- This topic has 9 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated April 18, 2018 at 3:05 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
Zakat is Fardh in Islam, its minimum value is 2.5 on cash. any person can give more if he wants.there is different limit on animal, trade stuff.
In the above translations the commentators have counted لَيْسَ … بِ an idiom where بِ has no literal meaning, but is used only to make astatement forceful. However, it is regrettable that the exegetes and translators did not bother to check: if the prepositional meaning of بِ is not counted there, the divine regulation turns out to be wrong, even nonsensical. It sounds nonsensical as it is forbidding to pursue something without ANY knowledge, which people do not do. The practical problem is not pursuing something without knowledge but pursuing it with wrong knowledge.
The Core Problem And Cause
The translated commandment does not represent that it is from the WISE God!
If you read the whole verse, وَلَا تَقْفُ مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ ۚ إِنَّ السَّمْعَ وَالْبَصَرَ وَالْفُؤَادَ كُلُّ أُولَـٰئِكَ كَانَ عَنْهُ مَسْئُولًا , it is God’s crucial commandment as to what kind of pursuit humanity should engage in, as well as it is the fundamental rule with which everyone’s acts will be judged on the Day of Reckoning. The Qur’an says that there will not be injustice to the slightest degree to anyone on that day, so this rule of judgment has to be flawless. But the conventional interpretations quoted above do no reflect this quality in it.
Such elusive improprieties get into Qur’anic commentaries because of the following trends among the commentators:
The Qur’an underscores that لَهُ الْأَسْمَاءُ الْحُسْنَىٰ meaning “for Him are the best names.” Its one implication is: when it comes to law, God is the best lawgiver. However, Quranic commentators are usually not conscious of this merit of God while commenting on His prescribed laws. It is also disappointing that, though Western scholars presented their so-called enlightenment thoughts with competing reasons, Muslim scholars never developed an academic culture of presenting God as the best guide and lawgiver. At the most, they glorified His book by showing many of its verses to be the literary masterpieces — which is practically unattractive to most nonbelievers, even to rational Muslims, as this literary beauty does not demonstrate that the Qur’anic rules are upright and superior in merit.
test-2
this is a test.
Test answer to test/approved Test answer to test/approved Test answer to test/approved Test answer to test/approved Test answer to test/approved Test answer to test/approved Test answer to test/approved Test answer to test/approved Test answer to test/approved Test answer to test/approved Test answer to test/approved Test answer to test/approved Test answer to test/approved Test answer to test/approved Test answer to test/approved Test answer to test/approved Test answer to test/approved
They are as follows.
1) God has sent the Qur’an to guide every human being across the globe … be he or she Chinese, Indian, Spanish, French, an English, or other. Accordingly, Almighty God has drafted the Qur’an in a way that its guidance is easy to understand by everyone, provided one reflects on it properly. It is not true that the Qur’an is very difficult to understand, or that to receive guidance from it one requires a deep knowledge of Arabic language or Quranic Sciences (that some scholars have developed).
Let us look at some relevant excerpts from the Qur’an in this regard.
(a) God decrees that the purpose of the Qur’an is: All human beings may ponder its verses for their guidance, salvation, and substantial good. Thus He says:
38/29: كِتَابٌ أَنزَلْنَاهُ إِلَيْكَ مُبَارَكٌ لِّيَدَّبَّرُوا آيَاتِهِ وَلِيَتَذَكَّرَ أُولُو الْأَلْبَابِ
Translation: [O Muhammad] a book We have sent it down to thee, carrying [guidance for] immense good so that they (all mankind) may reflect on its verses, and the open-minded ponderers may take heed.
The above verse is not saying that the purpose of the Qur’an is for scholars alone to reflect on its verses, and that others should rely on their observations … as is the prevalent state of affair among Muslims today.
