“Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine…..” (Surah al-Ma’idah, V: 53)
In the above verse, Allah Almighty forbade the meat of all dead animals without differentiating between sea-animals and land-animals. Thus, all sea-animals would also be included in this general prohibition. yet the Quranists eat fish and enjoy it, any explanation ?
Posted by Undercover (Member # 12979) on :
yet the Quranists eat fish and enjoy it, any explanation ?
common sense
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
LOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL OMG ROFL
so we should all be vegetarian?
Firstly this is NOT surah al-Maeda 53 that you are quoting, 5:53 says: "005.053 YUSUFALI: And those who believe will say: "Are these the men who swore their strongest oaths by Allah, that they were with you?" All that they do will be in vain, and they will fall into (nothing but) ruin." which is spookily interesting
The verse you quoted is 5:03 " 005.003 YUSUFALI: Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows: that is impiety. This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, Allah is indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. "
So Allah did not forbid meat, you eat meat dont you?? He forbade you from eating some animal already dead, 'dead meat'. So if you find a dead cow in the road you cant take it home and eat it.....you dont know what it died of so thats why. He also says that you cant eat animals killed in certain ways like being eaten by something else and other 'killed' animals.
You will have us thinking we have to eat them LIVE next
and this says nothing of fish.
Posted by WindBetweenEars (Member # 13344) on :
Well my aunts always told me that Rabbit was forbidden and im told no and im told not to eat Cockles and Mussels and they huge yum yum in Turkey so what is what is not .And im been sneaking Cockles for my watering temptatious mouth .
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
This is where the original allowances regarding what we can eat is from:
Quran added to that all types of causes of the animals death that are forbidden.
Rabbit and Hare are forbidden, so are any fish without scales or fins.
There are other verses in Quran regarding food:
002.173 YUSUFALI: He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then is he guiltless. For Allah is Oft-forgiving Most Merciful.
006.145 YUSUFALI: Say: "I find not in the message received by me by inspiration any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine,- for it is an abomination - or, what is impious, (meat) on which a name has been invoked, other than Allah's". But (even so), if a person is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- thy Lord is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
016.115 YUSUFALI: He has only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and any (food) over which the name of other than Allah has been invoked. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
All these clearly say if there is nothing else then you can eat of these, so you could eat pork if there was nothing else.
It seems because Allah only reinforced the one about Pork that Muslims think the rest that was given in the beginning is not relevant.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
hi windy, I love prawns and shrimps but cockles..yuk!! Although I have had someone put them in my mouth while I had my eyes closed to see if it made them taste better I like the taste but not the texture of them, same with mussels and whelks YUK
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
By the way Mr Egypt, fish is not meat, it is fish. Thats why when Allah refers to anything of the animal worlds he will define animals as meat and fish as fish. Im sure you understand there is a difference between samak and lahma?
Posted by Mr Egypt (Member # 10436) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: Firstly this is NOT surah al-Maeda 53
sorry it is surah al-Maeda but verse 3 not 53.
quote: Allah did not forbid meat, you eat meat dont you?? He forbade you from eating some animal already dead, 'dead meat'.
actually the verse speaks about the dead food in general , if you go back to the original arabic text you will find no meat in the Arabic text so this includes everything dead. weather it is fish or meat. here's the arabic text if you read arabic حرمت عليكم الميتة و الدم و لحم الخنزير
in case you don't read Arabic, here's another translation of the verse: Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that on which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked
quote:and this says nothing of fish.
I guess it has something to do with fish now. I need you to explain also What did Allah meant by blood. forbidden to you blood ?
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
Yes Mr Egypt, anything already dead, see my example of finding a dead cow. It will also mean finding a dead fish floating up the Nile.
I think 'forbidden to you blood' explains itself doesnt it?
I really dont get what your point is, if there is actually a point here?
Posted by Somewhere in the sands (Member # 13869) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: By the way Mr Egypt, fish is not meat, it is fish. Thats why when Allah refers to anything of the animal worlds he will define animals as meat and fish as fish. Im sure you understand there is a difference between samak and lahma?
Ayisha since in the Arabic Language lahmah means meat (as you mentioned) does not include chicken..so which category does dajaajah fall under? We know it is not lahmah and it surely is not samaak.
Posted by TOOT Suite :) (Member # 14248) on :
This is an interesting thread.
YUSUFALI: Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah
So
Blood.....I have yet to cook a bit of beef, lamb, goat, bufallo that does not have BLOOD on it???
All red meat has blood on it?????.
secondly.... most butchers around the world do not invoke any name of any God on an animal before slaughter do they?. Except moslems and Jews.
The verse says forbidden are meats whose name OTHER than Allah are invoked upon it are not halal.
So if a butcher does not invoke any name on it then it must be halal mustn't it?
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by TOOT Suite :
The verse says forbidden are meats whose name OTHER than Allah are invoked upon it are not halal.
So if a butcher does not invoke any name on it then it must be halal mustn't it?
Good point TOOT!!
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands:
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: By the way Mr Egypt, fish is not meat, it is fish. Thats why when Allah refers to anything of the animal worlds he will define animals as meat and fish as fish. Im sure you understand there is a difference between samak and lahma?
Ayisha since in the Arabic Language lahmah means meat (as you mentioned) does not include chicken..so which category does dajaajah fall under? We know it is not lahmah and it surely is not samaak.
Chicken is 'fowl' and you can find that in Leviticus 11 from verse 13-20:
13And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
14And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15Every raven after his kind;
16And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
17And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
20All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
Posted by Somewhere in the sands (Member # 13869) on :
^^^ please not from a Kaffir source..LOL
From Quran and Arabic!
Posted by Somewhere in the sands (Member # 13869) on :
^^^ forget about it..it's not worth it and it's not important for me. Thanks.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:^^^ please not from a Kaffir source..LOL
From Quran and Arabic!
Well that shows how much you think about Quran, Allah and the prophets sands. You have been told in Quran that He sent prophets and messengers before Muhammed and that you are NOT to make any distinction amongst them. You are told in Quran that those previous messages are Torah and Gospel so you should really study where your religion began, Quran is only a 'reminder' in many respects concerning those messages. If you dont think so then where does male circumcision come from in Quran???Its not in there, its from Abraham in Torah. If you think thats a kafir source then why do you do it?
These previous messages were not in Arabic
quote:^^^ forget about it..it's not worth it and it's not important for me. Thanks.
I can see it's not important for you, even though Allah does tell you this is where your religion began and that He sent those previous messages to those previous prophets, thats why I will not waste my time searching those verses from Quran for you, you should know them anyway, but im not sure if there are hadith telling you to follow those or not so you will not take any notice of them anyway.
Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: so we should all be vegetarian?
Yesss!!! Posted by Yowza (Member # 14400) on :
LOL
Posted by Somewhere in the sands (Member # 13869) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha:
quote:^^^ please not from a Kaffir source..LOL
From Quran and Arabic!
Well that shows how much you think about Quran, Allah and the prophets sands. You have been told in Quran that He sent prophets and messengers before Muhammed and that you are NOT to make any distinction amongst them. You are told in Quran that those previous messages are Torah and Gospel so you should really study where your religion began, Quran is only a 'reminder' in many respects concerning those messages. If you dont think so then where does male circumcision come from in Quran???Its not in there, its from Abraham in Torah. If you think thats a kafir source then why do you do it?
These previous messages were not in Arabic
quote:^^^ forget about it..it's not worth it and it's not important for me. Thanks.
I can see it's not important for you, even though Allah does tell you this is where your religion began and that He sent those previous messages to those previous prophets, thats why I will not waste my time searching those verses from Quran for you, you should know them anyway, but im not sure if there are hadith telling you to follow those or not so you will not take any notice of them anyway.
I don't need to read the books of kaffireen because as you already know Allah told us that they are corrupted.
Next question:
Here is your answer about circumcision:
Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) wrote a useful book on the rulings concerning the newborn, which he called Tuhfat al-Mawdood fi Ahkaam al-Mawlood. In this book he wrote an extensive chapter in which he spoke of circumcision and the rulings thereon. The following is a summary of that, with additional comments from some other scholars.
1 – The meaning of circumcision (khitaan):
Ibn al-Qayyim said:
Khitaan is a noun describing the action of the circumciser (khaatin). It is also used to describe the site of the circumcision, as in the hadeeth, “When the two circumcised parts (al-khitaanaan) meet, ghusl become obligatory.” In the case of a female the word used is khafad. In the male it is also called i’dhaar. The one who is uncircumcised is called aghlaf or aqlaf.
Tuhfat al-Mawlood, 1/152
2 – Circumcision is the Sunnah of Ibraaheem and the Prophets after him:
Al-Bukhaari (6298) and Muslim (2370) narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Ibraaheem (peace be upon him) circumcised himself when he was eighty years old, and he circumcised himself with an adze.”
An adze (qadoom) is a carpenter’s tool; it was also said that al-Qadoom is a place is Syria.
Al-Haafiz ibn Hajar said:
It is most likely that what is referred to in the hadeeth is the tool. Abu Ya’laa narrated that ‘Ali ibn Rabaah said: “Ibraaheem was commanded to circumcise himself, so he circumcised himself with an adze and it was very painful for him. Then Allaah revealed to him saying, “You rushed to do it before We told you what tool to use.” He said, “O Lord, I did not want to delay obeying Your command.”
Ibn al-Qayyim said:
Circumcision was one of the things with which Allaah tested Ibraaheem, His Close Friend. He did them perfectly so Allaah made him a leader of mankind. It was narrated that he was the first one who was circumcised, as mentioned above. What it says in al-Saheeh is that Ibraaheem circumcised himself when he was eighty years old. After him, circumcision continued among the Messengers and their followers, even the Messiah. He was circumcised and the Christians affirm that, and do not deny that, as they also affirm that he was forbidden the flesh of pigs…
Tuhfat al-Mawdood, p. 158-159
But the scholars (may Allaah have mercy on them) differed as to the ruling on circumcision.
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
The most correct view is that it is obligatory in the case of men and Sunnah in the case of women. The difference between them is that in the case of men, it serves an interest which has to do with one of the conditions of prayer, namely purity (tahaarah), because if the foreskin remains, when the urine comes out of the urethra, some of it will collect there, and this causes burning and infection every time the person moves, and every time the foreskin is squeezed, some drops of urine come out, thus causing najaasah (impurity).
In the case of women, it serves a useful purpose which is to reduce desire. This is seeking perfection, not removing something harmful.
Al-Sharh al-Mumti’, 1/133-134
This is the view of Imam Ahmad (may Allaah have mercy on him). Ibn Quddamah said in al-Mughni (1/115): As for circumcision, it is obligatory for men and it is good in the case of woman, but it is not obligatory for them.
3 – Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
Abu’l-Barakaat said in his book al-Ghaayah: In circumcision of a man, the skin at the tip of the penis (the foreskin) is removed; if he only removes most of it, that is permissible. It is mustahabb to circumcise females provided that is not done in an extreme manner. It was narrated that ‘Umar said to a woman who circumcised females, “Leave some of it if you circumcise (a girl).” Al-Khallaal said in his Jaami’: What is cut when circumcising: Muhammad ibn al-Husayn told me that al-Fadl ibn Ziyaad told them: Ahmad was asked, How much should be cut in circumcision? He said, Until the glans (tip of the penis) becomes visible.
Ibn al-Sabbaagh said in al-Shaamil: What is obligatory in the case of a man is to cut the skin on the tip of the penis until the entire glans becomes visible. In the case of a woman, it means cutting the skin that looks like the comb of a rooster at the top of the vagina, between the two labia; if it is cut the base of it should be left like a date pit.
Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
The well-known correct view is that everything covering the glans must be cut.
Al-Majmoo’, 1/351
Al-Juwayni said:
The hadeeth indicates that not too much of it should be removed (in the case of women), because he said, “Leave something sticking out and do not go to extremes in cutting.”
Tuhfat al-Mawdood, 190-192
The point is that in the case of males, all the skin covering the tip of the penis should be cut, but in the case of females only a part of the skin that is like a rooster’s comb at the top of the vagina should be cut.
4 – The wisdom behind circumcision
With regard to a man, he cannot be clean from urine unless he is circumcised, because drops of urine collect underneath the foreskin and he cannot be sure that they will not drip and make his clothes and body impure. Hence ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Abbaas was very strict on the issue of circumcision. Imam Ahmad said: Ibn ‘Abbaas was very strict on this matter, and it was narrated that there is no Hajj and no prayer for him, i.e., if a person is not circumcised his Hajj and prayer are not valid. Al-Mughni, 1/115
With regard to the wisdom behind the circumcision of women, it is to regulate their desire so it will be moderate.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked about whether women should be circumcised or not. He replied:
Praise be to Allaah. Yes, they should be circumcised, i.e., the top of the piece of skin that looks like a rooster’s comb should be cut. The Messenger of Allaah (S) said to the woman who did circumcisions: “Leave something sticking out and do not go to extremes in cutting. That makes her face look brighter and is more pleasing to her husband.” That is because the purpose of circumcising a man is to make him clean from the impurity that may collect beneath the foreskin. But the purpose of circumcising women is to regulate their desire, because if a woman is not circumcised her desire will be strong. Hence the words “O son of an uncircumcised woman” are used as an insult, because the uncircumcised woman has stronger desire. Hence immoral actions are more common among the women of the Tatars and the Franks, that are not found among the Muslim women. If the circumcision is too severe, the desire is weakened altogether, which is unpleasing for men; but if it is cut without going to extremes in that, the purpose will be achieved, which is moderating desire. And Allaah knows best.
Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 21/114
Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
Are you for real?
This text has been posted like a dozen times, for examples in this thread which has six pages and lists all the reasons why this fatwa above has absolutely no ground to stand on.
quote: the purpose of circumcising women is to regulate their desire, because if a woman is not circumcised her desire will be strong. Hence the words “O son of an uncircumcised woman” are used as an insult, because the uncircumcised woman has stronger desire.
Again, this is what I was referring to above.
Why in the world should it be something bad and shameful for a woman to have "stronger desire"???
Why do those sheikhs constantly say that men have *stronger desire* and tell women because of this they have to be ready for them all the time, but not vice versa?
Why do the same sheikhs issue fatwas saying that a man's *strong desire* has to be fulfilled, while a woman's *strong desire* is a cause for shame and mutilation???
quote:I don't need to read the books of kaffireen because as you already know Allah told us that they are corrupted.
where??
quote:Here is your answer about circumcision:
Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) wrote a useful book on the rulings concerning the newborn, which he called Tuhfat al-Mawdood fi Ahkaam al-Mawlood. In this book he wrote an extensive chapter in which he spoke of circumcision and the rulings thereon. The following is a summary of that, with additional comments from some other scholars.
Ibn al-Qayyim was born in 691AH, so before his book what did you go on? Hadith put together by bukhari born 194AH, what before that? sayings passed down. What before Muhammed? the TORAH.
MALE circumcision was a covenant between Abraham and God. The 'scholars' can argue all they like about it but thats where it came from. you can carry on and tell me all the 'hygeine benefits' but thats where it originally came from. Your 'scholars' can even make up 'wisdom' about it, but it came from a covenant between God and Abraham
ALLAH MADE US PERFECT there is no reason to chop bits off to 'perfect' the human form, if you think that then you dont think Allah made us perfect.
quote:With regard to the wisdom behind the circumcision of women, it is to regulate their desire so it will be moderate.
RUBBISH, its MEN that have such an excessive sexual desire that they need 4 wives and endless supply of fresh slaves to have sex with. The bit they cut off a woman is THE BIT that ensures their sexual pleasure, the bit that Allah in His Wisdom put there to make a woman PERFECT, and YOU and your 'scholars' think chopping it off 'perfects' Allah's MISTAKE???
Your rediculous concept of Islam makes me wonder WHY you converted in the first place, was it the 72 virgins and the endless supply of concubines? How on earth you have gone on for over 25 years on these outlandish beleifs and not THOUGHT for one second how rediculous they are is beyond me.
I PRAY you have no female children
Posted by WindBetweenEars (Member # 13344) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: hi windy, I love prawns and shrimps but cockles..yuk!! Although I have had someone put them in my mouth while I had my eyes closed to see if it made them taste better I like the taste but not the texture of them, same with mussels and whelks YUK
Its the vinegar that does it ,i was always told we or if we ate them we was eating their Pooooo very gritty if i should say so . Posted by TOOT Suite :) (Member # 14248) on :
Sandy do you know that your name anagrammed makes
Handiest semens whore
Posted by WindBetweenEars (Member # 13344) on :
Pickle's wily "Phollusicles Posted by Mr Egypt (Member # 10436) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha:
quote:Originally posted by TOOT Suite :
The verse says forbidden are meats whose name OTHER than Allah are invoked upon it are not halal.
