Post Reply
Page 3 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3
Switch to Forum Live View The matter of Mansukh & Nasikh!
4 years ago  ::  Aug 13, 2010 - 8:24PM #21
visio
Posts: 3,517

Aug 13, 2010 -- 5:22PM, Ibn wrote:


 Please do not be misguided if any Muslim or non Muslim tells you that a verse of the Qur'an that was once revealed, is no more to be found in the final compilation. But, the prescribed punishment for adultery of "stoning to death" commanded in that "missing verse" is applicable. The following verses of the Qur'an should make them stop making such erroneous claims and misleading the believers. Allah has Himself Guarded and Protected the Final Scripture. 


We have without doubt sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it.  15 : 9

It is for Us to collect it and to promulgate it: But when We have promulgated it follow thou its recital (as promulgated): 75: 17 - 18


No falsehood can approach it from before or behind it: it is sent down by One Full of Wisdom Worthy of all Praise. 41: 42



 


The commentary by Dr. Muhammad Asad for the verse 2: 106, reproduced below, explains the problem with the misunderstood "doctrine of abrogation":



The principal laid down in this passage – relating to the suppression of the Biblical dispensation by that of the Qur'an – has given rise to an erroneous interpretation by many Muslim theologians. The word ayah ("message") occurring in this context is also used to denote a “verse” of the Qur'an (because every one of these verses contains a message). Taking this restricted meaning of the term ayah, some scholars conclude from the above passage that certain verses the Qur'an have been “abrogated” by God’s command before the revelation of Qur'an was completed. Apart from the fancifulness of this assertion – which calls to mind the image of a human author correcting, on second thought, the proofs of his manuscript deleting one passage and replacing it with another – there does not exist a single reliable Tradition to the effect that the Prophet ever declared a verse of the Qur'an to have been “abrogated”. At the root of the so-called “doctrine of abrogation” may lie the inability of some of the early Commentators to reconcile one Quranic passage with another: a difficulty which was overcome by declaring that one of the verses in question had been “abrogated”. This arbitrary procedure explains also why there is no unanimity whatsoever among the upholders of the “doctrine of abrogation” as to which, and how many, Qur'an-verses have been affected by it, and, furthermore, as  to whether this alleged abrogation implies a total elimination of the verse in question from the context of the Qur'an, or only a cancellation of the specific ordinance or statement contains on it. In short, the “doctrine of abrogation” has no basis whatsoever in historical  fact, and must be rejected. On the other hand, the apparent difficulty in  interpreting the above Qur'anic  passage disappears immediately if the term ayah is understood, correctly, as “message”, and if we read this verse in conjunction with the  preceding one, which states that the Jews and the Christians  refuse to accept any revelation which might supersede that of the Bible; for, if read in this way, the abrogation relates to the earlier divine messages and not to any part of the Qur'an itself..


www.mostmerciful.com/abrogation-and-subs...





 


Assalamaualaikum wrhmtllh, br. Ibn,
Masha'Allah, I am glad that you discovered the commentary by Assad.  We know that he was a Hebrew who converted to Islam.  Who else could have understood better of what could have happened in the "aftermath" of the late Prophet Muhammadsaw's wafat (demise) and during the compilation of  the Al-Quran, first, and then followed by the Hadith.  Mind you, it is fair and reasonable to assume that there were among the followers of Muhammadsaw during the days were Hebrew speaking ex-followers of Isasaw (Jesus) and Musasaw (Moses) who amogst them had themselves been most exposed to Scriptural Revelations and the nitty gritty of their nature, compared to the Arabs pagan who were just receiving it for the first time in their history (and the last) and in their own language.  It is upto one's imagination to see how active the ex-followers of Isasaw & Musasaw in providing their input in the forms of interpretation  or what they had scribed out of the late Prophet's narratives on and off revelations.   As I understood it the call for the submission of input, during the compilation process, was very open and transparent.  The Quran was the first priority and the final vetting demanded a lot of wisdom on the persons of companion of the prophets, close ones and a distant ones, being chosen and assembeld to undertake the task.  It would take quite a lot of wisdom and memory to segregate between (ALLAH) revealed verses and that Muhammadsaw was saying at the wet market every other day.  If I may recall, there is a "stoning" verse compiled in one of the Hadith Collection.   And there was a hesitation on the part of the Prophet, called upon to make a judgement, to reccommend any stoning;  on the other hand the woman involved was pressing for it.  At the end of it (if my memory is right) she was asked to disappear (to protect herself).   Even if stoning had been ex-communicated by the late Prophet, it could have been underpressure of the demand of inherited Hebrew culture, then,  in existence and practiced by even some of the Arab pagan tribes.  It would take quite a close person to to the Prophet to make judgement on any reported saying of the  Prophet, whether it was a revelation  or simply the Prophet's way/act to articulate the situation.  The Prophet himself was under "test".   To some parties with vested interest in the continuation of the practice of "stoning" the rejection, by the assembly of the Prophet's companions, of whatever statements transacted during the events, would be an abrogation of their customary law.  As I said earlier, the early non-Arab converts to Islam, were active, and we cannot say with bad intent, in lending their hands to the interpretation of verses, both Quranic and Hadiths.  But, it seems to me that a lot of people don't take the Quranic Challenge.  Instead they take 100% of Hadiths to interpret their Al-Quran and overlook Az-Zumar 39 : 23 which, IOW, is a statement that no Quranic verse is a cul-de-sac.  Everything is, finally, reconcilable into one Big Picture, or, one closed loop Celestial Spherical Orbit:  From any point on it a SINGLE LIGHT of Creation is emanates and to the same point it is returned, but, by another SINGLE LIGHT.  The reality of Isaic parable "Do unto others, what you wish to be done unto you" is this:  This body and spirit/mind came to us as inherited as remnants of the SINGLE LIGHT that came before us.  Save it, purify it, so that the remnants of our very own SINGLE LIGHT would be saved by another, that would come after us thru the soul to be created from it.   I must admit that Az-Zumar 39 : 23 cannot be realised without extra-scriptural input.  Therefore in the Al-Quranic challenge the statement says:  "Contemplate" or "Meditate" to get the direct experience.  IOW, continue and perfect your salat even if you have to stay awake for the last third of the night. In Islam, there is no chicken-egg situtation.  Faith, first. That is salat first.  Upon patience and perfection, then comes direct experience.  How do you know the direct experience is the correct one?  Prior-knowledge founded upon the Al-Quran is necessary because Al-Quran itself is an account of Muhammadsaw direct experiencing and witnessing.  But Muhammadsaw has long gone.   Then listen to the followers of Muhammadsaw who have got their direct experiencing, at one level or another.  And THINK!  I wonder how far it is true:  By THINKING, ALLAHswt would stretch one's lifetime a bit longer than prescribed and perhaps shorten it in the next one for an accelration. In other words - if one wants to change an act, the time is now!
         

