to my offspring, will not follow his commands or directives or seerat, these will be my action.

It is another fact that only God can throw anyone out of His mercy. His mercy has encircled everything He has made obligatory on Himself mercy. So anyone other than Him need to supplicate to Him for invoking the curse hence would use the term Allahumma al'an. 
 

10 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

So Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is expecting and asking us to do exactly what He (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is doing (even if the way we do it may be very different). Yusalluna in its original root word means absolute praise (ثناء) and appreciation of someone. Some of its instances are tahِiyyah, meaning, sending greetings and saying salam to someone and one of its instances that was taught to the people was the Salawat we recite today. if sallu 'alayhi in the command meant supplicate, it makes no grammatical sense, al-du'a alayhi (supplicate upon him)? If you send salam on someone, or even supplicate for the well-being or the bestowal of blessings upon someone, you say sallayto 'alayhi and this is rooted in one's praise, appreciation and love towards someone.

Allamah Tabataba'I in his tafseer also has a similar explanation, although he takes the meaning of Salat to be In'itaf (turning towards someone) - so Allah turns towards the Prophet (p) and so do the angels and it is expected that so do we. How each of these three turn towards him (p) can differ, meaning Allah does so with His Mercy and love, while the angels and humans can do so by expressing their praise and appreciation of him, sending their salams to him, assisting him (p) in his mission, and by supplicating to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) for blessings upon him. The durud just becomes one of many instances of the general meaning of sallu at that point. Hence the next verse describes what happens to those who do the complete opposite of yusalluna

 

Here you indeed have raised some interesting points about "Yusalluna". I would love to see and further discuss the points you have left for some other time :). At the mo'ment I would just limit my self to understand the concept of la'n. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...