We understand that most Muslims may come up with two defenses favoring the status quo:
One, that it is not possible for ordinary humans to reflect on Qur’anic verses. Our brief response to them is this: Then, please say loud and clear that God is wrong asking all human beings, including ordinary ones, to do so.
Two, that the custom of depending on the interpretations of scholars is not new; it has been around for more than a millennium. Our brief response to this is: If our predecessors continued to commit a mistake for a long time, does that mean we should continue doing the same?
(b) While referring to the heedless stance of the Unbelievers, God emphasizes that the Qur’an should be reflected on by all Unbelievers (not by only their scholars):
47/24: أَفَلَا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ أَمْ عَلَىٰ قُلُوبٍ أَقْفَالُهَا
Translation: Will they (the unbelievers) then not reflect on the Qur’an? Or are there locks on their hearts?
2) It is common observation that every (sane) adult human being has been given some knowledge and intellect. And it is that very knowledge and intellect which God makes binding on everyone to employ for critically evaluating ‟any take” before adopting it. Thus the Qur’an says:
17/36: وَلَا تَقْفُ مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ ۚ إِنَّ السَّمْعَ وَالْبَصَرَ وَالْفُؤَادَ كُلُّ أُولَـٰئِكَ كَانَ عَنْهُ مَسْئُولًا
Translation: And [O human being] do not pursue that is not to you in accordance with [the rules of] knowledge. Surely the hearing and the sight and the heart (mind), each of these (faculties) shall be questioned about that [pursuit].
In other words, if one defends one’s acts on the Day of Judgment, saying that one accepted or pursued the same positions which the religious scholars told him/her to have been from God or which the scientists asserted to be right, one’s argument shall be rejected. Only personal arguments from critical listening, judicious observations, and unbiased deliberations will be considered.
3) Those scholars or intellectuals who are charged with misrepresenting Islamic Values take the position: XYZ are our interpretations. We do not ask you to necessarily accept them. But as scholars or intellectuals, we reserve the right to keep disseminating our thoughts.
As far as Muslim activists are concerned, the pertinent Quranic Ruling on this attitude of theirs is as under:
فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّـهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّـهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ
4/59: … Then, in case you (believers) start disputing in any matter, return it (the contention) to God and the Messenger if you really believe in God and the Last Day.
That is, whenever a dispute arises among Muslims on an Islamic Position, the Qur’an makes this incumbent: to resolve the conflict by revisiting the Qur’an and the Sunnah in some bipartisan manner. And it does not allow any party to stick to its own interpretation by avoiding the prescribed conflict-resolving process.
The above Qur’anic ruling of course does not apply to non-Muslims. However, as for scientists, it is unethical to pass off pseudo-science as science, non-Muslim scholars or intellectuals are without ground when passing off pseudo-Islam as Islam. Such misstatements come down to associating falsehood with Islam, which reduces it in the eyes of humanity. And no fair-minded person would call these ‟material falsifications” ethically correct.
To sum up, whenever the allegation of spreading pseudo-Islam (inventing, corrupting, or misrepresenting Islamic values) falls on a scholar or intellectual (Muslim or non-Muslim), without successfully refuting the ‟arguments contained in the charge”, he or she does not have any moral or ethical right to propagate his or her views as Islamic.
In regard to propagating these misrepresentations, the following improprieties are being committed:
i) Hardly any of these scholars or intellectuals (Muslim or non-Muslim) provide a mechanism for conflict resolution. There is no justification that an intellectual who finds fault with a long-standing value of a religious group would avoid fielding counter-arguments from the persons of this group. No scholar or intellectual is infallible.
ii) When objections are sent to a Muslim intellectual activist after finding out his or her email address, he/she either does not answer or instead of refuting the ‟Counter-Argument Y” keeps repeating his/her original Argument X. Answering in such a way clearly reflects that the Muslim activist has knowingly designed his/her response to distract people from the actual objection on him/her. When the question consists of Argument Y, the intellectual activist must address Argument Y.