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Aug 14, 2010 - 1:27AM #22
Ibn
Posts: 5,006

Aug 13, 2010 -- 8:24PM, visio wrote:


 ...If I may recall, there is a "stoning" verse compiled in one of the Hadith Collection.   And there was a hesitation on the part of the Prophet, called upon to make a judgement, to recommend any stoning;  on the other hand the woman involved was pressing for it.  At the end of it (if my memory is right) she was asked to disappear (to protect herself).   Even if stoning had been ex-communicated by the late Prophet, it could have been underpressure of the demand of inherited Hebrew culture, then,  in existence and practiced by even some of the Arab pagan tribes.  It would take quite a close person to to the Prophet to make judgement on any reported saying of the  Prophet, whether it was a revelation  or simply the Prophet's way/act to articulate the situation.  The Prophet himself was under "test".   To some parties with vested interest in the continuation of the practice of "stoning" the rejection, by the assembly of the Prophet's companions, of whatever statements transacted during the events, would be an abrogation of their customary law.  As I said earlier, the early non-Arab converts to Islam, were active, and we cannot say with bad intent, in lending their hands to the interpretation of verses, both Quranic and Hadiths.  But, it seems to me that a lot of people don't take the Quranic Challenge.  Instead they take 100% of Hadiths to interpret their Al-Quran and overlook Az-Zumar 39 : 23 which, IOW, is a statement that no Quranic verse is a cul-de-sac....  



Salaam, brother,


Just to add, to further your assessment of the reason for "stoning" account in the hadith books, I give you the Link (below) that explains where some Muslims have been misleading themselves by giving more importance to the hadith books than the Book of Allah, the Qur'an.


Hadith books can be used to understand the Qur'an in many cases but not in every case. If one uses hadith to judge the Qur'an every time without first pondering over all the Verses of the Qur'an then s/he is bound to misunderstand the Qur'an.


We need to understand the Qur'an by using whole of the Qur'an first, not by isolating a single Verse only or by isolating a single hadith only and judging the whole issue with it. People who do not ponder over the Verses of the Qur'an end up misleading themselves. 


www.cyberistan.org/islamic/treaty22.html


It was a Jewish woman brought to the prophet (saws) and the Prophet (as head of the State) was under obligation of upholding the treaty of letting the Jews practice their religion according to their own laws.


The Prophet had hesitated because under the Islamic law there was no "stoning to death" punishment for adultery. The Prophet had to ask the Jews as to what is punishment in their religion for adultery. They said, "Stoning to death". There was no way the Prophet was going to break his promise to Jews of upholding their Jewish law in matters relating to the affairs of Jews. So he let them administer their own law in this case. That does not mean that since then Jewish law had become Islamic law. 

The stoning hadith cannot apply to the Islamic law in cases of adultery because the punishment for adultery in the Qur'an is flogging (100 stripes). Some claim that flogging is only for the unmarried people and for married is "stoning to death". When one questions them as to why then the "stoning" verse is not in the Qur'an, they say that it was because there was only one witness (Umar rA), which is untrue when you read the hadith books.


You may also be correct in thinking that for some time, before Islamic law of flogging as punishment for adultery was revealed, it may have been assumed, due to the Jewish law on adultery, that the punishment for adultery is stoning. But it all changed with the Verse of flogging (100 stripes) and half the punishment (50 stripes) for a married slave woman (4:25). One can't half the "stoning to death" punishment, had the punishment for married women been "stoning to death". 


I am glad to see that you are on the right lines, mashaAllah, in your assessment of the issue. Those who sincerely ponder over the Verses of the Qur'an would have their spirit strengthened by Allah (SWT). Those who do not try to change their condition themselves cannot expect Allah (SWT) to change their condition. Too many rabid mullahs are not trying to ponder over the Verses of the Qur'an and are staying in the same old stale state lacking understanding.


Salaam


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)
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Aug 14, 2010 - 5:25AM #23
Abdullah.
Posts: 882

Aug 10, 2010 -- 6:02PM, Ibn wrote:

Salaam, brother Abdullah,


You are reading too many books of men and not enough of the Book of Allah (SWT).


Allah (SWT) says:


(38:23) Allah has revealed the best announcement, a book conformable in its various parts, repeating, whereat do shudder the skins of those who fear their Lord, then their skins and their hearts become pliant to the remembrance of Allah; this is Allah's guidance, He guides with it whom He pleases; and (as for) him whom Allah makes err, there is no guide for him.   (Shakir)


(39:23) God has revealed (from time to time) the most beautiful message in the form of a Book, consistent with itself, (yet) repeating (its teaching in various aspects): the skins of those who fear their Lord tremble thereat: then their skins and their hearts do soften to the celebration of God's praises. Such is the guidance of God: He guides therewith whom He pleases, but such as God leaves to stray, can have none to guide.  (Yusuf Ali)


(39:23) Allah hath (now) revealed the  fairest of statements, a Scripture consistent, (wherin promises of reward are) paired (with threats of punishment), whereat doth creep the flesh of those who fear their Lord, so that their flesh andtheir hearts soften to Allah's reminder. Such is Allah's guidance, wherewith He guideth whom He will. And him whom Allah sendeth astray, for him there is no guide.  (Pickthall)


If, in your view, some of the Verses in the Qur'an are abrogated by the other Verses in the Qur'an then the Qur'an is neither consistent with itself nor it is a book conformable in its various parts. The abrogating Verses are not conformable with abrogated Verses, the reason they are abrogated. True or not? If not then why not?