So if a butcher does not invoke any name on it then it must be halal mustn't it?
Good point TOOT!!
Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows: that is impiety
read the verse again, it makes difference between dead meat, blood , pork and whatever you don't say the name of Allah or say other name than Allah upon it when you kill. so you can't eat anything dead even if you invoke the name of Allah on it before you eat.
as for the fish issue, still we eat fish and the fish dies of itself once it comes out of the water and this is forbidden according to the verse because it is still considered DEAD unless Ayisha eats the fish before it die and she slaughter it ?!
Posted by Mr Egypt (Member # 10436) on :
quote:Originally posted by TOOT Suite :
So
Blood.....I have yet to cook a bit of beef, lamb, goat, bufallo that does not have BLOOD on it???
All red meat has blood on it?????.
I suppose you eat donkeys meat as well ?!
Posted by Mr Egypt (Member # 10436) on :
quote::Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: I don't need to read the books of kaffireen because as you already know Allah told us that they are corrupted.
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha where??
002.075 YUSUFALI: Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you?- Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it. PICKTHAL: Have ye any hope that they will be true to you when a party of them used to listen to the word of Allah, then used to change it, after they had understood it, knowingly? SHAKIR: Do you then hope that they would believe in you, and a party from among them indeed used to hear the Word of Allah, then altered it after they had understood it, and they know (this).
004.046 YUSUFALI: Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not Heard"; and "Ra'ina"; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: "What hear and we obey"; and "Do hear"; and "Do look at us"; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but Allah hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe. PICKTHAL: Some of those who are Jews change words from their context and say: "We hear and disobey; hear thou as one who heareth not" and "Listen to us!" distorting with their tongues and slandering religion. If they had said: "We hear and we obey: hear thou, and look at us" it had been better for them, and more upright. But Allah hath cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, save a few. SHAKIR: Of those who are Jews (there are those who) alter words from their places and say: We have heard and we disobey and: Hear, may you not be made to hear! and: Raina, distorting (the word) with their tongues and taunting about religion; and if they had said (instead): We have heard and we obey, and hearken, and unzurna it would have been better for them and more upright; but Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief, so they do not believe but a little.
005.013 YUSUFALI: But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind. PICKTHAL: And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and made hard their hearts. They change words from their context and forget a part of that whereof they were admonished. Thou wilt not cease to discover treachery from all save a few of them. But bear with them and pardon them. Lo! Allah loveth the kindly. SHAKIR: But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others).
005.041 YUSUFALI: O Messenger! let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say "We believe" with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places: they say, "If ye are given this, take it, but if not, beware!" If any one's trial is intended by Allah, thou hast no authority in the least for him against Allah. For such - it is not Allah's will to purify their hearts. For them there is disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a heavy punishment. PICKTHAL: O Messenger! Let not them grieve thee who vie one with another in the race to disbelief, of such as say with their mouths: "We believe," but their hearts believe not, and of the Jews: listeners for the sake of falsehood, listeners on behalf of other folk who come not unto thee, changing words from their context and saying: If this be given unto you, receive it, but if this be not given unto you, then beware! He whom Allah doometh unto sin, thou (by thine efforts) wilt avail him naught against Allah. Those are they for whom the Will of Allah is that He cleanse not their hearts. Theirs in the world will be ignominy, and in the Hereafter an awful doom; SHAKIR: O Messenger! let not those grieve you who strive together in hastening to unbelief from among those who say with their mouths: We believe, and their hearts do not believe, and from among those who are Jews; they are listeners for the sake of a lie, listeners for another people who have not come to you; they alter the words from their places, saying: If you are given this, take it, and if you are not given this, be cautious; and as for him whose temptation Allah desires, you cannot control anything for him with Allah. Those are they for whom Allah does not desire that He should purify their hearts; they shall have disgrace in this world, and they shall have a grievous chastisement in the hereafter.
Posted by Mr Egypt (Member # 10436) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: Ibn al-Qayyim was born in 691AH, so before his book what did you go on? Hadith put together by bukhari born 194AH, what before that? sayings passed down. What before Muhammed? the TORAH.
is the Torah you are talking about the Old Testament ?
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
Mr Egypt is there really any point continuing this rediculous discussion?
you are now quoting the same verse to me that i quoted to you.
The verse says "and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah" it does NOT say "and whatever you don't say the name of Allah"
Fish die when you take them out of the water, the fishermen catch them and they die. They are not dead before they are caught. You buy meat from the butcher, it is dead when you buy it, it has been killed by the butcher, it did not die of something before it got to be killed by the butcher.
As for your last statement, how old are you?
Now I guarantee that if you are an Egyptian man then you DO eat meat and chicken and lots of it. You KNOW full well what makes it halal for you and now we have read the verse many times so you should have 'got it' by now, if not there is not much else i can say really. And none of this conversation has been about FISH which was the title of the thread.
I have showed you where the laws about fish came from, if you want to be 'closed' to the previous message God tells you that He sent then thats up to you, i have showed you, its up to you now.
To be honest if I was an Egyptian Muslim man and I posted that title I would be embarrassed. You did NO research before you declared "fish is forbidden in Islam" NOWHERE does it say that not even in the most 'salafy' or 'wahabi' site or anywhere else and certainly not in the Quran or hadith. You have not even posted a verse regarding FISH. Seriously, how old are you?
As for your comment to TOOT, i think she is in Australia isnt she? so it would be kangaroo naturally, possibly the odd Koala Bear on a Sunday.
Now go spend some time reading a really good book called Quran then come and have an intelligent conversation on something you have researched and can discuss.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr Egypt:
quote::Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: I don't need to read the books of kaffireen because as you already know Allah told us that they are corrupted.
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha where??
002.075 YUSUFALI: Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you?- Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it.
004.046 YUSUFALI: Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not Heard"; and "Ra'ina"; with a twist of their tongues[b] and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: "What hear and we obey"; and "Do hear"; and "Do look at us"; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but Allah hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe.
005.013 [b]YUSUFALI: But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind.
005.041 YUSUFALI: O Messenger! let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say "We believe" with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places: they say, "If ye are given this, take it, but if not, beware!" If any one's trial is intended by Allah, thou hast no authority in the least for him against Allah. For such - it is not Allah's will to purify their hearts. For them there is disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a heavy punishment.
This is saying the people were given a message but decided to change what they were told, just like you do with hadith now. The original message is still there in those books, the same as it is in Quran, but in the same way as Quran there has been many 'translations' into other languages. Unless you can read Hebrew and Aramaic you have to read it in your own language, just as I do with Quran. Parts are missing yes, some books didnt make the grade when it was all sorted out back in 325AD to make Christianity as it is today, just like Bukhari and the hadith, but the message is there in the books we still have. the Laws of Moses are there.
These verses are a WARNING to YOU Mr Egypt. A warning to NOT do as they did and ignore Quran for something else, like hadith. Islam now is not what was brought by the prophet Muhammed. Islam now is what was brought by Bukhari.
Posted by * 7ayat * (Member # 7043) on :
quote:Originally posted by TOOT Suite : So if a butcher does not invoke any name on it then it must be halal mustn't it?
I totally agree with this. That's why my hubby and I buy our meat from the regular butcher here in Australia and then invoke god's name on it before we eat it. The verse doesn't really say when you should invoke god's name on it, so it's not neccesarily during the time of slaughter. so Good point!
Posted by Somewhere in the sands (Member # 13869) on :
I say this with all sincerity, you Quraniyoon are all messed up and truly upon misguidance.
That is not name calling in the lest IMO but the reality. I pray that Allah Azza wa Jal guides you toward to correct path, because some of the stuff and your reasoning here baffles me and many of the Muslims are upon Ahlul sunnati wa jamaat.
Posted by newcomer (Member # 1056) on :
I only have time for a quick comment today, but the verse you are arguing about says (in translation):
"Prohibited to you are...that which has been dedicated to other than Allāh" (Surah Al-Maidah, 5:3)
And, as nothing in the Qur'an can be read in isolation and decisions based on it, that verses needs to be read in conjunction with the following to make any sense:
"So eat of that [meat] upon which the name of Allāh has been mentioned, if you are believers in His verses. And why should you not eat of that upon which the name of Allāh has been mentioned while He has explained in detail to you what He has forbidden you, excepting that to which you are compelled. And indeed do many lead [others] astray through their [own] inclinations without knowledge. Indeed, your Lord - He is most knowing of the transgressors...And do not eat of that upon which the name of Allāh has not been mentioned, for indeed, it is grave disobedience." (Surah Al-Anaam, 6:121)
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
Thanks Newcomer, so saying bismillah before eating would be sufficient in that case. Not much different to saying Grace as Christians do.
Posted by newcomer (Member # 1056) on :
There is a huge discussion on that subject, especially in non-Muslim countries, with both sides giving evidence for their arguments.
I know which side I personally feel has the strongest argument and leave it up to others to do their own research and come to their own personal conclusions.
Posted by freshsoda (Member # 13226) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr Egypt: according to the Quran , Allah say:
“Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine…..” (Surah al-Ma’idah, V: 53)
In the above verse, Allah Almighty forbade the meat of all dead animals without differentiating between sea-animals and land-animals. Thus, all sea-animals would also be included in this general prohibition. yet the Quranists eat fish and enjoy it, any explanation ?
Quran [16:14] "It is He Who has made the sea subject, that ye may eat thereof flesh that is fresh and tender..."
[35:12] "...Yet from each (kind of water) do ye eat flesh fresh and tender..."
[5:96] Lawful to you is the pursuit of water-game and its use for food,
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
nice one fresh! thanks
bad day for Mr Egypt and sands when a non-muslim has to show them what is halal from their own book eh? Posted by Somewhere in the sands (Member # 13869) on :
Exuse me Ayisha I never gave my opinion about fish..I only discussed Chicken..LOL
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: Exuse me Ayisha I never gave my opinion about fish..I only discussed Chicken..LOL
Excuse me sands, you did not correct your brother Mr Egypt when he posted the original post with the title "Fish is forbidden in Islam", If I had posted that or Dalia you would have immediately 'corrected' us. Posted by Somewhere in the sands (Member # 13869) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha:
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: Exuse me Ayisha I never gave my opinion about fish..I only discussed Chicken..LOL
Excuse me sands, you did not correct your brother Mr Egypt when he posted the original post with the title "Fish is forbidden in Islam", If I had posted that or Dalia you would have immediately 'corrected' us.
Mr. Egypt is his own man. He is more than capable of presenting his opinions. Actually I was following the post and I am sure he was heading in a different direction whereby he was going to lead you to hadeeth. That's why I didn't interfer and anyway there are difference of opinions on whether EVERYTHING is lawful in the water.
Once again I NEVER expressed my opinion about fish..LOL
Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
This must be one of the most bizarre threads of 2007. Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
you're right Dalia it certainly is!
Sands, Mr Egypt said 'fish is forbidden in Islam' and you dont find that a bit........biddah, is that the correct wording??
he has made unlawful that which is lawful.
and you find you dont need to say anything because you think he was working towards a HADITH??
Do the hadith out vote the QURAN???
I think I will start a thread with the title 'Clothes are forbidden in Islam' what would you say to that?? You would pounce on me as fast as your little fingers could type KAFIR and BIDDAH is what you would do
HYPOCRITE
Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: Fish die when you take them out of the water, the fishermen catch them and they die. They are not dead before they are caught. You buy meat from the butcher, it is dead when you buy it, it has been killed by the butcher, it did not die of something before it got to be killed by the butcher.
Exactly. It's very simple. So according to Mr. Egypt you are not allowed to eat meat from the butcher since it was already "dead meat" the moment you bought it ...
Posted by Mr Egypt (Member # 10436) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha:
Fish die when you take them out of the water, the fishermen catch them and they die. They are not dead before they are caught. You buy meat from the butcher, it is dead when you buy it, it has been killed by the butcher, it did not die of something before it got to be killed by the butcher.
this is the point, fish die after the fishermen catch them so they are considered dead and you eat them dead which the Quran prohibit, as for me I have given you the proof that it isn't forbidden according to the Sunnah of the prophet PBUH. and btw, you didn't note the exclamation marks in the title of the thread !!! ? which means I don't believe so, but according to your faith, it means it is because the Quran didn't make any exception.
quote:As for your last statement, how old are you?
does age matter for you ? I might be younger than you but knowledgeable than you
quote:As for your comment to TOOT, i think she is in Australia isnt she? so it would be kangaroo naturally, possibly the odd Koala Bear on a Sunday.
as for my comment to TOOT it was also for you, is the donkey's meat allowed to be eaten ? the Quran didn't say anything about it so I suppose it is allowed so I wonder if you eat it ?
quote:Now go spend some time reading a really good book called Quran then come and have an intelligent conversation on something you have researched and can discuss.
Alhamdu lillah I memorize it so you should be the one who read it
Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr Egypt: you didn't note the exclamation marks in the title of the thread !!! ? which means I don't believe so
Ah. What an innovative use of exclamation marks! Maybe you should have noted that you invented a new grammatical rule which says that exclamation marks indicate the author's disagreement ...
This thread is getting more and more amusing. Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr Egypt: is the donkey's meat allowed to be eaten ? the Quran didn't say anything about it so I suppose it is allowed so I wonder if you eat it ?
Is there a big difference between cow's, sheep's and donkey's meat?
Posted by Mr Egypt (Member # 10436) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha:
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: Exuse me Ayisha I never gave my opinion about fish..I only discussed Chicken..LOL
Excuse me sands, you did not correct your brother Mr Egypt when he posted the original post with the title "Fish is forbidden in Islam", If I had posted that or Dalia you would have immediately 'corrected' us.
Fish is forbidden in Islam !!!
he doesn't have to correct me as I don't believe it is forbidden , the Prophet PBUH made it an exception from the dead food Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him eternal peace) said: “Two types of dead meat and two types of blood have been made lawful for our consumption: The two dead meats are: fish and locust, and the two types of blood are: liver and spleen.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Musnad Ahmad and Sunan Ibn Majah) but the Quran didn't make any exceptions so you as a Quranist are not allowed to eat it, it is forbidden for you
Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr Egypt:
Fish is forbidden in Islam !!!
No, it's not.
Do you think it becomes true the more often you repeat it?
Even if you stomp your feet and throw a hissy fit (which I can just picture you doing at the moment) no rule will miraculously pop up forbidding fish.
So what's wrong with eating donkeys?
Posted by Mr Egypt (Member # 10436) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dalia*:
quote:Originally posted by Mr Egypt: is the donkey's meat allowed to be eaten ? the Quran didn't say anything about it so I suppose it is allowed so I wonder if you eat it ?
Is there a big difference between cow's, sheep's and donkey's meat?
there is for sure a big difference between these animals' meat. some are pure meat and some are impure.
Allah says in the Quran:
“And cattle (an’am), He has created for you, from them you derive warmth, and numerous benefits, and of their (meat) you eat.” (Surah al-Nahl, V: 5)
And:
“It is Allah Who made cattle for you, that you may use some for riding and some for food.” (Surah al-Mu’min, V: 79)
the prophet PBUH made exceptions as in the following ahadeth:
Sayyiduna Abu Tha’laba (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) prohibited the eating of donkey’s meat. (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 5205)
Sayyiduna Anas ibn Malik (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that a person came to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) and said: “The donkeys have been (slaughtered and) eaten.” Another man came and said: “The donkeys have been destroyed.” The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) ordered a caller to announce to the people: “Allah and His Messenger forbid you to eat the meat of donkeys, for it is impure.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 5208)
Sayyiduna Khalid ibn al-Walid (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) forbade the meat of horses, mules and donkeys.” (Musnad Ahmad, 4/89, Sunan Abu Dawud, no: 3790, Sunan Nasa’i and Sunan Ibn Majah)
the question now for you and Ayisha, is the dog and the cat meat halal for eating ? the Quran doesn't say anything about it, so do you eat them ?
Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr Egypt: Allah says in the Quran:
“And cattle (an’am), He has created for you, from them you derive warmth, and numerous benefits, and of their (meat) you eat.” (Surah al-Nahl, V: 5)
And:
“It is Allah Who made cattle for you, that you may use some for riding and some for food.” (Surah al-Mu’min, V: 79)
But there is also a verse which says that people may eat "flesh from the sea". What else but fish and seafood could that be???
