Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Iyyaka

Pages: [1] 2 ... 25
Now to another question: How slitting of ears can change cattle's creation or design. For example, we cut ears of a cow then it still remains a cow. Or is it about cloning etc?
Or it is just about changing a condition as per below ayah:
salam TellMeTheTruth,

Yes it remains a cow ( ;D). We focus on the problem of cutting the ears of some animals WHILE Quran is focusing on the criticism of banning a food which god did not prohibit the consumption. We have to change of paradigm.

Pagans, at the time of prophet Muhammad, altered the ears of some grazing livestock so that people would recognize them with others because they were forbidden to eat them. The purpose of this practice was prohibition. It is THIS goal that the quran criticizes.

Message of the Quran : Grazing livestock is a blessing from god for all people => prohibiting or restricting its consumption is altered the purpose of what the livestock is made for.
We must return to the Quranic context of verses 6:136 to 6:149 (translation inspired by Sahih Internationa):

And they say, "These animals and crops are forbidden; no one may eat from them except whom we will," by their claim.

Those will have lost who killed their children in foolishness without knowledge and prohibited what Allah had provided for them, inventing untruth about Allah. They have gone astray and were not [rightly] guided.

And of the grazing livestock are carriers [of burdens] and those [too] for bedding. Eat of what Allah has provided for you and do not follow the footsteps of Satan. Indeed, he is to you a clear enemy.

cloning ? you will not find DIRECTLY an answer to the Quran because it was not a question in the 7° century after issa.
it is from our own responsability to draw lessons from the Quran and to apply to our known world.

definition of the root word "ghayn yā rā (غ ي ر)" [form II] (
2 غيّر الشَّىْءَ  , (S, Msb, K, *) inf. n. تَغْيِيرٌ, (Msb,) He made the thing other than it was; (K;) made it cease to have the quality which it had; (Msb;) altered it; changed it. (K.) He, or it, altered, or changed, the thing in odour, or otherwise, for the worse; corrupted, tainted, or infected, it; rendered it ill-smelling, stinking, fetid, rancid, rank, fusty, or frouzy. (The lexicons passim.) It is said in the Kur [viii. 55], ذٰلِكَ بِأَنَّ اللّٰهَ لَمْ يَكُ مُغَيِّرًا نِعْمَةً أَنْعَمَهَا عَلَى قَوْمٍ حَتَّى يُغَيِّرُوا مَا بِأَنْفُسِهِمْ [This was because God changeth not favour which He hath conferred upon a people until they change what is in themselves: or] until they change what God hath commanded them to do. (Th, TA.) ― -b2- [And He exchanged the thing for another thing.] ― -b3- غيّر الشَّيْبَ He plucked out the white, or hoary, hairs. (TA.) ― -b4- غيّر عَنْ بَعِيرِهِ He put down the saddle from his camel, and put it to rights, or adjusted it, or repaired it. (TA.) One says تَرَكَ القَوْمَ يُغَيِّرُونَ He left the people putting to rights, or adjusting, or repairing, the camels' saddles. (S, TA.) -A2- See also 1, latter half.

Further explanations :
The form II has three declinations:
      - neutral: swap / perform a permutation
      - negative: change / alter / corrupt
      - positive: correct / improve


If an'am means livestock including chicken then how people cut off/slit chicken's ears?
Salam TellMeTheTruth,

l-anʿāmi = grazing livestock / field of pasturing

here are the links for knowing opinions about what kind of grazing livestock it meant at the time of the prophet muhammad :,ll=2915,ls=57,la=4478,sg=1151,ha=795,br=975,pr=157,vi=372,mgf=816,mr=737,mn=1438,aan=674,kz=2700,uqq=401,ulq=1690,uqa=427,uqw=1677,umr=1092,ums=921,umj=857,bdw=890,amr=643,asb=1005,auh=1635,dhq=570,mht=908,msb=241,tla=95,amj=841,ens=723,mis=2225 (Hans Wehr - left column) (middle column)

and from a quranic perspective in verses 6:143 and 6:144 :
l-ḍani = sheeps
l-maʿzi = goats
l-ibili = camels cattle
l-baqari = bovine cattle
= for each 2 pairs : 2*4 = 8

An another interesting quranic sign is that it seems to be grazing livestock from which milk is withdrawn (and also for bedding/carpet/covering the ground in 6:142 - wafarshan) :

   16:66 : And indeed, for you in grazing livestock is a lesson. We give you drink from what is in their
- between excretion and blood - pure milk, palatable to drinkers
. (Sahih International)

conclusion :

grazing livestock (with quranic definition)
something who cover the ground
= it is not about little cattle like backyard poultry.


