The word "akmaltu" is used in 2:185, 2:196, 2:233 and 16:25 among other verses of the Qur'án in reference to other things than the word "Deen".
Dear Lilwabbit,
In verse 5:3, the word "perfected"("akmaltu") is used only for the Deen of Islam and atmamtu for niaamat. This is not the case for religion of Judaism. In the verse numbers you have quoted, one of them does not have the word "akmaltu" in it at all, one has "atimmoo", two have "kamil" in them and one of those two also has "yutimma" (as well as "kamil") in it.
Read more carefully. If you are familiar with inflections in Arabic, you would notice how the same word kamal is employed in different forms in all the given verses (2:185, 2:196, 2:233 and 16:25). I need not point them out to you.
I am sure God did not make a mistake in 5:3. These two words ("akmaltu and atmamtu") are there in the verse for a reason. Why do you think that two different words are used in the same verse (5:3), one for the Deen and the other for niaamat?
To stress with beauty and power that on that day He has finished His revelation through Muhammad (who passed away only a few months after revealing the said verse on his farewell pilgrimage). This is done by repeating the same point in different terms. Otherwise the statement would be of lesser weight and of lesser beauty. Particularly if it were just a mechanical repetition of the same words. Languages have nuances. Particularly the Arabic language. Divine revelation employs the full wealth and richness of the language to convey a meaning. Not all different expressions in a language mean completely different things, nor do all identical expressions mean exactly the same thing when used in different contexts. The Qur'án is not a technical manual, nor is it a scientific treatise. It is a revelation from God using both logic and poetic device for which Arabic is renowned. It is an artistic masterpiece inasmuch as it is a repository of knowledge, wisdom and guidance.
The aya 5:3 is like someone saying eloquently in English that "Today I have perfected my book and completed my piece of art". This statement does not refer to two completely different things ("perfecting my book" and "completing my piece of art"). Neither does it logically imply that there can never be a greater book or a finer piece of art. Nor does it mean that the "book" is not "a piece of art". Lastly, it doesn't mean that the expression "book" and "piece of art" mean exactly the same thing. But it does imply that "book" is "a piece of art" and that in this context by "piece of art" is meant a reference to "a particular book". It's a double reference to the same meaning just like 5:3 contains a double reference to the same spiritual meaning.
All in all, my questions remain unaddressed in a logical and convincing way. Let me rephrase them more succinctly.
(1) By what logic a "perfected" Way (5:3) precludes "improving" and "updating" while a Book "explaining all things" (6:154) doesn't? The latter concerns God's revelation to Moses and the former the revelation to Muhammad. If no good logic is forthcoming, then the Jews can very well appeal even to the Qur'án and say to the Muslims that their revelation needs no "improvement".
(2) By what logic can "kamal" (in its various inflections) be translated in some verses as "completion" while suddenly meaning something entirely different than "completion" in 5:3? Are you saying that when "kamal" is translated as "completion", the Arabic word means something "improvable" but when it's not translated as "completion", suddenly "kamal" is not improvable?
(3) Now, if you are saying that "kamal" always implies "unimprovability", then by what logic do the various inflections of "tamam", which also translates as "completion", imply improvability?
Kindly address these points in order to prove me wrong. I am also a gentleman and will accept my defeat if you really prove me wrong.
Kind regards,
LilWabbit
"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
I used US constitution as an EXAMPLE only. Just so readers understand the POINT of that post. Which is God's is has been completed and perfected in the Qur'an. Most aspects of our lives have been addressed.
However when we encounter new issues, we can lean on intentions of the Sharia laws and impliment those ideas into "New issues" such as aeroplane and prayers.
Also there are certain things clearly prohibited in the Qur'an (Pork for example). We need NOT to interpret it anymore.
Hope this helps.....
If interpretation is no longer needed, then how does the Qur'an deal with certain gelatine which, by scientific methodology has been re-engineered so that they do not consider the end result to be pork any longer? Yet, it began as a pork product.
I used US constitution as an EXAMPLE only. Just so readers understand the POINT of that post. Which is God's is has been completed and perfected in the Qur'an. Most aspects of our lives have been addressed.
However when we encounter new issues, we can lean on intentions of the Sharia laws and impliment those ideas into "New issues" such as aeroplane and prayers.