And He is the One who committed the sea, that you may eat from it a tender meat, and that you may extract from it pearls that you wear. And you see the ships flowing through it, so that you may seek from His bounty, and that you may be thankful. 16:14
Posted by Mr Egypt (Member # 10436) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dalia*: So what's wrong with eating donkeys? [/QB]
only Quranist people don't see anything wrong with eating donkeys I guess. but Muslims don't eat them according to the Prophet PBUH hadith. so if you eat donkeys , that's ok , no problem Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
I don't eat donkeys. I just don't understand what should make their meat so different from that of similar animals.
Posted by Mr Egypt (Member # 10436) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: the Laws of Moses are there.
there where ?
Posted by Mr Egypt (Member # 10436) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dalia*: I don't eat donkeys. I just don't understand what should make their meat so different from that of similar animals.
why don't you eat them ? the Quran doesn't say anything about it.
Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
Can you tell me what you think this verse is speaking about if it's not fish and seafood???
And He is the One who committed the sea, that you may eat from it a tender meat, and that you may extract from it pearls that you wear. And you see the ships flowing through it, so that you may seek from His bounty, and that you may be thankful. 16:14
Posted by Mr Egypt (Member # 10436) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dalia*: Exactly. It's very simple. So according to Mr. Egypt you are not allowed to eat meat from the butcher since it was already "dead meat" the moment you bought it ...
Dead meat is the meat of animal which died before slaughtering and blood could not flow out
"You can eat the meat of animals whose blood gushes out and the name of Allah is mentioned when they slaughtered." (Muslim)
Posted by Mr Egypt (Member # 10436) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dalia*: Can you tell me what you think this verse is speaking about if it's not fish and seafood???
And He is the One who committed the sea, that you may eat from it a tender meat, and that you may extract from it pearls that you wear. And you see the ships flowing through it, so that you may seek from His bounty, and that you may be thankful. 16:14
can you tell me why the Prophet made fish an exception from the dead food ? simply because it dies once it comes out of the water and the dead food is forbidden. got it ?
“Two types of dead meat and two types of blood have been made lawful for our consumption: The two dead meats are: fish and locust, and the two types of blood are: liver and spleen.”
as for the verse you posted and according to Quranist if we reject the hadith of the prophet then you must slaughter the fish once you catch it before it die
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Ayisha: now why didnt you do this to Mr Egypt when he said 'fish are forbidden in Islam'?? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe fish is forbidden in islam, the reason I posted that thread is you can't come with a proof that it isn't forbidden since you reject the sunnah of the prophet PBUH and since the Quran didn't make any exception of fish in the dead food. if you want my proof it isn't forbidden yet you reject it, here it is:
Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him eternal peace) said: “Two types of dead meat and two types of blood have been made lawful for our consumption: The two dead meats are: fish and locust, and the two types of blood are: liver and spleen.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Musnad Ahmad and Sunan Ibn Majah)
What number is that hadith please and where did you dig it out from?
you posted 'fish is forbidden in Islam' and tried to 'prove' it. I have already disproved it. it has taken you all this time to find a hadith to say that fish is dead meat when the verse of ALLAH clearly said dead meat is FORBIDDEN to you. The verses that show FISH is NOT FORBIDDEN to you are in QURAN, you didnt bother to look there.
[16:14] "It is He Who has made the sea subject, that ye may eat thereof flesh that is fresh and tender..."
[35:12] "...Yet from each (kind of water) do ye eat flesh fresh and tender..."
[5:96] Lawful to you is the pursuit of water-game and its use for food,
this is also Abu Dawud:
Book 27, Number 3808: Narrated Al-Faji' ibn Abdullah al-Amiri:
Al-Faji' came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked: Is not dead meat lawful for us? He said: What is your food? We said: Some food in the evening and some in the morning. AbuNu'aym said: Uqbah explained it to me saying: a cup (of milk) in the morning and a cup in the evening; this does not satisfy the hunger. So made the carrion lawful for them in this condition.
This one is saying that the prophet made lawful that which Allah made unlawful!!
The dictionary definition of carrion is car·ri·on n. Dead and decaying flesh. adj. Of or similar to dead and decaying flesh. Feeding on such flesh.
So the prophet made lawful dead and decaying flesh of rotting animal carcass?
005.003 YUSUFALI: Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows: that is impiety. This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, Allah is indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
This is also Abu Dawud
Book 21 Hadith 3804 The Apostle of Allah was asked about eating locusts. He replied: "They are the most numerous of Allah's hosts. I neither eat them nor declare them lawful
There is nothing in Abu Dawud about spleen or liver.
Posted by Mr Egypt (Member # 10436) on :
and once again, what does the Quran say about dogs and cats meats ? are they allowed ?
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Dead meat is the meat of animal which died before slaughtering and blood could not flow out
fish is not considered 'animal' it is 'fish'
quote:can you tell me why the Prophet made fish an exception from the dead food ? simply because it dies once it comes out of the water and the dead food is forbidden. got it ?
no, it said 'dead meat' not 'dead food' and meat is from animals and fish is from fish, dead meat does not apply to fish.
i am getting confused now. Your lame explanation of !!! at the end of your opening title actually means you are emphasizing it, if you were questioning it you would put ??? instead. i am also unsure if you are now trying to prove that fish is forbidden or not, it seems you have done a loop somewhere. I had alread proved fish is not forbidden and now you are trying to prove it with hadith?? have I got that right?? If I have then why?? I already knew it was not forbidden so you dont have to prove it to me with a hadith that you seem to have invented.
Posted by Mr Egypt (Member # 10436) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha What number is that hadith please and where did you dig it out from?
Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him eternal peace) said: “Two types of dead meat and two types of blood have been made lawful for our consumption: The two dead meats are: fish and locust, and the two types of blood are: liver and spleen.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Musnad Ahmad, 2/97 and Sunan Ibn Majah, no: 3314)
quote:this is also Abu Dawud:
Book 27, Number 3808: Narrated Al-Faji' ibn Abdullah al-Amiri:
Al-Faji' came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked: Is not dead meat lawful for us? He said: What is your food? We said: Some food in the evening and some in the morning. AbuNu'aym said: Uqbah explained it to me saying: a cup (of milk) in the morning and a cup in the evening; this does not satisfy the hunger. So made the carrion lawful for them in this condition.
here is the hadith in Arabic because the translation if too far from the Arabic meaning
حدثنا هارون بن عبد اللّه، قال: ثنا الفضل بن دكين، قال: ثنا عقبة بن وهب بن عقبة العامري قال: سمعت أبي يحدِّث، عن الفُجَيع العامري، أنه أتى رسول اللّه صلى اللّه عليه وسلم فقال: مايحل لنا [من] الميتة؟ قال: "ما طعامكم؟" قلنا: نغتبق ونصطبح، قال أبو نعيم: فسَّرَه لي عقبة، قدح غدوةً، وقدح عشيةً، قال: "ذاك وأبي الجوع" فأحلَّ لهم الميتة على هذه الحال. قال أبو داود: الغَبُوق من آخر النهار، والصبوح من أول النهار.
Dalia can tell you since she reads arabic that the Prophet allowed the dead for those people just in this condition which is the hunger ( starvation). they first asked him what dead meat is lawful for them which made the prophet asked them about their food and when he knew they were in a case of starvation he allowed the dead for them. and just so you know, the prophet PBUH didn't made anything lawful which Allah made unlawful because Allah says :
Why should ye not eat of (meats) on which Allah's name hath been pronounced, when He hath explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you - except under compulsion of necessity? But many do mislead (men) by their appetites unchecked by knowledge. Thy Lord knoweth best those who transgress.
and those people apply the exception for them
quote: This is also Abu Dawud Book 21 Hadith 3804 The Apostle of Allah was asked about eating locusts. He replied: "They are the most numerous of Allah's hosts. I neither eat them nor declare them lawful
post the link to this hadith pls, I didn't find it anywhere but here's the arabic text of it حدثنا محمد بن الفرج البغدادي ثنا بن الزبرقان ثنا سليمان التيمي عن أبي عثمان النهدي عن سلمان قال سئل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عن الجراد فقال أكثر جنود الله لا أكله ولا أحرمه
he said I neither eat them nor declare them unlawful Posted by Mr Egypt (Member # 10436) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: fish is not considered 'animal' it is 'fish'
the verse doesn't mention meat , it says dead food in general , the Arabic text as I said over and over doesn't say anything about meat, it only says forbidden for you the dead حرمت عليكم الميته, I have also posted other translations of the verse that has no MEAT in it.
quote:i am getting confused now. Your lame explanation of !!! at the end of your opening title actually means you are emphasizing it, if you were questioning it you would put ??? instead. i am also unsure if you are now trying to prove that fish is forbidden or not, it seems you have done a loop somewhere. I had alread proved fish is not forbidden and now you are trying to prove it with hadith?? have I got that right?? If I have then why?? I already knew it was not forbidden so you dont have to prove it to me with a hadith that you seem to have invented.
I don't invent , you do. We need the prophet Ahadeeth to explain what have been revealed to him as Allah himself said. if you let the explanation of the Quran to your mind, your mind will lead you astray. there are tons of questions about things mentioned in the Quran that need explanation and you can't find it except in the ahadiths of the prophet.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr Egypt:
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha What number is that hadith please and where did you dig it out from?
Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him eternal peace) said: “Two types of dead meat and two types of blood have been made lawful for our consumption: The two dead meats are: fish and locust, and the two types of blood are: liver and spleen.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Musnad Ahmad, 2/97 and Sunan Ibn Majah, no: 3314)
quote:this is also Abu Dawud:
Book 27, Number 3808: Narrated Al-Faji' ibn Abdullah al-Amiri:
Al-Faji' came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked: Is not dead meat lawful for us? He said: What is your food? We said: Some food in the evening and some in the morning. AbuNu'aym said: Uqbah explained it to me saying: a cup (of milk) in the morning and a cup in the evening; this does not satisfy the hunger. So made the carrion lawful for them in this condition.
here is the hadith in Arabic because the translation if too far from the Arabic meaning
حدثنا هارون بن عبد اللّه، قال: ثنا الفضل بن دكين، قال: ثنا عقبة بن وهب بن عقبة العامري قال: سمعت أبي يحدِّث، عن الفُجَيع العامري، أنه أتى رسول اللّه صلى اللّه عليه وسلم فقال: مايحل لنا [من] الميتة؟ قال: "ما طعامكم؟" قلنا: نغتبق ونصطبح، قال أبو نعيم: فسَّرَه لي عقبة، قدح غدوةً، وقدح عشيةً، قال: "ذاك وأبي الجوع" فأحلَّ لهم الميتة على هذه الحال. قال أبو داود: الغَبُوق من آخر النهار، والصبوح من أول النهار.
Dalia can tell you since she reads arabic that the Prophet allowed the dead for those people just in this condition which is the hunger ( starvation). they first asked him what dead meat is lawful for them which made the prophet asked them about their food and when he knew they were in a case of starvation he allowed the dead for them. and just so you know, the prophet PBUH didn't made anything lawful which Allah made unlawful because Allah says :
Why should ye not eat of (meats) on which Allah's name hath been pronounced, when He hath explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you - except under compulsion of necessity? But many do mislead (men) by their appetites unchecked by knowledge. Thy Lord knoweth best those who transgress.
and those people apply the exception for them
quote: This is also Abu Dawud Book 21 Hadith 3804 The Apostle of Allah was asked about eating locusts. He replied: "They are the most numerous of Allah's hosts. I neither eat them nor declare them lawful
post the link to this hadith pls, I didn't find it anywhere but here's the arabic text of it حدثنا محمد بن الفرج البغدادي ثنا بن الزبرقان ثنا سليمان التيمي عن أبي عثمان النهدي عن سلمان قال سئل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عن الجراد فقال أكثر جنود الله لا أكله ولا أحرمه
he said I neither eat them nor declare them unlawful
Mr Egypt my apologies you are absolutely right it does say 'un' lawful and not lawful as I said, please accept my apolgies.
I cannot find that hadith in any of my references though, 3314 seems to be omitted in every dawud place I have looked. 3313 and 3315 are there though.
I agree with what you say about it was made lawful because of necessity though, it tells you that in Quran anyway. You can eat pork if you are starving.
as for dogs and cats, no you cant eat them according to Torah (This is the first 5 books of the old testement although the whole of the old testement is called the 'written Torah')
Lev 11:27 And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even.
This is the verse in Quran which actually says you should be looking at what is lawful from the previous Books.
005.005 YUSUFALI: This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).
Posted by newcomer (Member # 1056) on :
Just want to make a quick late contribution to this thread.
I was saddened to see the response this thread received, it was fairly clear from the beginning that Mr Egypt was not saying that fish was haram, but that it was an astonishing statement...Egyptians use exclamation marks much more often than westerners do to express surprise.
Rather than immediately assuming that he didn't know what he was talking about it might have been interesting at least to follow his argument - as he has actually memorized the whole Qur'an we might even be able to learn something from him! I'm not saying that we have to accept everything he says, but he might just have a point that he wants to try to express.
What he was saying actually wasn't something that is completely off the rocks. I heard that a halal shop in the UK was closed down recently because it was selling fish; so there are actually people out there who do believe that fish is not halal. I have come across many people who will not eat fish, due to not knowing the Hadith that supports the eating of fish or through adhering only to the Qur'an.
Here is a summary of a fatwa given about eating fish to demonstrate the argument for it:
Can you give me a list of animals that are Halal and Haram according to the Hanafi School?
In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,
Islam is a religion of mercy and compassion. It only commands and prohibits that which is in the best interests of the human being. The human mind however, due to it being very limited and restricted, may not be able to understand the logic behind every ruling. It may not be able to comprehend properly why a particular ruling is given, but Allah Most High- the Merciful and All-Knowing- is the best to decide what is beneficial and harmful for us, for He is the one who created us.
Allah Most High blessed humanity with His beloved Messenger (Allah bless him & give him peace), as a light and light-giving. The Sacred Law (Shariah) of Islam that the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace be upon him) came with from Allah differentiated between a living and a dead animal. Dead animals were declared unlawful (haram). Certain animals that were harmful to the welfare of humans were also prohibited, such as pigs, dogs, cats and wild animals. Thus, the animals that have been prohibited for consumption by Shariah is due to the fact that they are harmful for human consumption, whether we realize this or otherwise.
After understanding the above, it should be noted that each of the four Sunni Schools of Islamic law (madhhabs) have their own principles (based on the guidelines of the Qur’an & Sunnah) with regards to which animals are lawful (halal) and which are unlawful (haram) for consumption.
Below are the basic principles of permissibility and impermissibility in the Hanafi School with regards to animal consumption, as mentioned in the classical books of Hanafi jurisprudence. (Culled from: al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya, 5/289-291, Bada’i al-Sana’i, 5/35-39 and Radd al-Muhtar, 304-308)
1. Animals that have been clearly and explicitly prohibited in the Qur’an or Sunnah are without doubt Haram, such as a swine, donkey, etc.
2. Animals that are born and live in water are all Haram with the exception of fish. All types of fishes are Halal, with the exception of that which dies naturally in the sea without any external cause. However, if a fish was to die due to some external cause such as cold, heat, being thrown to the shore by the water, colliding with a stone, etc, then it would be Halal.
Allah Most High says:
“Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine…..” (Surah al-Ma’idah, V: 53)
In the above verse, Allah Almighty forbade the meat of all dead animals without differentiating between sea-animals and land-animals. Thus, all sea-animals would also be included in this general prohibition. However, fish has been exempted from this general ruling due to the explicit mention of its permissibility by the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace).
Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him eternal peace) said: “Two types of dead meat and two types of blood have been made lawful for our consumption: The two dead meats are: fish and locust, and the two types of blood are: liver and spleen.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Musnad Ahmad and Sunan Ibn Majah)
Moreover, there is no mention in the Sunnah literature that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) or his Companions (Allah be pleased with them all) ever consumed the meat of a sea-animal besides the fish, hence if it was permitted, it would have at least been consumed once in order to show its permissibility. (Dars Tirmidhi, 1/280)
As far as the fish which dies naturally in the sea without an external cause (samak al-tafi) is concerned, Sayyiduna Jabir ibn Abd Allah (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “What the sea throws up and is left by the tide you may eat, but what dies in the sea and floats you must not eat.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, no: 3809 & Sunan Ibn Majah)
Sayyiduna Ali (Allah be pleased with him) forbade the selling of naturally dead fish (floating fish) in the markets. (Bada’i al-Sana’i, 5/36 and al-Ikhtiyar)
In light of the above, all sea-animals are Haram except for fish. It will be permitted to eat a fish even without slaughtering it according to the rules of Shariah. However, a fish that dies naturally without an external cause and begins to float on the surface of the water (Samak al-Tafi) is also considered Haram. http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=3893&CATE=107 Posted by Undercover (Member # 12979) on :
quote:Originally posted by newcomer: Rather than immediately assuming that he didn't know what he was talking about it might have been interesting at least to follow his argument - as he has actually memorized the whole Qur'an we might even be able to learn something from him! I'm not saying that we have to accept everything he says, but he might just have a point that he wants to try to express.