 


Wa alykum brother Ibn!


 


Islam being revealed as it was in stages brother - and one of the wisdoms of it being revealed in stages i think was to get the people used to various laws, and gradually introduce better one's etc  -  it is perfectly understandable that ALlah would cause to abrogate some verses with others; this ofcourse will be the replacement of preliminary/interim laws; thus as this whole concept is representative of a smooth and gradual transition into the better replacements, it all fits in with the above verses; there is nothing uncomfortable or inconsistent about a smooth transition in which Allah's laws and Rahma can be really appreciated given the better laws they are replaced by; shaykh Jibril Haddad says regarding this:


 "the abrogating verses mark the end of the validity of the abrogated verses because their heed and effect was of a temporary or limited nature. In time the new law appears and announces the end of the validity of the earlier law. Considering that Quran was revealed over a period of twenty-three years in ever-changing circumstances, it is not difficult to imagine the necessity of such laws".


so the 'ever changing circumstances' should be taken into consideration too brother; in such circumstances it is only apt that as circumstances change [lets consider that a gradual and massive upheavel of peoples way of life took place in the 23? years of the revelation of the Quran], more apt laws need to replace older one's


 


Aug 10, 2010 -- 6:02PM, Ibn wrote:


As for the "verse" of stoning, tell me why it was not included in the Qur'an when Umar (rA) was present when compiling the Qur'an?


Why it was not included in the Qur'an when without it (if it was at all revealed) the Qur'an cannot be regarded as complete Book of Revelation 



the 'completedness' of the Quran is not effected at all brother, since abrogation happens by the will of ALlah


 


Aug 10, 2010 -- 6:02PM, Ibn wrote:


What is the point of not reciting it but enacting it only? 



 


well i'll leave the specifics to the experts, but one possible wisdom i can think of brother is for ALlah to test us as to who will follow the prophet [saw] and who will turn their backs saying; 'I dont see it in the Quran"; a true believer will follow sunnah evidence too and not just Quran; there is a verse to that effect in the Quran too:


 


ALlah [swt] revealed regarding the former Qibla [jeruselem]:


And We did not appoint the Qiblah on which you were earlier, but that We might know the people who follow the Messenger as distinct from those who turn back on their heels. (2:143)


the story of the above verse is that, when Muslims followed the prophet [saw] in making their Qibla jeruselem initially, no verse was revealed in the Quran saying to make jeruselem the Qibla; in the above verse ALlah says that He appointed the former qibla, thus the revelation for this order is what is known in Islam as an 'unrecited revelation', i.e, that which Allah informs the prophet [saw] of and which is not incldued as a Quranic verse; and ALlah makes it clear that ALlah appointed it in this way to see who follows the prophet [saw] irrespective of wether his orders are contained in the Holy Qur’ân or not, thus this too could be the wisdom of abrogating a Quranic verse in recitation only [and not in command], leaving ample evidence in the sunnah and testimonies of the sahabah [ra] that it was infact revealed in the Quran, and then see who remains loyal and follows clear evidence


there are other hadiths, infallible [mass transmitted] one's infact establishing stoning, thus the abrogation of the stoning verse from the Quran is possibly to see who will accept all the Quranic [there is evidence of ijma' being the right way in Quran too] and sunnah evidence that it infact was in the Quran


it could also act as 'bait' for hypocryts; there is a hadith that Medinah expels hypocryts as a furnace removes impurites from metal; I think there is a verse in the Quran that says that the Quran iether guides people or increases them in rebbellion, just as it does the nonbelievers, thus this verse could be a part of the 'destroying factor' of the Quran which ALlah has kept for the wicked; a 'bait' for them to use as a pretext not to believe in stoning as part of Islam 


 


Aug 10, 2010 -- 6:02PM, Ibn wrote:


Is there any Hadith that indicates that Prophet (sAws) had enacted this "verse"? 



 


yes ofcourse brother; see following:


 


'Abdullah bin 'Abbas reported that 'Umar bin Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's messenger (may peace be upon him) and said:


 


Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and he sent down the book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning. I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy or a confession. [Muslim, III, No. 4194; Bukhari, VIII, No. 816.]


 




Aug 10, 2010 -- 6:02PM, Ibn wrote:


And what about the Command of lashes for adultery? 



 


in the Quran it says 'zina' which can be translated as 'illegal sexual intercourse' brother and not specifically adultery; it can refer to both fornication and adultery, but since the sunnah clarifies that for adultery it is stoning, thus we therefore know that the 'zina' in the Quran refers to only fornication


 


hope that helps


Salam Smile


 


ps: you have probably read some of the evidence i have posted up in the past of how consensus' are infallible brother, and that there is overwhelming evidence in Quran and sunnah that consensus is the right way: for a refresher, see link:


  community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/5...(waiting_period_for_a_woman_after_divorce):_Sin_or_not_a_sin&post_num=17#392056453


and there is consensus on their being abrogation on the Quran; not only in the stoning verse but also in:


 


Allah says: "If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way."
[al-Nisa’ 4:15]

Ibn Katheer, may Allah have mercy on him, said in his Tafseer (explanation) of this aayah:
"At the beginning of Islam, the ruling concerning a woman who was proven guilty of adultery was that she was to be detained in a house and not allowed to come out until she died. So the phrase ‘If any of your women are guilty of lewdness’ refers to adultery. ‘Take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way’ - the ‘other way’ that Allah made for them was the abrogation of this. Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, said: ‘This was the ruling until Allah revealed Surat al-Nur, then this punishment was abrogated and replaced with whipping or stoning.’


... As for confinement [i.e detaining women in house] , this is abrogated, by the consensus of the scholars.


www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/839


that one above is verry clear too brother as one verse mentions to detain women guilty of illegal sexual intercourse in house till death, and the one in surah nur says:


2. The woman and the man guilty of illegal sexual intercourse, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by All�h, if you believe in All�h and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. (This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime but if married persons commit it, the punishment is to stone them to death, according to All�h's Law).


so you can't have both now can you? and we know the one that has allways been traditionally implemented to this day [since the abrogation of the 'detainment'] is the one of flogging for fornicators


there could be other verses too on which the ummah concurs:


There is consensus amongst the Ulema of Ahle-Sunnah-Wal_Jam’at that there have been some verses of the Qur’an whose reci­tation as well as commandment have been abrogated.


publications.islamkashmir.org/naskh-or-a...