Furthermore, in a couple of exchanges, when it is becoming apparent that the activist is finding too hard to side-tract the main objection or defend his/her position, he/she typically stops responding altogether and hides all these communications from his or her own audience.
iii) Those Muslim activists who run their websites with a ‟forum for discussion” or an ‟ask a question” facility, more often than not have an undeclared policy of censorship, which is prejudicial. They first check the sent material; if they find it as exposing any fault in their viewpoint which is hard to defend, they do not publish it.
A similar kind of censorship is enforced by those who receive queries and send their answers by email. They typically hide tough questions and do not answer them.
iv) Traditional Muslim scholars of our time have learned things by rote, and have not learned how to think things through as well as how to critique an argument. As a result, an intellectual activist (Muslim or non-Muslim) often succeeds in getting the upper hand in a debate with traditional Muslim scholar(s).
v) Today, some forums or, alternatively, places for comments on Written or Audio-Visual Treatments are available on the internet — usually not managed by the intellectual activists but by their supporters, regular persons, or media outlets. In effect, these are ‟freedom parks”. The authors of the treatments are not required to answer the counter-arguments. And those who send their comments there, actually share the views of various traditional or progressive scholars and intellectuals. Even a good many of them offer mere rhetoric, not valid reasoning.
In our opinion, the solution is to discuss the matter point by point in an uncensored global forum. If this were done, no one would succeed in hiding one’s unscholarly stance or the faults in one’s arguments from the viewers across the world. What is more, the discussion will lead to a clear conclusion.
***************Q4. “But you don’t know the intent of the person” is a common Muslim argument today asking to avoid criticizing an apparent corruptive work by a community leader, Masjid official, scholar, or intellectual. Is this argument valid in Islam?
Answer:
The above argument is against common sense, the dictates of the Qur’an, and the Sunnah.
As to common sense:
(i) Humans are incapable of knowing other’s intent. Then how can we be bound to not react without knowing it?
(ii) When we witness some wrongdoing, how is it sensible to say that we are not seeing any wrongdoing because we do not know the intent of the doer?
(iii) Is a wrongdoing defined by the intent of the doer or by the violation of some established rule(s)?
(iv) A wrongdoing is wrong after all whether it is done with or without intent; and in either case it needs to be given up or corrected.Therefore, why should one bother about the intent of the doer for pointing to someone’s wrongdoing(s)?
As to the Qur’an, it is well known that it obligates امربالمعروف ونهى عن المنكر i.e. enjoining upright acts and forbidding wrong ones with no stipulation of first knowing the intent of the doer.
As to the Sunnah, it is also well known that the Prophet (PBUH) has asked Muslims to struggle to stop visible wrongdoings and corruptive works in Islam.
Regarding any wrongdoing among Muslims, he said:
من راى منكم منكرا فليغيره بيده فان لم يستطع فبلسانه فان لم يستطع فبقلبه وذالك اضعف الايمان
Whoever of you witnesses any wrongdoing, then he should change it with his hand. If he is not in a position to do this, then by his tongue. If he is not even in a position to voice against it, then by his heart. And this is the weakest grade of faith. (a Hadith in bookSahih Muslim)
Regarding corruptive works in Islam, he said:
It always happened that whenever God sent a prophet in a nation, people from his nation were sincere companions who adopted the Sunnah (the ways of following set by the prophet) and followed his commands. After these, there [eventually] came people who would say what they practiced not, and would do what they were commanded not. فمن جاهدهم بيده فهو مؤمن ومن جاهدهم بلسانه فهو مؤمن ومن جاهدهم بقلبه فهو مؤمن وليس وراءذالك من الايمان حبةخردل i.e. At that time, whoever crusades against them with his hand bears faith, and whoever crusades against them with his tongue bears faith, and whoever crusades against them with his heart bears faith, and there is no bit of faith beyond it. (Sahih Muslim, chapter Faith)