Mr Egypt does have a point. The real question is not which hadith is true and which one is not, the question is that without the hadith the Quran is meaningless. The Quran cannot be understood without knowing its context.
Can you explain sura 111, sura 9 and sura Sura 38:41-44, or for that mater any sura, without referring to the hadith? You have no way to do that. Then what you say about the claim of the clarity of the Quran? (5:15) Or when it says that it is "easy to understand” (44:58 , 54:22 , 54:32, 54:40), is "explained in detail" (6:114), is "conveyed clearly", (5:16, 10:15) and there is “no doubt in it"? (2:1).
If these verses are true, can you explain the above suras? I am not trying to make you revert to a hadith-believing Muslim. I want you to see that the Quran is linked to hadith.
Can you tell what century Muhammad was born? Without hadith and sira how can you tell? You may say that this data is available from the history written by Persians and Romans. Why would you take the Persians and Romans sources as more legitimate than the sources written by Muslims?
Furthermore, how do you know that the Quran preceded the hadiths by centuries? All you have is an undated book. You do not know how and when that book was written, unless you rely on the very hadith that you disparage.
Without the haidth, Islam can easily be dismissed as a myth. If the "corrupt leaders" were capable to fabricate so many hadiths with so much detail about a man and his people, (a miracle in itself) why couldn't they fabricate the Quran?
It is easily to see why some Muslims would fabricate some hadith to make their Prophet look holy. But what was the gain in portraying Muhammad as a pedophile, an assassin, murderer etc? Can you even imagine that such thing could happen today? Is it possible, for example, that the gay Muslims fabricate hadiths portraying Muhammad as a gay man just to justify their position? Such excuse is certainly not logical. Was the entire umma stupid for letting this kind of highjacking of their religion happen under their nose? The only logical conclusion is that Muhammad did really commit all those.
We could also overlook such hadiths if they were just a few. But we have thousands upon thousands of hadiths that tell the same tale and portray Muhammad that way. At the same time we have no other version of the same events. If Muhammad actually did not raid the innocent populations how they converted to Islam? Do we have a different version of how Islam expanded? Why would so many devout believers who waged wars for Islam and gave their lives fabricate so many falsehoods against their prophet? If these books were written by the enemies of Muhammad, you had a point. Enemies are often biased and their reporting may not be accurate. But demanding to discard the stories written by the followers of Muhammad is absurd. Under what basis? .. Just because they portray Muhammad badly? Would you have made such outlandish demand if the hadiths portrayed Muhammad as a saint?
The point that I am trying to make is that without the hadith your Islam is self made, and can easily be dismissed as a myth.
Posted by Undercover (Member # 12979) on :
Without understanding the history behind each verse you can’t understand the Quran. Take the example of Sura 111
"Perish the hands of the Father of Flame! Perish he! No profit to him from all his wealth, and all his gains! Burnt soon will he be in a Fire of Blazing Flame! His wife shall carry the (crackling) wood - As fuel!- A twisted rope of palm-leaf fibre round her (own) neck!"
This is the entire sura. It is a small sura consisting of five verses of cursing. If you do not know anything about the story behind this sura you do not understand it.
Let us take another example:
Sura 38:41-44 "And remember Our servant Ayyub, when he called upon his Lord: The Shaitan has afflicted me with toil and torment. Urge with your foot; here is a cool washing-place and a drink. And We gave him his family and the like of them with them, as a mercy from Us, and as a reminder to those possessed of understanding. And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with It and do not break your oath; surely We found him patient; most excellent the servant! Surely he was frequent m returning (to Allah)".
Do these verses make any sense on their own?
Examples abound. In fact most of the Quran cannot be understood without knowing its context.
How do we know the context of these verses? They are mostly in tafseer. Tafseer means explanation, clarification, interpretation, etc. The interpreters/commentators of the Quran (mofasserin) base their interpretations on the hadith and the books of history.
For example Sura 9 consists of two parts. The first part is called Bara’at (redemption) and the second part is called Tawbah (repentance). You can’t understand this Sura unless you know what they refer to. The Bara’at was written during the invasion of Mecca. It is called Bara’at because in this part of the Sura allegedly God is telling Muhammad that he is free to break his treaties with the pagans unilaterally. All the verses refer to that occasion. The Tawbah was written when Muhammad returned from the war of Tabuk and found a few Muslims had stayed behind and had not gone to war. He ordered the population of Medina to not talk to these deserters and even ordered that their wives move out of their homes. For forty days no one talked to these people and passed them by as if they were invisible. After forty days Muhammad accepted their repentance and in this Sura he laid the conditions of repentance.
These details are in the history and in hadith. You cannot understand this sura and any sura, properly without knowing the history behind it.
As you see the Quranonly people can’t even understand the Quran without the hadith and sira. What interpretation can they give us when they deny the background and the context of the Quran?
Posted by Mr Egypt (Member # 10436) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: Mr Egypt my apologies you are absolutely right it does say 'un' lawful and not lawful as I said, please accept my apolgies.
there is nothing to apologize for Ayisha, we are all make mistakes and I don't think you intended it.
quote:as for dogs and cats, no you cant eat them according to Torah (This is the first 5 books of the old testement although the whole of the old testement is called the 'written Torah')
according to the Torah ? you can't use the Torah as a reference to prove your point Ayisha. the Torah that you are talking about it isn't the Torah that Allah revealed to Moses PBUH. Moses didn't even write these books that you call Torah.
quote: This is the verse in Quran which actually says you should be looking at what is lawful from the previous Books.
005.005 YUSUFALI: This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).
the verse doesn't mean what the people of the book eat is allowed for us to eat, and what's not allowed for them is also unallowed for us. for example, jews and christians eats pork and it isn't allowed for us to eat pork. they drink wine, and we are not allowed to drink it.
but I really would like to ask you a question Ayisha, why are you using the OT as your reference now ? Where's the Quran ?
Posted by Undercover (Member # 12979) on :
If the Quran is self-sufficient why do you have to dig into the ahadith to explain the Quran? Isn’t it fair to believe that those claims of the clarity of the Quran are exaggerations?
Posted by Mr Egypt (Member # 10436) on :
addition to the last two posts of Undercover is Salat, Zakat , Fasting and Hajj. these are the pillars of Islam yet there is no details mentioned in the Quran on how to perform these things. only the Prophet PBUH showed us the way. rejecting the Hadiths of the prophet PBUH tear down these pillars.
Posted by Somewhere in the sands (Member # 13869) on :
quote:Originally posted by Undercover: If the Quran is self-sufficient why do you have to dig into the ahadith to explain the Quran? Isn’t it fair to believe that those claims of the clarity of the Quran are exaggerations?
Who told you it was self-sufficient?
We have explained on many occasions that you need ahadeeth to explain the Quran. The Prophet was order to explain the Quran. The Quran is in more need of the Sunnah than the Sunnah is in need of the Quran.
No one will never understand the Quran in the manner that the Prophet Muhammad salallahu alayhi wassalam explained the Quran except by reading the ahadeeth that his sahaabah radi allah ta'ala anhuma wrote or spoke about. They (the sahaabah) understood the Quran better than anyone walking on the face of the earth today. For they (the sahaabah) got the explaination directly from the Prophet Muhammad salallahu alayhi wassalaam.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr Egypt: according to the Torah ? you can't use the Torah as a reference to prove your point Ayisha. the Torah that you are talking about it isn't the Torah that Allah revealed to Moses PBUH. Moses didn't even write these books that you call Torah.
where do you get that from?? The Torah is the first 5 books of the Old Testement. The Law of Moses.
003.003 YUSUFALI: It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).
Jesus came to confirm the Law which was the Law of Moses (Torah) 003.050 YUSUFALI: "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me
Muhammed tells you to follow the religion of Abraham 003.095 YUSUFALI: Say: "Allah speaketh the Truth: follow the religion of Abraham, the sane in faith; he was not of the Pagans."
005.044 YUSUFALI: It was We who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not my signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers.
005.046 YUSUFALI: And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
005.048 YUSUFALI: To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety:
Now if as you say these Books are not as they were sent, why did Allah make MUCH mention of them and how RIGHT they were??
Where does Allah say these are not the SAME Books that He sent?
quote: This is the verse in Quran which actually says you should be looking at what is lawful from the previous Books.
005.005 YUSUFALI: This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).
quote:the verse doesn't mean what the people of the book eat is allowed for us to eat, and what's not allowed for them is also unallowed for us. for example, jews and christians eats pork and it isn't allowed for us to eat pork. they drink wine, and we are not allowed to drink it.
Yes it DOES mean that. The LAWS are there in the books but the same as the laws are in Quran most dont take notice and change the interpretations, but the LAW is there.
quote:but I really would like to ask you a question Ayisha, why are you using the OT as your reference now ? Where's the Quran ?
references have been given from Quran. The LAW was given to Moses, the Torah, as Allah makes much mention of so you will understand that Islam is not a new religion. He clearly states that the Torah and the Gospel were sent by Him previously to people so not to discount them. The first time Allah told you what you can and cant eat was in Torah. Jesus came to uphold the same Laws and make some things lawful as were unlawful before but he did not make Pork lawful, it is and always has been UNlawful to eat pork.
You make a grave mistake in thinking these are not the same Books Allah revealed before Quran. He tells you clearly that they are. Nowhere does it say they (the Books) are changed, he does tell you that they (the people) changed how they viewed the message, not the Books. It is the same as Muslims are now changing Quran's meaning, Jews and Christians changed the meaning of the Books, not the Books themselves.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: Who told you it was self-sufficient?
Allah did in Quran, the verses have been posted MANY times for you and I dont have time now to look for them
quote:We have explained on many occasions that you need ahadeeth to explain the Quran. The Prophet was order to explain the Quran. The Quran is in more need of the Sunnah than the Sunnah is in need of the Quran.
HOW DARE YOU say this??? you call yourself a Muslim? ALLAH NEEDS NOTHING, GET IT? NOTHING.
quote:No one will never understand the Quran in the manner that the Prophet Muhammad salallahu alayhi wassalam explained the Quran except by reading the ahadeeth that his sahaabah radi allah ta'ala anhuma wrote or spoke about. They (the sahaabah) understood the Quran better than anyone walking on the face of the earth today. For they (the sahaabah) got the explaination directly from the Prophet Muhammad salallahu alayhi wassalaam.
Rubbish, if they read The BOOKS they can understand it without mans words to explain!
You have been warned and warned in Quran against what the Jews did, I suggest you find out WHAT it was they actually did, because you are doing exactly the SAME.
Posted by Undercover (Member # 12979) on :
Muhammad in the Quran, claimed to be a “good example to follow” 68.4 How can Muslims follow his examples if they are not recorded?
Posted by Somewhere in the sands (Member # 13869) on :
Yeah yeah! Okay Ayisha enlighten one.
Posted by Undercover (Member # 12979) on :
Sura 33 for example is not self explanatory. Without tafseer (relying on hadith and sira) there is no way to know who are the "confederates" mentioned in verse 20 and from where they are not withdrawn. There are many unknowns in this sura. For example verse 11 says “In that situation were the Believers tried: they were shaken as by a tremendous shaking.” Without referring to tafseer can you explain what situation is Muhammad talking about? That sura does not contain a single reference to Muhammad’s examples. The examples of Muhammad are not given or supposed to be given by Allah. They were witnessed by his followers. There was no need for Muhammad making his Allah describe him for his followers when they could witness that on their own. On various occasions he made Allah extol him and talk about him superlatively, but apart from those adulatory pompous bragging there is no mention about his life and his examples in the Quran.
In the same sura verse 33:37there is a mention of a certain Zaid. It says "Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons," Can we explain the story behind this verse without any reference to the hadith? What was the example set by Muhammad mentioned in this sura that need to be followed?
For Muslims to be able to follow the examples (sunna) of their prophet they need to know about his life.
The Quran is allegedly the message of God to Man. It is certainly not a book of the history of Islam. From the Quran alone you can’t learn about Muhammad, his companions, his linage, his wives and family, his deeds, his wars, his rituals and many other stories that make Islam understandable. Quran makes some passing mentions of the wars but certainly it is not a book of history about Muhammad’s prophetic career.
Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
Happy New Year everyone!
quote:Originally posted by newcomer: Rather than immediately assuming that he didn't know what he was talking about it might have been interesting at least to follow his argument - as he has actually memorized the whole Qur'an we might even be able to learn something from him! I'm not saying that we have to accept everything he says, but he might just have a point that he wants to try to express.
Mr Egypt tried to make a particular point using his interpretation of the verse he initially posted.
If he had read (or posted) the verse together with the other ones that very clearly allow fish / seafood, he would not have been able to make that initial point. He tried to put Ayisha in a corner by claiming that in the Qur'an itself fish is not allowed.
It is crystal clear that he either did not think of / not know the other verses or consciously ignored them in order to make his point.
But instead of simply admitting this, he diverts from the subject by firing question at others and ignoring valuable arguments. This is not new, it's his usual manner of *discussion* and it strips him of all credibility. He is not trying to understand the heart of the matter or another person's point of view, he is only interested in putting others into a corner, scoring points and making himself feel better.
That might be the reason some of us don't have much tolerance when it comes to threads like this.
quote: I was saddened to see the response this thread received
I am also often saddened when I see a perfectly intersting discussion going downhill because Mr Egypt and others are bringing it down with their rude and derogatory comments, not willing to take another person seriously at all.
Posted by caringforwomen (Member # 14617) on :
Hi, Mr.Egypt. I'm back. This is concerned, but under a different screen name. Maybe the Prophet meant only the dead meat of pigs was forbidden. This is only my opinion. It looks to me like he was only talking about pig's meat.
Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
quote:Originally posted by Undercover: Muhammad in the Quran, claimed to be a “good example to follow” 68.4 How can Muslims follow his examples if they are not recorded?
They are recorded. In the Qur'an.
Posted by caringforwomen (Member # 14617) on :
Dalia, I think that the Koran does allow fish. You know what you read, so just don't let Mr.Egypt upset you. A lot of people argue in here. Someone will always attack someone in here and be mad if what they say does not fit what they want to hear. The New Year should not start off with verbal attacks.
Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr Egypt:
quote: Is there a big difference between cow's, sheep's and donkey's meat?
there is for sure a big difference between these animals' meat. some are pure meat and some are impure.
Can you tell a bit more about this? What exactly does "pure" and "impure" refer to in this case? How is it defined? Does it mean donkey meat would be "dirtier" than cow's meat, for example? In which sense?
Posted by newcomer (Member # 1056) on :
quote:Originally posted by newcomer: I was saddened to see the response this thread received
I guess I am just sick to death of all the sniping, belittling, mocking, ridiculing, deriding, gibing, sneering... that goes on on this forum, and this was where I expressed it! Posted by Undercover (Member # 12979) on :
A lot of people believe that Salafi Islam needs all the sniping, belittling, mocking, ridiculing, deriding, gibing, sneering...it can get.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Here is a summary of a fatwa given about eating fish to demonstrate the argument for it:
Can you give me a list of animals that are Halal and Haram according to the Hanafi School?
In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,
Islam is a religion of mercy and compassion. It only commands and prohibits that which is in the best interests of the human being. The human mind however, due to it being very limited and restricted, may not be able to understand the logic behind every ruling. It may not be able to comprehend properly why a particular ruling is given, but Allah Most High- the Merciful and All-Knowing- is the best to decide what is beneficial and harmful for us, for He is the one who created us.
Allah Most High blessed humanity with His beloved Messenger (Allah bless him & give him peace), as a light and light-giving. The Sacred Law (Shariah) of Islam that the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace be upon him) came with from Allah differentiated between a living and a dead animal. Dead animals were declared unlawful (haram). Certain animals that were harmful to the welfare of humans were also prohibited, such as pigs, dogs, cats and wild animals. Thus, the animals that have been prohibited for consumption by Shariah is due to the fact that they are harmful for human consumption, whether we realize this or otherwise.
After understanding the above, it should be noted that each of the four Sunni Schools of Islamic law (madhhabs) have their own principles (based on the guidelines of the Qur’an & Sunnah) with regards to which animals are lawful (halal) and which are unlawful (haram) for consumption.
Below are the basic principles of permissibility and impermissibility in the Hanafi School with regards to animal consumption, as mentioned in the classical books of Hanafi jurisprudence. (Culled from: al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya, 5/289-291, Bada’i al-Sana’i, 5/35-39 and Radd al-Muhtar, 304-308)
1. Animals that have been clearly and explicitly prohibited in the Qur’an or Sunnah are without doubt Haram, such as a swine, donkey, etc.
2. Animals that are born and live in water are all Haram with the exception of fish. All types of fishes are Halal, with the exception of that which dies naturally in the sea without any external cause. However, if a fish was to die due to some external cause such as cold, heat, being thrown to the shore by the water, colliding with a stone, etc, then it would be Halal.
Allah Most High says:
“Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine…..” (Surah al-Ma’idah, V: 53)
In the above verse, Allah Almighty forbade the meat of all dead animals without differentiating between sea-animals and land-animals. Thus, all sea-animals would also be included in this general prohibition. However, fish has been exempted from this general ruling due to the explicit mention of its permissibility by the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace).
Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him eternal peace) said: “Two types of dead meat and two types of blood have been made lawful for our consumption: The two dead meats are: fish and locust, and the two types of blood are: liver and spleen.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Musnad Ahmad and Sunan Ibn Majah)
Moreover, there is no mention in the Sunnah literature that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) or his Companions (Allah be pleased with them all) ever consumed the meat of a sea-animal besides the fish, hence if it was permitted, it would have at least been consumed once in order to show its permissibility. (Dars Tirmidhi, 1/280)
As far as the fish which dies naturally in the sea without an external cause (samak al-tafi) is concerned, Sayyiduna Jabir ibn Abd Allah (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “What the sea throws up and is left by the tide you may eat, but what dies in the sea and floats you must not eat.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, no: 3809 & Sunan Ibn Majah)
Sayyiduna Ali (Allah be pleased with him) forbade the selling of naturally dead fish (floating fish) in the markets. (Bada’i al-Sana’i, 5/36 and al-Ikhtiyar)
In light of the above, all sea-animals are Haram except for fish. It will be permitted to eat a fish even without slaughtering it according to the rules of Shariah. However, a fish that dies naturally without an external cause and begins to float on the surface of the water (Samak al-Tafi) is also considered Haram. http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=3893&CATE=107
You dont need fatwa from a man or hadith from a man as its there in God's Books
Leviticus 11 1And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
2Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
3Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
4Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
5And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
6And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
7And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
8Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
9These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
13And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
14And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15Every raven after his kind;
16And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
17And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
20All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
21Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
22Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
23But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
24And for these ye shall be unclean: whosoever toucheth the carcase of them shall be unclean until the even.
25And whosoever beareth ought of the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.
26The carcases of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not clovenfooted, nor cheweth the cud, are unclean unto you: every one that toucheth them shall be unclean.
27And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even.
28And he that beareth the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: they are unclean unto you.
29These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,
30And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole.
31These are unclean to you among all that creep: whosoever doth touch them, when they be dead, shall be unclean until the even.
32And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed.
33And every earthen vessel, whereinto any of them falleth, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean; and ye shall break it.
34Of all meat which may be eaten, that on which such water cometh shall be unclean: and all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel shall be unclean.
35And every thing whereupon any part of their carcase falleth shall be unclean; whether it be oven, or ranges for pots, they shall be broken down: for they are unclean and shall be unclean unto you.
36Nevertheless a fountain or pit, wherein there is plenty of water, shall be clean: but that which toucheth their carcase shall be unclean.
37And if any part of their carcase fall upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, it shall be clean.
38But if any water be put upon the seed, and any part of their carcase fall thereon, it shall be unclean unto you.
39And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die; he that toucheth the carcase thereof shall be unclean until the even.
40And he that eateth of the carcase of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: he also that beareth the carcase of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.
41And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten.
42Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.
43Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.
44For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
45For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.
46This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
47To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.
Deuteronomy 14 3Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.
4These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat,
5The hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois.
6And every beast that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth the cleft into two claws, and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that ye shall eat.
7Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.
8And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.
9These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.
11Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
12But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
13And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
14And every raven after his kind,
15And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
16The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
17And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
18And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
19And every creeping thing that flieth is unclean unto you: they shall not be eaten.
20But of all clean fowls ye may eat.
21Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
Quran [16:14] "It is He Who has made the sea subject, that ye may eat thereof flesh that is fresh and tender..."
[35:12] "...Yet from each (kind of water) do ye eat flesh fresh and tender..."
[5:96] Lawful to you is the pursuit of water-game and its use for food,
Posted by newcomer (Member # 1056) on :
Ayisha, you misunderstood the purpose of my post and I saw what you wrote the first time. Repeating the Old Testament will not persuade me use it as a source for my deen, any more than emphasising many of your posts with capitals will.
It would just make it much easier to talk to you about how you saw Islam if it actually felt like a two-way conversation rather than a competition. You seem to have a very personal interpretation of what you think Islam is, and, as you seem set on it, I will leave you to it. As you said, you are the one responsible for your soul.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by newcomer: Ayisha, you misunderstood the purpose of my post and I saw what you wrote the first time. Repeating the Old Testament will not persuade me use it as a source for my deen, any more than emphasising many of your posts with capitals will.
It would just make it much easier to talk to you about how you saw Islam if it actually felt like a two-way conversation rather than a competition. You seem to have a very personal interpretation of what you think Islam is, and, as you seem set on it, I will leave you to it. As you said, you are the one responsible for your soul.
I didnt misunderstand your post Newcomer. Mr Egypt, posted with the title 'Fish is forbidden in Islam!!!' His first post was:
quote:according to the Quran , Allah say:
“Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine…..” (Surah al-Ma’idah, V: 53)
In the above verse, Allah Almighty forbade the meat of all dead animals without differentiating between sea-animals and land-animals. Thus, all sea-animals would also be included in this general prohibition. yet the Quranists eat fish and enjoy it, any explanation ?
He is again calling me a Quranist as a derogatory name. I dont mind being called that, but its his 'intention' that annoys me there.
My replies to him were factual and I gave him verses from Quran, my arguement was correct as in the end we did get to 'fish are NOT forbidden in Islam' which I had said from the start. Dalia was correct that he was trying to put me in a corner.
It was NOT clear from the start as you claim it was that he was NOT saying what he actually WAS saying. And he may have memorized all the Quran, which is very commendable, but it doesnt mean he understands it. It is clear that his understanding is from man's words (hadith) and not from God's Words. But you are right, i'm learning a LOT from him and others.
So the purpose of your post was basically to show your support for Mr Egypt and provide the 'official' verdict from those supposedly in the know. Thats fine Newcomer you are entitled to your opinion, but I provided God's Words from His Books which when shown to you your reply was "Repeating the Old Testament will not persuade me use it as a source for my deen," It is the beginning of your deen, you should refer to it. Islam did not start with Muhammed.
Yes I do have a very personal view of what Islam is, and I am responsible for my own soul as you are for yours. I take my Islam from the Books of God, you take yours from God and man jointly. It has even been declared on here that Quran needs sunnah more than sunnah needs Quran, which is the most blasphemous statement yet from a Muslim and sounds very much like shirk to me.
We should all be looking and seeking knowledge to get closer to God but that doesnt mean taking it from someone else who feeds the masses, it means seeking knowledge for ourselves. the Books are there and the Quran tells you they are there and that He brought them, you should be reading them instead of hadith. I am not saying this as im telling you what to do, its advice, but its up to you.
Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
quote:Originally posted by newcomer: I guess I am just sick to death of all the sniping, belittling, mocking, ridiculing, deriding, gibing, sneering... that goes on on this forum, and this was where I expressed it!
I know, I'm very tired of it as well. And I sometimes find myself being more defensive than I would normally ever be, just because of the general atmosphere on here. And I was not trying to be snippy to you, in case it came across that way. Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: So the purpose of your post was basically to show your support for Mr Egypt and provide the 'official' verdict from those supposedly in the know. Thats fine Newcomer you are entitled to your opinion, but I provided God's Words from His Books which when shown to you your reply was "Repeating the Old Testament will not persuade me use it as a source for my deen," It is the beginning of your deen, you should refer to it. Islam did not start with Muhammed.
I am getting confused now. I think I need dinner ...
I understand that both of you have a slightly different view as far as some scriptures are concerned.
I understand the point Ayisha made by referring to the Torah.
But what I don't understand is ... wasn't one of the important points of this debate that we don't need any other source besides Qur'an in order to establish that fish is allowed?
Mr Egypt tried to prove that the Qur'an alone does not make this clear. This has been disproved by several verses of the Qur'an that make it very clear.
Referring to the Torah or the ahadeeth might enlighten us further on the background etc., the possible reasons some meats are allowed or not, but neither is really necessary to settle the point this debate was about ... whether you can conclude from reading Qur'an alone that fish is allowed.
Newcomer says she does not want to rely on the Torah or any other scripture (which, of course, she has evey right to.) But why would any of us need to refer to those in the first place?
Not sure whether I'm expressing myself clearly. The point I don't understand at the moment is why the two of you are suddenly debating whether to follow the Old Testament or not.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
I dunno Posted by newcomer (Member # 1056) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: So the purpose of your post was basically to show your support for Mr Egypt and provide the 'official' verdict from those supposedly in the know.
This was the purpose of the post I made:
quote:Originally posted by newcomer: Rather than immediately assuming that he didn't know what he was talking about it might have been interesting at least to follow his argument... I'm not saying that we have to accept everything he says, but he might just have a point that he wants to try to express.
What he was saying actually wasn't something that is completely off the rocks. I heard that a halal shop in the UK was closed down recently because it was selling fish; so there are actually people out there who do believe that fish is not halal. I have come across many people who will not eat fish, due to not knowing the Hadith that supports the eating of fish or through adhering only to the Qur'an.
I then gave another version of the argument that he was trying to explain, which showed that he wasn't alone in the argument that he was following.
I wasn't providing an "official" verdict as you put it, just another opinion to demonstrate the argument that comes from the Hanafi school of thought, of which I am not an adherent.
What I said about the OT was because you had posted your argument about using the OT once already and one of the verses, as well as the Qur'anic verses; I didn't need to see them again.
Posted by Undercover (Member # 12979) on :
But there are many other examples where the Quran is not clear unless the sha’ne nozool of those verses are known. A good example of that is the Surah Bara’a. For example the Verse 5 of that Sura says when the “forbidden months are passed, then fight and slay the Pagans”
What are these forbidden months? This is not insignificant. This Sura is instructing Muslims to shed blood. So it is a matter of life and death to know what those forbidden months are. The Quran does not make this clear. Therefore without the tafseer the Quran is incomprehensible. I can bring hundreds of examples like this. No person can make sense of the Quran without the knowledge of the events. That is why Muslims rely extensively on hadith.
Posted by newcomer (Member # 1056) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dalia*:
quote:Originally posted by newcomer: I guess I am just sick to death of all the sniping, belittling, mocking, ridiculing, deriding, gibing, sneering... that goes on on this forum, and this was where I expressed it!
I know, I'm very tired of it as well. And I sometimes find myself being more defensive than I would normally ever be, just because of the general atmosphere on here. And I was not trying to be snippy to you, in case it came across that way.
I have several times recently had to close ES down altogether because of the reaction I felt to the way people were talking about Islam, because of the effect it was having on me.
If this is the effect it is having on me, I am sure that other people are feeling it and what does that say about the religious beliefs of those who are participating on here???? It's not something that I want to be associated with.
Posted by Mr Egypt (Member # 10436) on :
quote: Originally posted by Ayisha: where do you get that from?? The Torah is the first 5 books of the Old Testement. The Law of Moses.
quote: Now if as you say these Books are not as they were sent, why did Allah make MUCH mention of them and how RIGHT they were??
Where does Allah say these are not the SAME Books that He sent?
Ayisha, muslims believe the Torah that was given to Moses PBUH and the Injeel that was given to Jesus PBUH are from Allah as Allah stated in the Qur'an, and they also believe they have been corrupted by the jew and christians as also Allah stated in the Quran and I have posted the verses to you. weather you understand the verses or not it is still a fact that these books you claim to be the Torah and the Injeel have been corrupted and they can't be from one source. I don't mind to discuss this issue with you in details and show to you that what you have between your hands now aren't the same books that Allah revealed to Moses and Jesus PBUT. Just one example I will show you for now to see what you have to say about it. as I think, you believe the five first books are the Torah which Allah revealed to Moses PBUH. read the following from the first book Genesis chapter 18 then:
"The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. 3 He said, "If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, do not pass your servant by. 4 Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree. 5 Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way—now that you have come to your servant." "Very well," they answered, "do as you say."
6 So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah. "Quick," he said, "get three seahs of fine flour and knead it and bake some bread."
7 Then he ran to the herd and selected a choice, tender calf and gave it to a servant, who hurried to prepare it. 8 He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree.
9 "Where is your wife Sarah?" they asked him. "There, in the tent," he said.
10 Then the LORD said, "I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son." Now Sarah was listening at the entrance to the tent, which was behind him. 11 Abraham and Sarah were already old and well advanced in years, and Sarah was past the age of childbearing. 12 So Sarah laughed to herself as she thought, "After I am worn out and my master is old, will I now have this pleasure?"
13 Then the LORD said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh and say, 'Will I really have a child, now that I am old?' 14 Is anything too hard for the LORD ? I will return to you at the appointed time next year and Sarah will have a son."
15 Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, "I did not laugh." But he said, "Yes, you did laugh."
now compare it to the Quranic story in chapter 11:
And certainly Our messengers came to Ibrahim with good news. They said: Peace. Peace, said he, and he made no delay in bringing a roasted calf. But when he saw that their hands were not extended towards it, he deemed them strange and conceived fear of them. . They said: Fear not, surely we are sent to Lut's people. And his wife was standing (by), so she laughed, then We gave her the good news of Ishaq and after Ishaq of (a son's son) Yaqoub. She said: O wonder! shall I bear a son when I am an extremely old woman and this my husband an extremely old man? Most surely this is a wonderful thing. They said: Do you wonder at Allah's bidding? The mercy of Allah and His blessings are on you, O people of the house, surely He is Praised, Glorious.
How can that be from one source ? NO WAY. Surely, the story of the book you claim to be the Torah has been corrupted like the Quran says the Torah and the Injeel have been corrupted. there are tons of examples to show you the actual Torah and the actual Injeel are not the ones you have between your hands nowadays but I prefere to discuss it in a separate thread if you would like to.
Posted by Mr Egypt (Member # 10436) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: Jesus came to uphold the same Laws and make some things lawful as were unlawful before but he did not make Pork lawful, it is and always has been UNlawful to eat pork.
if Jesus made things lawful and things unlawful, is it hard to believe it was one of the prophet PBUH duty to make things lawful and things unlawful too ?
007.157 Those who follow the Messenger-Prophet, the Ummi, whom they find written down with them in the Taurat and the Injeel (who) enjoins them good and forbids them evil, and makes lawful to them the good things and makes unlawful to them impure things , and removes from them their burden and the shackles which were upon them; so (as for) those who believe in him and honor him and help him, and follow the light which has been sent down with him, these it is that are the successful.
Posted by Mr Egypt (Member # 10436) on :
btw, I don't try to put anyone in a corner as Dalia claim, I don't force anyone here to reply or even read my threads.
Posted by Undercover (Member # 12979) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr Egypt: Surely, the story of the book you claim to be the Torah has been corrupted like the Quran says the Torah and the Injeel have been corrupted.
Not all Muslims believe that the Holy Bible has been tampered with. Many Muslim writers and scholars readily admit that the Holy Bible is the preserved word of God. The following are quotes from some of these Muslims. Egyptian scholar, Muhammad ‘Abduh, claims that the charge of corruption of the Biblical texts,
makes no sense at all. It would not have been possible for Jews and Christians everywhere to agree on changing the text. Even if those in Arabia had done it, the difference between their book and those of their brothers, let us say in Syria and Europe, would have been obvious. (Jacques Jomier, Jesus, The Life of the Messiah [C.L.S., Madras, 1974], p. 216)
‘Abduh says in regards to the four Gospels:
"We believe that these Gospel accounts are the true Gospel." (Ibid.)
Mawlawi Muhammad Sa'id, a former inspector of schools in Punjab, claimed:
... as God says in the beginning of the Quran:
And who believe in that which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) and that which was revealed before thee, and are certain of the Hereafter.