So based on that only I take the above verse... That makes sense for me... I know most of you won't agree.. But that's the guidance I get.. Time will tell whether I have chosen the right path or not...
Salam Jkhan,

wise words (in bold - above).

I notice that, for this quranic passage, you start from your view to read the text.
But it is necessary and prudent not to mix two time frame:
   1) what a text says about the recipients which are not us and
   2) the lessons that we draw from the text for our current lives which makes the text alive.

The logic is to start FIRST from the point 1 before to go to the point 2, and not to do the opposite, otherwise we do what historians call anachronism or we distort the meaning of the words in the text.

I would not be exhaustive but 2 remarks about the point 1 :

1) Linguistics :

ādhāna = (the) ears.
l-anʿāmi = (of) the cattle/livestock.

- Confirmed by classic Arabic dictionary and ALL the reference of this form in the Quran (intertextuality)

- [cattle from pastering – in Arabic context it is essentially camels, goats and sheeps]

- We are mainly urban dwellers in the West but, at the time of Muhammad, having a healthy and a big cattle were a sign of wealth and happy situation

2) Textual Context (Translation inspired by Sahih International) :

4:118: Whom Allah has cursed. For he had said, "I will surely take from Your servants a determined portion.
4:119: And I will mislead them, and I will arouse in them [sinful] desires, and I will command them so they will slit the ears of cattle, and I will command them so they will change [corrupt] the creation of Allah." And whoever takes Satan as an ally instead of Allah has certainly sustained a clear loss.

- If you link verse 4: 118 and 4: 119 together, you understand that a portion/share of the livestock/cattle [pastering] were dedicated to idols under the influence of Shaytanic ideas

   Other similar context:
   6:136: And the polytheists assign to Allah from that which He created of crops and livestock a share and say,
   "This is for Allah ," by their claim, " and this is for our partners [associated with Him]." But what is for their "partners"
   does not reach Allah , while what is for Allah - this reaches their "partners." Evil is that which they rule.

- Again, an atomic reading of the Quran, by isolated verse, may leads us to misunderstand the the factual meaning of the text.

And is 'changing the creation of Allah' meant literally or even translated correctly?
Salam Sarah,

I guess you are referring to verse 4:119.

   Sahih International: And I will mislead them, and I will arouse in them [sinful] desires, and I will command them
   so they will slit the ears of cattle, and I will command them so they will change the creation of Allah.
   "And whoever takes Satan as an ally instead of Allah has certainly sustained a clear loss.

If this is the case then it is not really deal with your questioning (tattoos..).
Here is the historical context of revelation of this verse:
I quote 2 authors about this verse:

1) Muhammad ASAD:
The pre-Islamic Arabs used to dedicate certain of their cattle to one or another of their idols by cutting off or slitting the ears of the animal, which was thereupon considered sacred (Tabari). In the above context, this reference is used metonymically to describe idolatrous practices, or inclinations, in general. The allusion to Satan's inducing man to "corrupt [lit.," change "] God's creation" has a meaning to which sufficient attention is but seldom paid: Since this creation, and the manner in which it manifests itself, is an expression of God's planning will, any attempt at changing its intrinsic nature amounts to corruption.

2) Maudidi:
This alludes to one of the superstitious customs of the pagan Arabs. After a she-camel had given birth to five or ten young ones, they would slit her ears and dedicate her to their god and consider it unlawful to get any work from her. Likewise, if a camel had been a partner in the birth of ten young ones, his ears were also slit to mark that he had been dedicated to a god.
This does not condemn the alterations that man makes in the creation of God for their right and proper use, for in that case the whole of human civilization will stand condemned as a seduction of Satan. It is obvious that the civilization is nothing but the right and proper use of the things created by God.

However, this verse reveals a fundamental problem: do you work or serve for god or for an idol? Knowing that God gives himself to be known to us as the "all-full of love (al-rahman)", ask yourself if your actions symbolize or active the satanic principle, or not.

Will you make good use of God's creation?

General Issues / Questions / Re: Claim on Hell fire
« on: January 16, 2020, 01:39:58 PM »
.. Coz concern arises with 19:71-72..
I really appreciate if you participate in sharing your views...
Salam Jkhan,

I respond to this article: on what he said about verses 19:71-72.
I quote him:

   "The following Quranic reference provides additional attestation that Allah will eventually take some (many?) People out
   of hell
   "Furthermore, with the exception of Q. 19:72 which refers to Allah taking out the pious"
   "In fact, some of the very narrations that we sourced expressly stated that the Muslims (who are supposed to be the pious ones
   mentioned in Q. 19:72) whom Allah will take out of hell have done absolutely no good thing:"

Again, getting out verses from their textual contexts can lead to misunderstanding and blame the Quran to say that it is contradictory himself !

we can notice 2 mistakes on his own understanding :

1) In this passage the 2 groups are not YET in hell but they have the vision of it (root word ح و ل = "around" in 19:68:6) :

   19:68 By your Lord, We will gather them and the devils, then We will place them around Hell on their knees.