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Aug 14, 2010 - 9:37AM #24
visio
Posts: 3,517

Assalamaualaikum wrhmtllh,
Surah An-Nur 24 : 2 reads:  The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes.   Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by ALLAH, if you believe in ALLAH and the Last Day.   And let a party of the believers witness their punishment.
There is no stoning read in the verse.   However quite a few explanation were thrown into this verse and included in a bracket.   The English version I am using [Al-Hillali & Mukhsin Khan] has this explained in brackets as the following: [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of th eabovecrime, but if married persons commit it, the punishment is to stone them to death, according to ALLAH's Law].   And according to Messrs Hillali & Mukhsin Khan, the explanation is supported by two hadiths:
a)   Narrated Abu Hurairah:   Allah's Messenger judged that th eunmarried person who was guilty of sexual intercourse be exiled fro on eyear an dreceive the legal punishment (flogging).  (Sahih Al-Bukhari, vol. 8, Hadith # 819).
b)   Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah Al-Ansari:   A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam (Jewish?) cam eto ALLAH's Messenger and informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and he bore witness four time against himself.   Allah's Messenger ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married person.  (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 8, Hadith # 805).  There is no reference who originated this explanation - Ibn Khatir or someone else.   So what is clear is that there is no stoning verses from ALLAHswt.  What the Prophet had done was apply the Jewish Customary Law of the Jewish Community in Medina (not necessarily Mosaic Law) as instructed by ALLAHswt to do so, in another verse.   Mind you, in my reading, I always have question when it come to read Ibn Khatir, or any other interpreter explanation.  It reminds me of the Adam and Eve read into Az-Zumar 39 : 6.  I am not saying this applies to all of his explanation/tafsir.  There are others that I concur with his explanation.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Aug 14, 2010 - 7:24PM #25
Ibn
Posts: 5,006

Aug 14, 2010 -- 9:37AM, visio wrote:


Assalamaualaikum wrhmtllh,
Surah An-Nur 24 : 2 reads:  The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes.   Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by ALLAH, if you believe in ALLAH and the Last Day.   And let a party of the believers witness their punishment.
There is no stoning read in the verse.  


Wa alakumassalaam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatu,


Fornicatress and the fornicator (Zania and Zani) means female and male who have illigal sexual intercourse. No mention of the age or the marital status. And of course there is no mention of stoning in this verse. The rabid mullahs say that the punishment for adultery is flogging first and then stoning to death. They ADD in the above Verse the following hadith:


Book 17, Number 4191:



'Ubada b. as-Samit reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Receive (teaching) from me, receive (teaching) from me. Allah has ordained a way for those (women). When an unmarried male commits adultery with an unmarried female (they should receive) one hundred lashes and banishment for one year. And in case of married male committing adultery with a married female, they shall receive one hundred lashes and be stoned to death.



Four questions:


(1) If Allah's Messenger is saying that the punishment for adultery is, "one hundred lashes and be stoned to death" then why is the stoning part not included in the above Verse?


Answer:  Because the stoning part was never part of this Verse.


(2) If Ubada b. as-Samit was one witness and Umar the other witness to Verse of stoning, heard from Allah's Messenger, then why did they not include it in the Qur'an when it was compiled?


Answer: Because the stoning part was never part of this Verse and Ubada b. as-Samit had never witnessed revelation of the stoning part or the stoning verse. 


(3) When Sahaaba leave flogging part of the Verse in the Qur'an and leave the stoning part out of the Qur'an, is that not the corruption of the Qur'an by Sahaaba?


Answer: Of course it is! But the fact is that Sahaaba did not leave stoning part out because there was no stoning part at all.


(4) Did Allah's Messenger ever told Sahaaba to leave out stoning part or any stoning verse out of the Qur'an?


Answer: Never. Therefore, the stoning is a later additional law of men. Allah (SWT) has not ordained stoning to death punishment in the Qur'an.





Book 17, Number 4192:



'Ubada b. as-Samit reported that whenever Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) received revelation, he felt its rigour and the complexion of his face changed. One day revelation descended upon him, he felt the same rigour. When it was over and he felt relief, he said: Take from me. Verily Allah has ordained a way for them (the women who commit fornication),: (When) a married man (commits adultery) with a married woman, and an unmarried male with an unmarried woman, then in case of married (persons) there is (a punishment) of one hundred lashes and then stoning (to death). And in case of unmarried persons, (the punishment) is one hundred lashes and exile for one year.



 


It is clear from the above hadith in Sahih Muslim that Ubada b. as-Samit was a witness when revelation of "stoning to death" descended upon the Messenger. Why are some websites claiming that there was only Umar (rA) the witness? It is clear that such claim is a lie according to the above hadith. A lie designed to mislead Muslims.





Book 17, Number 4193:


This hadith has been reported on the authority of Qatada with the same chain of transmitters except with this variation that the unmarried is to be lashed and exiled, and the married one is to be lashed and stoned. There is neither any mention of one year nor that of one hundred.

  If this hadith is then doubtful then why include it in the Sahih Muslim? And if the same chain is the same then why the variation in the words? Which words are truth in Sahih and which are corruption in "Sahih"?


Aug 14, 2010 -- 9:37AM, visio wrote:

As in the Verse, if there is only flogging but no stoning then it isn't that the stoning verse is missing from the Qur'an but half (the stoning part) of the above Verse is missing from the Qur'an.



It isn't that the stoning verse is missing but of course, as you notice it, a half of the verse only is missing. Did the Sahaaba corrupt the Qur'an? Of course not! It is today's rabid mullahs who are trying to corrupt the Qur'an but Allah (SWT) is not going to let them corrupt the Qur'an this way. 


Aug 14, 2010 -- 9:37AM, visio wrote:

However quite a few explanation were thrown into this verse and included in a bracket.   The English version I am using [Al-Hillali & Mukhsin Khan] has this explained in brackets as the following: [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime, but if married persons commit it, the punishment is to stone them to death, according to ALLAH's Law]. 