Also there are certain things clearly prohibited in the Qur'an (Pork for example). We need NOT to interpret it anymore.
Hope this helps.....
If interpretation is no longer needed, then how does the Qur'an deal with certain gelatine which, by scientific methodology has been re-engineered so that they do not consider the end result to be pork any longer? Yet, it began as a pork product.
>>>>>>>>>> We can interpret but we cannot "Innovate or " new structures into religion. As I said before, there are certain things that have been clearly "Prohibited" in Islam in the Qur'an. We need NOT to change that.
However most scholars agree that, if something is not prohibited(haram), we assume it is allowed (Halal) unless there is some documentation (Dalil) against it. For such documentations we go back to the Qur'an or practices (Speeches) of prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
There are some very well known scholars in Islamic history who worked on this area to help rest of us out. We often rely on their findings in difficult issues.
For new issues, we have a process call "Ijtihad" to decide on them. Again it is done in light of two basic sources. Qur'an and Sunnah of prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
I used US constitution as an EXAMPLE only. Just so readers understand the POINT of that post. Which is God's is has been completed and perfected in the Qur'an. Most aspects of our lives have been addressed.
However when we encounter new issues, we can lean on intentions of the Sharia laws and impliment those ideas into "New issues" such as aeroplane and prayers.
Also there are certain things clearly prohibited in the Qur'an (Pork for example). We need NOT to interpret it anymore.
Hope this helps.....
If interpretation is no longer needed, then how does the Qur'an deal with certain gelatine which, by scientific methodology has been re-engineered so that they do not consider the end result to be pork any longer? Yet, it began as a pork product.
>>>>>>>>>> We can interpret but we cannot "Innovate or " new structures into religion. As I said before, there are certain things that have been clearly "Prohibited" in Islam in the Qur'an. We need NOT to change that.
However most scholars agree that, if something is not prohibited(haram), we assume it is allowed (Halal) unless there is some documentation (Dalil) against it. For such documentations we go back to the Qur'an or practices (Speeches) of prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
There are some very well known scholars in Islamic history who worked on this area to help rest of us out. We often rely on their findings in difficult issues.
For new issues, we have a process call "Ijtihad" to decide on them. Again it is done in light of two basic sources. Qur'an and Sunnah of prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
So, we're back to the beginning again, where interpretation is needed to move the Qur'an into modern times. I just wonder why it was so hard to arrive at this position. The insistence that the Qur'an is perfect in itself and cannot be questioned, completely removes the necessity of interpretation from a human being.
That was a better try than quoting three verses in which “tamam” was your central word for “perfected” or “completed”. Now, on my prompting, you have moved away from the word “tamam” (“complete”) on to the words in four verses that are related to “kamal”.
Now we are talking!
Before carrying on, I see that you are still talking about revelations when the subject is religion of Islam and religion of Judaism. You have seen the word “perfected” (“akmaltu”) used in the Qur’an 5:3 for religion of Islam but nowhere in the Qur’an for the religion of Judaism. I hope you would remember this point or else I will keep reminding you until you do.
Now coming back to the words related to “akmaltu” (in 5:3), I have checked again four verses that you mentioned. Despite not being familiar with the way Arabic grammar works I am not completely unfamiliar with the words such as "tamam" and “kamal”, “mukammal”, “takmil” etc etc. These are also words of Farsi as well as of Urdu (the language I am quite familiar with).
(1) In verse 2:233, the only word nearest to “akmaltu” I find is the related word “kamilayani” (“whole”). I take it that “kamil” in it is related to the word “akmaltu” or “kamal”.
(2) In verse 2:185, it is “litukmiloo” (“complete”) that is related to “akmaltu” or “kamal”.
(3) In verse 2:196, it is “kamilatun” (“in all”) that is related to “akmaltu” or “kamal”.
(4) In verse 16:25, it is “kamilatan”(“in full”, “undiminished”) that is related to “akmaltu” or “kamal”.
It is interesting to note that in verse 2:185, Allah (SWT) has not used “tamam” for “complete” as in 5:3 but “litukmiloo” which is appropriate “complete” in Arabic and properly related to “akmaltu”. Therefore your analogy of perfecting book and completing work of art does not apply to 5:3 because Allah (SWT) did not use the word “kamil” (or “litukmiloo”) in 5:3 for “complete” but “tamam” (or “atmamtu”).