2) The group that will not go to hell obviously did good things :

   19:72 Then We will save those who were cautious (by doing good actions) [in arabic : ittaqaw], and We will leave the wicked
   in it on their knees.


My Quranic understanding of this passage :

First, God give us the key for going DIRECTLY to Heaven in 19:60:

   […] Who was convinced/confident AND did good works: those will enter Paradise…

These are the ones who have followed the steps of the prophets (as reminded in the previous verses).
So, 2 conditions must be fulfilled to enter directly into paradise (conditions linked by a coordination wa):
1) convinced/confident
2) did good works.
we have 4 possible combinations.

Second, verses 19:71-72 are within in a broader, more global context, that begins in verse 19:66 where God reports the words of men who expressed some doubts about the principle of the resurrection of the body:

   19:66 And man says: "Can it be that when I am dead, I will be brought out alive?"

The verses that follow verse 19:66 deal with two groups among those who do not meet WHOLLY ALL the CRITERIAS of verse 19:60:

1) A first group which is not wholly convinced by the resurrection of the bodies BUT have made taqwa (good deeds).
God will show them the fire of hell, so that they can see with their own eyes about what they have some doubts.

2) A second group which is not wholly convinced by the resurrection of the body AND have made no taqwa/unjust (good deeds).
it is a reference to the haves, the notables (abundance of goods, appearance and children ie “sons” in the context) who do not were generous.

So, in summary, we are in the presence of 3 groups from verse 19:60 until verse 19:87 (after there is the case of Christians in verse 19:88, who are not wholly convinced by one GOD):
1) Convinced/confident AND did good works
2) NOT wholly convinced/confident BUT did good works
3) NOT convinced/confident and NOT did good works

a similar quranic context :

   49:14 The Nomads said: "We have been convinced." Say: "You are not convinced; but you should say: 'We have submitted',
   for faith has not yet entered into your hearts." If you obey God and His messenger, He will not put any of
   your works to waste. God is Forgiver, Merciful.


NB: The quran deals with the possibility number four in another quranic passage.


yes I understand your NO's.. but if you read the article it does say the other words must be studied using their root words. So these words such as blood, swine etc.. do not mean what they are translated as...
yes the efforts of understanding are meritorious, but about what you say above in bold, i suggest you to look at these 2 clear signs :

1) in (5:3) the word "hunger" is use by allah - not doubt it is speaking about eating physically something. The root word خ م ص is without unambiguous (Lane Lexicon:  The belly was, or became, empty; i. e., hungry)

2) context of (6:145) : the theme is about food (and specially meat) and rules wihch are not coming from allah (for meccan polytheists as well as jews) :

6:142: From the livestock are those for burden, and also for clothing. Eat from what God has provided you and do not follow the footsteps of the devil; he is to you a clear enemy.
6:143 Eight in pairs: from the lambs two, and from the goats two. Say: "Is it the two males that He forbade or the two females, or what the wombs of the two females bore? Inform me if you are truthful!"
6:144 And from the camels two, and from the cattle two. Say: "Is it the two males that He forbade or the two females, or what the wombs of the two females bore? Or were you witnesses when God ordered you with this?" Who is more wicked than he who invents lies about God to misguide the people without knowledge. God does not guide the wicked people.
     6:145 Say: "I do not find in what is inspired to me to be unlawful for any eater to
except that it be already dead, or running blood, or  the meat of pig - for it is tainted - or what is a wickedness,
     dedicated to other than God." But whoever is forced to, without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is
     Forgiving, Merciful.
6:146 And for those who are Jewish We have made unlawful all that have claws; and from the cattle and the sheep We made unlawful their fat except what is attached to the back, or entrails, or mixed with bone. That is a punishment for their rebellion, and We are truthful.
6:147 If they deny you, then say: "Your Lord has vast Mercy, but His Might will not be turned away from the criminal people."
6:148 Those who are polytheists will say: "If God wished, we would not have set up partners, nor would have our fathers, nor would we have made anything unlawful." Those before them lied in the same way, until they tasted Our might. Say: "Do you have any knowledge to bring out to us? [Kitab] You only follow conjecture, you only guess."
(Translation by The Monotheist Group)

The textual context is clear, otherwise it is not "The Quran speaks for Itself" BUT "The Quran speaks for myself".


an interesting new post... food for thought for sure

Interesting and good efforts BUT we are dealing SOMETIMES with the same problem as with traditional exegetes: possible distortion of the literal meaning of the text or abusive interpretation of verses drawn out of their textual CONTEXT, near or distant.