Allah's law is in the Qur'an. Hadith books are not the Qur'an. But sadly some rabid mullahs have made hadith books equal to the Book of Allah (SWT) and in some cases, as in the stoning issue, they have made hadith books above even the Qur'an.


Aug 14, 2010 -- 9:37AM, visio wrote:

And according to Messrs Hillali & Mukhsin Khan, the explanation is supported by two hadiths:
a)   Narrated Abu Hurairah:   Allah's Messenger judged that the unmarried person who was guilty of sexual intercourse be exiled for one year and receive the legal punishment (flogging).  (Sahih Al-Bukhari, vol. 8, Hadith # 819).
b)   Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah Al-Ansari:   A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam (Jewish?) cam eto ALLAH's Messenger and informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and he bore witness four time against himself.   Allah's Messenger ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married person.  (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 8, Hadith # 805).  There is no reference who originated this explanation - Ibn Khatir or someone else.   So what is clear is that there is no stoning verses from ALLAHswt.


 


I have five different translations. Four in English (including one of Dr. Al-Hillali/Khan) and one in Urdu. In my opinion, the Al-Hillali one has the least accurate explanation. It is heavily controlled by Saudis. Bani Aslam may have been a Jewish tribe or Muslim, it does not matter. What matters most is that whether the case was before the revelation of flogging (and missing stoning) or after and why there is no mention of flogging in this case if the punishment is floffing first and stoning after flogging? Flogging is missing from all ahadith except one that I have read in Sahih Muslim.


Aug 14, 2010 -- 9:37AM, visio wrote:

What the Prophet had done was apply the Jewish Customary Law of the Jewish Community in Medina (not necessarily Mosaic Law) as instructed by ALLAHswt to do so, in another verse.


 


He must have used the Jewish law for Jews. And what was the law for Muslims before the flogging Verse was revealed? Imprisonment in the house till death? Where are the ahadith for such punishment?


Aug 14, 2010 -- 9:37AM, visio wrote:

Mind you, in my reading, I always have question when it come to read Ibn Khatir, or any other interpreter explanation.  It reminds me of the Adam and Eve read into Az-Zumar 39 : 6.  I am not saying this applies to all of his explanation/tafsir.  There are others that I concur with his explanation.



I have a complete volume of Ibn Kathir. One can learn quite a bit from it but not everything is 100% truth like the Qur'an. If, as they claim, verses of the Qur'an (the Book of Allah) have been left out or abrogated then what else they may have left out or changed in Ibn Kathir (the book of men)???


Salaam


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)
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Aug 15, 2010 - 1:55AM #26
visio
Posts: 3,517

Aug 14, 2010 -- 7:24PM, Ibn wrote:

Book 17, Number 4192:



'Ubada b. as-Samit reported that whenever Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) received revelation, he felt its rigour and the complexion of his face changed. One day revelation descended upon him, he felt the same rigour. When it was over and he felt relief, he said: Take from me. Verily Allah has ordained a way for them (the women who commit fornication),: (When) a married man (commits adultery) with a married woman, and an unmarried male with an unmarried woman, then in case of married (persons) there is (a punishment) of one hundred lashes and then stoning (to death). And in case of unmarried persons, (the punishment) is one hundred lashes and exile for one year.




 


I've got the impression that 'Ubada b. as-Samit was a 7th. century Arabia CNN reporter.  Certainly he had a fair knowledge of a heretic facial changes when when interacting such media as jinn and/or iblis.   But what he didn't understand is that there is no such thing as that facial changes he described for the late Prophet.  He was too ignorant to draw the fineline between any other class of "spiritual" beings - Jinn and Angel and that of Arachaengel Gabriel. For a revelation Muhammadsaw did not communicate thru the medium of jinn/angel and neither was Muhammadsaw was in their possession. If what is said, above, about 'Ubada as-Samit is true, then I would say that he didn't know anything about Gabriel.  And by the  same token, he  wasn't close enough to the Prophet to know about this distinction in the fineline. He probably knew sorcery and excorcism better.


 


I have five different translations. Four in English (including one of Dr. Al-Hillali/Khan) and one in Urdu. In my opinion, the Al-Hillali one has the least accurate explanation. It is heavily controlled by Saudis. Bani Aslam may have been a Jewish tribe or Muslim, it does not matter. What matters most is that whether the case was before the revelation of flogging (and missing stoning) or after and why there is no mention of flogging in this case if the punishment is floffing first and stoning after flogging? Flogging is missing from all ahadith except one that I have read in Sahih Muslim.



Budget and Finance-wise that may be so.  The Saudis do control it.   And so were the works of translation of Arabic text into 40 other major languages.  Content wise I have seen no evidence of interference. e.g.  The Indonesian translation works were done by a panel of Indonesian scholars.  And the various mode of explanation and commentaries - format and content-wise are uniquely Indonesian and differs greatly in approach of translation/interpretation of the English version or any other languages.  It is difficult to say which version is useful, correct and what not. It depends on what motivates one's choice.   In going thru any translation works of the Al-Quran, I am not particularly interested in anybody's explanation (usually included in brackets or explained in a commentary box somewhere).  I'll look for as accurate as possible of, literal/literary-wise of prime words being translated and choice of possible terms to match the Arabic (the nearest word for word ). I seem to like this version, so far and has served me well.  After all I got it for not, and  it is  the first  English translated copy in my possession.  The second time I went to Medina I bought another version of the translation works by the same authors but with transliteration in Roman script.  This I find it useful when pronouncing the verses in Arabic.  Occasionally I  look into M. Asad's (on the net).  

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Aug 15, 2010 - 5:06AM #27
Ibn
Posts: 5,006

Aug 10, 2010 -- 6:02PM, Ibn wrote:

Salaam, brother Abdullah,


You are reading too many books of men and not enough of the Book of Allah (SWT).


