Wife beating?
- Thread starter wsionynw
- Start date
However, those phrases are also abrogated by Sura 9, which was revealed later.
sez who?
The word is aayaateen which means complete verses or revelations, so its not applicable within the Quran. It indicates abrogation of earlier revelations.
I wish people would stop using the internet as an Arabic translation resource for the Quran.:bugeye:
Last edited:
Pot. Kettle. Black. Again.
Whoever obeys the Messenger, he has indeed obeyed Allah; and as for he who turns away, We have not sent you [O Muhammad!] as a keeper over them (4.80). Therefore do [O Muhammad!] remind [with the Message that We revealed to you], for you are only a reminder (88.21). You are not a controller over them (88.22). But if they turn away, then We have not sent you [O Muhammad!] as a keeper over them; only deliverance [of the Message] is your duty (from 42.48). And if you [O disbelievers!] deny [the truth], then nations before you did indeed deny [the truth]; and nothing is incumbent on the Messenger other than plain deliverance [of the Message] (29.18).
Who are these individuals? Or is this a case of the Royal "we"?
LiveInFaith
Registered Senior Member
There is no explanation why "We" and "I" used interchangeably in the qur'an.
There is an obeservation however, to differentiate these first singular and first plural usages, which :
- When the verse is focusing or directing to god itself, it's character, or intention, or decision, or possession, then 'I', NORMALLY first singular is used.
- When the verse is using active transitive verb, which has interaction and direct effects to creatures (the verse is more directing to the predicates or the objects), NORMALLY "We" is used.
I said normally, I didn't say always. I haven't made scrutiny check word by word, just random observation here and there.
Well, I regret to say that what I indicate is indeed used by Arabic speakers themselves to refute peace with the kufr - Wahhabis being the most notable. Perhaps the good people of Saudi Arabia do not understand Arabic so fully as thee, Samwise?
But they also claim to belong to Hanafi madhab and thus ahlus sunnah wal Jamaah, which is the majority opinion and does not subscribe to abrogation of verses. They really should make up their minds huh?
Unless of course YOU believe that Wahabbism is the best model of Islam and should be promoted worldwide?
But they also claim to belong to Hanafi madhab and thus ahlus sunnah wal Jamaah, which is the majority opinion and does not subscribe to abrogation of verses. They really should make up their minds huh?
Unless of course YOU believe that Wahabbism is the best model of Islam and should be promoted worldwide?
The abrogation does tend to get taken a little...loosely...in that they tend to go for it wherever it allows beating on people. So, as others have said, the Quran allows a range of possibilities when dealing with "the other" that do indeed get used to the advantage of the believer. One could ascribe interpretation or the failure of collective heirarchy to this, but at the same time the Christian churches are not uniformly integrated either and they do not endorse violence, or not in any significant quantity. One might argue that the failure of separation between mosque and state is to blame. In that case, I must take mosque to task, since state is based on the truest of human convictions: selfishness. No philosophy has managed to convince humans aside from that particular meme.
(Exceptions, notable arguments and ad homeinem attacks on my person in vengeance or exception of this point may be posted here____________________________________________)
Anyway, far from believing that Wahhabism is the best one worldwide, I deplore it. But they have a belief system, and the other side no collectively reasonable answer, and no support. And how far is the leadership of islam from them anyway? Is the President of al-Ahzar closer to you or Riyadh in his beliefs? How about the Ayatollah? The MCB? CAIR? The islamic parties of Pakistan? I appreciate that these views are termed "extreme" and not party to that "vast majority of moderates" in the ummah, but at the same time those views carry on and if they are attacked, there seems to be a certain tribalist mentality that turns a blind eye to their message on the basis of inclusion. Demographic mass has it's own inertia, you know, and I for one am not willing to wait.