Therefore,
(1) “whole” (“kamilayani”) means whole and nothing left out, nothing short of, not less.
(2) “complete” (“litukmiloo”) means not short of but full (ten days) as well as nothing more than that.
(3) “in all” (“kamilatun”) means in total, not less, no more but total.
(4) “in full” (“kamilatan”) means nothing will be added and nothing taken away.
So, using the Qur'an, "akmaltu" can also be described along with "perfected" as "whole", "complete", "in all" and "in full". Using the related words to “akmaltu” or “kamal” in the Qur’an, we arrive at some of the definitions given in the Qur’an itself for “akmaltu” that (“perfected”) is not “atmamtu”, as you had originally thought, but “kamilayani”, “litukmiloo, “kamilatun” and “kamilatan”.
By the way, this is not a war that one has to be defeated and one has to win but discussion. I learn from these discussions and "win" even if I "lose" because I gain more knowledge. By mentioning the four verses, you have given me proper “complete” that is actually related“ to the word “perfected” (“akmaltu”) as well as other correctly related words that actually support “akmaltu” as “perfected”.
Thanks for your help. You have, I believe inadvertently, helped me to learn about my Deen being "perfected". It is in full and complete in sense related to "Kamal" rather than "tamam". Allah (SWT) is witness to it.
Kind regards
Ibn
I know one thing: There are a billion Islamic people in the world today, and there will be about 2 billion by the time we're dead. They're not going to give up their religion. (Chris Matthews)
Thank you for your learning attitude. I am also learning. Your initial point that the word "akmaltu", rather than "atmamtu", was used in reference to "dín" in 5:3 was duly noted as you may have noticed. You noticed my noting by calling my subsequent elaboration a "retreat" -- you my friend started the military analogy, not moi ;). But you are right. Good debates are never ultimately about winning or losing. It's about everyone learning something from one another.
Before carrying on, I see that you are still talking about revelations when the subject is religion of Islam and religion of Judaism. You have seen the word “perfected” (“akmaltu”) used in the Qur’an 5:3 for religion of Islam but nowhere in the Qur’an for the religion of Judaism. I hope you would remember this point or else I will keep reminding you until you do.
I have been more than aware of your point from the start. However, your argument simply doesn't fly because someone else might just as well reply that "tamámáan" ("completing") used in 6:154 is nowhere used in the Qur'án for any other "kitáb" (Book) except the "kitáb" given by God to Moses. So the kitáb given to Moses must be very special! It cannot be updated or improved!
More importantly, your above point doesn't change my counter-points articulated in my previous posts as well as my initial post (I also rephrased them in three separate points). I will also keep reminding you that they remain entirely unaddressed. Unless of course you accept that there is no way to answer the three points logically while at the same time committing oneself to the idea that "akmaltu" implies absolute "unimprovability" while "atmamtu" doesn't.
(1) In verse 2:233, the only word nearest to “akmaltu” I find is the related word “kamilayani” (“whole”). I take it that “kamil” in it is related to the word “akmaltu” or “kamal”.
Precisely. As you know, there's no vowel "i" in Arabic script. The vowel "i" is added in the transliteration. "Kamilayni" reads in Arabic "kamlyn". كَامÙلَيْنÙ"Kamilayni" is nothing more than an inflection of "kamal", just as "akmaltu" is an inflection of "kamal". In 2:233 it is translated as "whole", and it would indeed sound ridiculous if it was translated "perfect": "The mothers shall give suck to their offspring for two perfect years."
(2) In verse 2:185, it is “litukmiloo” (“complete”) that is related to “akmaltu” or “kamal”.
I'm happy you found it. "Litukmilú" is also an inflected form of "kamal". Here it is translated as "complete". It would sound very odd if it was translated as "perfect": "...He does not want to put you to difficulties. (He wants you) to perfect the prescribed period."
(3) In verse 2:196, it is “kamilatun” (“in all”) that is related to “akmaltu” or “kamal”.
Yes. And again, it would sound odd if it was translated as "perfect", although the word is firmly rooted in the same word "kamal": "...he should fast three days during the Hajj and seven days on his return making ten days in perfection."