Allah (SWT) says:


(38:23) Allah has revealed the best announcement, a book conformable in its various parts, repeating, whereat do shudder the skins of those who fear their Lord, then their skins and their hearts become pliant to the remembrance of Allah; this is Allah's guidance, He guides with it whom He pleases; and (as for) him whom Allah makes err, there is no guide for him.   (Shakir)


(39:23) God has revealed (from time to time) the most beautiful message in the form of a Book, consistent with itself, (yet) repeating (its teaching in various aspects): the skins of those who fear their Lord tremble thereat: then their skins and their hearts do soften to the celebration of God's praises. Such is the guidance of God: He guides therewith whom He pleases, but such as God leaves to stray, can have none to guide.  (Yusuf Ali)


(39:23) Allah hath (now) revealed the  fairest of statements, a Scripture consistent, (wherin promises of reward are) paired (with threats of punishment), whereat doth creep the flesh of those who fear their Lord, so that their flesh andtheir hearts soften to Allah's reminder. Such is Allah's guidance, wherewith He guideth whom He will. And him whom Allah sendeth astray, for him there is no guide.  (Pickthall)


If, in your view, some of the Verses in the Qur'an are abrogated by the other Verses in the Qur'an then the Qur'an is neither consistent with itself nor it is a book conformable in its various parts. The abrogating Verses are not conformable with abrogated Verses, the reason they are abrogated. True or not? If not then why not?



 


Aug 14, 2010 -- 5:25AM, Abdullah. wrote:

Wa alykum brother Ibn!



 Wa alaikum brother Abdullah


Aug 14, 2010 -- 5:25AM, Abdullah. wrote:

Islam being revealed as it was in stages brother - and one of the wisdoms of it being revealed in stages i think was to get the people used to various laws, and gradually introduce better one's etc  - 



Of course Islam (the only religion ordained by Allah) since Adam has been revealed gradually over many centuries and perfected in the Qur'an, by the end of its revelation. This Deen was perfected through the Qur'an. The Qur'an means, "Recitation" or "that is recited".


Aug 14, 2010 -- 5:25AM, Abdullah. wrote:

it is perfectly understandable that ALlah would cause to abrogate some verses with others; this ofcourse will be the replacement of preliminary/interim laws;



In the Qur'an, it is not REPLACEMENT but PRGRESSION. A replacement (abrogation) is something completely different or opposite in its place, and the original is invalid. Progression means progressing from one to the other but both being valid as either the stepping stone or still legally binding.


Those who can't understand the above take the short cut to replacement (abrogation). Allah (SWT) says:


(39:23) God has revealed (from time to time) the most beautiful message in the form of a Book, consistent with itself, (yet) repeating (its teaching in various aspects): the skins of those who fear their Lord tremble thereat: then their skins and their hearts do soften to the celebration of God's praises. Such is the guidance of God: He guides therewith whom He pleases, but such as God leaves to stray, can have none to guide.  (Yusuf Ali)


A book containing complete replacement of its certain contents with completely different ones cannot be called "consistent with itself" unless the replacement is not replacement but progression. The Qur'an is progressive, not inconsistent in its Verses. People need to understand this point.


Aug 14, 2010 -- 5:25AM, Abdullah. wrote:

thus as this whole concept is representative of a smooth and gradual transition into the better replacements, it all fits in with the above verses; there is nothing uncomfortable or inconsistent about a smooth transition in which Allah's laws and Rahma can be really appreciated given the better laws they are replaced by; shaykh Jibril Haddad says regarding this:


 "the abrogating verses mark the end of the validity of the abrogated verses because their heed and effect was of a temporary or limited nature.



No, it does not fit in with the above verses if you call some Verses valid and some invalid. These Verses are not opposite to each other or contradicting each other. Therefore, all are valid in PROGRESSION or, as you call it, "gradual transition".


Aug 14, 2010 -- 5:25AM, Abdullah. wrote:

In time the new law appears and announces the end of the validity of the earlier law. Considering that Quran was revealed over a period of twenty-three years in ever-changing circumstances, it is not difficult to imagine the necessity of such laws".



You may imagine whatever you like for those 23 years but what about the next 1400 years? Circumstances haven't changed in those 1400 years?


Stoning to death ( Deuteronomy 22: 24 )


Stoning abolished by the revelation to Jesus ( John 8 : 7 ) "Better or similar"?


Claimed "Stoning to death" again in scholars' silent "verse" not even in the Qur'an. "Better or similar"?


Flogging in the Qur'an (24:2). "Better or similar"?


Flogging as well as "Stoning to death" in Hadith. "Better or similar"?


Which is "transition", going back to death by stoning or PROGRESSION to "better or similar"? 


Aug 14, 2010 -- 5:25AM, Abdullah. wrote:

so the 'ever changing circumstances' should be taken into consideration too brother; in such circumstances it is only apt that as circumstances change [lets consider that a gradual and massive upheavel of peoples way of life took place in the 23? years of the revelation of the Quran], more apt laws need to replace older one's



What about the next 1400 years then? How about the:


"No change can there be in the Words of Allah" (10.64).


I don't think there is any change in the Words of Allah in Verse 24:2. It is flogging rather than flogging and stoning. People can't change the words of Allah in the Qur'an. 


Aug 10, 2010 -- 6:02PM, Ibn wrote:


As for the "verse" of stoning, tell me why it was not included in the Qur'an when Umar (rA) was present when compiling the Qur'an?


Why it was not included in the Qur'an when without it (if it was at all revealed) the Qur'an cannot be regarded as complete Book of Revelation 



Aug 14, 2010 -- 5:25AM, Abdullah. wrote:

the 'completedness' of the Quran is not effected at all brother, since abrogation happens by the will of ALlah



Then the Qur'an (that is recited) is complete with flogging Verse, and the "stoning verse" has been abrogated by the Will of Allah. How about that? Or would you still argue that the Qur'an is complete even though the "valid" stoning verse is missing from it?


Aug 10, 2010 -- 6:02PM, Ibn wrote:


What is the point of not reciting it but enacting it only? 