These depend on guidance from their Lord. These are the successful. 2:4,5
Some Muslims imagine that the Injil is corrupted. But as far as corruption is concerned, not even one among all the verses of the Qur'an mentions that the Injil or the Tawrat is corrupted. In the concerned passages it is written that the Jews - yes the Jews, not the Christians - alter the meaning of the passages from the Tawrat while they are explaining them. At least the Christians are completely exonerated from ´ this charge. Hence the Injil is not corrupted and the Tawrat is not corrupted. For it does not necessarily follow that these Scriptures are corrupt because of the wrong opinion of some uninformed persons. (quoted in Yusaf Jalil, "The Authenticity of Scripture", in Al-Mushir, Vol. XVIII [The Christian Study Centre, Rawalpindi, 1976], p. 50; Urdu Section; bold emphasis ours)
They are both the same Mr Egypt. Messengers came to Abraham and told him he will have a son, both are the same. The wording is different as the translation from Hebrew for the original and from Arabic for the second, but both are the same.
The Quran does not say the books are corrupted as I said before, it says the people are.
3:93 says to bring the Law and study it
5:66 says they should have stayed fast to the Law and the Gospel and that there are a party among them on the right course but many are not
5:68 says they have no ground to stand on unless they stand fast to the Law and the Gospel
5:69 says those who believe in Quran and those who follow the Jewish scriptures and the christians will have no fear nor grieve. 2:62 is the same
2:21 says to study the Book as it should be studied
6:91 says the jews 'conceal' or 'hide' a portion of it.
So the books arent corrupted, the followers are corrupting the words.
God's main beef with the Christians is the 'Jesus son of God' thing, the trinity. God's beef with the Jews is something else.
Part of the Jewish religious scripts that they stand by to 'explain' the laws in the Torah are the related sayings of Moses called the Oral Torah or Talmud, Moses Hadith, just like Muslims with Muhammeds hadith. Moses hadith was eventually written down and formed a book in the 2nd century CE. Over the next few centuries additional commentaries were written elaborating on it. (Tafsir) There became 2 Talmuds, the Jerusalem one and the babylonian one.
Is any of this sounding familiar yet?
9:111 mentions the Law, the Gospel and Quran.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr Egypt:
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: Jesus came to uphold the same Laws and make some things lawful as were unlawful before but he did not make Pork lawful, it is and always has been UNlawful to eat pork.
if Jesus made things lawful and things unlawful, is it hard to believe it was one of the prophet PBUH duty to make things lawful and things unlawful too ?
007.157 Those who follow the Messenger-Prophet, the Ummi, whom they find written down with them in the Taurat and the Injeel (who) enjoins them good and forbids them evil, and makes lawful to them the good things and makes unlawful to them impure things , and removes from them their burden and the shackles which were upon them; so (as for) those who believe in him and honor him and help him, and follow the light which has been sent down with him, these it is that are the successful.
It was Muhammed's duty to pass the message, as was Jesus' duty. Jesus confirmed the Law and added the Gospel which was from God, he made lawful what was told to him by God, in the Gospel. Muhammed made lawful or unlawful what is in Quran. The Laws are in the Books, the messengers pass the message on. They do not make lawful that which God has made unlawful nor vise versa. They do not make the laws themselves, they are told by God.
Posted by Undercover (Member # 12979) on :
What is the message of Muhammad?
What Muhammad brought that was new? The only think new that he brought and did not exist is Jihad. Everything else existed prior to him. The belief in Allah existed, hajj existed, fasting existed, salat existed, zakat existed, all the rituals and superstitions about jinn, angels and Satan existed. Muhammad only changed somewhat these superstitions and rituals but brought new but religious intolerance.
Posted by Undercover (Member # 12979) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: They do not make the laws themselves, they are told by God.
"Love your neighbour as yourself" summarises the law
JESUS: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:39-40)
John says, not God loves, but God is love.
Posted by Somewhere in the sands (Member # 13869) on :
I said:
quote: No one will never understand the Quran in the manner that the Prophet Muhammad salallahu alayhi wassalam explained the Quran except by reading the ahadeeth that his sahaabah radi allah ta'ala anhuma wrote or spoke about. They (the sahaabah) understood the Quran better than anyone walking on the face of the earth today. For they (the sahaabah) got the explaination directly from the Prophet Muhammad salallahu alayhi wassalaam.
Ayisha wrote:
quote:Rubbish, if they read The BOOKS they can understand it without mans words to explain!
I want your clear opinion. Are you saying that you understand the Quran better than the Sahaabah radi Allahu Ta'ala anhuma ajmaeen?
Posted by Alchemist (Member # 12318) on :
I don't like fish anyways. This doesn't include shrimp though, right?? Posted by caringforwomen (Member # 14617) on :
Mr.Egypt, from the verse you posted, it seems to me that only animal meat was forbidden. Fish is meat, but not land animal meat. I think that pig blood was the main forbidden thing.
Posted by freshsoda (Member # 13226) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr Egypt: the Quran says the Torah and the Injeel have been corrupted. there are tons of examples to show you the actual Torah and the actual Injeel are not the ones you have between your hands nowadays but I prefere to discuss it in a separate thread if you would like to.
would you give your references from Quran that states Torah and Injeel had been corrupted.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
^^^fresh I keep asking that and he claims he already has.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: I said:
quote: No one will never understand the Quran in the manner that the Prophet Muhammad salallahu alayhi wassalam explained the Quran except by reading the ahadeeth that his sahaabah radi allah ta'ala anhuma wrote or spoke about. They (the sahaabah) understood the Quran better than anyone walking on the face of the earth today. For they (the sahaabah) got the explaination directly from the Prophet Muhammad salallahu alayhi wassalaam.
Ayisha wrote:
quote:Rubbish, if they read The BOOKS they can understand it without mans words to explain!
I want your clear opinion. Are you saying that you understand the Quran better than the Sahaabah radi Allahu Ta'ala anhuma ajmaeen?
sands I have answered your question a number of times and explained it fully, it is obviously way beyond your capability of understanding.
Posted by Somewhere in the sands (Member # 13869) on :
^^ its not clear to me..can you clear it up in a 3 or 4 line sentence reply isha Allah?
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
The companions understood better than anyone.
We can understand it if we read the Books and 'reflect/think'
The books are from God
The hadith are 'mans words, POSSIBLY Muhammeds, POSSIBLY NOT.
The bit you will have a hard time grasping is that the hadith are possibly NOT from Muhammed in the first place, they are NOT protected as the Books are.
The Quran warns you of lies against Allah and tells you it is simple and clear and easy to understand for those who 'reflect/think'.
Posted by Somewhere in the sands (Member # 13869) on :
Thank you Ayisha.
BTW the way I know not all ahadeeth are authentic..that is why I make reference to authentic ahadeeth.
Those who know the uloomul hadeeth can tell if a hadeeth is authentic or not depending on the isnad and mutoon.
Also there are different levels of understandings in terms of the Quran.
Posted by freshsoda (Member # 13226) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: The Quran warns you of lies against Allah and tells you it is simple and clear and easy to understand for those who 'reflect/think'.
Well Aiysha,what are the standards & conditions we have to apply to believe that any book is from God and any human is a prophet from God.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: Thank you Ayisha.
BTW the way I know not all ahadeeth are authentic..that is why I make reference to authentic ahadeeth.
Those who know the uloomul hadeeth can tell if a hadeeth is authentic or not depending on the isnad and mutoon.
Also there are different levels of understandings in terms of the Quran.
I knew it was beyond your understanding sands. Posted by Somewhere in the sands (Member # 13869) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha:
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: Thank you Ayisha.
BTW the way I know not all ahadeeth are authentic..that is why I make reference to authentic ahadeeth.
Those who know the uloomul hadeeth can tell if a hadeeth is authentic or not depending on the isnad and mutoon.
Also there are different levels of understandings in terms of the Quran.
I knew it was beyond your understanding sands.
I try Ayisha, but I'm just not a smart as you! I have low tolerance for garbage Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
sands, if you were there at the time of the prophet and you were following your religion of christianity or paganism or whatever, strictly as you think you are now, would you have listened to what he had to say?? I doubt it. you would have been one of those that mocked and ridiculed him as he was bringing something new as you saw it. Your mind is closed, you believe what you are told is how you should believe. You would not have been open to anything new.
And before you misunderstand that, no im not assuming I am a prophet! see, I know how your mind would work reading that Posted by Undercover (Member # 12979) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: This is the verse in Quran which actually says you should be looking at what is lawful from the previous Books.
005.005 YUSUFALI: This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).
the verse doesn't mean what the people of the book eat is allowed for us to eat,
from Tafsir ibn Kathir:
(The food of the People of the Scripture is lawful to you..) meaning, their slaughtered animals, as Ibn `Abbas, Abu Umamah, Mujahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr, `Ikrimah, `Ata', Al-Hasan, Makhul, Ibrahim An-Nakha`i, As-Suddi and Muqatil bin Hayyan stated. This ruling, that the slaughtered animals of the People of the Book are permissible for Muslims, is agreed on by the scholars, Posted by Somewhere in the sands (Member # 13869) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: sands, if you were there at the time of the prophet and you were following your religion of christianity or paganism or whatever, strictly as you think you are now, would you have listened to what he had to say?? I doubt it. you would have been one of those that mocked and ridiculed him as he was bringing something new as you saw it. Your mind is closed, you believe what you are told is how you should believe. You would not have been open to anything new.
And before you misunderstand that, no im not assuming I am a prophet! see, I know how your mind would work reading that
If my mind is closed how do you think I became a Muslim 25 years ago and everyday renew my Eman?
Where I am in understanding the deen of Islaam is not where I was at even 7 years ago.
In 25 years and having travelled to more than 25 different countries, many of which are "Muslim Populated" I have seen a lot of stuff, trust me, and I see it everyday in the Egypt as well.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
I have no idea how or why you became a Muslim sands and some of the things you come out with make me wander what it is you have studied, because it doesnt appear to include Quran.
I dont understand what travelling to 25 different countries has to do with anything nor do I understand what it is you have 'seen' and see everyday in 'the' Egypt. This does in no way say you have an open mind nor does it say you would have been open if you were there at the time of Muhammed.
In 25 years you have not managed to see that Allah tells you Quran is complete He tells you it is clear yet you have to rely heavily on hadith to 'understand' it and you still have to ask where it says it is complete and clear. In 25 years you had not noticed the reference to the Queen of Sheba. In 25 years you have not taken account of how many times Allah tells you of the previous Books from Him and have not been able to distinguish corruption of the books with corruption of the message 'in' the books. In 25 years you have not noticed that Allah talks a LOT about the previous Books and confirms a LOT of their stories. He confirms the previous Books, now if they were nothing like they originally were, why would He confirm them? Surely He would know if they were wrong? He does tell you that there is some 'missing' and He does tell you they didnt stick to the Books, not that they changed the Books but that they changed the message 'in' the Books. The Quran will never change, but once you add mans words to 'interpret' it and mans opinions on those 'interpretations', it changes the message 'in' Quran to that persons views. The Jews did the same and the warnings are in Quran but you still do it.
You will not look at the Torah or Gospel, which Allah tells you were from Him and the beginning of the 'message' from Him, because you have been told they are 'corrupted' although you have no idea 'how' they are supposed to be corrupted, but you will hang onto hadith which are not from Allah and you will insist they are, while knowing full well there are 98.5% of hadith that are weak/fabricated. It makes no sense.
You come out with statements like "Quran needs sunnah more that sunnah needs Quran" and just about every reference to Allah is followed by 'and His messenger', giving Allah a partner in your worship, while making derogatory remarks to Christians about Jesus 'crying like a baby' but Quran tells you clearly 'we make no distinction among them' meaning ALL the prophets. You clearly did not understand that verse.
In 25 years you still think you can have as many sex-slaves as you like and insist certain things are haram which Allah did not make haram. You think its perfectly acceptable that some hadith are adding to or changing Allah's laws, but you do not accept Torah or Gospel because you think they have been changed.
Lets hope in the next 25 years you get a bit closer to understanding Quran without doing what you are warned was done before.
Posted by Somewhere in the sands (Member # 13869) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: In 25 years you still think you can have as many sex-slaves as you like and insist certain things are haram which Allah did not make haram. You think its perfectly acceptable that some hadith are adding to or changing Allah's laws, but you do not accept Torah or Gospel because you think they have been changed.
Lets hope in the next 25 years you get a bit closer to understanding Quran without doing what you are warned was done before.
I see you like many here have so much sands on the brain. I have clearly discussed my belief and opinions and trust me in your infancy regarding Islaam you have a long way to go.
One of my teachers Shaykh Abu Hatim Abdul Latif (may Allah Azza wa Jal preserve him) was talking about a point that relates to you and others here. He mentioned that is it acceptable today for example for people to are sick to go to a doctor who is qualified in that particular field of medicine. He further elaborated that no wise person would go to a so-called specialist for heart surgery who has not receive a degree in the field of heart surgery, nor who a person who requires heart surgery who seek out an Electrical Engineer to perfrom the surgery. When we look for doctors (and we could be talking about any field i.e. Doctor, Professor, Scientist, Lawyers, Engineers, Dentist, etc.) we try to find the most qualified heart specialist. We look for the one who has studied in the most prestigious university, under the best professors so that we will be entrusted or be in good hands when we go under the knife. Shaykh Abu Hatim (may Allah Azza wa Jal preserve him) said that we would not put our life in the hands of someone who merely opened of a book and studied heart surgery, or living in a building (that was not made or designed from a engineer). We would not seek out these people simply studied their own or from listening to tapes or cd's would we? We would want to make sure that he/she is experienced in that particular field, knowledgeable in that field, is an expert in that field and has performed several successful if not many open heart surgeries. We do not only look for those who have accreditations or license in that field but we look for those who are experience as well.
He also mentioned that each field (whether it is the field of medicine, engineering, law, education etc.) a person is qualified up to the degree in which he/she has obtained. He/she is not qualified to teach or work in a field that is higher than his/her qualifications. Example: A person is qualified to teach primary school children cannot come and say that they are qualified to teach university level students. They are only qualified to teach in the level, which they have obtained their degree qualification(s). If they try to teach at a higher level they will endanger the people whom they are entrusted in because the knowledge or level in which they have achieved they are not qualified to teach or work in that particular field. However, one who has for example achieved a PhD level is qualified to teach any level under that degree.
So back to the point inshaa Allah. The same holds true for Islaam. Today we have unqualified people are so-called teaching and preaching about Islaam and they are NOT qualified to do so. They have NO qualifications at all. Never studied in an Islaamic University. Never sat with a Shaykh i.e. an Islaamic Professor in their entire lives. Barely studied from a book (even if it is the Quran) and then they claim that they are qualified to talk about a manner, which is 100's more critical then medicine, science, mathematics, philosophy, engineering etc. If someone has received an ijazah (qualification) to teach hafs (a certain style of Quranic recitation) this does not give him/her qualification to teach warsh.
When people tell them that they need to go sit and seek the qualified people of knowledge, just as they would do when they have to go and see a Heart Specialist they say that, “No that's not necessary. They can do it own their own. Using their own mind.” NO-WAY sister! You would let your husband read a book on heart surgery and then let him perform heart surgery on you? Or would you go to a qualified surgeon to have the operation performed.
So it is not acceptable in Islaam for a person to have a PhD degree in Veterinary and then claim that they are qualified to give fatwa for Islaam using their own mind and NEVER learned or received their qualification(s) or degree(s) in Islaamic Studies from the qualified university or scholars.
Allah did not leave the people alone. He sent QUALIFIED/SPECIALIZED messengers and prophets to them to TEACH them and the Prophet Muhammad salallahu alayhi knowing that he was would be the last prophet for mankind taught his companions and ensured they understood the deen as Allah intended them to understand it so that we could refer back to their understanding in the correct manner. Just as not doctors are equal in their proficiency so are the scholars as well. True knowledge is with Allah and He Azza wa Jal gives it to whom He will at the level in which he deems necessary. Even Musa thought he was the most knowledgeable person in the world, but Allah told him that there was someone else more knowledgeable then him i.e. Khidr and what did Musa do? He went to him to seek his knowledge (suratul Khaf).
So my point is when you or anyone else for that matter, want to learn the deen, you are ordered by Allah to go and seek the people of knowledge. Allah says: When you do not know, ask the People of Knowledge. Go and seek out the professors of Islaamic knowledge. Refer to the Specialist of Quran and Ahadeeth i.e. the Prophet Muhammad salallahu alayhi wassalaam, his companions, the tabioon, the tabi-tabioon and the ones who learned from them. You must seek out the experts in the field of Islaamic knowledge just as you would if you wanted to make heart surgery. This is your soul that you are talking about it requires that you turn to the experts in the field of the soul. Look to those who sat at the foot of the Prophet Muhammad salallahu alayhi wassalaam and who studied with them and became the Professors of this deen.
Would you accept something from someone who studied by themeselves, examined themselves and gave themselves honorary degrees? If you do you are foolish..Go seek the People of Knowledge!
Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: He mentioned that is it acceptable today for example for people to are sick to go to a doctor who is qualified in that particular field of medicine. He further elaborated that no wise person would go to a so-called specialist for heart surgery who has not receive a degree in the field of heart surgery, nor who a person who requires heart surgery who seek out an Electrical Engineer to perfrom the surgery. When we look for doctors (and we could be talking about any field i.e. Doctor, Professor, Scientist, Lawyers, Engineers, Dentist, etc.) we try to find the most qualified heart specialist. We look for the one who has studied in the most prestigious university, under the best professors so that we will be entrusted or be in good hands when we go under the knife.
( ... ) almost without fail, whenever I raise the question of why we Muslims are not allowed to reflect upon the verses of the Qur'an for ourselves, I am rebutted with the analogy of the medical profession: "Can you simply read a medical text book," I am asked, "and then start to practice medicine on your own?"
"No, of course not," I answer.
"Well, the same is true with the Qur'an."
This analogy is fallacious. Medicine - just like Engineering, or Computer Science, or Architecture - is a profession. It has a compendium of knowledge that must be mastered, and after this compendium has been mastered, the newly-graduated doctor of medicine must undergo a 3-7 year apprenticeship, during which he or she practices the trade under the supervision of more experienced physicians. Once this is completed, then, and only then, can one practice medicine on their own.
Is Islam a profession such as this? If someone wants to become a Muslim, is her or she required to go to college for four years, then four years of "Islamic school," then complete a 3-7 year "Islamic residency" in order to be a "board-certified Muslim"? No. We Muslims, in fact, brag about how easy it is to become a Muslim: simply declare "There is nothing worthy of worship except God, and Muhammad is His Messenger."
Yet, after one becomes a Muslim, he or she cannot read the Qur'an and reflect about what the verses mean to him or her. No. This is akin to picking up a pair of scissors and performing coronary bypass surgery after reading a surgical textbook. Does this make any inkling of sense?
quote:Is Islam a profession such as this? If someone wants to become a Muslim, is her or she required to go to college for four years, then four years of "Islamic school," then complete a 3-7 year "Islamic residency" in order to be a "board-certified Muslim"? No. We Muslims, in fact, brag about how easy it is to become a Muslim: simply declare "There is nothing worthy of worship except God, and Muhammad is His Messenger."
Allah said ...Are those who know equal with those who do not know? But only men of understanding will pay heed. [Al-Qur'aan 39:9]
The messenger of Allah said: Allah does not take away the knowledge, by taking it away from (the hearts of) the people, but takes it away by the death of the religious learned men until when none of the (religious learned men) remains, people will take as their leaders ignorant persons who when consulted will give their verdict without knowledge. So they go astray and they will lead the people astray. [Al-Bukharee: Vol 1 No. 100].
Abu Dardaa said that the Messenger of Allah said Those people endowed with knowledge are the inheritors of the prophets. [Hadeeth Hassan, Abu Dawood, ibn Majah, At-Tirmithi, ibn Habaan].
When someone wants to become a Muslims just like anything else in life they must go to the people of knowledge and learn from them. You can't learn the requirements of Islaam, the foundation on your own. You need to sit with the people of knowledge, whom the knowledge has been entrusted to. Those who have dedicated their lives in this arena. Why should studying religion be any different?
Islaam was taught to the companions for 23 years. They didn't just learn the deen on their own. They went directly to the source.
Why must religion be any different? Allah orders you when you don't know ask the people of knowledge. He didn't say go and figure it out for yourself.
I gave an example of Musa and Khidr. The example of Jibreel being sent to Muhammad salallahua alayhi wassalaam for 23 years guiding and teaching him.
Hundred's of thousands of Messengers being sent to mankind to teach them what Allah wanted them to know to be successful in the hereafter.
However, when it comes to deen some say or think that they can just on their own deciper the messenger without having to rely upon the ones who taught the message and passed that information down to their students.
No! Islaam is no different. You may think for yourself but when your thinking is opposed to the teaching of the one whom was entrusted with the messenge, then you must change your opinion and adopt the opinion of the messenger i.e. the Prophet Muhammad salallahu alayhi wassalaam.
Also just like in medicine, one is constantly making reference to new and old professors. As I mentioned knowledge and eman comes in different levels and not all professors are alike. The same hold true for shayookh. Those who are closest to Allah are given a higher level of understanding of the Alim. However, the basis the FOUNDATION one MUST go to the source and that is the Prophet Muhammad and what he taught to his companions.
BTW I used science as an example. However, I also used teaching, engineering, law or any other technical profession.
There is a thread here talking about unqualified English Teachers. The same example may be applied. This can even including sports in terms of coaching and training for the Olympics for example. We always in everything in life turn to the people of knowledge, the experts in those fields. Why must it be different when it comes to religion? Why when it comes to religion why think we can use our own minds, when Allah's sunnah has been different?
Someone who has a Ph'd in Japanese language is NOT qualified to teach English. He/she is qualified in the field in what they have received their degree in and that is Japanese Language! One of the main problems in Islaam today is that the ignorant are taken as knowledgable people and the knowledgable people are looked upon as being ignorant. This is in light of the hadeeth.
Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dalia*: How to Interpret Qur'an
Refer to the "People of Knowledge"! It doesn't get any simplier than that
Follow the same example of what the companions of the Prophet Muhammad salallahu alayhi wassalam did letter for letter, footstep for footstep.
Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
I think our definition of "people of knowledge" is slightly different. Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
there were 'people of knowledge' some time back that 'knew' the Earth was flat, but now other 'people of knowledge' have discovered its not.
Posted by Yowza (Member # 14400) on :
Very good point.
Posted by Somewhere in the sands (Member # 13869) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: there were 'people of knowledge' some time back that 'knew' the Earth was flat, but now other 'people of knowledge' have discovered its not.
The Sahaabah radia Allahu Ta'ala anhuma knew the earth was round or like an egg.
edited: The knowledge that I am speaking of is the knowledge of deen, so comment on that.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
knowledge is knowledge and all is acquired by study.
Posted by Somewhere in the sands (Member # 13869) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: knowledge is knowledge and all is acquired by study.
True knowledge is with Allah..and you must do as Allah ordered you to do.."Go to the "People of Knowledge". and that doesn't mean Free-Thinkers!
If you want to understand Quran in the manner that the Prophet Muhammad salallahu alayhi wassalaam taught, then the authentic source is learn it from the sahaabah radi allahu ta'ala anhuma.
Volume 6, Book 61, Number 521: Narrated Masriq:
'Abdullah bin 'Amr mentioned 'Abdullah bin Masud and said, "I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet saying, 'Take (learn) the Qur'an from four: 'Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh and Ubai bin Ka'b.' " Sahih Al Bukhari
Posted by Alchemist (Member # 12318) on :
Don't doctors and lawyers, etc. have specific quantifiable knowledge? I mean the things they are taught, they are a different type of knowledge from what you are learning from your theology teachers. However in religion the requirement is for you to be able to defend what you believe through the means at hand. Because there are more areas of gray especially when dealing with someone who does not think in the same way as you. Am I making any sense?
Posted by Somewhere in the sands (Member # 13869) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alchemist: Don't doctors and lawyers, etc. have specific quantifiable knowledge? I mean the things they are taught, they are a different type of knowledge from what you are learning from your theology teachers. However in religion the requirement is for you to be able to defend what you believe through the means at hand. Because there are more areas of gray especially when dealing with someone who does not think in the same way as you. Am I making any sense?
The arugment is not about the type of knowledge, but rather the manhaj or methodology in acquiring the knowledge religion especially when it come to Islaam.
The issue is whether one sits in his/her home and feel that they can acquire the knowledge of Allah and His Jala Jalahu deen by utilizing their own intellect or do they too have to go and sit and learn from the People of Knowledge, whom the Alm (knowledge) has been entrusted to?
Again in all other faucets of life we look for definitive resources, experts if you will, but when it comes to the knowledge of religion SOME quickly turn a blind eyes and look the other way and say no I don't need to turn to the People of Knowledge i.e. Scholars and I can use my own Free-Thinking mind to fully comprehend and understand Islaam.
Again I have express my opinion and the methodology of the Salaf and their example on how they acquired knowlege is the best example. As Allah clearly states: You are the best of people envolved for the benefit of mankind, you enjoined the good, forbid the evil and have firm belief in Allah.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
so how many manhaj or methodology are there sands? how is one to choose which is right? and which IS right BTW?
If I want to be a doctor or a lawyer I dont have this problem, they all learn the same stuff, 'quantifiable knowledge' as alchemist put it.
Posted by Somewhere in the sands (Member # 13869) on :
Oh yeah..I don't think so. If that was the case..Wayne Country Cummunity College could simply use the same text books and Yale and there would be no need for anyone to go to Yale or Harvard.
There's something more than just the books..and therein lies the answer.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
you didnt answer my question sands. How many manhaj or methodology are there and which is right?
Posted by Alchemist (Member # 12318) on :
I don't think you are getting your law degree from Wayne County Community College in any case, at least not in the USA.
Posted by Somewhere in the sands (Member # 13869) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alchemist: I don't think you are getting your law degree from Wayne County Community College in any case, at least not in the USA.
Hey wats wrong with WC3?
Posted by Politically Incorrect (Member # 14181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: Volume 6, Book 61, Number 521: Narrated Masriq:
'Abdullah bin 'Amr mentioned 'Abdullah bin Masud and said, "I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet saying, 'Take (learn) the Qur'an from four: 'Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh and Ubai bin Ka'b.' " Sahih Al Bukhari
May I ask you for the Arabic text?
Posted by Somewhere in the sands (Member # 13869) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: you didnt answer my question sands. How many manhaj or methodology are there and which is right?
I know..I've got my eyes on AlChemist she's..well you know.. Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands:
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: you didnt answer my question sands. How many manhaj or methodology are there and which is right?
I know..I've got my eyes on AlChemist she's..well you know..
sands you have been shouting at me to take knowledge from people of knowledge and now I have asked you twice to tell me who they are and how many different manhaj/methodology are there and you are refusing to tell me?
Posted by Alchemist (Member # 12318) on :
Are you trying to entice me with your WC3 Law Degree? Be still my heart! Posted by Somewhere in the sands (Member # 13869) on :
quote:Originally posted by Politically Incorrect:
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: Volume 6, Book 61, Number 521: Narrated Masriq:
'Abdullah bin 'Amr mentioned 'Abdullah bin Masud and said, "I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet saying, 'Take (learn) the Qur'an from four: 'Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh and Ubai bin Ka'b.' " Sahih Al Bukhari
May I ask you for the Arabic text?
I can't type Arabic on this keyboard but I have the hadeeth actually in front of me. It is the one which is printed by Darus Salam vol #5 hadeeth number 3758 baba 26 under virtues of the companions of the prophet salallahu alayhi wassalam chapter the merits of Salim, the free slave of Abu Hudhaifa. It is also reported in hadeeth and 3760 under the chapter the merits of Abdullah bin Mas'ud 3806 in sahih bukhari..sorry I can help you out any further..
Posted by Politically Incorrect (Member # 14181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands:
quote:Originally posted by Politically Incorrect:
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: Volume 6, Book 61, Number 521: Narrated Masriq:
'Abdullah bin 'Amr mentioned 'Abdullah bin Masud and said, "I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet saying, 'Take (learn) the Qur'an from four: 'Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh and Ubai bin Ka'b.' " Sahih Al Bukhari
May I ask you for the Arabic text?
I can't type Arabic on this keyboard but I have the hadeeth actually in front of me. It is the one which is printed by Darus Salam vol #5 hadeeth number 3758 baba 26 under virtues of the companions of the prophet salallahu alayhi wassalam chapter the merits of Salim, the free slave of Abu Hudhaifa. It is also reported in hadeeth and 3760 under the chapter the merits of Abdullah bin Mas'ud 3806 in sahih bukhari..sorry I can help you out any further..
Thanks, Sands.
Is it possible to transliterate the Arabic words of "Take (learn) the Qur'an from four" part.
Posted by Somewhere in the sands (Member # 13869) on :
quote:Originally posted by Politically Incorrect:
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands:
quote:Originally posted by Politically Incorrect:
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: Volume 6, Book 61, Number 521: Narrated Masriq:
'Abdullah bin 'Amr mentioned 'Abdullah bin Masud and said, "I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet saying, 'Take (learn) the Qur'an from four: 'Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh and Ubai bin Ka'b.' " Sahih Al Bukhari
May I ask you for the Arabic text?
I can't type Arabic on this keyboard but I have the hadeeth actually in front of me. It is the one which is printed by Darus Salam vol #5 hadeeth number 3758 baba 26 under virtues of the companions of the prophet salallahu alayhi wassalam chapter the merits of Salim, the free slave of Abu Hudhaifa. It is also reported in hadeeth and 3760 under the chapter the merits of Abdullah bin Mas'ud 3806 in sahih bukhari..sorry I can help you out any further..
Thanks, Sands.
Is it possible to transliterate the Arabic words of "Take (learn) the Qur'an from four" part.
Yes "istaqriool al qurana min arbiah: min abdullah bin masudin, fabadaa bihi wa saalim mawla abii huthaifata, wa ubai bin ka'abin wa muaathi bin jabalin.
Posted by Politically Incorrect (Member # 14181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: Yes "istaqriool al qurana min arbiah"
Thank you so much.
Posted by Somewhere in the sands (Member # 13869) on :
quote:Originally posted by Politically Incorrect:
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: Yes "istaqriool al qurana min arbiah"
Thank you so much.
you're welcomed..I am terrible at transliteration of Arabic to English..please forgive me..I added the rest of the hadeeth for whatever it's worth.
Posted by Politically Incorrect (Member # 14181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Somewhere in the sands: you're welcomed..I am terrible at transliteration of Arabic to English..please forgive me..I added the rest of the hadeeth for whatever it's worth.
Arabic is not the easiest language, and given that you had to learn the language (my assumption given that you said you grew up in the US), you are doing very well.
Commenting on this particular instance, as you know verbs in Arabic composed of "ista"+ a verb origin, mean to ask or to seek whatever the verb origin means. For instance "istabaqa" (to race) is derived from "sabaqa" (to come first) since racing means to seek coming first. In our case, istaqra'a comes from qara'a (to read) and would mean "ask to read" or "ask to be read."
Posted by Yowza (Member # 14400) on :
quote:Commenting on this particular instance, as you know verbs in Arabic composed of "ista"+ a verb origin, mean to ask or to seek whatever the verb origin means. For instance "istabaqa" (to race) is derived from "sabaqa" (to come first) since racing means to seek coming first. In our case, istaqra'a comes from qara'a (to read) and would mean "ask to read" or "ask to be read."
Thanks for explaining this. Posted by Mr Egypt (Member # 10436) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: ^^^fresh I keep asking that and he claims he already has.
Ayisha, I have posted these verses before and you gave your comment on them. you interpreted them the way you wanted. I will post them again with hope you will go back to the tafseer at least to know what the interpretation is saing about these verses.
here are they one more time:
002.075 YUSUFALI: Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you?- Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it. PICKTHAL: Have ye any hope that they will be true to you when a party of them used to listen to the word of Allah, then used to change it, after they had understood it, knowingly? SHAKIR: Do you then hope that they would believe in you, and a party from among them indeed used to hear the Word of Allah, then altered it after they had understood it, and they know (this).
004.046 YUSUFALI: Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not Heard"; and "Ra'ina"; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: "What hear and we obey"; and "Do hear"; and "Do look at us"; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but Allah hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe. PICKTHAL: Some of those who are Jews change words from their context and say: "We hear and disobey; hear thou as one who heareth not" and "Listen to us!" distorting with their tongues and slandering religion. If they had said: "We hear and we obey: hear thou, and look at us" it had been better for them, and more upright. But Allah hath cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, save a few. SHAKIR: Of those who are Jews (there are those who) alter words from their places and say: We have heard and we disobey and: Hear, may you not be made to hear! and: Raina, distorting (the word) with their tongues and taunting about religion; and if they had said (instead): We have heard and we obey, and hearken, and unzurna it would have been better for them and more upright; but Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief, so they do not believe but a little.
005.013 YUSUFALI: But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind. PICKTHAL: And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and made hard their hearts. They change words from their context and forget a part of that whereof they were admonished. Thou wilt not cease to discover treachery from all save a few of them. But bear with them and pardon them. Lo! Allah loveth the kindly. SHAKIR: But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others).
