certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islamic Personalities (25 Mar 2015 NewAgeIslam.Com)




TOTAL COMMENTS:-   15


  • People of the faith refers to the Muslims.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 7/7/2015 3:54:11 AM



  • "The Surah also challenges the polytheistic faith of the Meccans and asks for the authority for their beliefs and makes a clear distinction between “people of the Faith” and the “people of the Sin” whose behavior is described in the verses quoted above."

    Mr. Naseer Ahmed, what do you mean by 'people of faith' in this English Translation of the verse? Please explain it. 


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 4/21/2015 5:04:32 AM



  • Dear Muhammad Yunus and the Editor,

    The article can be corrected to read:“Once the “The Chiefs of Unfaith” died or were killed in battle or voluntarily accepted Islam or were executed, the rest of the people readily accepted Islam”


    By Observer - 3/29/2015 10:51:03 AM



  • Dear Observer,

    Thanks!

    Don't forget that Hazrat Umar was a bitter enemy of the Prophet before conversion to Islam.

    Will greatly appreciate if you put the revised reading as you noted above in your otherwise scholarly article. I assume you are working alone. So it always happens that you make a short cut in expressing your thought that to others appears a flaw.  


    By muhammad yunus - 3/29/2015 10:39:59 AM



  •  

    Dear Muhammad Yunus,

    My responses to your clarifications:

     

    1.        The statement: “The Meccans could not point out to active opponents of the new faith among” under the heading, ‘The Contrasting nature of Prophet….” is not clear.

    Response: The clear answer is there is the article:

    It is noteworthy that the active opponents of the Prophet had distinct characteristics that the Quran draws attention to such as:

    1.         Those who swore oaths to support what they said but slandered and uttered calumnies

    2.         Those who were rich and powerful with numerous sons and felt that they were self-sufficient and beyond being asked to account for their deeds.

    3.         Those who were violent and cruel.

    4.         Those who did not enjoin righteousness or the feeding of the indigent. Were among those who habitually hindered anything that is good,

    5.         Those who accused the Prophet of relating "Tales of the ancients". This is what the detractors of all the earlier prophets accused their prophets of.

     

    The Meccans could not point out to active opponents of the new faith among:

    1.         Those who were known to be truthful

    2.         Those who were not haughty and proud but generous and forgiving

    3.         Those who encouraged the feeding of the poor and indigent

    4.         Those who habitually supported all that is good

     

    The statement, “Once the “The Chiefs of Unfaith” died or were killed in battle or were executed, the rest of the people readily accepted Islam” is blatantly incorrect. The truth is as follows as you can verify from any standard biography of the Prophet:
    The leaders of Medinite prominent tribes Aws and Khazraj and a whole group of their elite who visited Mecca around the 10th-12th year of the revelation embraced Islam voluntarily. 

     

    You can read it as  “Once the “The Chiefs of Unfaith” died or were killed in battle or voluntarily accepted Islam or were executed, the rest of the people readily accepted Islam”

    I am surprised that you are considering Hazrat Umar and others who voluntarily accepted Islam at some stage as Chiefs of Unfaith!!! Or that every tribal chief was a “Chief of Unfaith”! I have used the terminology of “Chiefs  of Unfaith” exactly in the same sense and as used in the Quran  (a-immatalkufri) . Would you call that usage in the Quran as blatantly incorrect?

    Were some people executed or not after the conquest of Mecca and before the expiry of the period of amnesty? What was the reason for their execution that it could not wait for the expiry period of the amnesty period? These were the people who if they were not executed would have stood in the way of others.

    And I am surprised that you are not aware of the role of the "Chiefs of Unfaith" in the story of every  Prophet the fear of whom prevented others from accepting faith. I have drawn a parallel with the Chiefs of Pharaoh and an explicit verse which as follows:

    For Moses also, the opposition came only from a few powerful people as is clear from the following verse:

    (10:83) But none believed in Moses except some children of his people, because of the fear of Pharaoh and his chiefs, lest they should persecute them; and certainly Pharaoh was mighty on the earth and one who transgressed all bounds. 



    By Observer - 3/29/2015 10:13:20 AM




  • Dear Observer,
    Congratulations for undertaking an exercise that must have taken you at least a decade – assuming you covered the entire period of revelation drawing on the Qur’anic allusions. I have just few comments:
    1.     The statement: “The Meccans could not point out to active opponents of the new faith among” under the heading, ‘The Contrasting nature of Prophet….” is not clear.
    The statement, “Once the “The Chiefs of Unfaith” died or were killed in battle or were executed, the rest of the people readily accepted Islam” is blatantly incorrect. The truth is as follows as you can verify from any standard biography of the Prophet:
    The leaders of Medinite prominent tribes Aws and Khazraj and a whole group of their elite who visited Mecca around the 10th-12th year of the revelation embraced Islam voluntarily.
    While in Medina, the Muslims were under attack for the first ten years and some of the leaders of the Quraysh were indeed killed at the hands of defending Muslims but it only increased the anger of the Qur’an as they remained far more powerful that Muhammad (pbuh) until Mecca’s integration that happened almost two decades into the Prophetic mission – just 2-3 years before the Prophet’s death. 
    The number of converts virtually doubled after the Hudaibiyah Peace treaty as a result of peaceful interaction between the Prophet’s followers and the pagan tribes.
    The number increased many fold with the peaceful integration of Mecca.
    The Chiefs of Unfaith like Umar, Khalid ibn Walkid, Amr ibn al As, Abu Sufian, and great many leaders and chiefs of ‘Unfaith’ embraced Islam voluntarily.
    Therefore your above remarks virtually reverse the historical fact, turns white into black and purports to transform the religion of Islam to a religion of violence that spread by the killing of the “Chiefs of Unfaith.”
    I am equally shocked at your use of the word, ‘executed’ in the above statement. Can you please tell me what evidence does the Qur’an give of any execution of the ‘Chiefs of Unfaith.”
    Please make necessary corrections to the last para which says just the opposite of what you wrote by listing the Qur’anic verses in the body of the article and is highly misguiding and can be quoted by the Islamophobes and the violent extremists to justify their killing spree.
    By muhammad yunus - 3/29/2015 1:16:15 AM



  • Rational:  You are arguing for the sake of argument. Is there are problem about reading or arranging the Surahs in chronological order? The answer is a clear no.

    So of it was arranged in a different order is there a good reason for it? The answer a clear yes. A believing person needs to know what is the Shariat or way of life prescribed for him so that he can practice the religion correctly. Imagine going through half the Quran and not knowing about the do's and don’ts!

    If you see the arrangement is a problem it is your problem. Rearrange it as you wish and read

    Read my article on diversity for an answer to your other question.

    The Concept of Unity in the Quran While Celebrating Diversity

     http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-pluralism/the-concept-of-unity-in-the-quran-while-celebrating-diversity/d/98947


    By Observer - 3/27/2015 4:08:22 AM



  • Since Muslims believe in prophet-hood they believe in prophet stories. if the Buddha was a prophet like Adam, Abraham and Ishaq etc he would have taught the belief in God and Hereafter. after all according to the quran all prophets preached the same. Why Buddha is different? Why Buddha relied on meditation unlike Hz mohammed who suddenly became the prophet without any effort?


    By rational mohammed yunus - 3/27/2015 1:31:26 AM



  • Observer - 3/27/2015 12:34:49 AM
    what can i do or what you can do is not the subject of discussion. The nature of the Quran is the subject of our discussion.
    you are hiding a defect by showing it is good because you believe the Quran is a miracle. had it been ordered chronically, you would have been praising it.
    However Allah didn't instruct the prophet to compile. Later Muslims felt a need of compilation and they compiled in a way they liked. it is a later day development.
    Tabri may be entirely honest or dishonest or in between. what we know about the prophet rests on those who were not trustworthy. If they write something good, it can be fabrication too.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 3/27/2015 1:23:35 AM



  • Rational,

    When I can read the surahs in chronological order if I wish, why can't you?

    What makes you think that the Quran should have been arranged in chronological order and not the way it is arranged? The Quran is today read by a believer and for him the order in which the Surahs appear  makes good  sense. 

    In any case, you have a choice to read it in any order.

    These arguments about order etc are mostly by those who never read the Quran and do not know what they are talking about.


    By Observer - 3/27/2015 12:34:49 AM



  • Rational,

    About Abu Lahab, the answer is given under:

    Those who believe and those who reject belief.