(4) In verse 16:25, it is “kamilatan”(“in full”, “undiminished”) that is related to “akmaltu” or “kamal”.
Correct. And it would sound weird if it was translated as "perfect", although the word is firmly rooted in the same word "kamal": (God speaking about the arrogance of the unbelievers:) "Let them bear, on the Day of Judgment, their own burdens in perfection."
To claim that suddenly in 5:3 a grammatically appropriate inflection ("akmaltu") of "kamal" means something entirely unrelated to the other usages of the term in the Qur'án (see above) where it is translated as "completion", "fullness" and "wholeness", is not logical. The above also shows that it is not logical to make such a razor-sharp distinction between "kamal" and "tamam", particularly within the context of 5:3 where both terms are referring to a specific day during the Prophet's return from his last pilgrimage ("today") -- a day which literally marked the end of Muhammad's mission as a revealer of God's Word. It was the last verse revealed through him and he died a few months later. The "dín" as it was revealed through Muhammad, was truly "akmaltu" on that day, and God's favour through Muhammad to mankind was truly "atmamtu" on that day. No more "dín" nor "niamat" was going to be poured out to mankind through Muhammad after that day. He was going to return to His Maker.
I'm sure you see that this interpretation of the verse makes complete sense, even if you choose not to agree with it. I can surely understand why your interpretation is important to you. I'm not here to wrench you out of it.
It is interesting to note that in verse 2:185, Allah (SWT) has not used “tamam” for “complete” as in 5:3 but “litukmiloo” which is appropriate “complete” in Arabic and properly related to “akmaltu”. Therefore your analogy of perfecting book and completing work of art does not apply to 5:3 because Allah (SWT) did not use the word “kamil” (or “litukmiloo”) in 5:3 for “complete” but “tamam” (or “atmamtu”).
That's why I used the terms "perfected my book" in my analogy. By "perfected" I'm referring to "akmaltu", and not "atmamtu". The analogy works fine. I'm only showing by it how you can use related terms in English ("perfected", "completed") in the same verse to repeat essentially the same thing in a different way. This type of repetition or stress adds to the beauty and the power of the verse. But what you are saying is that a specific inflection of "kamal" in 5:3 is somehow mystically far more lofty in its meaning than the various inflections of "kamal" elsewhere in the Qur'án, where it is translated more like "completion" and "fullness". As if the English translation somehow changes the original meaning of the Arabic term. One could just as well translate "akmaltu" as "completed" and "atmamtu" as "finished". But even if we stick to "perfected", it does not mean that "atmamtu" is any less "final" in its meaning than "akmaltu".
Therefore,
(1) “whole” (“kamilayani”) means whole and nothing left out, nothing short of, not less.
(2) “complete” (“litukmiloo”) means not short of but full (ten days) as well as nothing more than that.
(3) “in all” (“kamilatun”) means in total, not less, no more but total.
(4) “in full” (“kamilatan”) means nothing will be added and nothing taken away.
So, using the Qur'an, "akmaltu" can also be described along with "perfected" as "whole", "complete", "in all" and "in full".
That is exactly what I have been trying to say. And since you accurately described on your second point (2) in the above, "complete" means "not short of but full" and "nothing more than that". This is my point too. "Tamam" means more strictly "completion" in exactly this sense and can be used interchangeably with "kamal" in similar contexts. But "tamam" does not usually have the added richer connotations of "wholeness" and "perfection" that "kamal" has. Therefore "kamal" can be used in a greater variety of contexts. However, as you yourself seemed to agree, in English "completion" implies "nothing more than that." A particular inflection of "tamam" (completion), and even the further clarification "likulli shay'ín" ("all things") is used in reference to the Book given to Moses in 6:154. So just as you read the "akmaltu" in 5:3 to imply "unimprovability", I might just as well read "tamámáan" in 6:154 to imply "unimprovability."
Thanks for your help. You have, I believe inadvertently, helped me to learn about my Deen being "perfected".
I'm not so sure it's entirely inadvertent. ;) Perhaps your final choice of interpretation is. As I told you earlier, the Qur'án is an important book not only to the Muslims. Others have also studied it and may offer some insight on it as well as learn from the Muslims. It shouldn't be monopolized by any one group. After all, it was sent for all mankind.