005.041 YUSUFALI: O Messenger! let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say "We believe" with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places: they say, "If ye are given this, take it, but if not, beware!" If any one's trial is intended by Allah, thou hast no authority in the least for him against Allah. For such - it is not Allah's will to purify their hearts. For them there is disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a heavy punishment. PICKTHAL: O Messenger! Let not them grieve thee who vie one with another in the race to disbelief, of such as say with their mouths: "We believe," but their hearts believe not, and of the Jews: listeners for the sake of falsehood, listeners on behalf of other folk who come not unto thee, changing words from their context and saying: If this be given unto you, receive it, but if this be not given unto you, then beware! He whom Allah doometh unto sin, thou (by thine efforts) wilt avail him naught against Allah. Those are they for whom the Will of Allah is that He cleanse not their hearts. Theirs in the world will be ignominy, and in the Hereafter an awful doom; SHAKIR: O Messenger! let not those grieve you who strive together in hastening to unbelief from among those who say with their mouths: We believe, and their hearts do not believe, and from among those who are Jews; they are listeners for the sake of a lie, listeners for another people who have not come to you; they alter the words from their places, saying: If you are given this, take it, and if you are not given this, be cautious; and as for him whose temptation Allah desires, you cannot control anything for him with Allah. Those are they for whom Allah does not desire that He should purify their hearts; they shall have disgrace in this world, and they shall have a grievous chastisement in the hereafter.
Posted by Mr Egypt (Member # 10436) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: They are both the same Mr Egypt. Messengers came to Abraham and told him he will have a son, both are the same. The wording is different as the translation from Hebrew for the original and from Arabic for the second, but both are the same.
They are not the same Ayisha, the story of the Bible say that God himself is the one went to Abraham and talked to him etc. but the story of the Quran say that Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala sent his messengers to Ibrahim etc. so they are certainly not the same. one of them is true and the other is false. it is either God visited Ibrahim PBUH or his messengers did.
Posted by Politically Incorrect (Member # 14181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yowza:
quote:Commenting on this particular instance, as you know verbs in Arabic composed of "ista"+ a verb origin, mean to ask or to seek whatever the verb origin means. For instance "istabaqa" (to race) is derived from "sabaqa" (to come first) since racing means to seek coming first. In our case, istaqra'a comes from qara'a (to read) and would mean "ask to read" or "ask to be read."
Thanks for explaining this.
You are welcome, but I actually gave the wrong example (istabaqa is a different type of derivative from sabaqa). A correct example would be "istakhraja" (to extract) derived from "kharaja" (to come out).
Posted by Alchemist (Member # 12318) on :
Yes, thank you so much PI, that was very interesting and informative. I can't wait to start learning Arabic. I have already started to learn to alphabet. I have such a long way to go, but I will persevere!
Posted by freshsoda (Member # 13226) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr Egypt:
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: ^^^fresh I keep asking that and he claims he already has.
Ayisha, I have posted these verses before and you gave your comment on them. you interpreted them the way you wanted. I will post them again with hope you will go back to the tafseer at least to know what the interpretation is saing about these verses.
here are they one more time:
002.075 YUSUFALI: Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you?- Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it. PICKTHAL: Have ye any hope that they will be true to you when a party of them used to listen to the word of Allah, then used to change it, after they had understood it, knowingly? SHAKIR: Do you then hope that they would believe in you, and a party from among them indeed used to hear the Word of Allah, then altered it after they had understood it, and they know (this).
004.046 YUSUFALI: Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not Heard"; and "Ra'ina"; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: "What hear and we obey"; and "Do hear"; and "Do look at us"; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but Allah hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe. PICKTHAL: Some of those who are Jews change words from their context and say: "We hear and disobey; hear thou as one who heareth not" and "Listen to us!" distorting with their tongues and slandering religion. If they had said: "We hear and we obey: hear thou, and look at us" it had been better for them, and more upright. But Allah hath cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, save a few. SHAKIR: Of those who are Jews (there are those who) alter words from their places and say: We have heard and we disobey and: Hear, may you not be made to hear! and: Raina, distorting (the word) with their tongues and taunting about religion; and if they had said (instead): We have heard and we obey, and hearken, and unzurna it would have been better for them and more upright; but Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief, so they do not believe but a little.
005.013 YUSUFALI: But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind. PICKTHAL: And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and made hard their hearts. They change words from their context and forget a part of that whereof they were admonished. Thou wilt not cease to discover treachery from all save a few of them. But bear with them and pardon them. Lo! Allah loveth the kindly. SHAKIR: But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others).
005.041 YUSUFALI: O Messenger! let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say "We believe" with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places: they say, "If ye are given this, take it, but if not, beware!" If any one's trial is intended by Allah, thou hast no authority in the least for him against Allah. For such - it is not Allah's will to purify their hearts. For them there is disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a heavy punishment. PICKTHAL: O Messenger! Let not them grieve thee who vie one with another in the race to disbelief, of such as say with their mouths: "We believe," but their hearts believe not, and of the Jews: listeners for the sake of falsehood, listeners on behalf of other folk who come not unto thee, changing words from their context and saying: If this be given unto you, receive it, but if this be not given unto you, then beware! He whom Allah doometh unto sin, thou (by thine efforts) wilt avail him naught against Allah. Those are they for whom the Will of Allah is that He cleanse not their hearts. Theirs in the world will be ignominy, and in the Hereafter an awful doom; SHAKIR: O Messenger! let not those grieve you who strive together in hastening to unbelief from among those who say with their mouths: We believe, and their hearts do not believe, and from among those who are Jews; they are listeners for the sake of a lie, listeners for another people who have not come to you; they alter the words from their places, saying: If you are given this, take it, and if you are not given this, be cautious; and as for him whose temptation Allah desires, you cannot control anything for him with Allah. Those are they for whom Allah does not desire that He should purify their hearts; they shall have disgrace in this world, and they shall have a grievous chastisement in the hereafter.
First: verses you mentioned are talking about part of Jews "party of them" 7:75 & "Of the Jews there are those" 4:46 & "among the Jews" 5:41.
Second: verses mentioned they changed what they LISTENED not what they WRITTEN "heard the Word of Allah, and perverted it" 2:75 &"Hear what is not Heard" 4:46 &"who will listen to any lie"5:41.
Third: Quran contradicts it's self by mentioned that Torah and Injeel are light to followers and they must judge by them then how come God left his words to be changed !!
Sura 5:68 "Say: "O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord."
Sura 5:44 "It was We who revealed the Law (to Musa): therein was guidance and light.By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the Prophets who bowed to Allah's Will"
Sura 5:47 "Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel."
Sura 5:46 "And in their footsteps We sent 'Isa the son of Maryam, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him"
Fourth: it didn't mentioned Christians changed Injeel but only mentiond part of the Jews changed the meaning of the words after they understood and this is normal,everybody know that any text can have different meaning,I think in Islam you are fully aware about that.
Fifth: It's obviously clear that because p.Muhammed hadn't any roots to the Jewish prophets who came before him,he attributed the signs of the Messiah that mentioned in Torah to him (because Jews rejected Jesus )as the plan of Warqa bin Nofal his wife's cousin,when he said this is the NAMUS (law) of MOSES neglected Messiah era totally and when the Jews rejected Muhammed as an awaited prophet he accused them by corrupting their books.
A proof for that in Quran it's mentioned Sura 61:6 that Jesus informed Jews that a prophet his name is Ahmed (not Muhammed by the way)would come after him.
If that's true All Jews in the world must been waiting AHMED not JESUS this is one.
Second: how could Jesus as a jew inform jews that an arabic prophet would come for them if they didn't even believe Jesus is the messiah and killed him as sura 4:157 "That they said"We killed Al-Masih 'Isa the son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah"; but they killed him not, nor crucified him" thats what Christians say they killed the body flesh but neither killed his divine soul nor crucified" as JESUS is living so sure we know that Jesus not killed.
Third : If all Jews worldwide still waiting Messiah as saviour and don't wait any prophet after him while Quran mentioned already Messiah came and will be come at the end of days,then how come again a prophet would come after Messiah who already came and revelation already end.
Fourth and this is very important to Muslims who think Barnabas Gospel is the true book,it confirms the story I mentioned above that Muhammed went to Jews as the awaited Messiah because they rejected Jesus as you can read in Barnabas Gospel chapter (96)
1-Every detail in the preparation of a Torah Scroll is prescribed by law
2-The ink may not contain metal, nor may the scroll be written with a metal instrument, for metal can be forged into weapons which take life while the Torah gives life.
3-Only the words of the Torah may be inscribed on the scroll: neither instructions, nor commentary, nor illustrations, nor illuminations are permitted
4-The scribe must be learned and pious and must exert the greatest care in assuring correctness, copying from an examined text, not from memory.
5-He must pronounce every word before writing it, and must make sure that his letters are well formed and that there is sufficient space between them, "so that even an ordinary school boy" can readily distinguish between even similar letters.
6-Before writing the name of God, the scribe must state, "My intention is now to write the Holy Name"; then he must inscribe it without interruption. Should he err, he may not erase the mistake;the whole sheet must be put away, to await later reverential interment in consecrated earth. Rabbi Ishmael admonished a scribe, "be careful in thy work, as it is heavenly work, lest thou err in omitting or adding one iota, and so cause the destruction of the whole world."
THEFT: The Torah scroll should be kept in a secure place as well as properly insured. We appraise scrolls for this purpose.
HUMIDITY: Protect against this big enemy by having your heichal (where you keep your scrolls) waterproofed. Before Simhath Torah, wrap scrolls in plastic under the mantles to prevent perspiration from damaging the klaf.
VENTILATION: To prevent mildew from corroding the parchment make sure that your Heichal is properly ventilated and cool. Alternate scrolls periodically.
CLEANING: With time, some older scrolls accumulate dust which erodes the ink causing letters to crumble. Call us to have your parchment professionally cleaned. We use a special chemical solution to clean the entire parchment improving its appearance and preventing further erosion.
ROLLING & TYING: A scroll has to be rolled very precisely in order to protect the parchment edges from becoming frayed and pages from being creased. The first step is to have atzey haim (wood rollers) which fit properly. Unless reinforced, frayed edges can develop into tears which can cost thousands of dollars to repair both the torn parchment and destroyed letters. In the same way, the scroll should be tied securely avoiding sharp metal clasps.
KISSING: If your congregants kiss the letters before their blessing, this may be the kiss of death since it may cause the letters to disintegrate. Touching scratches and deposits moisture, oils and dirt on the parchment. Have them kiss the back side of the parchment instead.
LOSING THE PLACE: If you find a missing or broken letter make a sign immediately. During the week a light pencil mark can be made at the top of the column. On Shabbat a paper clip can be fastened to top of the column to show the sofer where the repair is needed.
PROCRASTINATION: Repair the scroll immediately after the problem is identified. A scroll should not be left uncared for for more than 30 days.
Come on man after all these cares and careful,you claim they changed their holy books,why don't you trust God that he protects his words,don't justify the credibility of Islam as religion from God on others account.
Quran [10:94] "If thou were in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt" Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
I've just come across one of the most bizarre fatwas I've read in a long time:
Many of the fuqaha’ mentioned mermaids and differed on the ruling concerning them. Some of them said that they are permissible (to eat) because of the general meaning of the evidence which says that whatever is in the sea is permissible
...
Ibn Hazm (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Muhalla (6/50): As for that which lives in the water and cannot live anywhere else, it is all halaal no matter what state it is in, whether it is caught alive and then dies, or it dies in the water and then floats or does not float, whether it was killed by a sea creature or a land animal. It is all halaal to eat, whether it is the pig of the sea (i.e., a dolphin), a mermaid, or a dog of the sea (i.e., shark) and so on. It is halaal to eat, whether it was killed by an idol-worshipper, a Muslim, a kitaabi (Jew or Christian) or it was not killed by anyone.
...
Al-Durayr – a Maaliki scholar – said in al-Sharh al-Sagheer (2/182): Sea animals in general are permissible, whether it is dead meat or a ‘dog’ (shark) or a ‘pig’ (dolphin), and they do not need to be slaughtered properly. End quote. Al-Saawi said in his commentary on that: The words “or a ‘dog’ or a ‘pig’ also include a ‘human’, referring thereby to mermaids. End quote. Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
"By Allah, a number of Iraqi religious scholars came to me, and said: 'We have a problem.' What was the problem? They said: There have been so many American casualties that they loaded them on trucks and threw them away in the desert. But because the number of casualties was so high... The Iraqi scholars were asking me for a fatwa. They asked me to issue a fatwa on the following question: 'Because there were so many casualties, the Americans began to throw them into the Tigris and the Euphrates. The fish have eaten from the flesh of the American and have gotten fat. Are we permitted to eat these fish or not?' Yes. This is the truth, brothers.
Islamic clerics in Baghdad suddenly have a new target for their fatwas, the carp caught in the Tigris River that have supplied the Iraqi city for centuries.
While the catching and selling of the river's carp has been a centuries-old tradition in Baghdad, the rising number of human bodies strewn into the body of water has some clerics deeming the fish unhealthy and worthy of a fatwa, The Times of London said Wednesday.
The number of bodies dumped in the river has been increasing as of late in the wake of violent sectarian conflicts.
Among those suffering because of the religious proclamations is 55-year-old fisherman Abu Ayyad, who stands behind the fish his ancestors also made a living from.
"Personally, I still think the river fish is the best, but because of the situation few of my customers will touch it," Ayyad said.
The Times said until the bodies are removed from the Tigris, Ayyad's customers will be forced to purchase farmed carp for their traditional masgouf dinner.
well Dalia that would depend greatly on which 'type' of water river water is classified under. there are 4 types of 'water' which are then divided into different types under those 4 headings. Sea water is pure but im not sure if river water comes under the classification of Mutlaq water like rain, snow and hail, if it does then it is pure. It could be classified as 'used water' or 'water mixed with pure elements' or 'water mixed with impure elements'. I dont think it would be classified as 'leftover water'. If it is classed as Pure water like snow rain or hail, then you would have to look further to see what 'types' of impure things would render it 'impure'.
Posted by Undercover (Member # 12979) on :
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
* All are in agreement that fish with scales are halal * Sunnis consider all fish to be halal, while some Shias consider some fish haraam. Within mostly the Hanafi School of thought, there is a strong position that shellfish (shrimp, lobster, crab, clams, etc.) are prohibited[citation needed]. * Most agree that frogs are haraam due to the prohibition of killing them in hadith. In fact it is common belief among Southeast Asian Muslims that animals who live on both land and sea (such as amphibians, some reptiles, and some species of bird) are off limits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halal
A fish without scales is haraam.
Is filet o fish halal or haram?
It's haram if they fry it in the same oil as the chicken.
Undercover its all to do with the purity of the water, not the fish, we know what fish are ok, now with dead bodies floating about in it a decision has to be made as to whether this would make the pure water impure.
Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: well Dalia that would depend greatly on which 'type' of water river water is classified under. there are 4 types of 'water' which are then divided into different types under those 4 headings. Sea water is pure but im not sure if river water comes under the classification of Mutlaq water like rain, snow and hail, if it does then it is pure. It could be classified as 'used water' or 'water mixed with pure elements' or 'water mixed with impure elements'. I dont think it would be classified as 'leftover water'. If it is classed as Pure water like snow rain or hail, then you would have to look further to see what 'types' of impure things would render it 'impure'.
I thought the prohibition was not because of the water but because the fish had eaten parts of corpses, no?
I always thought the fish that humans normally eat are not carnivores?! Would those carps mentioned in the article eat parts of humans?
But you're right, the water itself would definitely be poisoned. Ugh.
Posted by Undercover (Member # 12979) on :
Couldn't they just say that noone is his right mind should eat contaminated fish? That's common sense.
Why do they have to drag religion into everything? Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by Undercover: Couldn't they just say that noone is his right mind should eat contaminated fish? That's common sense.
Why do they have to drag religion into everything?
I think someone called God said that, but then some men didnt understand that as they had no common sense and wrote vast amounts of books to 'clarify' it for others with no common sense.
Posted by Ra loves Serqet (Member # 14711) on :
shrimp,crabs,lobsters,etc are the swine of the ocean...
i took "dead" as being rotten, or meat thats been sitting around for a while, not fresh.
vegetarian is probly better but most are GOING to eat meat...
peace
Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ra loves Serqet: vegetarian is probly better but most are GOING to eat meat...
If a man aspires towards a righteous life, his first act of abstinence is from injury to animals.
~ Albert Einstein
As long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seeds of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love.
~ Pythagoras
Posted by RaMin loves Serqet (Member # 14711) on :
I can dig it !!
i felt alot less "agressive" when i stopped eating meat...
Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
Mmh ... that's a nice idea but I'm not sure whether it's possible to generalize about that. I've also experienced aggressive vegetarians.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
:![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
very gritty if i should say so . ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
she's..well you know.. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)