Take the example of 6:118 so:

   YES he is right in saying that it is not a question of obligatorily pronouncing the name of Allah each time we eat (even if in other places god ask us to be grateful for its benefits ..)
   NO he is wrong when he interprets this verse as not relating to physically eating something.

1) Look at the immediate textual context (translation from Sahih International ):
So eat of that [meat] upon which the name of Allah has been mentioned, if you are believers in His verses.
And why should you not eat/takulū of that upon which the name of Allah has been mentioned while He has explained in detail to you what He has forbidden/ḥarrama you, excepting that to which you are compelled/uḍ'ṭurir'tum.

2) And Compare (intertextuality) with other verses of the Quran where the word "eat" and "forbidden" and "compelled" (verb in the form of eight) appear together to find were "He has explained in detail" :

O you who have believed, eat from the good things which We have provided for you and be grateful to Allah if it is [indeed] Him that you worship.
He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

[6:145] - same surah
Say, "I do not find within that which was revealed to me [anything] forbidden to one who would eat it unless it be a dead animal or blood spilled out or the flesh of swine - for indeed, it is impure - or it be [that slaughtered in] disobedience, dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], then indeed, your Lord is Forgiving and Merciful. "

Then eat of what Allah has provided for you [which is] lawful and good. And be grateful for the favor of Allah, if it is [indeed] Him that you worship.
He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit] - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

and we can add the verse 5:3 (more detailed) - the word eat is replaced by the word hunger

Yes you're right. I was wrong too. 2 differents sentences.
clarification: Yes 2 sentences but the second one includes the problem of the first sentence.

Other verses with classical translation:
Quran, 18:25 :
وَلَبِثُوا فِي كَهْفِهِمْ ثَلَاثَ مِائَةٍ سِنِينَ وَازْدَادُوا تِسْعًا
And they remained in their cave (for) three hundred years and add nine.
Quran, 18:26:
[...]قُلِ اللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا لَبِثُوا
Say, "Allah knows best about what they remained.

Question / reflection: What is the reference of these 3 subject pronouns to the end of these verbs?


It helped me immediately detect omission in my parsing into sentences. They are two separate sentences. Second not about number.

سَيَقُولُونَ ثَلٟثَةٚ رَّابِعُهُـمْ كَلْبُـهُـمْ

People will keep saying that they were three in number and fourth companion of them was their dog —

وَيَقُولُونَ خَـمْسَةٚ سَادِسُهُـمْ كَلْبُـهُـمْ رَجْـمَاۢبِٱلْغَيْبِۖ

And others will say that they were five in number and sixth companion of them was their dog, hurling imaginary thoughts —

وَيَقُولُونَ سَبْعَةٚ وَثَامِنُـهُـمْ كَلْبُـهُـمْۚ

And yet others will say that they were seven in number and eighth companion was their dog.

قُل رَّبِّـى أَعْلَمُ بِعِدَّتِـهِـم

You the Messenger [Sal'lallaa'hoalaih'wa'salam] pronounce, "My Sustainer Lord knows most certainly the exact number of them".

مَّا يَعْلَمُهُـمْ إِلَّا قَلِيلٚۗ

Since except a small segment, people do not know them  —
فَلَا تُمَارِ فِيـهِـمْ إِلَّا مِرَآءٙ ظَٟهِرٙا وَلَا تَسْتَفْتِ فِيـهِـم مِّنْـهُـمْ أَحَدٙا .18:22٢٢

Therefore, you should not enter into controversy about them except the evidently visible point [disclosed above] and nor you should enquire about them from any one of them. [18:22]
Yes you're right. I was wrong too. 2 differents sentences.


Another opportunity to study the relationships of wa and ya on the second radical of a triliterary root.

Here are two associated Quranic roots:

(1) غ ى ث (gh-y-th / al-ghayth / verb form: ghaatha): the meaning is about a soil sprinkled with abundant and extensive rain that quickly grows vegetation on a soil that was lacking (arid). This brings us back to the image of the dead earth which becomes alive again

(2) غ و ث (gh-w-th): the meaning is to rescue someone and assist them when they are in a position of distress.

There is no doubt that a link has to be established between the two roots because it can be said that abundant rain comes to the aid of the parched/dry earth.
the difference is due to the ya and the wa on the second radical:
(1) we are not associated with rescue - rescue is outside of us (natural world)
(2) we are associated with the rescue - we are the instigator.

Pages: [1] 2 ... 25