Kind regards from your good friend,
LilWabbit
"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
So, we're back to the beginning again, where interpretation is needed to move the Qur'an into modern times. I just wonder why it was so hard to arrive at this position. The insistence that the Qur'an is perfect in itself and cannot be questioned, completely removes the necessity of interpretation from a human being.
.
>>>>>>>>> After many analysis I feel the Qur'an is perfect and unique.
However one can question it (I have done it many times) and (In my case) it durned out sometime I did not understand what it said. Once I have the explanations and read verses with context, it is a good read and easily earned my respect.
As I said most Muslims (Around 80% of global population) are not arabs. So it is NOT their native language. Also it is a 1400 year old book. So a little context helps to get the points made in it.
I think I said, it is OPEN for interpretation but NOT open for alterations and additions. Unlike any religious book in human history, this "Unique" book was kept in it's original form (Even a dot) since it was revealed.
"Verily it is We Who revealed the Remembrance and verily We (God in royal plural like Elohim in Judaism) are its guardians."
(Al-Hijr, 15:9).
The Qur'an was meant for modern times as well. For example, Islamic community durig prophet Muhammad (PBUH) did not practice dictatorship (Commonly seen in the middle east today). The last messenger of God (PBUH) did not pick his son-iin-law or brother to be the next leader of the Muslims. Rather the best person among Muslims was chosen to be the next leader. So it was possible for a former slave to be the leader of the Muslims later on. It intriduced an unique system to humanity so long ago.
When it comes to being critical of any religious laws my position is, I think, very simple.
What Jewish religious law is, and how it affects Jews, is and must be totally up to Jews, BUT!!!, it must not, ever, in the United States have the slightest secular, outside of the synagogue authority and it must never have any influence on the country's judicial system.
What Muslim religious law is, and how it affects Muslims, is and must be totally up to Muslims, BUT!!!, it must not, ever, in the United States have the slightest secular, outside of the mosque authority and it must never have any influence on the country's judicial system.
It doesn't matter what any religion's laws are called, shariah, or the druid code, or the holiness code, or whtever. They are all the same in that they should apply ONLY to believers of a particular religion and ONLY within purely, non-secular, religious matters...and NEVER be allowed to influence the legal system.
And...anyone is entitled to be critical, and loudly and pubically so, of any and all religioons' laws, doctrines, beliefs, God, Gods, Goddess, Goddesses, associate, assistant grand poobah pantheon, and so forth. This is the United States. We cna criticize and make fun of whatever we want.
So do Jews have the right to criticize shariah? Hell yes. And Muslims have the right to criticize Jewish law...have at it... have a wonderful, verbal fight!
As far as this Episco[palian is concerned, I'll just watch, enjoy the brawl, and pitch insults at both sides...though not personally of course...LOL.
Ken
Conservative, Libertarian, Life member of the NRA and VFW
I think criticism is good when it is done with proper information. It brings attention to areas where people of faith are falling short. Women right in Islam is one such area. It is sad to watch women were leading armies 1400 years ago right after prophet Muhammad (PBUH) passed away. Today women are not "Allowed" to drive her car (In Saudi arabia).
That is why I try to offer authentic information about Islam. There are times when local culture influence how Islam is practiced.
IN that spirit Jews or anyone is welcome to talk about Islam and (If necessary) criticise it.
Based on my observation of last ten years, most of the people have very little or no knowledge of Islam took it upon themselves to pass opinions on Islam. Which cannot be call criticising Islam but more like "Hate mongering". So called "Ground zero mosque" campaign shown us that, one of the freest country in the world can be vulnerable to hate mongers who wants to malign Islam in front of average Americans.
As a Muslim, I feel my religion is "Perfect" however the followers are far from being perfect. So honest cirticism can be helpful.
At the same time if I take a random sample of what is written in beliefnet about Islam, the finding can be scary. So those who believe in fairness in dealings needs to be careful from hate mongers. Becasue it is too easy spread false information and confuse a lot of people.
Thank you for your learning attitude. I am also learning. Your initial point that the word "akmaltu", rather than "atmamtu", was used in reference to "dín" in 5:3 was duly noted as you may have noticed. You noticed my noting by calling my subsequent elaboration a "retreat" -- you my friend started the military analogy, not moi ;). But you are right. Good debates are never ultimately about winning or losing. It's about everyone learning something from one another.
Before carrying on, I see that you are still talking about revelations when the subject is religion of Islam and religion of Judaism. You have seen the word “perfected” (“akmaltu”) used in the Qur’an 5:3 for religion of Islam but nowhere in the Qur’an for the religion of Judaism. I hope you would remember this point or else I will keep reminding you until you do.
I have been more than aware of your point from the start. However, your argument simply doesn't fly because someone else might just as well reply that "tamámáan" ("completing") used in 6:154 is nowhere used in the Qur'án for any other "kitáb" (Book) except the "kitáb" given by God to Moses. So the kitáb given to Moses must be very special! It cannot be updated or improved!
Idea of updating Judaism has not come from us but from a Jewish person in this forum. As for "tamamann" in 6:154, it is generally regarded to be for completing the favours but if you insist that it is for the Book itself and "tamamann" means complete and cannot be updated then you will have to take it up with Jewish people who feel that their religion needs to be updated. As for we are concerned, by "tamamann" does not mean complete, final, and perfected ("akmaltu") as demonstrated by the very next verse (6:155) in which is mention of the Qur'an being revealed. So it is "tamamann" in 6:154 and "akmaltu" in 5:3.
More importantly, your above point doesn't change my counter-points articulated in my previous posts as well as my initial post (I also rephrased them in three separate points). I will also keep reminding you that they remain entirely unaddressed. Unless of course you accept that there is no way to answer the three points logically while at the same time committing oneself to the idea that "akmaltu" implies absolute "unimprovability" while "atmamtu" doesn't.
That is the idea of 5:3 and the way two words have been used in it.
(1) In verse 2:233, the only word nearest to “akmaltu” I find is the related word “kamilayani” (“whole”). I take it that “kamil” in it is related to the word “akmaltu” or “kamal”.
Precisely. As you know, there's no vowel "i" in Arabic script. The vowel "i" is added in the transliteration. "Kamilayni" reads in Arabic "kamlyn". كَامÙلَيْنÙ"Kamilayni" is nothing more than an inflection of "kamal", just as "akmaltu" is an inflection of "kamal". In 2:233 it is translated as "whole", and it would indeed sound ridiculous if it was translated "perfect": "The mothers shall give suck to their offspring for two perfect years."
(2) In verse 2:185, it is “litukmiloo” (“complete”) that is related to “akmaltu” or “kamal”.
I'm happy you found it. "Litukmilú" is also an inflected form of "kamal". Here it is translated as "complete". It would sound very odd if it was translated as "perfect": "...He does not want to put you to difficulties. (He wants you) to perfect the prescribed period."
(3) In verse 2:196, it is “kamilatun” (“in all”) that is related to “akmaltu” or “kamal”.
Yes. And again, it would sound odd if it was translated as "perfect", although the word is firmly rooted in the same word "kamal": "...he should fast three days during the Hajj and seven days on his return making ten days in perfection."
(4) In verse 16:25, it is “kamilatan”(“in full”, “undiminished”) that is related to “akmaltu” or “kamal”.
Correct. And it would sound weird if it was translated as "perfect", although the word is firmly rooted in the same word "kamal": (God speaking about the arrogance of the unbelievers:) "Let them bear, on the Day of Judgment, their own burdens in perfection."
To claim that suddenly in 5:3 a grammatically appropriate inflection ("akmaltu") of "kamal" means something entirely unrelated to the other usages of the term in the Qur'án (see above) where it is translated as "completion", "fullness" and "wholeness", is not logical.
Of course it is. It is for the particular process that comes to an end.
The above also shows that it is not logical to make such a razor-sharp distinction between "kamal" and "tamam", particularly within the context of 5:3 where both terms are referring to a specific day during the Prophet's return from his last pilgrimage ("today") -- a day which literally marked the end of Muhammad's mission as a revealer of God's Word. It was the last verse revealed through him and he died a few months later. The "dín" as it was revealed through Muhammad, was truly "akmaltu" on that day, and God's favour through Muhammad to mankind was truly "atmamtu" on that day.
That's correct for "Din" of Islam. It had been perfected. No more revelation was to come if "Din" is already perfected. As "Din" from God is only one (Islam) described in 3:19, 21:92, 3:85 and perfected according to 5:3, there is nothing left to add to it unless one wants to start a religion other than Islam.
No more "dín" nor "niamat" was going to be poured out to mankind through Muhammad after that day. He was going to return to His Maker.
That's correct about "Din" from God. Process of further laws had come to an end and "Way" perfected but process of "niamat" is recurring even outside the revelations. Revelation is favour from God but not the only favour.
I'm sure you see that this interpretation of the verse makes complete sense, even if you choose not to agree with it. I can surely understand why your interpretation is important to you. I'm not here to wrench you out of it.
No. Your interpretation that God's favour (niamat) came to an end for mankind with death of Muhammad makes no sense. Not only the Qur'an is favour from God but there are other favours from God outside any revelation that are recurring.
It is interesting to note that in verse 2:185, Allah (SWT) has not used “tamam” for “complete” as in 5:3 but “litukmiloo” which is appropriate “complete” in Arabic and properly related to “akmaltu”. Therefore your analogy of perfecting book and completing work of art does not apply to 5:3 because Allah (SWT) did not use the word “kamil” (or “litukmiloo”) in 5:3 for “complete” but “tamam” (or “atmamtu”).
That's why I used the terms "perfected my book" in my analogy. By "perfected" I'm referring to "akmaltu", and not "atmamtu". The analogy works fine. I'm only showing by it how you can use related terms in English ("perfected", "completed") in the same verse to repeat essentially the same thing in a different way. This type of repetition or stress adds to the beauty and the power of the verse. But what you are saying is that a specific inflection of "kamal" in 5:3 is somehow mystically far more lofty in its meaning than the various inflections of "kamal" elsewhere in the Qur'án, where it is translated more like "completion" and "fullness". As if the English translation somehow changes the original meaning of the Arabic term. One could just as well translate "akmaltu" as "completed" and "atmamtu" as "finished". But even if we stick to "perfected", it does not mean that "atmamtu" is any less "final" in its meaning than "akmaltu".
"Atmamtu" (completing") is recurring process (in the Qur'an) whereas "akmaltu" is final (perfected) and nothing more needs added in it ever or else it can't be called perfected.
Therefore,
(1) “whole” (“kamilayani”) means whole and nothing left out, nothing short of, not less.
(2) “complete” (“litukmiloo”) means not short of but full (ten days) as well as nothing more than that.
(3) “in all” (“kamilatun”) means in total, not less, no more but total.
(4) “in full” (“kamilatan”) means nothing will be added and nothing taken away.
So, using the Qur'an, "akmaltu" can also be described along with "perfected" as "whole", "complete", "in all" and "in full".
That is exactly what I have been trying to say. And since you accurately described on your second point (2) in the above, "complete" means "not short of but full" and "nothing more than that". This is my point too. "Tamam" means more strictly "completion" in exactly this sense and can be used interchangeably with "kamal" in similar contexts.
No. you are looking at the word "completing" ("atmamtu") and regard it "complete" (“litukmiloo”). Two different words do not mean exactly the same.
Therefore "kamal" can be used in a greater variety of contexts. However, as you yourself seemed to agree, in English "completion" implies "nothing more than that."
That's why "litukmiloo" is used for such completion and "atmamtu" for completion that is recurring process.
A particular inflection of "tamam" (completion), and even the further clarification "likulli shay'ín" ("all things") is used in reference to the Book given to Moses in 6:154.
All things in the Book are explained just as all things are explained in the Qur'an. It does not mean even making of the atom bomb is explained in any of these Revelations.
I'm not so sure it's entirely inadvertent. ;) Perhaps your final choice of interpretation is. As I told you earlier, the Qur'án is an important book not only to the Muslims. Others have also studied it and may offer some insight on it as well as learn from the Muslims. It shouldn't be monopolized by any one group. After all, it was sent for all mankind.
Yes, it is for the mankind, just as perfected "Din" of Islam is for the mankind.
(1) By what logic a "perfected" Way (5:3) precludes "improving" and "updating" while a Book "explaining all things" (6:154) doesn't?