Aug 14, 2010 -- 5:25AM, Abdullah. wrote:

well i'll leave the specifics to the experts, but one possible wisdom i can think of brother is for ALlah to test us as to who will follow the prophet [saw] and who will turn their backs saying; 'I dont see it in the Quran"; a true believer will follow sunnah evidence too and not just Quran; there is a verse to that effect in the Quran too:



Of course there is evidence that the Prophet never lied as a Prophet. Why don't you and all the Sunni lot follow that Sunnah? None of "Sunnah preachers" are following Sunnah. I don't believe that the Prophet had stoned any woman for adultery. I don't believe that there was any stoning verse in the Qur'an. I don't believe that the Prophet had instructed anyone to take out stoning verse because there was no stoning verse. If there had been any stoning verse in the Qur'an then the Sahaaba would certainly have kept it in the Qur'an because they could not change Words of Allah (SWT) from flogging and stoning to death to flogging only.


Aug 14, 2010 -- 5:25AM, Abdullah. wrote:

ALlah [swt] revealed regarding the former Qibla [jeruselem]:


And We did not appoint the Qiblah on which you were earlier, but that We might know the people who follow the Messenger as distinct from those who turn back on their heels. (2:143)


the story of the above verse is that, when Muslims followed the prophet [saw] in making their Qibla jeruselem initially, no verse was revealed in the Quran saying to make jeruselem the Qibla; in the above verse ALlah says that He appointed the former qibla, thus the revelation for this order is what is known in Islam as an 'unrecited revelation', i.e, that which Allah informs the prophet [saw] of and which is not incldued as a Quranic verse; and ALlah makes it clear that ALlah appointed it in this way to see who follows the prophet [saw] irrespective of wether his orders are contained in the Holy Qur’ân or not, thus this too could be the wisdom of abrogating a Quranic verse in recitation only [and not in command], leaving ample evidence in the sunnah and testimonies of the sahabah [ra] that it was infact revealed in the Quran, and then see who remains loyal and follows clear evidence



That is a poor example because you have already admitted above that "no verse was revealed in the Qur'an saying to make Jerusalem their Qibla". But in the case of "stoning to death", it IS claimed again and again that this Verse WAS REVEALED and it is claimed in hadith books that this verse WAS RECITED by Sahaaba. The two are not the same examples.


Aug 14, 2010 -- 5:25AM, Abdullah. wrote:

there are other hadiths, infallible [mass transmitted] one's infact establishing stoning, thus the abrogation of the stoning verse from the Quran is possibly to see who will accept all the Quranic [there is evidence of ijma' being the right way in Quran too] and sunnah evidence that it infact was in the Quran



Exactly! If it WAS in the Qur'an, was recited by the Sahaaba, then how did it go missing. Did Jabreel not tell the Prophet, when reciting the Qur'an after its completion of revelation that "stoning to death" verse has gone missing? If not then there was no missing stoning verse.


Aug 14, 2010 -- 5:25AM, Abdullah. wrote:

it could also act as 'bait' for hypocryts; there is a hadith that Medinah expels hypocryts as a furnace removes impurites from metal; I think there is a verse in the Quran that says that the Quran iether guides people or increases them in rebbellion, just as it does the nonbelievers, thus this verse could be a part of the 'destroying factor' of the Quran which ALlah has kept for the wicked; a 'bait' for them to use as a pretext not to believe in stoning as part of Islam 



Or believe in something that never was in the Qur'an, as part of the Qur'an. That's what Satan does to people by mixing falsehood in truth and weak in faith or non-believers believe the falsehood.


(22:52) Never did We send an apostle or a prophet before thee, but, when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but God will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and God will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for God is full of knowledge and wisdom. (Yusuf Ali)


(22:53) That He may make the suggestion thrown in by Satan, but a trial for those in whose hearts is a desease and who are hardened of heart: verily the wrongdoers are in a schism far (from the Truth) (Yusuf Ali)


(22:54) And that those on whom knowledge has been bestowed may learn that the (Qur'an) is the Truth from thy Lord, and that they may believe therein, and their hearts may be made humbly (open) to it: for verily God is the Guide of those who believe, to the Straight Way. (Yusuf Ali)


Aug 10, 2010 -- 6:02PM, Ibn wrote:


Is there any Hadith that indicates that Prophet (sAws) had enacted this "verse"? 



 

Aug 14, 2010 -- 5:25AM, Abdullah. wrote:

yes ofcourse brother; see following:


 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas reported that 'Umar bin Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's messenger (may peace be upon him) and said:


Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and he sent down the book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning. I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy or a confession. [Muslim, III, No. 4194; Bukhari, VIII, No. 816.]  



In this hadith, it is claimed that "We recited" the "stoning verse" and retained in memory and that it is "in the Allah's book". Allah's book is the Qur'an and this verse was recited. Both claims are untrue. Stoning verse is not in the Qur'an (Allah's book) and if Sahaaba had recited it and retained it in their memory then it had to be in the Qur'an. If it is not in the Qur'an then the claim has no leg to stand on.


Aug 10, 2010 -- 6:02PM, Ibn wrote:


And what about the Command of lashes for adultery? 



in the Quran it says 'zina' which can be translated as 'illegal sexual intercourse' brother and not specifically adultery; it can refer to both fornication and adultery, but since the sunnah clarifies that for adultery it is stoning, thus we therefore know that the 'zina' in the Quran refers to only fornication



Then what is specific word for adultery, if not zina?


OK, it refers to both adultery and fornication. Therefore, flogging is also for both adultery and fornication. Half of this punishment is 50 lashes. There is no half of the punishment of "stoning to death".


Sunnah is not remote from the Qur'an (Recitation). Sunnah is the way the Prophet had obeyed the Commands in the Qur'an. And there is no "stoning" Command in the Qur'an. And we have only one Qur'an that is with us and we recite it. There is no other silent (unrecited) Qur'an.


Aug 14, 2010 -- 5:25AM, Abdullah. wrote:

ps: you have probably read some of the evidence i have posted up in the past of how consensus' are infallible brother, and that there is overwhelming evidence in Quran and sunnah that consensus is the right way:



And I have proven here that ahadith are not infallible, consensus you mention is not there, and the evidence in the Qur'an is overwhelmingly against the "stoning to death" punishment in Islam. In Islam, it is flogging and that is the right way.