    As far as chronology is concerned, it has remained non-controversial and therefore there is no need to unnecessarily entertain doubts about it. 

    The story about the first verses revealed would have survived even if we had nothing except an oral tradition to go by.

    Moreover, this question has been discussed before when I think Hats Off had issues when I quoted Winston Churchill on the subject of “Structures” saying that Churchill was an Islamophobe. If Churchill had said something insightful on “structures” and I quoted him does not mean that I have to accept everything he said. You maybe the all or none type but I am not. I have defended a hadith although in general, I am circumspect about most ahadith.


    By Observer - 3/27/2015 12:25:07 AM



  • It is strange that Allah taught the importance of pen to his prophet but didn't instruct him to put the verses in the sequence they were received. Was not the Allah interested or prophet didn't feel the importance of putting verses in right order?
    Traditions also tell how the Quran was compiled. but why to trust those who recorded theses traditions?
    Tradition/Hadith also tell that some verses were eaten by goat. So one should not wonder why Shias say the Quran is not a complete book.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 3/27/2015 12:05:11 AM



  • Observer
    First point must be noted that traditions have reached us through same people who fabricated Ahadith. How do you know without Tabri/Hisham that these verses were first? If they could attribute false hoods to prophet why to trust them?
    Why the Quran was not compiled chronically?
    Is there any evidence from the Qur'an that these verses were first verses?
    an unlettered person can understand the importance of pen. one need not to be a prophet for that. 

    mr moahmmed yunus often quote a verse that the God created an enemy for every prophet. if it is true it is not the fault of Abu Lahab. Allah made him the prophet's enemy.
    if the books were from the same God there would have not been contradictions among the books to the extent that Buddhism doesn't acknowledge God or Hereafter.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 3/26/2015 11:40:08 PM



  • Every argument that can be put forth was put forth by the Meccans and answered. 

    29:48 Neither did you (O Muhammad SAW) read any book before it (this Quran), nor did you write any book (whatsoever) with your right hand. In that case, indeed, the followers of falsehood might have doubted.

    Yusuf Ali’s notes: The Holy Prophet was not a learned man. Before the Qur'an was revealed to him, he never claimed to proclaim a Message from Allah. He was not in the habit of preaching eloquent truths as from a Book, before he received his Revelations, nor was he able to write or transcribe with his own hand. If he had had these worldly gifts, there would have been some plausibility in the charge of the talkers of vanities that he spoke not from inspiration but from other people's books, or that he composed the beautiful verses of the Qur'an himself and committed them to memory in order to recite them to people. The circumstance in which the Qur'an came bear their own testimony to its truth as from Allah.

    Moreover, who would have dared predicting that Abu Lahab and his wife would die as disbelievers 10 years before Abu Lahab  died and risked being proven a false prophet and killed for it by his own followers?

    Or predicting the punishment in this life of his detractors when his following was only three persons?

    And imagine a person who could neither read nor write reciting the first verse which begins with the word "Read"  and the 4th verse talking about God teaching man "the use of the pen" when he himself did not know how to write? The second Surah also begins with the adjuration "By the Pen and the record which men write". People talk about the wheel as the greatest invention but come to think of it, the use of the pen that the Quran talks about is the greatest invention. Without the ability to record and pass on our learning from generation to generation, the man of today would have been no smarter than the man of 100,000 years ago.  What would we be without books or the written word? It is an incredible truth the revelations start with.


    What was being recited by Muhammad as the revelations were so much out character of his own person that the only possibility was that these were either revelations or he was possessed. 

    Neither was Muhammad (pbuh) trying to gain prophethood by meditating in a cave for days on end as is evident from his reaction when the revelations came and the fact that it took him another 3 years to be in a state to proclaim the "Message" in public.

    So much can be said from just the first few short Surahs. 


    By Observer - 3/26/2015 5:40:19 AM



  • What has been stated above is the Muslim point of view.  However, from a non-Muslim point of view, it seems that nothing was revealed to the various Prophets but the various books, Bible, Torah and Quran etc. were their accumulated thoughts which were written by various scribes as dictated by the Prophets over a period of time.
    By Satbir Singh Bedi - 3/26/2015 1:56:18 AM