“Perfected Way” is Perfect Way (Deen) and it does not need improving or updating or else it is not Perfect Way (Deen). The Deen was perfected with the last injunction in the verse and no legal injunction was revealed after this verse. The Book and all the legal injunctions in it are still preserved and, therefore, is still the Perfected Way (Deen) for us. No more legal injunction are needed to change any of the injunction in the Qur'an or else the "Din" cannot be called perfected "Din" when Revelation of the Qur'an came to an end.
As for updating the Books of Moses, this has come from the Jewish community, not from me. They are arguing that their religion needs to be updated. I have no idea whether they have the original Book of Moses with them or it has been “updated” by them. As for making things clear, it is the same about the Qur’an as well in 15:1, 25:33, 26:2, 27:2, 36:69 and 43:2. Of course God makes all things clear in Revelations from Him. What’s your point? Making all things clear mean all things in that Book (Revelation). It does not mean that the Book will make clear how to make a car.
The latter concerns God's revelation to Moses and the former the revelation to Muhammad. If no good logic is forthcoming, then the Jews can very well appeal even to the Qur'án and say to the Muslims that their revelation needs no "improvement".
Why don’t they? Perhaps they no longer have the original Book of Moses and they feel need to update it. You will have to ask them why they feel need to update it.
(2) By what logic can "kamal" (in its various inflections) be translated in some verses as "completion" while suddenly meaning something entirely different than "completion" in 5:3? Are you saying that when "kamal" is translated as "completion", the Arabic word means something "improvable" but when it's not translated as "completion", suddenly "kamal" is not improvable?
No. I am not talking about the word "completion" but "akmaltu" and "atmamtu". If it is perfected ("akmaltu") then the process is not the same "completion" as when the word "atmamtu" is used. Something Perfect is also complete but not everything complete or completed is perfect. Therefore, something complete, that is not perfect, can be improved to make it perfect.
(3) Now, if you are saying that "kamal" always implies "unimprovability", then by what logic do the various inflections of "tamam", which also translates as "completion", imply improvability?
As for as I understand, from reading the ayat of the Qur’an, wherever “tamam” as “complete” is used, it is a process completed for a time only but the process does not come to a complete end but it is recurring later on. Where “akmaltu” (“perfected”) is used for the process, it does come to an end and is not recurring.
I trust this will help from your good friend.
Kind regards
Ibn
I know one thing: There are a billion Islamic people in the world today, and there will be about 2 billion by the time we're dead. They're not going to give up their religion. (Chris Matthews)
For My Mother: In Praise of a Life Lived
Chasing an Elusive God
Why Christianity Is Dying But Spirituality Is Thriving?
On the Frontlines An interview with Yael Eckstein, Senior Vice President of the ...
Ray Liotta, Seth Green Join an All-Star Cast in Indie Film ‘The Identical’ “We want to bring films with a redeeming value to the world. One of ...
A Life of Hope The fact that you’re standing here today with breath in your lungs ...
Habits for a Heart Healthy Lifestyle Heart disease is a top killer worldwide -- but our lifestyle choices ...
Emotional Equations Using brilliantly simple math that illuminates universal emotional ...
Are You a Compulsive or Binge Eater? Do you struggle with your weight? Find out more about compulsive and ...
Faith, Freedom and Rocker John Schlitt “We are making choices on greed and stupidity. The truth is that our ...
Robert Griffin III: Not the Average Rookie Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III continues to wow ...
Green Powders to Add to Your Diet Now Green powders are a great way to boost your health, keep your energy ...
Natural Deodorants That Actually Work What's that smell? Not us! We’ve been on a mission to find the best ...
Birth of a Habit How long does it take to form a new habit? How long should it take ...
Madly In Love With ME “I will never settle for less than my heart and soul desire.â€
Is It Love If You're All Cranky When You Give It? Love is the answer to everything in life.
Living A Meaningful Life You are what you love and you love whatever you give your attention ...
"The Bible" a Labor of Love for Famed Producer, Wife The five-week, 10-hour TV special was nurtured by "Touched by an ...
Who Should Be Allowed to Pray for President Obama? It seems preposterous, but there’s a major debate over who is worthy ...
I know you are both fair-minded and a gentleman.
One could just as well translate "akmaltu" as "completed" and "atmamtu" as "finished". But even if we stick to "perfected", it does not mean that "atmamtu" is any less "final" in its meaning than "akmaltu".