Aug 14, 2010 -- 5:25AM, Abdullah. wrote:

Allah says: "If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way."
[al-Nisa’ 4:15]

Ibn Katheer, may Allah have mercy on him, said in his Tafseer (explanation) of this aayah:
"At the beginning of Islam, the ruling concerning a woman who was proven guilty of adultery was that she was to be detained in a house and not allowed to come out until she died. So the phrase ‘If any of your women are guilty of lewdness refers to adultery. ‘Take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way’ - the ‘other way’ that Allah made for them was the abrogation of this. Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, said: ‘This was the ruling until Allah revealed Surat al-Nur, then this punishment was abrogated and replaced with whipping or stoning.’



It is clearly mentioned here that "confine them to houses" was REPLACED with flogging or stoning in Surat al-Nur. Well brother, this is not true, is it? There is only flogging/whipping in Surat al-Nur. Who is not thinking straight, Ibn Katheer, Ibn Abbas, or writer of this hadith?


Aug 14, 2010 -- 5:25AM, Abdullah. wrote:

... As for confinement [i.e detaining women in house] , this is abrogated, by the consensus of the scholars.



False thinking of self proclaimed scholars! It is not abrogated as it is clearly saying that there could be "another way" out of possible death penalty. "Another way" out of it cannot be a certain death penalty, as that would not be "better of similar" but worse, a certain and immediate death by stoning. "better or similar" is flogging only.


Aug 14, 2010 -- 5:25AM, Abdullah. wrote:

that one above is verry clear too brother as one verse mentions to detain women guilty of illegal sexual intercourse in house till death, and the one in surah nur says:


2. The woman and the man guilty of illegal sexual intercourse, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by All�h, if you believe in All�h and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. (This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime but if married persons commit it, the punishment is to stone them to death, according to All�h's Law).



The Blue part above is Allah's Law. The red part is man's addition into Allah's Law. Two can't mix. Truth stands out clear from the falsehood. "Another way" is not another death. Death is the same way. Flogging is another way out of death penalty. The Verse 4:15 is not abrogated because it is still relevant when reconciled with 24:2.


It is for Us to collect it and to promulgate it: But when We have promulgated it follow thou its recital (as promulgated): 75: 17 - 18


No falsehood can approach it from before or behind it: it is sent down by One Full of Wisdom Worthy of all Praise. 41: 42


Aug 14, 2010 -- 5:25AM, Abdullah. wrote:

so you can't have both now can you?



You can't have death penalty both ways, old way as well as "another way".


If Allah mentioned possible "another way" out of death situation then it had to be just that rather than same way (death).


People need to ponder over the Ayat of the Qur'an to get out of the darkness and into the light (Nur). Pondering over Surah An-Nur would be a good idea.


ALLAHU AKBAR

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)
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Aug 15, 2010 - 6:13AM #28
Ibn
Posts: 5,006

Aug 15, 2010 -- 1:55AM, visio wrote:


I've got the impression that 'Ubada b. as-Samit was a 7th. century Arabia CNN reporter.  Certainly he had a fair knowledge of a heretic facial changes when when interacting such media as jinn and/or iblis.   But what he didn't understand is that there is no such thing as that facial changes he described for the late Prophet.  He was too ignorant to draw the fineline between any other class of "spiritual" beings - Jinn and Angel and that of Arachaengel Gabriel. For a revelation Muhammadsaw did not communicate thru the medium of jinn/angel and neither was Muhammadsaw was in their possession. If what is said, above, about 'Ubada as-Samit is true, then I would say that he didn't know anything about Gabriel.  And by the  same token, he  wasn't close enough to the Prophet to know about this distinction in the fineline. He probably knew sorcery and excorcism better.



The reason I had included this hadith in my post was to show that this guy is claiming to be present when "stoning" verse was revealed. That makes at least two witnesses and, therefore, such verse should have been in the Qur'an. Perhaps he was only a remote reporter. It was claimed earlier that only Umar was the witness. I can't discount the possibility that there would spring up others somewhere in ahadith who were also witnesses.


Aug 15, 2010 -- 1:55AM, visio wrote:

Budget and Finance-wise that may be so.  The Saudis do control it.   And so were the works of translation of Arabic text into 40 other major languages.  Content wise I have seen no evidence of interference. e.g.  The Indonesian translation works were done by a panel of Indonesian scholars.  And the various mode of explanation and commentaries - format and content-wise are uniquely Indonesian and differs greatly in approach of translation/interpretation of the English version or any other languages.  It is difficult to say which version is useful, correct and what not. It depends on what motivates one's choice.   In going thru any translation works of the Al-Quran, I am not particularly interested in anybody's explanation (usually included in brackets or explained in a commentary box somewhere).  I'll look for as accurate as possible of, literal/literary-wise of prime words being translated and choice of possible terms to match the Arabic (the nearest word for word ).



That is my aproach too.


Aug 15, 2010 -- 1:55AM, visio wrote:

I seem to like this version, so far and has served me well.  After all I got it for not, and  it is  the first  English translated copy in my possession.  The second time I went to Medina I bought another version of the translation works by the same authors but with transliteration in Roman script.  This I find it useful when pronouncing the verses in Arabic.  Occasionally I  look into M. Asad's (on the net).  





I have the Al-Hillali copy in English only, bought in Makkah, and another in English and Arabic translated by the same guys. This was printed in Madina at King Fahd Complex for the printing of the Holy Qur'an. I got that free from there in 2007, and I assume this is the copy that you have too.


I was also given a free copy in Arabic and Urdu together that was also printed in the same Madina Complex for the Qur'an printing. This was given to me at the Jeddah airport in 2002.


The pure Urdu copy that I have was the first copy that I bought myself in 1964, in Bradford UK. At the time I could not understand English that much as in Kashmir schools it was mainly Urdu.


I have also been reading M. Asad's translation and commentary on the Net. It is quite interesting the way he links various Verses in the Qur'an on the same issue together to come up with his understanding. He has Jewish roots but has spent quite a bit of time in Saudi Arabia as well as worked for Pakistan government as their ambassador.


The other three copies that I have are two by Yusuf Ali and one by Pickthall. 


I can read Arabic and understand the meanings of many words, but not all, the reason I need to check with various translations to understand the nearest meanings.


Salaam


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)
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook