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.
Dear Muhammad Yunus,
My responses to your clarifications:
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:
noteworthy that the active opponents of the Prophet had distinct
characteristics that the Quran draws attention to such as:
Those who swore oaths to support what they said but slandered and uttered
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.
Those who were violent and cruel.
Those who did not enjoin righteousness or the feeding of the indigent. Were
among those who habitually hindered anything that is good,
Those who accused the Prophet of relating "Tales of the ancients".
This is what the detractors of all the earlier prophets accused their prophets
Meccans could not point out to active opponents of the new faith among:
Those who were known to be truthful
Those who were not haughty and proud but generous and forgiving
Those who encouraged the feeding of the poor and indigent
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:
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
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.
Concept of Unity in the Quran While Celebrating Diversity
Lahab, the answer is given under:
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.
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.
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
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.